JR50: Fourth Step: Insist on Balance

A: In the past couple of weeks we've been talking about ways to help heal the church. What other suggestions do you have for Christians who want to live a life of faith without compromising their logic or their ethic of inclusiveness?
 
J: I'd definitely say the Church needs to teach holistic balance. They need to teach people on an ongoing basis how to balance the mind, body, heart, and soul.
 
A: This is a topic that could fill many, many books.
 
J: All the better. As I've said before, the path to peace begins with education, not with piety and not with covenant.* The Church needs to expand the source material it relies on to teach its new insights. The Bible by itself won't cut it. Not even the parts of the Bible that teach the truth about God the Mother, God the Father, and me. You can only read from the Gospel of Mark so many times. You need some other source material to work with.
 
A: Can you give some examples?

 
J: Actually, a lot of open-minded ministers are already including other source materials in their services. They're using poetry, music, dance, art, drama, and spontaneous prayer to expand the scope of their services -- to let the experience breathe. There still needs to be some structure to the service -- it isn't healthy, especially for younger children, if ministers do away entirely with a recognizable format -- but these other "languages" are valid ways for people to connect with God's voice. The important thing here is to be conscious of the content and -- most importantly -- the intent of the other source materials that are being chosen. The intent is what matters. There's no point filling a service with new songs and new poems if the new material tells people the same thing they've been told for centuries -- that they're unworthy of God's forgiveness and love and guidance. The new material must encourage people to think in positive ways about themselves and their relationship with God.

A: While not overdoing the whole self-esteem thing.

J: Yes. It's not helpful for a service to slide in the direction of Prosperity Gospel teachings. Prosperity preachers are no more balanced than fire-and-brimstone preachers. Prosperity Gospel teaches various versions of the "God-As-the-Great-Gumball-Machine-in-the-Sky" doctrine -- various versions of the "God has to give you whatever want if you ask in the right way" theory.** These teachings feed -- and feed upon -- people's undiagnosed status addiction. It's not a healthy way to be in relationship with God. A healthy relationship with God involves a balance between your own needs and other people's needs, a balance between encouraging people to be their best selves and encouraging them to take responsibility for harmful choices they've made on purpose. The Church's job is to help people recognize and maintain this balance.

 

“Jesus said: Blessed are those who have been persecuted within themselves. They have really come to know the Father” (Gospel of Thomas 69a). Think of your life as a series of interwoven buoys that lift you up. You can see the individual strands of heart, mind, body, and soul, but when you do your best to weave them together with self-honesty (“persecution within themselves”), you have a sturdy lifeline that can carry you through the storms of human loss and suffering. Photo credit JAT 2021.

 
A: So you don't recommend that ministers get rid of the Prayer of Confession in their services?
 
J: The Prayer of Confession is a crucial part of helping people recognize the balance. Of course, the Prayer of Confession needs to be written with the utmost care. It needs to strike the proper balance between encouraging people to be honest about their intentional errors while at the same time leaving room for them to feel optimistic about their ability to learn from their mistakes and to feel God's forgiveness.
 
A: I remember with excruciating clarity the penitential prayer (or "preface" prayer) from the 1962 Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The Communion Service prepared us for the sacrament of the Eucharist by having us all recite in unison, "We do not presume to come to this thy table, O Merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table [emphasis added]. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen." This prayer always made me feel like crap. The line about not being worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under the table stuck in my head, too, as I'm sure the authors of the prayer intended. In the Anglican Church's newest prayer book for Canada -- The Book of Alternative Services -- this prayer has ostensibly been removed from the new Holy Communion service. But the intent is still there.
 
J: This is exactly the sort of prayer that's harmful to people's relationship with God rather than helpful.
 
A: I think many church leaders and church elders and even some Christian parents are afraid that if faithful Christians aren't forced onto their knees in fear and obedience then mass chaos will erupt in our society, and civilization will fall apart.
 
J: Yes. Many church elders do believe this. They believe this because they've been told to believe this by authority figures in their lives -- whether parents, ministers, theologians, saints, or scripture. They're genuinely frightened. They believe they're doing the right thing in promoting this kind of fear in people's relationship with God.
 
A: What's your suggestion for healing this problem in the Church?
 
J: Ministers and church elders must look to the second step of the Peace Sequence for guidance. The Peace Sequence I taught was education-then-mentorship-then-personal-responsibility-then-peace. Those called to the task of ministering to the spiritual aspect of humanity must first be educated. Then they must accept the mantle of mentorship. They must stop trying to "save souls" and instead start trying to "mentor brains." A minister in the third millennium must be a bit of a jack-or-jill-of-all-trades -- knowledgeable about the history of the church and the history of church doctrine, but also aware of trends in science, psychotherapy, the arts, and politics. An effective minister isn't somebody who's hiding his or her head in the sand like an ostrich. An effective minister isn't somebody who preaches "escape from the sins and evils of the world." Instead, an effective minister is someone who isn't afraid to look at Creation in holistic ways, balanced ways, and wonder-filled ways. An effective minister is someone who teaches people how to live as a human being according to the needs and wishes of the soul.
 
A: The good soul.
 
J: Yes. The good soul that everyone is.
 
A: I suspect that most people in the world today wouldn't even know how to begin to imagine what Church would look like if it operated in this way.
 
J: Well, for starters, the Church would be a place that's integrated into the wider community. This idea isn't really new. Many heart-based Christians have tried to take the church into the community and the community into the church. This is admirable. The great stumbling block to progress in this endeavour has always been the doctrines. It's the doctrines themselves -- and the intent behind those doctrines -- that drive a wedge between the church and the community. You can't go around preaching that you're chosen by God to be saved and not have people notice how hypocritical your claims of love and forgiveness really are.
 
People these days have access to information -- lots and lots of information. They find out pretty quickly when pastors and priests have been charged with crimes against their neighbours. It looks hypocritical. And, indeed, it is.
 
A: I spent two years in full-time studies with theology students, most of whom planned to go on for ordination. Even among United Church candidates, there's a belief that ministers-in-training are there because they've been "called." I have no problem in general with the idea of people feeling called to particular tasks in life. But this was different. These ministers-in-training seemed to believe that their call was somehow "more special" than other people's calls. They didn't see their job as just another job on a par with teaching or medical care or firefighting or environmental cleanup. They thought they were somehow "different." I also noticed that a few of these ministers-in-training got a strange light in their eye when they talked about their special -- and highly controlled -- right to bless the bread and wine of the Eucharist. It was not a pretty sight. It was clear some of them wanted the status of being "specially chosen by God" to bless the Elements, and maybe even facilitate their Transubstantiation into something more elevated. 

J: Well, as for that, there's no transubstantiation -- no transformation of the "inner reality" of the bread and wine. There's mystery and wonder in every stick of bread that's baked in the world, and the Church's bread is no better. Unfortunately, there are too many priests and too many ministers who want the Church's bread to be better so they themselves can claim to be a unique and indispensable part of bringing the bread of God to the people of God. This is not mentorship. This is exactly what it sounds like -- narcissism.
 
A: So part of the journey of healing the church is to heal what it means to be a minister.
 
J: Yes. The minister himself or herself must first understand what it means to live a life of balance -- a life in which the needs of mind, body, heart, and soul are recognized for what they are.
 
It should go without saying that a religious acolyte who intentionally chooses a life of imbalance -- who intentionally chooses a life of asceticism and celibacy and seclusion and obsessive forms of daily worship -- is not ever going to be "simpatico" with his own soul. And he's never going to be equipped to guide others. He's never going to have the personal tools necessary to become a spiritual mentor to others. He who preaches the importance of balance but doesn't live according to the needs of balance is a hypocrite.
 
A: As I recall, this was one of your favourite themes 2,000 years ago.
 
J: Hypocrisy and narcissistic intent are incestuous bedmates in the history of orthodox Western Christianity. Where you find one, you always find the other.
 

* See http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/05/peace-sequence.html
** See also http://concinnatechristianity.blogspot.com/2010/06/ya-gotta-love-those-kevin-trudeau.html

JR49: Third Step: Invite Our Mother to the Table

A: Last time we spoke, the idea of the "scandal of particularity" sort of popped onto the page. I've been thinking about it for the past few days, and I'd like to return to that idea if it's okay with you. 

J: Fine by me.  

A: You said -- and I quote -- "There IS a 'scandal of particularity,' but it applies to God the Mother and God the Father, not to me." Can you elaborate on this?  

J: Orthodox Western Christianity -- the religious structure built on the teachings of Paul and Paul's orthodox successors -- has worked very hard in the last few centuries to "reposition" me, Jesus son of Joseph, in the marketplace of world opinion. Many critics of Christianity have pointed out how damaging and abusive it is to claim that God "became" one particular man in one particular place at one particular point in time. No end of systemic abuse has been voluntarily created by Church representatives because of this claim. Claims about me have been used to justify maltreatment of women and children, unrepentant selling of human beings, violence against Jews, and attacks on the "inferiority" of all other religious traditions. 

Christians who think that I, Jesus, am happy about their claims should check out the current song by Christina Perri called "Jar of Hearts."* "Jar of Hearts" is a song about a person who has finally figured out how abusive her former partner is. "Who do you think you are?" she asks with no holds barred, "running' 'round leaving scars, collecting your jar of hearts, and tearing love apart." This song reflects quite accurately how I feel about "Mother Church." I want no part of the traditional teachings about Jesus the Saviour. If they want to keep their Saviour, they'll have to find a new candidate, because this particular angel has resigned. Quit. Left the building. I'm tired of being their whipping boy.  

A: Not quite the answer I was expecting.  

J: People think that angels have no feelings. Well, I have plenty of feelings about the way the Church has abused me and those I love. I forgive individual church leaders -- those who have perpetrated great harm in the name of God and Jesus -- but I feel the pain intensely. Forgiveness isn't the same thing as sweeping great harms under the carpet. Forgiveness is first and foremost a state of honesty -- honesty about the intent and the injury inflicted by the intent. The intent of the Church's teachings about me (Jesus) and about sin, separation from God, sacraments, and salvation is selfish and narcissistic. These teachings promote physiological addiction disorders. They harm lives. They harm relationships. They harm the understanding of humanity's role in Creation. I do not respect these teachings, and I do not support the right of the Church to teach abusive spirituality to desperate people. Abuse is abuse. Western society as a whole no longer supports or condones spousal abuse or child abuse or corporate abuse. Yet Western society continues to condone spiritual abuse. This must stop.  

A: Many Christians have noticed the problem of abuse in the Church and have decided to walk away from the Church. They don't see how it can be fixed.  

J: People want and need to be in relationship with God. They need faith in their lives. Unfortunately, the Church has taken terrible advantage of this need. 

A: I haven't seen much willingness among Christians I know to ask tough questions about Church doctrine. They're trying to change the window dressings while the basement foundation is full of rot. No wonder people are leaving the mainstream churches in droves! At least in Canada they are. Can't comment on the experience in other countries.  

J: In Canada there's a widespread ethos of inclusiveness, access to public health services and public schooling, government accountability, gender equality, and prevention of child abuse, but individual Canadians aren't seeing their day-to-day ethos reflected in the core teachings of the orthodox Church.  

A: Because it's not there. The words are there, but not the underlying ethos.  

J: No. The ethos isn't there. The Church can talk till it's blue in the face about the importance of service work and mission, but regular people can still sense there's "something wrong with the picture." They can sense there's rot in the foundations. And they don't want to be a part of that. Some of them decide to leave the church. Others stay and do their best to try to fix it from within. But there's mass confusion. And people are starving -- literally starving -- for a faith experience that makes sense to them at the deepest possible level of the heart.  

“A woman in the crowd said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that fed you. He said to her: Blessed are they who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, ‘Blessed is the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk'” (Gospel of Thomas 79 a-b). The Gospel of Thomas follows a minority voice in Judaism that speaks of women in a positive light and shows them as being equal to men in God’s community (rather than inferior knock-offs). This particular saying in Thomas goes even further and talks about God the Mother as one who shouldn’t be understood in terms of ordinary human motherhood. As Co-Creator of everything in the universe, our blessed Divine Mother is beyond our simple conceptions of what it means to be a mother. When compared to Hellenistic cult images of the Divine Mother (for example, the multi-breasted Artemis figure from Ephesus), it’s easy to see why Jesus faced an uphill battle in changing people’s perception of God. Photo credit JAT 2025.

 

A: For 2,000 years now we've been saddled with a religion that absolutely insists in no uncertain terms how ludicrous it is to even consider the remote possibility that possibly -- just possibly -- God might not be a "he" but might instead be a "he and a she." It's okay, of course, for us to bust our brains on the question of the Trinity and all the other "mysteries" that go with traditional Christianity. But it's not okay for us to suppose that God is two people united forever in divine marriage with each other.** 

J: Such a portrayal of God brings with it all sorts of implications the Church doesn't want to deal with. For one thing, they'd have to explain how and why they "kidnapped" our Divine Mother, why they eradicated her from the message. They'd have to explain -- at least in the Roman Catholic Church -- why they allowed a cult to flourish around the fictional character of Mary, Mother of God. 

A: You did have a mother. And her name was Miriam.  

J: Yes. But she was no more the Mother of God than I was God incarnate. She was a normal human mother. That's it.  

A: Two flesh and blood people -- you and your human mother -- who've been turned into myths, lies, and symbols. 

J: Meanwhile, there's a very real and very particular Mother in Creation. God the Mother. This is the scandal of particularity I was referring to -- the scandal of God the Mother and God the Father being two particular, definable, real, knowable people. Real people who have existed and continue to exist in real time and real space and real history. Real people who refuse to be moulded by the grandiose lies made by assorted religious mystics over the centuries. Real people who belong to each other -- not to their children -- in marital love. Real people who are our PARENTS. Real people who get hurt when their dysfunctional human children try to cross the boundaries of safety and trust between parents and children by engaging in occult practices -- especially occult sexual practices.  

A: Mystics have often described their "union with God" as a mystical marriage, with God as the bridegroom and the mystic or the church as the bride.  

J: Yeah. And for the record, that's another doctrine that's gotta go. It's highly dysfunctional and abusive for children to want to have sex with their own parents. This should go without saying. But for too long the Church has condoned mystical practices that lead in this direction. 

A: Who can forget Bernini's sculpture of St. Teresa of Avila with her mouth agape and her toes curled in orgasmic ecstasy?  

J: Here's a thought. Maybe we should butt out of the personal relationship between God the Mother and God the Father -- their private life -- and get on with the important job of being their children. For starters, human beings of faith could be nice to our Mother for a change. You know, talk to her. Include her. Invite her to the table of faith. Look to her for guidance and inspiration. Say thank you to her. Look her in the eye and say, "Thank you for loving me."  

A: It's amazing how effective the Church's strategy has been. They've managed to put blinders on people's eyes so they literally can't see God the Mother. She's the Invisible Woman in Western theology. She's standing right in front of us, waving her arms and jumping up and down, and people of faith still don't see her.  

J: If that isn't gender abuse, I don't know what is. 

 

* "Jar of Hearts" was written by Drew C. Lawrence, Christina J. Perri, and Barrett N. Yeretsian. 

** See also http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/02/divine-love-story.html and http://concinnatechristianity.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-my-experience-as-chemist-has.html

JR47: "Knowledge" Versus "Truth"

A: Tell me how you would explain the difference between "knowledge" and "truth." There seem to be a lot of different theories floating around. 

J: Here's one of the problems with relying too heavily on words. One person's "knowledge" is another person's "truth." One person's "knowledge" is another person's "wisdom." One person's "knowledge" is another person's "fact." Words can be very messy, very sloppy. It's important for individuals to be clear about their use of abstract words like these.  

A: Okay. How do you, as a soul-in-angel-form and speaker of the English language, use the word "knowledge"?  

J: I use the word "knowledge" to mean an accumulation of facts. Lots of raw facts. These facts may or may not be connected to each other. But there are lots of them. Lots of different facts that can be accessed from memory or from sources such as books or computers to answer specific questions of fact. 

A: Like the question and answer pairs on Jeopardy. 

J: Exactly. These question and answer pairs rely on logic and reason. But there's usually little emotional content. And there's no need for "insight" or "understanding" or "truth." The facts speak for themselves. Of course, as human Jeopardy contenders recently discovered, a honkin' big computer can access raw facts -- "knowledge" -- faster than most human brains can.

 

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear(respect) the Lord, and turn away from evil. It will be a healing for your flesh and a refreshment for your body" (Proverbs 3:5-8). If you really want to heal your relationship with God, try humbly accepting you probably have a lot of old beliefs that are messing up the way your brain works. Certain beliefs about God can "freeze up" your neural networks and prevent your brain from being able to process Divine guidance. Without easy access to your Divine guidance, you're limited to the ideas inside your own brain. And let's face it, some of those ideas are probably pretty stupid (like Young Earth Creationism). The Truth about you and God (a wonderful Truth!) is already deep within you, but first you have to melt the ice that's keeping you from feeling your Soul pathways. Photo credit JAT 2022.

J (Cont): Having said that, I want to make it clear that I'm not dissing the importance of "knowledge." It's important to be able to remember and access facts. Facts give information about things that are already known, already certain -- things that are "a done deal." Facts help ground the learning process. In fact, learning can't take place at all in the absence of facts. This is true even in fields such as philosophy and theology. The universe isn't reinventing itself every few seconds like some big relativistic, existential "symbol" in the sky (as some religious philosophers would have you believe). There are fixed facts, fixed historical realities that guide all choices made by God and God's angels. The universe has a history -- a factual history -- that can't be changed. The universe's past has a measurable effect on its present. The past matters. And the past is fact -- not fiction. The past can't be altered. Time is linear. Even for God.  

A: This will come as a great disappointment to fans of time travel stories. And to theologians who insist that All Time has been known to God since the very beginning. God's foreknowledge of all that will happen in the future is the basis of Christian "predestination" -- the doctrine that says God already knows ahead of time who will be saved in the End Times.  

J: Another example of old lies begetting new lies, as you put it. The first lie, of course, was the lie that souls desperately need to be saved from hell and judgment and damnation. But souls don't need to be saved. Why would God create billions of defective souls that need to be saved by . . . televangelists? Salvation-of-the-soul is a goofy idea from start to finish. 

A: But a very profitable one.

J: It's an interesting fact of neurophysiology that certain forms of serious psychological dysfunction in human beings are accompanied by damage to the parietal lobes of the brain -- parts of the brain which are crucial to a person's ability to relate to time and space. When the volume of the parietal lobes is reduced, and when the density of glial cells is diminished in the parietal-temporal regions, an individual will experience problems understanding boundaries (i.e. his or her location in space) and problems with empathy (i.e his or her location in both time and space -- also called boundary issues). These are the individuals who can't learn from their own mistakes, who can't empathize with other people's feelings, who constantly invade other people's "time and space."  

A: The narcissists. 

J: Yes. A narcissist is someone who's become inwardly focussed to the point of selfishness and self-absorption because he or she has no "brain health" in the areas of time and space -- no ability to accurately identify the factual boundaries that surround each soul. She literally can't see where she ends and another person begins. She can't see that she's a separate entity -- a separate consciousness -- from her neighbour. The boundaries between her and her neighbour exist and are real and are factual. But she can't see them. It's all blurry to her. The boundaries exist, but she behaves as if they don't exist. She behaves as if she and her neighbour "are all one," as if the neighbour is merely an extension of her own core consciousness. The neighbour, of course, is expected to "behave" -- to obey her needs and wishes without question and to reinforce her image of herself as a wonderful person. There's a perfect analogy for this mindset in the realm of science fiction: Star Trek's hive queen of the Borg.  

A: See, I knew there was good reason for me to be watching the Space Channel.  

J: The great thing about the way the Borg Queen character is written is her calm, serene, elevated disposition. She believes her own propaganda about making life better for all the individuals she incorporates into her collective. She goes around telling everyone "we're all one, we're all equal." But what she actually means is, "I'm the only one who really exists, and all you drones are merely inferior beings who were put here to serve me" . . . which brings us to the question of "truth." 

A: The way you've just described the Borg Queen reminds me -- none too pleasantly -- of the modern apocalyptic prophet I spent too much time with a few years ago: Grace. She was always speaking "the truth" that "we're all one, we're all equal." She had the same calm, serene detachment as the Borg Queen. It gave her such an air of believability -- even wisdom. She seemed to have let go of all her worries about the past. Very appealing to somebody like me who was dogged by feelings of guilt and shame.  

She seemed so believable -- until you challenged her. When you challenged Grace's superiority, her infallibility, it was like a switch went off in her brain. She switched instantly from calm, affable charm to vicious, vengeful violence. The smallest thing could set her off. I still remember the murderous look in her eye one day when I told her that she herself had caused an electrical short in a lighting fixture by twisting the fan/light combo while it was still attached on one side to the ceiling. I could see that she wanted to throw me down the stairs because I'd pointed out her obvious error. The mistake was entirely hers. But she didn't want to hear about it. She couldn't handle responsibility for her own mistakes.  

J: Good example -- though painful. Grace was a person with significant impairment of her biological brain function, as you know. She was able to process "knowledge" -- facts -- well enough to function in society. She could remember that gas needed to be put in the car, that food had to be bought and prepared. But as for "truth" . . . "truth" was beyond her capacity to grasp because of damage to her biological brain from early, unhealed, profound childhood abuse. Physical, emotional, sexual, and psychological abuse. As a result of the abuse, and the biological damage caused by it, Grace couldn't read "intent." She couldn't understand or be honest about her own inner intent. Her intent was to prove to other people that she was better than they were. That's the honest truth. The truth is that everything Grace did -- all her choices -- were shaped by her narcissistic intent. Her words about "oneness" and "equality" meant nothing because her actual intent said something different.  

A: So you're drawing a strong link between "intent" and "truth."  

J: Very much so. Facts by themselves are not "truth," though "truth" is not "truth" without a foundation of facts. Truth -- as I'm defining it -- is an observation or insight about the way in which seemingly random facts are linked together by underlying strands of intent. The intent is like the subfloor of the factual foundation. The facts lie on top of the intent. The truth builds on both the intent and the facts. For something to be "true" in a philosophical way, it must objectively assess both a collection of facts AND the underlying intent underneath those facts.

A: Are you saying that a person's "intent" and his/her "starting assumptions" are the same thing? 

J (shaking his head): No. A person's inner intent is more like his inner "purpose" or "goal." Your intent speaks to the principle of time -- where you were in the past, where you are now, and where you want to go. It's more like conscious motivation. It's the motivation that gets you out of bed in the morning and keeps you going, even when things aren't going well. 

A: So it's teleology? 

J: Again, no. Teleology implies there's a finite, definable end goal or a purpose shaped by the Law of Cause and Effect. "Intent" is not as simple as teleological purpose. "Intent" goes to the very heart of consciousness -- what it means to exist as a living consciousness who is separate from (though connected to) other living consciousnesses. Intent can be thought of as a cohesive set of interconnected choices -- a series of small choices that, when put together, create one big "meta-choice." That "meta-choice" is your intent. At a quantum level, "meta-choices" shape the way in which certain energies can and will flow.  

A: Can you give us an analogy for that?  

J: Sure. I'll use an analogy I've used before -- the sower of seeds. 

A: I think I see where this is headed . . .  

J: In the parable of the sower [Thomas 9; Mark 4], the person -- the soul -- is the sower of seeds. The seeds represent the person's potential, the person's ability to learn, grow, change, and create. But the sower doesn't create out of thin air. He must plant the seeds -- the seeds of potential -- in the right place if he wants them to grow. His decision on where to sow the seeds is his intent -- his "meta-choice." The meta-choice is what determines which seeds can and will grow. The seeds don't grow equally well in all intents. Where seeds fall on a "ground" or "subfloor" of rock, they fail to root and they produce no harvest. Where seeds fall on patches of thorny weeds, they don't grow and they're eaten by grubs and caterpillars. There's nothing wrong with the seeds themselves. The problem lies in the choice of where to plant them. The problem lies with the intent. 

A: So a narcissist's true intent is like the choice to sow seeds on rocky ground or in thorny patches.  

J: Or in a bed of fire, as the church likes to recommend.

Seeds don’t grow easily on this rocky ground. “Jesus said: Look, there was a man who came out to sow seed. He filled his hand with seed and threw it about. Some fell onto the road, and birds ate it. Some fell onto rocks and could not root and produced no grain. Some fell into patches of thorny weeds that kept it from growing, and grubs ate it. Some seed fell upon good soil and grew and produced good grain. It was 60 units per measure and 120 units per measure (Gospel of Thomas 9).” Photo credit JAT 2023.

JR14: Crimes of Religious Passion

A: I have a confession to make. I was looking back at some earlier posts, and I realize that both you and I were guilty of using the terms "light" and "dark" in a less precise way than we might have. So first I want to apologize if we confused anybody.  

J: Language is fluid. Communication is fluid. Words like "light" and "dark" have a lot of different meanings, depending on the context. This is why I say the intent is more important than the words. The goal here is not to speak or write like a corporate lawyer, but to talk about feelings and ideas related to the spiritual journey. Writing "live" on a blog has some of the same problems as being interviewed live on TV. People will look for ways to trip you up. But that's their choice. That's their intent. If their intent is to be legalistic for their own benefit, that's up to them. Small errors in speech are going to happen, and each individual has to decide how to react to those errors. It's a choice like any other choice. 

A: It's a choice to look at the intent behind the words or actions.

“Jesus said: What you will hear in your ear, in the inner ear proclaim from your rooftops. For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a stand so that all who come and go will see its light” (Gospel of Thomas 33 a-b). In this saying, the act of lighting a lamp shows both your intent and the consequences of that intent. No matter how hard you try, and no matter how many excuses you invent, you can’t hide your actual intent from either your inner self (your inner ear) or from God. Your actual intent shines as brightly as a lamp to those who have the emotional maturity to see it. So it’s best to be honest about your intent and start trying to fix your mistakes in a responsible way (instead of blaming other people or blaming God or Satan for what you yourself chose to do). The photo above is a graphic reminder for me about the steps involved in taking personality responsibility. In the “oops, I made a mistake” department, I forgot to check the old back shed before the start of winter and failed to notice the hole chewed by a family of rodents so they could bring in a pantry-full of seed-filled cones. Cleaning up after the mistake I made wasn’t fun, but one of the important spiritual practices is learning how to be honest with yourself about your own mistakes and then figuring out how best to clean up after yourself. God is always happy to help you with this spiritual task. Photo credit JAT 2016.

J: Yes. People make mistakes. It's part of the human condition. Everybody makes mistakes. But not all mistakes are made with intent. Many mistakes are nothing more than accidents -- pure accidents, with no intent to harm. Sometimes the results of purely accidental mistakes can be tragic. More often than not, though, the greatest harm is caused by people who have harmful intent towards others. Among adolescents and adults, the majority of mistakes carry with them a harmful intent. A young child who drops a glass of milk because his motor skills aren't fully developed has no harmful intent. An adult who gets behind the wheel of a car after drinking may not be planning to crash into another car -- so from this point of view a crash is an "accident" -- but his intent is clearly harmful from the moment he gets behind the wheel. He intends -- he chooses -- to drive regardless of the consequences to himself or anyone else. That's what I mean by a mistake with harmful intent. 

A: He made a choice and hoped he wouldn't get caught.  

J: The body of law known as common law understands this principle. You treat a crime done "on purpose" differently than you treat an accidental harm. You look at the intent of the people involved, and ask yourself if anybody had motive. Did anybody stand to gain?  

A: Can acquisition of status can be considered a motive, an incentive, a measurable and desirable gain in the eyes of some individuals?  

J: Acquisition of status lies behind many a crime. 

A: Including religious crimes against humanity -- the ones committed by status-seeking religious leaders? 

J: Especially the crimes of religious passion. Especially those.

JR13: Jesus Speaking on Prayer

A: This morning I was tidying up some papers and I came across an insert from the worship bulletin of a small local church. This particular church is a "one of a kind" group that's blending ideas from Unitarianism, the United Church of Canada, Gnosticism, and maybe some Eastern ideas filtered through a New Age lens. I notice that I circled the group prayer and wrote in the margin, "How Not to Pray." I wondered if you could go through the prayer with me and explain -- from your angelic perspective -- why this kind of prayer isn't helpful. 

J: Sure. Can you type the prayer here for reference? 

A: Typing fingers coming right up. Okay. It says on this insert that the prayer is called the "Prayer of Transfiguration," adapted from the Prayer of Abandonment by Charles de Foucauld. Here's the text: I abandon myself to the Light; Let it transform my life. Whatever it does, I am open; I am present to all, I accept all. Let the Divine will be done in me. And in all creation -- I wish no more than this. Into the hands of Life I commend my spirit; I offer it with all the love of my heart. For I am Light, And so need to give my self, To surrender my self into Life's hands without reserve, And with boundless confidence and gratitude, For we are all called -- to Live in the Light!  

A: I think a lot of people would find this prayer quite lovely, quite meaningful. However, I happen to know from personal experience that you don't encourage people to pray this kind of prayer. Can you explain your thoughts, your reasoning?  

J: Prayer is a messy topic. People of faith have a tendency to claim that all prayer is good, all prayer is helpful. But it's not. From the point of view of angels -- the angels who are tasked with looking after the human beings who live on Planet Earth -- all prayer is not created equal. There are what I might call genuine prayers -- the ones spoken with the soul's own loving intent. There are also pseudo-prayers -- words strung together with unkind intent and directed at God. Pseudo-prayers predominate, unfortunately.  

A: Let's talk more about the pseudo-prayers. Can you be more specific about the "unkind intent" you're referring to? 

J: When people try to speak with God, communicate with God through prayer, the words they speak are of little interest to God or to God's angels. There are meaningful prayers that consist of only one word or one sound. The actual words are not that important.  

A: Mantras. When you speak of prayers that contain only one sound, you're talking about mantras.  

J: Mantras work for some people. Not for everyone. But for some people. Mantras should not be recommended for everyone on a spiritual path. 

A: Why not?  

J: Because everyone's soul is different. Therefore everyone's learning style is different. And everyone's communication style is different. There is no single form of communication with God that can recommended for all people. Each person has to find his or her own best path.  

A: I'm not a mantra person. I'm definitely a word person. I have to talk with God in words.  

A utility shed made into a charming gift that lifts the soul and brings a smile to your day. A great way to pray is to simply say, "Thank you for lifting me up in this moment. I really needed that. Thank you for guiding me to this!" New Brunswick Botanical Gardens. Photo credit JAT 2022.

J: I'm also a word person. It works for me, but it doesn't work for everyone. Here's one area where people definitely shouldn't try to do what Jesus does. They should try to find their own best form of communication with God. There are many nuanced forms of conversing with your Divine Parents. Some people need to go outside and sit quietly in the sun. Some need to be actively engaged in the outdoor world of nature -- maybe through hiking, camping, sailing, canoeing. Gardening is another big one. Some people can't hear God unless the music is on really, really loud. Some people can't hear God unless the room is very, very quiet. There's no one correct way. They're all equally valid, equally beautiful ways as far as God is concerned. God always meets you where your soul longs to be. So if your soul is the kind of soul that hears God when it's very, very quiet, that's when God will be speaking with you. God respects who you are as a soul. Therefore, God won't try to "force" you to listen at a time that's not good for you. God is nothing if not respectful.  

A: None of the spiritual practices you just mentioned sound like traditional religious prayer. Why not? 

J: As I was mentioning, it's not the words that God listens to. It's the intent. God pays no attention to rote prayer, to be honest. It's just a waste of everybody's time. Rote prayer isn't about communication or relationship. Rote prayer is just a habit -- a habit like making your bed every day or putting the toilet paper roll on the same way every time. It's something you do because it helps you cope with daily stress. Or maybe it's something you do so you won't be punished by an authority figure who expects you to pray. But it's not relationship between you and God. You can't expect to recite the Lord's Prayer every day and have it mean anything or do anything. The Lord's Prayer has no special power in Creation, despite what many orthodox Christians would like to believe. 

A: Define what you mean by "unkind intent." Can you give specific examples of that? 

J: Sure. Prayer directed at getting somebody cursed by God. Prayer directed at getting special favours for yourself at the expense of those around you. Prayer directed at cursing yourself for your own unworthiness before God. Prayer directed at getting healing for somebody else. Prayer directed at getting somebody's soul saved. Prayer directed at getting somebody's loved ones released from purgatory or hell. Prayer directed at being chosen to be among God's elect. Prayer directed to saints. Prayer directed to holy relics. Prayer directed at getting somebody blessed by God.  

A: So . . . pretty much all the most popular orthodox Western Christian prayers. 

J: Yup. God doesn't curse people. God doesn't favour you over your neighbour. God doesn't accept your self-pity, because God knows your true potential. God heals with or without anybody's prayers, but it's up to God to decide the right time and the right place. God hasn't lost any souls, so God doesn't need to save any souls. There is no purgatory and there is no hell, so God doesn't need help freeing anyone. God doesn't have any chosen children and there is no group of elect souls. All souls are created equal, so there is no hierarchy of saints or angels to intervene on anybody's behalf. Praying to holy relics is occult magic, and it hurts your brain, so don't do it. All of God's children are equally blessed.  

A: You don't give an inch to tradition, do you? Not one tiny inch.  

J: No. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and others didn't go nearly far enough with their "protesting" reformation of Western Christianity. The work of reforming the church to reflect the core values of God the Mother and God the Father still remains to be done. 

 A: A make-work project for the church of the third millennium. Okay. I'd like to return to the original question about the "Prayer of Transfiguration" above. What about this prayer feels "out of synch" to you, if I can use that expression?  

J: It feels out of synch with the values of the soul because of the underlying assumptions implicit in the prayer. To begin with, I take issue with the imagery of "light."  

A: Why? Haven't spiritual seekers long equated good spiritual choices with "light"?  

J: My point exactly. Nobody's questioning the metaphor. People say, "Oh, the light, the light, we're getting closer to the truth! Hurray! We're making progress!" But if people are moving towards the light, what are they moving away from?  

A: The darkness.

“Jesus said to them: If you fast you will bring sin to yourselves, and if you pray you will be condemned, and if you give to charity you will damage your spirits. When you go into a region and walk around in the rural areas, whenever people receive you, eat whatever they provide for you, and heal their sick. For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth can defile you” (Gospel of Thomas 14 a-c). In other words, if you want to have a strong faith relationship with God, you have to give up the idea that God enjoys displays of power, rote piety, religious ritual, and subjugation of others. Use your skills instead to help others find their own courage, faith, and humbleness. Photo shows a scarab commemorating Kushite victory over inhabitants of the Negev desert, carved from steatite, 25th Dynasty, c. 710 BCE. On display at the Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2017.

J: Exactly. It's an immature, dualistic claim. Good versus evil. Light versus dark. It's so ingrained in people's minds that they don't even question the metaphor any longer. But let me ask you -- what's so bad about the dark? Is the night sky to be feared? Is the darkness of the ocean bottom to be despised? Why is light good and darkness bad? Why does "white" mean pure in Western culture, and "black" mean corrupt or evil? God's Creation isn't about good versus evil and light versus dark. Creation isn't dualistic. So why have people recite a prayer that reinforces sloppy dualistic thinking? The human brain -- the biological 3D brain -- is kind of stupid at times, and it needs good guidance. It needs to be constantly reminded not to fall into overly simplistic thinking, which leads to overly simplistic "solutions." A solid prayer of the genuine kind is a prayer that challenges people to acknowledge and respect the complexity of God's Creation. A solid prayer does not speak of abandonment and surrender without first acknowledging the difficulty of this spiritual task (and spiritual task it is!). A solid prayer reminds people that they have an important role to play in Creation, even if they don't fully understand that role. A solid prayer speaks of balance -- both the difficulty of finding it and the difficulty of maintaining it. A solid prayer never speaks of people as empty vessels to be filled by pure Divine will. To speak of empty vessels negates the integrity of the soul. A solid prayer helps people remain humble yet at the same time courageous. The prayer typed above is a prayer of humility, not a prayer of humbleness. And you know what I think of false humility!  

A: Yessiree. Do I ever! Any final words of advice for readers who want to be able to communicate clearly with God? 

J: Yes. Don't ever put yourself down while you're engaged in prayer. Don't ever say you're unworthy of God's love and forgiveness. Be honest about mistakes you've made, but ask God to help you learn from your mistakes. Be brave. Don't whine. Remember you're a child of God. And I mean that in every possible way. You're a child of God, and nobody can take that away from you. That's a pretty good starting point for finding the courage to make gradual changes in your life.  

A: And yes, folks! You're not listening to anything I haven't had to listen to a thousand times myself. And yes! Angels really do talk this way. (Don't you feel sorry for me?) And yes! Sometimes you just want to scream because your angels are so tough and so determined to help you make positive changes, and they're so annoyingly dedicated to helping you be your best self! And guess what? YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY. They stick to you like Velcro. SO IF YOU CAN'T LICK 'EM, YOU MAY AS WELL JOIN 'EM. That's my humble opinion, anyway.

JR8: Mystical Bloodlines, Mystical Castes

J: I'd like to start out today's discussion by emphasizing a very important point. I want to emphasize that it's wrong to make sweeping generalizations about any particular religion or religious tradition. Just as it's wrong to "hate" somebody on their basis of their religion, it's just as wrong to "love" somebody on the basis of their religion. Religious beliefs form a framework for people, a place to start on the journey of faith. But in the end, the only thing that matters as far as God is concerned is what choices you make as an individual. No religion has all the answers. No religion is even asking all the right questions. So when I come out swinging against a revered figure from the past such as John the Baptist, I'm not trying to attack huge groups of people. I have specific complaints about the choices made 2,000 years ago by John the Baptist while he was incarnated as a human being. I also have specific complaints about specific choices made by a number of individuals who were close to John at the time. However . . . and this is a big however . . . the choices made by John the Baptist 2,000 years ago have nothing to do with the choices open to individual people today. There is no "loss of honour" for readers today because of choices that were made by somebody else centuries ago. No real "loss of honour," anyway. If individuals today believe I'm undermining their own personal sense of honour by exposing the reality -- the harsh and painful truth -- about ancient religious teachings, then they've got bigger problems than they realize. 

“Jesus said: There was a rich man who had a great deal of money. He said, ‘I shall invest my money so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouses with produce, that I may lack nothing.’ These were the things he was thinking in his head, but that very night he died. Whoever has ears should hear” (Gospel of Thomas 63). Even psychopaths have a personal code of morality — a set of internal laws to live by — despite their lack of conscience. Competitiveness, dominance, perfectionism, obsessiveness, chosenness, and eradication of weakness are among the key markers of moral success for a psychopath. Needless to say, a psychopath has no use for traits such as love, tolerance, forgiveness, ambiguity, or individuation, despite what he or she may say out loud. Shown here is the entrance to the Chapel of John the Baptist, Westminster Abbey, England. Notice all the sharp, spiky, metal forks on the door -- all the better to stab your heart as you try to open the door to relationship with God. Photo credit JAT 2023.

A: Yes, but a lot of people still believe very deeply in ancient ideas such as the mystical power of bloodline. For these individuals, there's such a thing as honour in the blood. Honour carried from generation to generation through the bloodline. Power carred from generation to generation. Divine rights carried from generation to generation. It's one of the underpinnings of their modern day lives. So they'll take enormous offense at what you're saying. Gargantuan offense. 

J: I'm sorry to have to say this, but a conviction in the innate mystical power of bloodlines is a fantasy superstition that belongs only in novels and films. God does not favour any one clan or family group over another. It should be clear to everyone by now what happens in the wider world when particular clans, tribes, or nations give themselves the label of "Chosen by God." Nothing good comes of it. Nothing.  

A: Yet it's a myth-dream that's found in most cultures and most places in the world. Not to mention most major world religions. Why is this myth-dream so universal?  

J: It goes again to the issue we've been discussing -- major mental illness.  

A: Ooooh. I can hear the gasps already.  

J: Well, I won't apologize for saying what needs to be said. Individuals will have to deal with it. It's the reality. It's time the blunt reality was brought into the open. Other forms of violence and abuse have been brought forward, brought into the open in recent decades. It's painful and awkward at first, but it's only when people openly discuss their suffering that change begins.  

A: As you've said many times to me, healing follows insight. Healing follows self-honesty and public transparency.  

J: Abusers will keep their secrets for as long as they can. They won't volunteer to tell people their dark secrets. Even when they're caught, they typically deny they did anything wrong. Other people have to step forward, point the light of truth at the abusers, collect evidence of their wrongdoing, and demonstrate their guilt through a public, transparent, non-corrupt legal system. It's the only way to change a society's perception of what's moral and what's immoral.   

A: Can you give some examples?  

J: Sure. Not so long ago, it was considered acceptable by many North Americans to treat women as inferior "possessions" of men. It was considered acceptable to turn a blind eye to incest and child sexual abuse and child pornography. It was considered acceptable to dump vast quantities of highly toxic pollutants into the water, air, and earth.  

A: These things are still going on.  

J: Yes. But these choices are no longer considered acceptable by the majority of North Americans. There's been a cultural shift. The harmful actions of the abusers -- the narcissists and psychopaths -- are no longer being condoned by wider public opinion. There are legal and social implications for the abusers now. The legal and social implications didn't use to exist. They only exist today because a lot of decent people got on board with the idea that these particular choices -- the choice to abuse women, the choice to abuse children, the choice to abuse the environment -- are wrong. Immoral. Not acceptable in a compassionate community.  

A: It's a work in progress.  

J: Yes. It's astounding and beautiful and amazing because it shows the truth. It shows that if you boldly and honestly expose the reality of abuse, a lot of people will recognize the wrongness of the abusers' choices. They'll feel it deep in their bones. 

A: Deep in their souls.  

J: The soul is consciousness with a conscience. The soul knows the difference between right and wrong, between moral choices and immoral choices. The soul is not stupid. Everybody has a soul, and everybody comes "prewired," so to speak, with a "right and wrong" package in their DNA. It's why mentally mature, emotionally mature people instinctively recoil from certain actions, certain choices. They just feel in their gut that it's wrong.  

A: Except for the people with psychopathy. The psychopaths have lost access to the "right and wrong" package. They know it exists, because they can see it operating in the world around them, but they don't care. They don't recoil from horror and abuse the way other people do. Brain scans confirm that certain parts of their brains are underactive, other parts are overactive.  

J: As I said, it's a major mental illness.  

A: One that isn't in the DSM-IV, the bible of psychiatry.  

J: Psychopathy is a touchy, touchy topic. It should come as no surprise that a lot of "successful" people in politics, business, religion, and entertainment have little regard for the nuances of "right and wrong."  

A: That's a polite way of saying that many successful people are psychopaths.

J: Again, no surprise. But these people have tremendous power, tremendous resources. It's risky to piss off a psychopath. They think nothing of getting revenge. In fact, revenge is a favourite pastime. Even worse, psychopaths lose their ability to feel empathy for others, but at the same time, they show an eerily heightened grip on logic and a creepy ability to spot other people's vulnerabilities. It's scary how manipulative they can be in a purely cold, hard, logical way. 

A: Almost as if they're compensating for the loss of empathy and emotion by putting extra biological resources into their logic circuitry. 

J: That's exactly what psychopathy is. They're trying to find a way to cope with life. They're trying to find a workable system. They have no capacity for love, forgiveness, or trust. They're so empty inside that they're always looking for ways to fill the void. It's a literal void, not just a metaphorical void. They can't access certain functions of their brains. They can't access the emotional circuitry they were born with. So they actually do feel empty, as if something's constantly missing. They're so narcissistic, however, that they believe everybody else on the planet feels as empty as they do. They think other people are faking it when they talk about love, redemption, forgiveness, and trust. In the world of the psychopath, love -- mature, respectful love -- is pure fantasy. It can't be real. A psychopath feels nothing but contempt for the ideals of love, redemption, forgiveness, and trust.  

A: A contempt that's notably present in the orthodox doctrines of the Western Christian church. 

J: True. But Christianity isn't the only faith tradition that's riddled with contempt for these compassionate ideals. I was dealing with the same contempt 2,000 years ago in Palestine. Lots of people were. Women, children, slaves, foreigners -- all these people had to deal with the fallout of a religious tradition that had steadily erased all the empathy from the earlier spiritual traditions --  

A: Like the Covenant Code in Exodus.  

J: Like the all too brief Covenant Code. Bit by bit they replaced the Covenant Code's early focus on human dignity with mystical authority for a few select men and their families. What scholars today call Second Temple Judaism bears so little resemblance to the Rabbinic Judaism practised today that I hesitate to even call the ancient religion "Judaism." It was a bizarre caste system, really. It placed incalculable power in the hands of the High Priests and the Levites, who happily abused the "lesser tribes" of Israel -- the lower Jewish castes. Meanwhile, the priests derived all their power, authority, and wealth from the "sacred books" they themselves wrote. A bit of a conflict of interest, don't you think?  

A: Yeah. I notice that after a while they decreed there could be no more prophecy. No more troublesome prophets standing up on soapboxes and speaking the truth.  

J: The priests were always willing to endorse new prophetic voices off the record as long as those new voices reinforced the idea among the general population that Jews were the chosen people and Jerusalem's priests were "the best of the best."  

A: Hence they could tolerate the Essenes, who required obedience to the caste system, but they couldn't tolerate you, because you rejected the caste system in its entirety. And said so publicly.  

J: The idea that Jews had allowed themselves to become enslaved to the priests may have entered my teachings more than once. 

A: Yeah, I'll bet.