JR56: Forgiveness As a Present Reality

A: Tell me more about forgiveness. The other day you said, "Divine forgiveness is not settlement of a debt. Debt doesn't enter into the equation. Education, mentorship, and personal responsibility enter into the equation, but not debt." (http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/07/meaning-of-son-of-man.html ) You and I have talked a lot about forgiveness, but you've never linked it to the Peace Sequence before. Can you explain in more detail what you meant?  

J: I'm going to introduce a comparison between forgiveness and catalysts (as catalysts are understood by a chemist). At a quantum level, forgiveness acts as an important "biochemical" catalyst for learning.  

A: Okay, you're gonna have to back up the divine truck on this one. 

J: In everyday speech, people use the word "catalyst" to mean a person, thing, or event that prompts sudden change. In Western culture it's often an unexpected tragedy that serves as a catalyst for change. For instance, if a child is killed because a newly designed toy isn't safe, the people around the child are shocked into action. Chances are good that an inquiry will be held, and healthy and safety regulations will be amended to remove this particular threat. The catalyst for change was a tragic event that jarred people out of their complacency and forced them to be more honest about a quantifiable, measurable threat to children's safety.  

The factual reality of the toy's dangerous design existed before the tragic death. The threat itself wasn't new. What was new was the realization of the threat, the objective recognition of the threat, the memory of the threat. In other words, human beings had to learn about the threat. They had to identify the problem, remember the problem, understand the problem, then fix the problem. These are the stages of learning. As it happens, these are also the stages of emotional healing and spiritual transformation. They're all hopelessly intertwined with each other.  

A: Identify, remember, understand, and fix. That's a pretty logical sequence. What happens if a person tries to skip one of those steps? I'm thinking in particular of the "remember" stage. I've met quite a few people who seem to have really bad memories. Important information goes right in one hear and out the other. And these are fairly young people I'm talking about, not elderly people with dementia!  

J: Those who can't remember their own history are doomed to repeat it.  

A: I remember a fellow we were corresponding with a few years ago about the spiritual journey. He was quite incensed because you and I had suggested that an understanding of science was important to spiritual growth and transformation. He wrote somewhat angrily, "Do I have to have a degree in physics?" And your reply was, "No, you have to have a degree in history." He probably thought you were being facetious. 

“Jesus said, ‘ I shall give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart'” (Gospel of Thomas 17). The mysterious gift Jesus is talking about here is Divine Forgiveness, a gift freely given by God to all people at all times without any restrictions or covenants placed upon the gift. Shown here is an example of an inuksuk, which reminds me of what forgiveness is actually like (simple, memorable, beautiful, accessible by all, able to be built by all). Inuksuit have long served to aid full remembrance in Canada’s Far North. They’re now found widely throughout Canada. This one sits among flowers and metal artwork at an Ontario public school. Photo credit JAT 2015.

J: I wasn't. I was speaking the honest truth. Memory -- history -- is crucial to the core self. Memory is a huge part of learning. By that I don't mean simple rote memory, such as your multiplication tables. I mean soul memory, which is a combination of several different forms of memory. It's emotional memory plus factual memory plus habit memory plus talent memory.  

A: That's a lot to keep track of at one time. Sounds like too much work. 

J: Soul memory evolves quite naturally when a child is raised in a mature, responsible, loving home. It becomes a natural way of remembering things. You don't consciously think about the different aspects of your memory. You just . . . live. You live with empathy and laughter and confidence. It's your soul memory that helps you do that.  

A: So you're linking empathy with memory.  

J: Yes. It's your memory skills that allow you to remember the names of your neighbour's children so you can ask how the family is doing. 

A: Ooooooh. I suddenly can think of a gajillion different ways that memory can help with empathy and relationships. Things like remembering your friend's favourite music or your mother's favourite flower. Or the anniversary of a loved one's death. Or remembering to pick up a carton of milk on the way home, as promised. Or remembering to say "I love you." And on and on and on.  

J: What's interesting about people with severe narcissism and psychopathy is the way they use memory. They use memory and history in bizarre, abusive ways. They often have excellent memories when it comes to the mistakes that other people have made (though they rarely admit to their own). They remember all the "crimes" that have been committed against them, and they keep detailed lists of rightful punishments that still need to be meted out.  

A: They hold grudges.  

J: With a capital "G." They live for the "high" of revenge. Inside their own heads, they'll return to the scene of another person's "crime" and relive the unfairness and unjustness of it all. Then they'll imagine the scene of their revenge. They'll gloat about it. They'll gloat about the glory of their future -- and rightful -- vengeance. There's no concern at all about collateral damage -- about the people and places that will be damaged when vengeance is pursued. The only thing that's important to a psychopath is the chance to "even the scales."  

A: Sounds like a Mel Gibson movie.  

J: Forgiveness, on the other hand, is not about buying back one's status or paying a debt or "balancing the scales of time" so the past can be forgotten. Forgiveness absolutely requires a memory of the harm that's being forgiven.  

A: You said above that forgiveness is a catalyst. How does this idea relate to what we've been discussing about memory and learning and empathy?  

J: In chemistry, a catalyst is a substance that's an essential ingredient in a chemical reaction without itself being changed and without itself being part of the final product or products.  

A: Inorganic chemists use elements such as palladium and rhodium as catalysts so they can synthesize complex molecules out of simpler ones.  

J: In chemistry, a catalyst works the way a crane works on a large building site. The crane is essential for transporting loads of basic materials to their proper location on the much larger building that's being constructed. But once the building is completed, the crane is removed from the site. It's no longer needed. It can be "recycled" -- used on another building site because it isn't part of the final product. Its role is essential but temporary. This is what forgiveness is like.  

A: Still not following you. Especially because you've said in the past that forgiveness is a permanent choice -- a permanent choice to wrap harmful choices within a layer of love.  

J: Forgiveness, like the construction crane, is a permanent "substance," if you will. But like a crane, it moves around. It isn't glued to one site or one event or one person. It goes in, does its transformative thing, then lets go. Forgiveness allows you to identify, remember, understand, and fix the past without actually having to live in the past. It frees you from the tyranny of rumination on the past. It doesn't ask you to forget. It asks you to transform. It asks you to take the pain and turn it into something new. Forgiveness isn't the final product of the transformative process, despite what some theologians have claimed. Forgiveness is the tool -- the catalyst -- that's needed so you can take painful experiences and painful choices and turn them into something brand new.  

A: The way orthodox Western Christian theologians often describe forgiveness makes it sound like the end goal, the final result of being saved by God. 

J: God the Mother and God the Father are always moving the crane of forgiveness. They're always actively and consciously choosing to forgive their human children for the suffering people create. Forgiveness is a present act -- always a present act, not a future one. Just as the Kingdom of the Heavens is supposed to be a present condition, not a future one. 

A: I've read so many books where teachers of spirituality insist that we "live in the moment." Is this what you're getting at? Letting go of the past and the future and focussing only on the present moment?  

J: No. Most definitely not. The phrase "living in the moment" all too often means "living in a state of dissociation." Living in a state of psychological dissociation from one's emotions, memories, and personal responsibilities. Obviously this doesn't help individuals or families or communities create peace. To create peace, you have to be willing to learn from the past. You have to be willing to identify the problems of the past, and then marshal all your courage and will power and love to get to the point where you can remember the pain without being overwhelmed and numbed by the pain. In other words, you have to learn from your mistakes.  

A: Learning from your own mistakes is very hard. Self forgiveness is very hard. 

 J: In the ancient Greek myth of Sisyphus, the man Sisyphus is condemned by the gods to spend all eternity rolling a large stone to the top of a hill, only to watch it roll back down again each day. This aptly describes what it feels like to live without forgiveness. Each day feels like an eternity of repetitive struggle, an endless cycle of guilt and pain you can't seem to escape from. Forgiveness, on the other hand, is the crane you bring in to build a series of small level shelves or steps on the side of the hill so you can gradually get the stone to the top of the hill and keep it there, where it will no longer torture you. With the boulder of the past safely stowed at the top of the hill, you can get on with the business of planting a nice garden at the base of the hill and inviting all your friends over to share in the beauty. The stone at the top is there to remind you of the mistakes you once made so you 're less likely to make them again. The stone isn't gone. But it's in a safer place.  

A: So in the Kingdom of the Heavens, the past isn't gone, but it's in a safer place. This allows you to bring more of your daily energy to the task of living as fully as possible today. 

J: You'd be amazed how much energy many people use each day by dwelling in the past, ruminating on past injuries, focussing on revenge, and not paying attention (literally) to the tasks and relationships of today. When I say "energy," I don't mean that metaphorically. I mean that people quite literally expend precious biological resources every day when they choose to focus on the past. They use up proteins and fats and carbs in their bodies. They force their brain cells to hang on to cell-to-cell connections that aren't productive. They refuse to let their brains empty the "recycle bin," and as a result, dangerous levels of old proteins and other biological materials can build up inside the brain. Causing medical syndromes such as various forms of dementia.  

A: So forgiveness isn't just a metaphysical aspiration: it's also a biological reality.  

J: As you'd expect it to be in the good Creation of a loving God.

JR55: Healing: The Easy Way and the Hard Way

A: Apart from the Kingdom sayings and the puzzling Son of Man sayings, you also left behind some curious sayings about protecting the master's house and making it strong against thievery or attack -- especially attack from within. Thomas 21b and Luke 12:37-48 and Mark 3:20-27 all use this theme. The passage in Luke is especially confusing. Luke 12:37-38 is a makarism: "Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves."

Now, I know you had nothing nice to say about the custom of slave-owning. So the passage in Luke (12:37-48) must be a parable, an analogy for something else, even though the Oxford NRSV calls these verses a collection of "sayings on watchfulness and faithfulness" rather than a parable.

“Therefore I say: If a householder knows a thief is coming, he will keep watch and not let him break into his house (of his kingdom) and steal his goods. You must keep watch against the world, preparing yourselves with power so that thieves will not find any way to come upon you” (Gospel of Thomas 21b and 21c, translated by Stevan Davies). Photo credit JAT 2013.

 
J (grinning): Oh, yes. It's a parable. One I wrote myself.

A: Ah. And I see that this parable references "the Son of Man" in verse 40: "You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour." Many commentators have assumed this verse is a reference to an apocalyptic prophecy you made. They assume "the Son of Man" is an actual person -- you -- who will be coming back on a future day to bring about the prophesied day of judgment. Is this what you meant? Because Matthew 24:36-51 certainly makes it sound as if this is what you meant.

J: Matthew, as we've discussed earlier, was no friend of mine and no friend to my teachings. Matthew was like a gardener who sees another's man field and hates the way the plants are arranged. So he sneaks in with a shovel at night and digs up the other man's plants and takes them to a new field and replants them in an entirely new garden composition and adds some new plants of his own, then steps back and loudly proclaims he's done great honour to the other man. Meanwhile, the other man's garden is a potholed ruin.

A: Always with the parables. You just don't quit!

J: It's who I am.

A: Okay. So what were you getting at? Why were you so fond of the image of the master's house that needs to be protected? Who was "the master"? Was it God?

J: Nope. The master in the parable of the responsible slave (Luke 12:37-48) is the soul of any human being who's walking around on Planet Earth. Any human being at all.

A: Say what?

J: Although today's commentators assume I was an idiot who spouted apocalyptic prophecy and hadn't a drop of common sense in me, I actually had a "method to my madness." The sayings I left behind all speak to a few internally consistent, common sense teachings about the soul. I said a small number of things a great many times. The things I said all relate to each other in a logical, coherent, heart-based way. If I spoke again and again about the psychological reality of the Kingdom (wholeness and maturity of the self), and the importance of respecting "boundaries of the self" and "boundaries of the other," and the potential of human beings -- all human beings -- to seek healing and redemption throught the power of forgiveness, then there's only one person this "master" can be. The master is the self. The master is the core self, the soul that each person is. The true self. This parable is a metaphor about the human brain. It's an attempt to explain in layman's terms what's going on instead a person's head, and why there's no such thing as demon possession. It's an attempt to explain why the path of redemption seems so harsh at times.

A: "Foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay down his head and rest." (Thomas 86)

J: Yes. Foxes know who they are and where their "home" is. Birds know who they are and how to build a home for themselves and their children. Human beings, of all God's creatures on Planet Earth, are the least likely to know who they are and how to build a "home" for their highest potential. For a human being, this home is their brain -- their biological brain and central nervous system. This home has to be painstakingly built over many years. Nothing so simple as building a bird's nest, no sir! The "insides" of a person have to be carefully built to match the "outsides." This is the holistic path to maturity for all human beings.

A: This goes back to what you were saying a few days ago about Saying 22 in the Gospel of Thomas. (http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/06/saying-22-in-gospel-of-thomas.html ) One thing I love about your teachings on wholeness -- on Whole Brain Thinking -- is the fairness of it. These teachings apply to all people in all places in all cultures. It's radically egalitarian. Everyone gets the same basic toolkit for building a garden of peace. But each person's garden will look different because each soul is different. I just love that part!

J: Yes, but before they can get to the point of being able to admire each other's gardens -- instead of envying and destroying each other's gardens -- they have to get through the healing stage. This is the stage where most people quit, where they run away from the difficulties and challenges of building an inner "home" -- a field full of good soil -- inside their own heads. This is the stage most people don't even know IS a stage.

A: The Church has done precious little to help us understand this -- even today, when we have so much knowledge about the human brain and its hard-wiring for empathy and change.

J: Two thousand years ago, I certainly had no knowledge of neuroanatomy or neurophysiology or neurotransmitters or the like. But I was a keen observer of human nature, and I was scientifically minded. More to the point, I was a mystic. I had unflinching faith in God's goodness because of my mystical practice, and I knew there had to be something better than "demon possession" to account for frightening behaviour. So I looked to a scientific model. It wasn't that hard, really. You work through empirical observation and rudimentary statistical analysis. That's how all science advanced for thousands of years until recently. You take careful notes, you try to stay objective, you look for patterns, you try to prove you didn't simply invent the patterns because you wanted to see them. Objectivity is crucial, of course. If you're determined to find an imaginary Cause X, you'll find it because you want to. However, this isn't science. This is narcissism.

A: So your lack of narcissism -- or I suppose I should say your eventual lack of narcissism -- made you more open to honest fact-finding about the human condition.

J: I was open to the idea that there could be scars on the inside of a person's body as well as on the outside.

A: In James 1:8, you use the unusual Greek word "dipsychos," which is usually translated in English as "double-minded." What were you getting at here?

J: If you read the parts of the Letter of James that I wrote -- James 1:2-27; 2:1-8a; and 3:1-18 -- you can see me struggling to put into words the problem of understanding the human brain and all its competing "intents." I used several different metaphors there to try to explain what a lack of inner wholeness results in. Which is tragedy. Pain, suffering, and tragedy.

A: You also express the idea in James 1:8 that "the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from the Lord." This is a pretty tough statement, don't you think?

J: Many will think so. They'll assume I'm talking about divine judgment and divine retribution. But I'm not. I'm talking about the scientific reality of the soul-body nexus. I'm talking about the built-in set of checks and balances that exists within the human self to promote mature, loving choices.

I'm going to come at your question from a different direction. If there really is a God, and there really are good souls, and there really are souls who choose to incarnate in a temporary 3D body where they have to struggle to balance the needs of their souls and the needs of their biological bodies . . . would it make sense to you in this context that God would refuse to provide built-in roadmaps and compasses and warning signals and obvious feedback so you could safely navigate all the confusion? Does that make sense to you?

A: No.

J: It didn't make sense to me, either. So in the parable of the responsible slave, the "house" of the master is -- to use you as an example (sorry, hope you don't mind) -- is your entire head, including your skull. The "master" is your soul, and in particular the non-plastic parts of your brain that are controlled by the thoughts and feelings and actions of your soul. The "slaves" are the semi-autonomous regions of your brain that are supposed to be in charge of your physiological needs, but which all too often end up running the show -- and doing a very poor job of it, I might add. If you were to let the "slaves" manage your choices, abuses would occur. Abuses of your self and abuses of others. Naturally, your core self -- your soul -- wouldn't like this very much, and your core self would have something to say about it. This isn't punishment "from above." This is you standing up for your own core integrity! This is you trying to get yourself back in balance!

A: By first recognizing that there's a problem. With your own choices.

J: Healing begins with insight. Before you can heal, you have to admit there's a problem. Unfortunately, people can get their heads caught up in some pretty unhealthy thinking patterns. They can become so dysfunctional that they confuse the "slaves" with the "master." They can't hear their own inner voice, even though the inner voice never stops talking.

There's always the easy way and the hard way. You can listen to your own inner voice, and begin to heal, in which case the journey won't be as difficult.

A: You'll get a "light beating" (Luke 12:48).

J: The majority of human beings, then and now, however, end up by default on the hard way.

A: So their bodies get a "severe beating" (Luke 12:47) from their own souls.

J: Well, it looks that way from the outside in the beginning.

A: People will say you're blaming the victims of illness.

J: It's not that simple. People get ill for a variety of reasons. But ONE of the reasons people get sick is because they opt to make certain very poor choices. This is simply a statement of fact. It's not a judgment to say that a person who chooses to eat 5,000 calories per day and is morbidly obese (with all the attendant health problems of extreme obesity) bears SOME of the responsibility for his or her state of health.

A: When you put it that way, it seems pretty fair and reasonable. There are lots of intentional human choices that can lead to serious illness and disability. We often don't want to change the choices we make until we really, really understand the consequences that are involved.

J: Observable consequences are part of each person's built-in roadmap for living a life of wholeness in accordance with the wishes and needs of the soul. If your biological body is way out of balance, you need to listen to what your soul is saying. It's only common sense.

JR54: The Meaning of "the Son of Man"

A: We've been talking a lot about the Kingdom and gardens and finding peace through personal responsibility. How does the phrase "the Son of Man" fit into all this? If ever there was a phrase in the New Testament that people don't understand, it's the "Son of Man" phrase -- ho hyios tou anthropou in Koine Greek, bar nasa in Aramaic, and ben adam in Hebrew. Somehow I suspect the translation of the Greek phrase into English doesn't do justice to the original meaning. 

J: It's very easy to forget that the Hebrew word adam wasn't used primarily as a name in Second Temple Judaism. Adam can also be translated as "ground/soil" or as "humankind." Similarly, the Greek word anthropos meant "humankind," not just "human beings of the male sex." These nuances are lost in the traditional English translation "Son of Man." A much better translation in English would be "essence of humanity" or "highest potential of humankind." I used the phrase ho hyios tou anthropou to express a concept -- a concept for which no vocabulary existed at the time.  

“Jesus said: Adam came into being from enormous power and wealth, but he was never worthy of you, for had he been worthy of you he would not have died” (Gospel of Thomas 85). This saying doesn’t make much sense unless you stop to consider what Genesis 2-3 says about the allegorical relationship between humankind (Adam) and God. In the Garden of Eden, there are two trees that embody the deepest and most mystical elements of God, Creation, and faith: (1) the tree of life and (2) the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These two trees are supposed to be in balance, and while they are, Adam and Eve live a life of trusting relationship with God. At some point, however, Eve, followed quickly by Adam, decide they’re more interested in having knowledge than in having a trusting relationship with God. So they eat of the metaphorical fruit from the tree of knowledge and find themselves aligned with the many ancient philosopher kings who also chose knowledge over relationship with God. In Jesus’ teachings, choosing a life that places knowledge far above trust, love, and relationship with God is really no life at all. For Jesus, the mind is important, but not more important than the heart. So the metaphorical example of Adam and Eve — who lost the balance between mind and heart and as a result struggled for the rest of their lives with “death” instead of “life” — is not the example we should be following. Seek instead the path of peace that’s based on relationship with God. This ivory depicting The Fall of Man (by Balthasar Griessmann, c. 1670-1690) is part of the Thomson Collection at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2018.

A: What concept were you trying to teach about? Enlightenment?  

J: No. Forgiveness.  

A: Sayings 85 and 86 in the Gospel of Thomas refer to "Adam" and to "the son of man." Saying 85 says, "Jesus said: Adam came into being from enormous power and wealth, but he was never worthy of you, for had he been worthy of you he would not have died." Saying 86 goes on to say, "Jesus said: Foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the son of man has no place to lay down his head and rest." Thomas 86 also appears almost word for word in Luke 9:58. How do these verses relate to the concept of forgiveness?  

J (sighing): I've always been fond of word plays, puns, alliterations, rhymes, and poetry. "Foxes have holes and birds of heaven have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head" sounded catchier in Greek than it does in English.  

A: But I guess the important thing to keep in mind is the fact that you weren't talking about a particular man in this saying. You weren't talking about yourself. You were trying to explain a concept that was unfamiliar to your students.  

J (nodding): The people around me had been raised on a steady diet of values that had no place in humanity's relationship with God the Mother and God the Father. No matter where you turned, you heard tales of might, tales of glory, tales of revenge. Everyone thought they had the "correct" God -- or gods -- on their side. Everyone thought they were truly pious, truly deserving of divine reward. Everyone had their own version of the "God will avenge me" myth. The avenging God had as many "faces" as a circus performer has costumes.  

If you were a person with a black sense of humour -- as I came to be -- you could go to bed in the evening and count all the ways you'd offended this god and that god in umpteen hidden ways on that day alone. You could count all the ways you'd be punished. You could count all the ways your masters would take revenge against you for your "heinous crimes" against God. Of course, it was your earthly masters -- not the unseen gods of heaven -- who were the ones who had the rod in their hands to beat you. It was your earthly masters who would use any "divine" excuse possible to beat you into submission and humility.  

But they'd often go easy on you if you offered a payment. Some sort of compensation -- an eye for an eye. Some sort of bribe. Contract laws dictated what terms of compensation were acceptable. These contract laws weren't civil laws in the way you'd understand a Western nation's legal codes today. These contract laws had political and economic purposes, of course, but they were primarily religious laws and traditions. Nomos in Greek. Nomos provided a list of crimes and a list of acceptable "payments" to balance the scales if you committed a crime. Often these "payments" were sacrifices. Temple sacrifices. In most Greco-Roman religions of the time -- not just Judaism -- you could bring a sacrifice (a payment, really) to the local temple so you could literally "buy back" God's favour. This is what "redemption" used to mean. It meant trading something you had -- money or goods or livestock or agricultural produce -- to get something you needed: divine favour. It had nothing to do with divine love or divine forgiveness as you and I have defined these concepts on this site.  

A: And then there was slavery. The actual buying and selling of human beings based on contract laws. A slave could, under certain circumstances, "buy back" his rights. Or a slave could be manumitted -- legally freed by his or her "owner." But contract law gave people the excuse they needed to treat others cruelly. Contract law justified their cruelty.  

J: They gave themselves permission to violate the soul's own understanding of free will, justice, integrity, and respect. They were listening to their own selfishness and not to God's voice. And I said so. Out loud. Frequently.  

A: So your friends and students were conditioned to understand their relationship with God in terms of contract law. In terms of payments to a master or sovereign lord. In terms of monetary debts or "obligatory service contracts" (i.e. slavery). 

J: Slavery was -- and is -- a terrible violation of the soul, of what it means to be a soul, a child of God. Slavery is an artificially created human condition in which a slave's personal boundaries are invaded in every way imaginable. A slave is forced to give up all rights to physical and sexual safety. All rights to choose where and with whom to be in relationship. All rights to follow his or her own soul's calling. Even a slave who has property -- and there were many wealthy slaves in the Roman Empire -- even such a slave is taught to believe he doesn't actually own the skin he's in. It's not his. It belongs to somebody else. His own skin is "dead" to him. His mind and his heart may be free, but his skin -- his body -- is dead. He can't view himself as whole -- as a "whole bean" -- because in his own mind and in the mind of his society he isn't whole. He's a sort of ghoulish inhabitant of a body that belongs to somebody else. If, in addition to being a slave, he's also sexually violated -- a fate that was brutally common for young boys and girls in the first century Empire -- chances are extremely high that he'll grow up to be seriously mentally ill. Why? Because children who are beaten and sexually abused and psychologically tortured bear the scars of that treatment in their biological brains, bodies, and psyches until they are healed. It's a simple statement of fact.  

A: You can see how this kind of treatment would lead to dissociative disorders. A person who's disconnected from emotions. Disconnected from a strong sense of boundaries and personal space. 

J: I was trying to get at the point that even lowly foxes and humble birds are given their own personal space, their own "home," their own sanctuary by God. Foxes and birds will defend their own homes with all their might, as they have a right to do. They don't have the right to steal another creature's home, but they do have the right to protect the one they have. God gives no less a right to all human beings. No human contract law "written in stone" anywhere at any time can supersede the obvious truth that each human being owns his own skin and is the sovereign of his own domain, his own personal kingdom. When he knows this and feels this and lives this, he feels alive. He feels whole. He feels at peace.  

A: This is the state of "living" that you refer to so often in the Gospel of Thomas.  

J: Yes. It's a psychological state of balance and health. There's nothing occult about it. It's the natural outcome of making choices that lead to emotional maturity. It's the natural outcome of choosing to live according to the highest potential of humankind. It's the truest essence of humanity.  

A: People being their best selves. On purpose.  

J: Yes. On purpose. It's so very much about the purpose. About the purposefulness of "living." Which is where forgiveness comes in. 

A: How so?  

J: Christians are usually taught to think of forgiveness as an act of grace on God's part, as a somewhat sudden and fickle choice on God's part, as something that human beings can participate in but can't initiate. Paul tries very hard to give this impression to his readers. But forgiveness is the opposite of suddenness and fickleness and "divine transcendence." Forgiveness is purposefulness. Purposefulness of a particular kind. Forgiveness is what you get when you choose to combine your free will and your courage and your love. There's nothing accidental or preordained about it. It's a choice. An ongoing choice that calls upon the greatest resources of the eternal soul -- each and every soul. It's the choice to love someone wholly in the absence of payment or retribution or just compensation. Divine forgiveness is not settlement of a debt. Debt doesn't enter into the equation. Education, mentorship, and personal responsibility enter into the equation, but not debt.  

A: This is soooooooo not what they taught me in theological school.

JR53: Saying 22 in the Gospel of Thomas

A: At the beginning of Stevan Davies's translation of the Gospel of Thomas, there's a Foreword written by Andrew Harvey. Harvey says this about the Gospel of Thomas: "If all the Gospel of Thomas did was relentlessly and sublimely champion the path to our transfiguration and point out its necessity, it would be one of the most important of all religious writings -- but it does even more. In saying 22, the Gospel of Thomas gives us a brilliantly concise and precise 'map' of the various stages of transformation that have be unfolded in the seeker for the 'secret' to be real in her being and active though [sic?] all her powers. Like saying 13, saying 22 has no precedent in the synoptic gospels and is, I believe, the single most important document of the spiritual life that Jesus has left us (pages xxi-xxii)."
 
Harvey then plunges into 5 pages of rapture on the ectastic meaning of Saying 22. None of which I agree with, of course. And none of which you're likely to agree with, either, if experience is any guide. But I thought maybe you and I could have a go at it.
 
J: By all means.
 
A: Okay. Here's the translation of Saying 22 as Stevan Davies's writes it:

"Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples: These infants taking milk are like those who enter the Kingdom. His disciples asked him: If we are infants will we enter the Kingdom? Jesus responded: When you make the two into one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the upper like the lower and the lower like the upper, and thus make the male and the female the same, so that the male isn't male and the female isn't female. When you make an eye to replace an eye, and a hand to replace a hand, and a foot to replace a foot, and an image to replace an image, then you will enter the Kingdom (page xxii and 25-27)."

Harvey's interpretation of this saying speaks of an "alchemical fusion" and a "Sacred Androgyne" who "'reigns' over reality" with actual "powers that can alter natural law" because he or she has entered a transformative state of "mystical union," where "the powers available to the human being willing to undertake the full rigor of the Jesus-transformation are limitless."

I'm not making this up, though I wish I were.

J: And there I was, talking about a little ol' mustard seed . . . . It's a terrific example of the danger of using "wisdom sayings" as a teaching tool. People have a tendency to hear whatever they want to hear in a simple saying. Parables are much harder to distort. Eventually I caught on to the essential problem that's created when you choose to speak indirectly to spare other people's feelings. When you use poetry instead of blunt prose, it's much easier for other people to twist your meaning intentionally. You can see the same understanding in the Gospel of Mark. Mark is blunt. He doesn't waste time on cliches and "wisdom words." He goes straight for the truth, and leaves no wiggle room for gnostic-type interpretations.

“The disciples said to Jesus: ‘Tell us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like.’ He replied: ‘It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all. However, when it falls into worked ground, it sends out a large stem, and it becomes a shelter for the birds of heaven'” (Gospel of Thomas 20). Mustard Seeds by David Turner 2005, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

 
A: Harvey seems to have found a whole lot of wiggle room in Saying 22.
 
J: I must admit that Harvey's "revelation" of the Sacred Androgyne makes me feel sick to my stomach.
 
A: Why?
 
J: Because it denies the very reality of male and female. It denies the reality that God the Father is male and God the Mother is female. It denies the reality that everything in Creation is built on the cherished differences between male and female. Being male isn't better than being female. And being female isn't better than being male. But they're not the same. Neither are they yin-and-yang. They're not two halves of the same coin. They're not mirror images of each other. They're not a fusion -- they're not a Oneness -- like a bowl of pure water. God the Mother and God the Father are like a bowl of minestrone soup. You can see all the big chunks of differentness floating around in there, and that's okay, because that's what gives the mixture its taste, its wonder, its passion.
 
God the Mother and God the Father aren't the same substance with opposite polarities. No way. They have individual temperaments and unique characteristics. In some ways, they're quite alike. In other ways, they're quite different from each other. Just as you'd expect in two fully functioning, mature beings. That's why it's a relationship. They work things out together so both of them are happy at the same time. It's not that hard to imagine, really. They have a sacred marriage, a marriage in which they constantly strive to lift each other up, support each other, forge common goals together, build things together, and most importantly, raise a family together. They look out for each other. They laugh together. They're intimately bound to each other in all ways. But they're still a bowl of minestrone soup. With nary a Sacred Androgyne in sight.
 
A: Okay. So if you weren't talking about "oneness" or "alchemical fusion" or the "Sacred Androgyne" in Saying 22, what were you talking about?
 
J: Well, I was talking about the mystery and wonder that can be found in a simple seed. I was talking -- as I often was -- about how to understand our relationship with God by simply looking at and listening to God's ongoing voice in the world of nature.
 
A: Oh. Are we talking about tree-hugging?
 
J: You could put it that way.
 
A: David Suzuki would love you for saying that.
 
J: I was a nature mystic, to be sure. Endogenous mystics are nature mystics. They see the image of God -- and more importantly the stories of God -- in God's own language, which is the world of Creation. The world outside the city gates has so much to say about balance and time and beginnings and endings! The world outside the city gates is a library. It's literally a library that teaches souls about cycles and physics and interconnectedness and chemistry and complexity and order and chaos all wrapped up together in a tapestry of Divine Love.
 
A: What you're saying seems like a pretty modern, liberal sort of understanding. Were you able to articulate it this way 2,000 years ago?
 
J: Not to be unkind to modern, liberal thinkers, but when was the last time a philosopher of science sat down with a mustard seed and reflected on the intrinsic meaning of it? When was the last time you heard what a humble fresh bean can teach you about the spiritual journey of all human beings?
 
A: I see your point. People in our society don't usually take the time to sit down and "smell the roses."
 
J: Geneticists and biologists and related researchers can print out all their research on the genome of a kidney bean, and can even modify this genetic code in a lab, but to a mystic the kidney bean holds more than pure science.
 
A: So we've switched from mustard seeds to kidney beans as a metaphor?
 
J: Kidney beans are bigger and easier to see without magnifying lenses, and a lot of people have begun their scientific inquiries by growing beans in a primary school classroom. So yes -- let's switch to beans.
 
A: I remember being fascinated by fresh beans and peas when I was young. If you split the bean with your thumbnail, and you didn't damage it too much when you split it, you could see the tiny little stem and leaf inside at one end, just waiting to sprout. If you planted a whole, unsplit bean in a small glass-walled container, you could watch the whole process of growth -- the bean splitting open on its own, roots starting to grow from one end, the stem and leaf popping up, the two halves of the bean gradually shrinking as their nutrients were converted into stem and root growth. Somehow the bean knew what to do. It just kept growing out of the simplest things -- dirt, sunlight, water.
 
J: The bean is a lot like the human brain. If you plant it whole in fertile ground and provide the right nutrients, it grows into a thing of wholeness and balance and wonder and mystery. On the other hand, if you try to split it open, or extract the tiny stem hidden inside, or plant it on rocks instead of good soil, or fail to give it sunshine and water, it won't thrive. It may not even root at all. You can't force the bean to grow where it isn't designed to grow. You can't force it to grow once you've forcibly split it open. You can't force it to grow on barren rock. The bean has to be whole when you plant it. The outside skin has to be intact. The different parts inside the skin have to be intact. The bean has different parts, but it needs all those different parts in order to be whole -- in order to create something new. The bean isn't a single substance. But it is holistic. It's a self-contained mini-marvel that teaches through example about cycles and physics and interconnectedness and chemistry and complexity and order and chaos. It appears simple, but in fact it's remarkably complex. Creation is like that -- it appears simple, but in fact it's remarkably complex.
 
A: Why, then, were you talking about "male and female" in Saying 22? Why did you seem to be talking about merging or fusion of male and female into an androgynous state? Or a Platonic state of mystical union?
 
J: It goes to the question of context. I was talking to people who, as a natural part of their intellectual framework, were always trying to put dualistic labels on everything in Creation. Everyday items were assigned labels of "good or evil," "pure or impure," "male or female," "living or dead." It had got to the point where a regular person might say, "I won't use that cooking pan because it has female energy, and female energy isn't pure."
 
A: I'm not sure that kind of paranoid, dualistic, magical thinking has really died out, to be honest.
 
J: There are certainly peoples and cultures who still embrace this kind of magical thinking. You get all kinds of destructive either-or belief systems. You get people saying that right-handed people and right-handed objects are favoured by God, whereas left-handed people are cursed. It's crazy talk. It's not balanced. It's not holistic. It's not trusting of God's goodness.
 
A: And you were left-handed.
 
J: Yep. My mother tried to beat it out of me, but I was a leftie till the day I died. When I was a child, I was taught to be ashamed of my left-handedness. Eventually I came to understand that I was who I was. The hand I used as an adult to hold my writing stylus was the same hand I'd been born with -- my left hand. But on my journey of healing, redemption, and forgiveness, I came to view my hand quite differently than I had in my youth. Was it a "new hand"? No. Was it a new perception of my hand. Yes. Absolutely yes.
 
A: You stopped putting judgmental labels on your eyes and your hands and your feet and your understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God.
 
J: One of the first steps in knowing what it feels like to walk in the Kingdom of the Heavens is to consider yourself "a whole bean."
 
A: Aren't there kidney beans in minestrone soup? How did we get back to the minestrone soup metaphor?
 
J: A little mustard seed in the soup pan never hurts either.
 

JR52: Pelagius and Personal Responsibility

A: In our discussions lately, you've been emphasizing the role of personal responsibility in the journey of healing and faith, and I've been waiting for somebody to jump up and accuse you of being a Pelagian. How do you feel about the Pelagian philosophy of free will? For the record, Pelagius was born sometime in the late 300's CE, and died around 418 CE. He and his followers drew vicious attacks from Augustine of Hippo and Jerome, and Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy in 431 CE. 

J: Without getting too much into the details of the debate between Augustine and Pelagius on the nature of free will, I'd have to say that both of them were wrong.  

A: How so?  

J: Neither of them had a balanced view of what it means to be a human being. Augustine had no faith at all in the ability of human beings to consciously change their lives and their communities through human initiative. He thought people would be happier if they just accepted their miserable lot in life. Acceptance of Original Sin and concupiscence was the best they could hope for, in his view. His views on human nature have created no end of suffering for devout Christians over the centuries.  

Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, Pelagius preached the opposite extreme. He taught the path of spiritual ascent -- anagogic mysticism -- which says that people can achieve a state of holiness and perfection if they just try hard enough. He placed the entire burden on the individual. This is no less damaging to people's lives than Augustine's idea. Neither man understood -- nor wanted to understand -- that the path of healing and relationship with God is a path of balance. There must be a balance between personal responsibilities and group responsibilities, a balance between personal responsibilities and divine responsibilities. In particular, there must be a willingness on the part of individuals AND on the part of groups to be honest about their own limits. This honesty is the foundation of great strength for souls-in-human-form. Unfortunately, both Augustine and Pelagius hacked away at this foundation with all their might. They both snatched away a source of deep courage and strength for Christians, and insisted on despair and self-blame in its place. It was a cruel thing to do.  

A: So your understanding of personal responsibility isn't the same as what Pelagius taught.  

J: It's important to note that in the Peace Sequence we've been discussing, I've placed personal responsibility as the third "gear" in the sequence, not the first gear. Pelagius and others have tried to place personal responsibility in the first position on the Peace Sequence, not the third position. They've tried to equate free will with personal responsibility, as if they're synonymous, as if they're exactly the same thing. But they're not.  

A: Can you elaborate on that?  

J: Personal responsibility is perhaps the most complex, most advanced skill set that human beings can learn during their lifetime here on Planet Earth. It's not a single skill or a single choice. It's what we referred to earlier as a "meta-choice" -- a pasting together of several smaller choices into something bigger. A meta-choice is so well integrated, so cohesive, so holistic that it often seems like a single choice. But actually it's a blend of several other choices. It's a blend of the choice to be courageous, the choice to be empathetic, the choice to be humble, the choice to be intuitive, the choice to be well organized, and the choice to be self disciplined. It's all those things together.  

A: You mean . . . maturity. Emotional, psychological, and physical maturity.  

J: Yes. It's maturity. It's individuation. It's compassion. It's Whole Brain Thinking.  

A: Using the whole toolkit of the human brain instead of isolated parts of it.  

J: The human brain has long been treated as a single organ, though really it's an interconnected series of semi-autonomous sectors, each with its own specialized ability to "choose" on behalf of the whole. When all the different choices work together towards a common goal, the human brain works smoothly. If "feels" like a single whole, a single choice. But really it's a combination of choices. When a person has arrived at the stage in life when he or she "gets" the concept of personal responsibility, it means his/her biological brain is working in a balanced, holistic way. The fruits of this long process should -- if all goes well -- START to be visible in the actions of people 16 to 18 years of age. The process isn't normally complete, however, until about age 21 or 22. If all goes well.  

A: Last week, after Vancouver lost to Boston in the seventh game of the Stanley Cup finals, large crowds of young people -- many of them now identified as coming from "good" families -- rioted in downtown Vancouver. There was a lot of looting and vandalism. Something tells me these young people haven't developed the Whole Brain Thinking approach to personal responsibility.  

J: There were some people in the crowd who stepped forward and did the right thing to protect others who were being beaten. These Good Samaritans are the individuals who instinctively know "the right thing to do" in a crisis. Their sense of personal responsibility, of right and wrong, of courage and compassion doesn't desert them in an emergency. In fact, it may only be during an unexpected emergency that they themselves realize for the first time that they "get it." They act first and ask questions later -- fortunately for those they can help.  

“Do not give what is holy to dogs, or they might throw them upon the manure pile. Do not throw pearls [to] swine, or they might make [mud] of it” (Gospel of Thomas 93). Jesus taught several centuries before either Augustine or Pelagius, so of course we don’t expect to see any reference to these later theologians in the Gospel of Thomas. On the other hand, Jesus had unflattering things to say about both the Pharisees and the Herodians, whose teachings resembled those of Augustine and Pelagius respectively. It seems likely that in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus was using the metaphor of “dogs” to refer to the Pharisees and the metaphor of “swine” to refer to the Herodians. It seems Jesus wasn’t impressed with either group’s approach to God’s holy things. Recently, I visited a Toronto Conservatory where several generations of cardinals have learned to enter and exit through the automated roof openings so they can build nests for their young in a warm, safe place. These birds not only provide basic food and shelter for their offspring, but also, in this case, are teaching their young an unusual and complex skill set that calls upon them to maximize their latent potential without exceeding their limits. In other words, the parent cardinals are mentoring their offspring. Photo credit JAT 2017.

A: You're saying that maturity -- personal responsibility -- is the product of many years of education and mentorship of children. Is that right? 

J: Yes. Education is the first "gear" in the process, but education alone isn't enough to guide a child towards maturity and personal responsibility.  

A: As the well-educated youths who rioted in Vancouver proved all too well.

J: Along with education there must also be appropriate, mature mentorship. It's the older mentors who are supposed to guide children in their emotional growth with firm, consistent, boundary-respecting compassionate tough love. Parents, grandparents, teachers, sports coaches, medical professionals, and many others can all be mentors for children if they so choose.  

A: What about ministers and priests? Can they be mentors?  

J: Ideally, yes. However, realistically speaking, they rarely are.  

A: Why not?  

J: Because most of them have deeply embraced either Augustine's idea about human nature or Pelagius's idea. Neither approach helps a young person learn how to find the balance they so desperately need. In addition, those ministers who try to inject balance into their youth work are also the ones most likely to have rejected the idea of the soul and the spiritual life. It's lose-lose for ordained clerics.  

A: Unless they're willing to accept new doctrines of faith.  

J: For that to happen, they'd have to apply their own God-given free will. It's a choice each cleric will have to make on the basis of his or her own conscience. That's what divine courage is all about.

JR51: Fifth Step: Keep Christmas, Toss Easter

A: So far we've talked about rescuing the soul, restoring the mystery of divine love, inviting our Mother to the table, and insisting on balance as four ways to help heal the church. What else do you have in that angelic bag of surprises you carry around?  

Christmas tree. Photo credit JAT 2012.

J: The liturgical calendar of the Church must be changed.  

A: You mean the calendar of religious events and themes and holy days that tells people what they're supposed to be celebrating when.  

J: Calendars are very important to the healthy functioning of the brain. So the Church still needs a calendar to help focus events for the year. I'm not recommending that the Church do away entirely with the idea of having a yearly cycle of events. Far from it. I'm suggesting that the Church revise the calendar and bring it into alignment with the needs of the soul.  

A: What would that mean in practical terms? 

J: It would mean you'd get to keep Christmas but you'd have to put Easter in the garbage bin.

A: Get rid of Easter? I can see the steam coming off the heads of conservative Christians already.  

J: It would be kinder, in the eyes of many Christians, for me to suggest that Holy Week be "reformed" rather than axed altogether. But Holy Week is a celebration of Pauline Christianity at its worst. The overriding theme of Holy Week is salvation -- escape -- not healing or redemption. Every year it sends the wrong message to Christians. It sends the message that the focus of their relationship with God should be the Saviour -- his death and resurrection and coming again. This was never the message I taught during my ministry as Jesus. Nor is the meaning of my time on the cross being properly taught and represented by the Church. There's no way that Holy Week can be fixed. It would be the same as asking people to celebrate "the joy" of an S.S. death camp like Auschwitz. (I say this as facetiously as possible.) There is no joy to be found in the traditional teachings of Holy Week. 

A: I've noticed a tendency among more liberal ministers to treat the "events" of Holy Week in a more symbolic way -- to de-emphasize the crucifixion and instead emphasize the themes of renewal and rebirth and regrowth in the spring.  

J: It's very helpful and hopeful to talk about the themes of renewal and rebirth. I have no problem with that per se. I have a problem with a continuing effort among theologians to attach those themes to me. I am one man, one angel, one child of God. I'm not the Fisher King. I'm not Horus. I'm not the dead and rising Sol Invictus. I'm not the resurrected Christ. I'm just a stubborn s.o.b. who won't shut up. I wasn't even crucified in the springtime. I was crucified in the fall. The early church's efforts to place the time of my crucifixion in the spring were largely centred on John's writings. John had his own reasons for wanting to place the time of my crucifixion at Passover. But John wasn't a man who cared about historicity or facts. He wrote what he wanted to write about me. It helped him sleep better at night.  

A: A minute ago you mentioned joy as if it's somehow significant or important to the healing of the church.  

J: Joy is crucial to the experience of faith.  

A: How do you define "joy"?  

J: I use the word "joy" to express the gratitude and devotion and trust that all angels feel in their relationship with God the Mother and God the Father. I don't use it as a synonym for worship or praise. I don't use it as a synonym for the excitement of being part of a large crowd (which is more like hysteria). For me, joy is a word that conveys the happiness and deep contentment we feel as angels. It's the feeling you get when you feel really, really grateful and really, really SAFE at the same time. It makes you smile from the inside out. 

A: Christians have long believed that the purpose of angels is to offer praise and worship to God. Do angels worship God?  

J: Noooooooo. You never see angels down on their knees with their heads bowed in humility. What you see is angels living their purpose of love in everything they do. As angels, we show our never-ending love and appreciation of our parents by choosing thoughts and words and actions that bring more love into Creation. We live in imitation of our parents' courage. We're not carbon copies of our divine mother and father -- that is, we all have our own unique temperaments and personalities and talents and interests -- but we're all alike in that we all choose love. There are many different minds and many different bodies in Creation, but it can be said in all truthfulness that there's only One Heart. It's the feeling of joy that comes from our choice to share One Heart that makes us feel like a big family. We all belong to one family.   

A: Where you feel safe, despite your differences in talent and temperament.  

J: Yes. This is the underlying intent of divine love. It's the choice to see another soul as, in fact, another soul -- as someone who's not you, who's not a mere extension of you. It's the choice to respect differences between individual souls, while at the same time choosing to help other souls be their best selves.  

A: Can you explain what you mean by that last statement?  

J: Here's the thing. No one soul can "do" all things or "be" all things. Every soul has unique strengths. But every soul also has unique absences of strength. Angels are always giving and receiving help within the family. An angel with a particular strength will offer that strength to help brothers and sisters who need assistance with something they're not very good at themselves. The same angel who offers a strength to another will in turn be very grateful to receive help from another soul in an area where he or she needs some help. There's no sense of shame or guilt or inadequacy among angels when they have an absence of strength. They accept who they are. They don't judge themselves or feel sorry for themselves or describe themselves as flawed or imperfect or unworthy. They gratefully and humbly ask for -- and receive -- help when there's something they don't understand or something they want to do but don't have the skills for. It's all about education, mentorship, and personal responsibility, even among God's angels. As above, so below.  

A: At the start of this conversation you said that Christians could keep the celebration of Christmas. Why? Why keep Christmas and not Easter? 

J: December 25th is a day marked by all angels in Creation. It is the day when Divine Love was born. 

 A: I thought you said we have to get rid of all the invented myths about your ministry. Isn't this one of them?  

J: I wasn't born on December 25th. I was born in the month of November. When I refer to the day when Divine Love was born, I'm talking about God the Mother and God the Father. I'm talking about the day when their Divine Love for each other first emerged in Creation. It was the day when everything -- absolutely everything -- changed. It was the day -- the actual day in the far, far distant past (before the time of the "Big Bang") -- when they made the choice to live for each other. It's the day when the Christ was born -- NOT, I'd like to reiterate, the day when I, Jesus, was born, but the day when Mother-and-Father-Together-As-Christ were born. When their new reality was born. When their new relationship was born. None of us would be here today if they hadn't made that choice.  

A: So you're saying that God the Mother and God the Father have an actual calendar of the kind we would recognize here on Planet Earth, and that the day of December 25th is marked on this calendar? This seems like too much of a coincidence. 

J: God isn't using a human calendar. Humans are using a divine calendar. God the Mother and God the Father are pretty good at math, you could say. It wasn't difficult for them to set up indications of their calendar system all over the known baryonic universe. Planet Earth runs on the same calendar system that angels use. More or less. There are cycles that can't be argued with, cycles that are fixed by astronomical and mathematical realities. Solar and lunar and galactic cycles dictate the calendar, not the other way around. Humans didn't "invent" this calendar. They simply noted its existence.  

A: Ah. The Preexistent Calendar. I'd love to see what the theologians will do with this theory!  

J: The cycles are real and meaningful to all souls. The Church liturgical calendar needs to honour and respect these cycles. Obviously there can't be too many "fixed liturgical days" because there has to be room for change in patterns depending on latitude and longitude. The time of regeneration, rebirth, and regrowth changes depending on where you live. The Church has to make allowances for these scientific realities.  

A: Any other suggestions?  

J: Yes. The Church should get rid of Holy Week entirely, including all the bells and whistles such as Lent. In its place, they should institute at a different time of year a brand new 3-day Festival of Redemption. Like Christmas, it would be a "fixed" celebration, celebrated by all Christians at the same time each year. 

A: This is an entirely new idea. What would the purpose be?  

J: The Festival of Redemption would be a time for Christians to stop their busy everyday lives and get together for workshops, seminars, and conferences on the theme of helping each other heal. Workshops could be held locally in the homes of individuals. Or they could be held in larger venues, such as university campuses. Not everyone would want to experience this festival in the same way -- and this is as it should be because souls have different needs and different learning styles. In fact, there should NOT be one particular fixed geographical location or "pilgrimage" site for this Festival. Having "special sites" would undermine the purpose of the Festival. The idea that only some sites are "sacred" or "specially blessed by God" is a human idea. Every square inch of Creation is sacred and blessed by God as far as the angels are concerned.  

A: Something tells me the Biblical idea of specific sites sanctified by God is another idea that's going to be going into the garbage can along with the Easter eggs.  

J: Hey. Don't throw out the chocolate bunnies. They're one of the only parts of Easter worth keeping. That and the big family dinners. 

A: Amen to that.

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