What have they done to my Jesus?

What has the New Testament (NT aka Christian Scriptures) done with my Jesus? This is a question many people ask when they hear that much of the NT is myth. True, the NT is wrapped up in a lot of myth. The myth about myths, though, is the word myth has the connotation that something is not true. But myths are not necessarily untruths. So, good news! Myth is not a word to fear. According to our text, Glimpses in Truth, Rudolf Bultmann wanted to take the NT and “strip away its pre-scientific worldview, while preserving the kerygma (kernel of truth) wrapped within its archaic thought-forms.” Bultmann says in his essay (Kerygma and Myth, A Theological Debate), “The real purpose of myth is not to present an objective picture of the world as it is, but to express man’s understanding of himself in the world in which he lives.”

Many of us are now aware that we live in a very different time from when the stories about Jesus were written. That world was a very different place. The writings were very different and reflected the influences of their time. The swirling influences of the day included Greek philosophy, mystery cults, a three-floor cosmological construct, etc. Once Jesus went off the scene, the world was left to wrestle and tease out what exactly his coming and going meant. They used what was readily available to them and put into words what they thought it all meant based on their existence in the world at that time. They fought it out with some schools saying Jesus was fully divine and some saying fully human and some in between or both. And we’re still having to fight it out today, outwardly and inwardly within ourselves.

Charles Fillmore, co-founder of Unity, wrestled with the human-divine paradigm. As much as the language in his books sounds like traditional Christianity, it seems like he was much like the people in the NT, trying to explain the human-divine paradox with words and expressions of the day amongst a Christian population. But it seems he ended up hitting upon some of the kernels of truth in the NT such as “let this mind be is you that was also in Christ Jesus” and “Christ in you the hope of glory,” that resonated with the idea of Jesus Christ being the “normative” Way Shower, i.e., siding with the view that it is possible to live as humans with this “Christ-in-us” the way Jesus did.

There appears to be the thread of both human and divine in the New Testament, but through the centuries, in the approvals of religious authorities of the Nicene Creed and other such creeds, varying agendas got pushed. So, who can identify the human/divine paradox if it’s buried in the creeds and not really preached or taught on a Sunday morning in the churches? While many still mentally assent to those creeds (which in fact include the fully human/fully divine nature of Jesus Christ), in actuality they might not even be aware of the question of whether Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Even today, people may in actuality lean toward a Jesus who is purely divine (the view that actually preaches better), because…well…doesn’t it give us greater satisfaction that something or someone greater and more divine than us can be called upon to help us? We humans (or some) like to put Jesus on a pedestal way far out of reach, assuming we can never be that (like Jesus).  So then the question becomes what have WE done with our Jesus? Have we put him on a shelf?

For a layperson, it might be hard to come to grips with the mythology in the NT. It might be too hard to decipher where all the mythological influences are in the NT, or where to even start.  So baby steps would have to be taken. Wait, do we need to even de-mythologize everything if there are still messages for us in those myths?

Can all this wrestling can be done in one lifetime, something that theologians have wrestled with for the last couple of millennia? What to do with Jesus? What is important is that we engage with Jesus again. Take him down off the shelf. Maybe start with do we even believe the historical Jesus existed... and just stay with that a while. And then what does that mean to you outside of what all you’ve been told in Sunday School? It's a start.

Bultmann said in his essay, “Hence the importance of the New Testament mythology lies not in its imagery but in the understanding of existence which it enshrines. The real question is whether this understanding of existence is true. Faith claims that it is, and faith ought not to be tied down to the imagery of New Testament mythology.”

So, without all the trappings and the NT “wrapper” - - would the messages of Jesus’ life overall still shine through as a matter of the heart, by faith, regardless of what century he lived and died in, even if it was today?  I’ll take his example of being human and divine and wrestle with it some more.

 

Inside or Out? How do we pray?

Should we pray to God within or to God outside of us? As discussed in class this past week, most types of prayer fall into basically two categories: communication and reflection. I don’t know that we have to choose in an either/or fashion.  Should anyone tell us which way we “should” pray? Shouldn’t you practice what works for you in your spiritual journey? And wouldn’t it depend on your understanding of God?

Most world religions have some type of prayer practice. Buddhist chant devotionals, Islam has the second pillar of praying five times a day, etc. As Dr.Tom Shepherd pointed out, there are indications that as far back as several thousands of years in early civilizations that humans have taken in part in some kind of religion or worship (e.g., Göbekli Tepe). Humankind seeks answers. When we as humans look at the world and events that we don’t understand, we automatically look for meaning. We try to think, we try to rationalize and comprehend what is happening to us.  Primitive forms of prayer involved invoking deities who were thought to be happy or unhappy, in hopes of appeasing them in some way so that we could go about living harmoniously and in balance with the earth, the crops, the weather, the tribe, etc. So, prayer could be viewed as a way of interacting (whether by communing or reflecting) with that which is beyond our natural comprehension, be it to a deity or a mountain or a spirit.

The primitive forms of prayer were oftentimes directed to a god outside or separate from humans. Over the centuries, prayer practices evolved as humankind evolved. While some of the practices were carried forward and refined based on new understanding, some practices fell by the wayside (like animal sacrifice in worship ceremonies). Nevertheless, there still persists this thing called prayer, and now we wrestle with “how” we do it.

So to address the original question above regarding praying to God within or outside of ourselves, one would have to establish a definition of prayer and an understanding of God, both of which can vary. There are all kinds of definitions for prayer, just as there are all kinds of perceptions of God.

A simple dictionary meaning for prayer (dictionary.com) would be: 1. a devout petition to God or an object of worship, 2. a spiritual communion with God or an object of worship, as in supplication, thanksgiving, adoration, or confession. However, for many, the first definition conjures up images of an anthropomorphic God outside of us, which many in Christian and New Thought circles have transcended, and viewed as somewhat primitive. This could be why some folks have a problem with the concept of praying to a God outside us. Perhaps, this makes them feel separate and apart from God. And the point of prayer for them is communion, establishing connection with God. It is possible in this modern society, that people desire more closeness, even oneness with God, not more separateness.

The second definition “a spiritual communion” sounds more like what Charles Fillmore, co-founder of Unity, states in the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (534-535). It defines prayer as “communion between God and man.” He goes on to say that we “turn our attention within to the very center of our being, where the Father dwells.” (Father, meaning God) Further down, it reads, “Here is the recognition of the all-inclusiveness and completeness of Divine Mind (God). Everything has its sustenance from this one source…” By focusing on God within, this definition points to a sense of completeness, regardless of what the prayer concern is. Many folks practicing this type of affirmative prayer may favor it because of the union or oneness they sense and perhaps because this is what has proven to be effective and fulfilling in their lives. Whether it’s meditation, contemplative prayers, intercessory or whatever kind of prayer a person prefers, there is probably a reason the person prefers it. Perhaps he or she experiences the assurance, connectedness, or peace he or she desires and finds. Why else would they spend time doing it?

Jesus taught extensively on prayer in the Gospels and many have interpreted those teachings in different ways.  It is a question of interpretation as far as what anyone will take from these teachings and how they will apply them. In Matt 6:6, Jesus says “But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” Some people take this to mean going within your heart and shutting out the world or external mind chatter; but then right in the same sentence it says “pray to,” which some people take to mean you’re praying to a God outside yourself.  Is Jesus saying to go to God within?

This question is almost like saying how do you prefer to get clean, by taking a shower or taking a bath? If God is indeed infinite, omnipresence, omniscience, then whether you direct the prayer within, up, or out, there would be contact. Right? How could you miss if God is there whenever and wherever you pray? Since God can be considered Transcendent and Immanent, it would seem to leave us with our options open to access God either way. Effective prayer that gives the sense of union and is infused with faith, sincerity and receptivity of the heart, earnestness, could be experienced either way. You get to choose.

Spiritual but not Religious

This catchy phrase has been circulating quite a few years now.  For some reason, I could not bring myself to buy the bumper sticker ("spiritual but not religious") after church. I guess I wasn’t quite settled on the phrase. When I first heard of this phrase at the church I was attending a few years ago, I originally thought it was the result of a Pew study about America’s church-going habits (but I can’t locate the study right now).  Then I found it was also stemming from the results of a branding study done for Unity[1], which I decided to review when this topic came up in class.  There were a high percentage (62%) of external survey respondents who were no longer associated with the religion of their childhood.  They still considered themselves to be spiritual, i.e., meaning they still valued connection to God, but not with all the trappings or the same ritualistic practices they might have experienced as they were growing up under in their parents’ household. I think my church’s marketing team thought this phrase “spiritual but not religious” would attract people to Unity and implied that if someone wanted to come back to having a spiritual connection, Unity would be an option to consider. It sounded like a good intellectual approach.

What I felt cautious about (and still do) is that the very same folks in the “spiritual but not religious” bunch, can end up being just as dogmatic and religious as what they’re claiming to distinguish themselves from. When I think of it now, Unity can indeed be considered religious, according to the definition (a set of beliefs and practices); we do the same things weekly like sing the peace song, read the Daily Word, a meditation, prayer, take up offerings, sing, and the minister speaks…and most of the time all of this is in the same order each week (have you ever tried changing it?) There are certain things, however, I do like about those practices, particularly the message they carry about wholeness, abundance, Oneness, etc. It’s no longer so much about adhering to dogma and creed for me; I have room and freedom to grow and explore in an atmosphere of love in Unity. So, basically, I guess maybe the phrase spiritual but not religious does not work for me. We are religious with aspect to doing a set of practices. However, religion has a negative connotation for a lot of people because of past experiences, and it seems that's what the phrase was trying to play upon.

Interestingly, the external respondents to the branding survey said this about memories and feeling about “church” as they recalled early exposure to “Christianity”-- repeatedly, certain words came up considered to be negative, i.e., fear/fear-based, hypocritical, boring, judgmental, guilt/guilt-based, strict, dogmatic, and manipulative. I tend to think that if people come into any church, including Unity, and see these characteristics, they will probably not stay for long. Apparently, if people were raised in a strict atmosphere, they are looking for a change from that. Positive words from early memories include family, community, love, liked Sunday School, fun, music, safe/safety.

Where I find myself today (in Unity) is because I was not running from a religious experience necessarily but was always looking for deeper experience, meaningful connection with God, i.e, spirituality. I’ve learned to focus more on what I’m for rather than what I’m against. When I frame my decisions in terms of what is calling to me in my heart, it makes more sense (head and heart-wise) and I get more peace within myself for what my soul is calling for.  I feel like I eventually outgrew each church that I had attended over the years, and my soul just knew I was open for the next experience. Somehow, I have just trusted I would be led (it must be my love of Psalm 23; I believe I will be led) to a spiritual community that teaches how to live and practice the teachings of Jesus. Just so happens, again referring to the survey of externals (people outside of Unity), they saw ---“Spiritual social action, such as feeding the homeless, building Habitat for Humanity houses or other community service”[2] as the top appealing feature for a Unity church/Center. Could it be that culturally, the tide is turning or has turned toward more and more people who want to experience a deeper spiritual connection with God AND their fellow man AND also practice, really practice, their religion in a tangible fashion via spiritual social action?

---

[1] BrandSolutions, January 2010 Unity Branding Research Results, Freeland, WA, 2009

[2] BrandSolutions, January 2010 Unity Branding Research Results, Freeland, WA, 2009

How Shall We Believe?

What gave Jesus His authority? Will we ever have that kind of certainty? How and when?

When I read the accounts of Jesus’ ministry, it seems that by the time he really matured into the ministry to which we have visibility through the Gospels that he has done his homework. By homework, I mean really emerged himself in the Hebrew Scriptures, since childhood even, which was the customary in his time and in his community. When you are raised in a tradition from childhood, you are handed a set of beliefs before you can even rationalize them for yourself. It would have been easy to just take that and run with it.

 Forgive me if this sounds funny, but I wonder if he have relatives all around him grooming him, telling him his mission, and who he was. Did they sit around at dinner and tell him, “You know, Jesus, our people have been waiting on you for centuries. You can’t go out and play - - you need to study, go to temple, and hit the books to learn what the prophets have said and be about your Father’s business.” We don’t know; there is little written about Jesus’ childhood, but to me it sounds like he was raised as any Jewish boy in the community would have been raised, which seemed normal or typical for them in that particular time period. We do have the account in Luke 2:41 that tells us how Jesus’ family made a trip to the temple and as they left on their way back home, Jesus was missing. He was still in the temple, showing that he was given to studying the scriptures, laying the groundwork. So he had a foundation, a framework from which to operate, if you will, and a tradition and knew them well. Traditionalism, that is, “just going along because this is the way we’ve always done it,” did not trap him, however. There seemed to have been some initiative on his part to “get lost” and stay in the temple. He read and knew the scriptures, but he also observed what was going on around him. How did Jesus know what he knew? I think he definitely put the time in.

 We don’t hear about the rebellious teenager part. God forbid! You mean Jesus was a rebellious teenager? If ever there was an archetype, I would venture to say this is one. We still see them today. Yeah, us. I thought my story was unique until I got to seminary and kept hearing almost the same story. Something happens (around junior high, high school, then college) and the answers we’ve been given over and over in the religion of our childhood just don’t jive any more. Many of us go off to college and our families pray we don’t stray. We still believe, but we start to experience life on our own, to reason, to question, and try to untangle and sort out exactly what we do believe! How shall we believe? That is now up to us. Do you think this questioning might have happened within Jesus as he matured through those adolescent years? Was his life experience beginning to show something other than what he saw in scripture, maybe?

In Dr. Thomas Shepherd’s Glimpses of Truth, Chapter 3 – How Do I Know What’s True, he discusses pragmatic idealism and ways to test our religious ideas. From reading the Gospel accounts, it appears Jesus seemed to have had the full package. By that I mean, an epistemology that seemed to have the ingredients of “scripture, tradition, experience, and both intellectual and intuitive Reason.” All four Gospels convey to me that Jesus was indeed out in everyday life in and about the towns and the temple observing whether or not the ideas were working for him or his people; he was also constantly in dialogue and encounters with all types of people in the communities, including the Pharisees and Sadducees; and his healing ministry was holistic, not just relieving physical ailments but genuinely caring about the whole person. I believe he began to see for himself as many of us do - - does our religion ring true and measure up to the kingdom of God - - do we even meet our own standards of what we think that is? I believe if we wrestle with these ideas as Jesus did on the mountain praying all night, or whatever it takes, we too can come down to the real-life world and feed the multitudes. Just think, the Master Teacher said we’d do greater things than he.