Oh, What a Twisted Tale We Weave

As nearly as I can tell, Jesus’ mission was to empower the powerless. He accomplished this by elevating the low-esteemed to the position of equality in terms of how all of us are “seen” by our Creator. This is gospel. This is good news, but more so to the poor and lowly than to the rich and powerful. I am intrigued by how the early Church managed to put its own spin on the meaning of Jesus’ crucifixion. Instead of regarding it as a violent attempt by the elite to silence some wild-eyed humanitarian that was starting to stir the masses (which I think it was), an elaborate formula of salvation and atonement was cast upon the Christ, quite leaving the human Jesus hanging from the cross. Traditional Christianity asserts that Jesus’ death upon the cross was ordained by God as the means of redeeming humankind from itself. That’s quite a contrast, don’t you think? For a long time now I have believed that today’s Christian Right would be quicker to crucify Jesus of Nazareth than their Pharisaic and Sadducean counterparts of two-thousand years ago. Those who covet power over others have no need of the revelation that “all men are created equal”; indeed, they have very good reasons for wanting to subvert and corrupt such a message. Too early on, those who were instrumental in developing the Church were susceptible to the temptations of being in charge, of being in control, and of seeing themselves as superior to the rest. And so it is that the Christian Church may well have evolved into the antichrist that it hypocritically rails against today.

Zacheus Was a Wee Little Man

It doesn’t seem to me unreasonable to say that what most people know of scripture and tradition—of faith and spirituality—comes to them from organized religion. The Bible for Christians is an excellent case in point. What either is collecting dust in some homes or being devoutly studied in others is a carefully edited (canonized) compilation of religious and theological thought that has been developed over millennia. But always there has been a group of “deciders” that have determined what stays in and what gets tossed. Using the justification that this is the “will of God” gives these people an air of indisputable power which is enhanced by the introduction of esoteric ordination that separates these from the commoners. Would Moses, Vishnu, Buddha, Mohammed or Jesus be worthy of lifting up if they were just ordinary human beings? Would priests, shamans, or ministers have any particular authority over the masses without the capacity to intermediate? All this is to say that what we received as developing children was carefully calculated to in some way maintain control and power by some over others. There is a reason, I think, why the human Jesus of Nazareth had to be replaced by the supernatural Christ: Jesus’ message that all are equal in the sight of God is dangerous and threatening to those who have elected themselves to the “chosen” few. This would be good cause for despair, except that those living right now are the beneficiaries of insights into the human Jesus that generations before us have been denied. So, on your next break from the computer, run down to the bookstore (I know, I know, you can do it on amazon.com) and pick up a copy of the Gospel of Thomas. It didn’t make the original cut, but from here on we can discover together a truer picture of the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Prince of Peace, the man Jesus of Nazareth.

I Swear Upon a Stack of Bibles

Let’s pretend that Scripture somewhere says, “Two plus two shall equal five.” Let’s go further, then, to suppose that somewhere in the New Testament it says, “Yea, not I, but the Lord Jesus Christ says, 'Two plus two absolutely and undeniably equals five.'” In what position would literalists find themselves? It could be reasonably expected that at least two schools of thought would emerge. There would be those who, because their belief is in scripture as the inerrant word of God, would challenge the science of mathematics by insisting that if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost says that two plus two equals five, then it must be true in spite of all the evidence against it. There then would be those who, because of their belief in the universal truth of science, would say that religion is for idiots and continue merrily on their empirical way.

Of course the Bible contains no such passages, but nearly all of the faith traditions of the world have developed some form of written communication to convey what is thought to be Truth. It has been observed that taken out of context, text becomes pretext. Someone would literally have to have her/his head in the sand to not realize that religion is profoundly impacting the peoples of the globe, and so I no longer see it as a viable solution to pretend that the problem will go away if ignored. Rather than insisting that truth is as Christians, Jews, or Moslems define it, the way of the Christ is to ascertain the universal Truth that will set all of God’s children free.

What's That For?

There’s a new addition to my 08/23/07 entry. I’m forever wondering how to make Incite more interactive, and I ran an idea past Rachel and Steve. Voila! There appeared an opportunity to indicate agreement or disagreement. “With what?” asked Mary. Not knowing that the implementation was going to be so timely, I hadn’t really couched my comments in such a way as to elicit a meaningful ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Actually, when Rachel responded with instructions for how to add my brainstorm to the conclusion of each post I decided that life was just too short. I realize that I should not be striving for response. Many people whose opinions I respect have told me that I leave them speechless and that the thought of commenting is simply too intimidating. I know that I should be grateful for this gentle way of telling me to just be satisfied that I am free to publish my thoughts each day and to get over wanting any response. I know that this is the way that it should be, but my insecurities just won’t let me get rid of that feeling that I prefer dialogue to monologue. So, just for kicks, let’s say that the polling is for the purpose of determining who agrees or disagrees with the statement that “Christ” was not Jesus’ surname. Whee! Let the intercourse begin!

Jesus the what?

Let me begin by stating the obvious: Christ is/was not Jesus of Nazareth’s surname. If Joseph accepted responsibility for being Jesus’ earthly father—as the gospels claim—then in the custom of the times it would have been Jesus bar Joseph (Jesus, son of Joseph). The label of distinction given Jesus by the early church comes from the Latin Christus, which was derived from the Greek khristos which meant “the anointed” (from khriein "to rub, anoint”). It has been explained to me that this usage evolved because the early gospels were written in Greek which really had no good translation for the Hebrew mashiah (messiah), which when translated literally came out to be something like “Jesus, the oily head”. In other words, when we make reference to Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ we are making a messianic attribution. Now, are you still thinking that the Old Testament (more accurately referred to as the Hebrew scriptures) isn’t necessary reading? It may be all well and good to accept the antichrist as antithetical to the Christ, but what the heck is really meant by Christ? I don’t observe many “Christians” wrestling with this question, but then it has been observed that ignorance is bliss (which may turn out to be different than genuine salvation). Have a nice weekend, and, oh, don’t forget the Sabbath!

Christianity = antichrist?

Main Entry: in·cite
Pronunciation: in-'sIt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·cit·ed; in·cit·ing
Etymology: Middle French inciter, from Latin incitare, from in- + citare to put in motion -- more at CITE: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on- in·cit·ant /-'sI-t&nt/ noun- in·cite·ment /-'sIt-m&nt/ noun- in·cit·er noun

Yesterday, I demonstrated to my own satisfaction that this blog is misnamed. I need to consult my blog gurus (Rachel and Steve) to determine what a more appropriate title might be: comatose?

I have proven that I can write whatever I want with impunity. Bush is the antichrist. Christianity is the antichrist. I am the antichrist. I incite nothing.

Father, forgive me, for I know not what I am doing. Amen.

Let Me Please Introduce Myself

An abiding temptation for me is to covet the intellectual rights of others. I have a dream, too, but Martin Luther King, Jr. beat me to making his public. So, too, has Philip Yancey described The Jesus I Never Knew in his book of the same name. Although our interpretations of Jesus differ greatly, I am envious of his title that I would have liked to use to encompass these daily snippets of my regard for—and understanding of—the Nazarene. Now that I have at least given credit where it is due, I can go ahead and surmise that the Jesus of whom I try to be a disciple may be quite different than the one you learned about in Sunday school.

This brings me to my ultimate heresy. Although I have done my best to stir the waters with my reasoning that Bush et al are the current manifestation of the antichrist, there is a much older, pervasive presence of the antichrist which appeared almost simultaneously with the historical Jesus: the Church! I’m not sure that I would have ever been able to see this had I not dissociated myself from the church some five years ago. While it was the painful end to what I perceived as the fulfillment of my calling to surrender my credentials, the separation has enabled me to look much more objectively at the dogma and doctrine of Christianity. As I proceed to expose what I have learned from my studies of Jesus, I invite my readers to examine what they know of him and where their ideas came from. We may discover together that we have been deceived and misled from the get go!

This Does Not Compute

Here is a conflict that I do not know how to resolve. One vein of spiritual thought focuses upon the wondrous miracle of Creation by cultivating an existential sense of awe and reverence. Another focus, however, is upon the apocalyptic destruction of everything in order to make way for a new (and improved?) creation. What greatly puzzles me is how these two opposites manage to coexist in homogenized theologies that end up arguing against themselves. Yes, God’s Creation is a thing of beauty to be cherished and revered at all times. But, God’s Creation has become so corrupt and perverse that the only cure is to wipe it all out and start over again. Since this becomes a piece of theological cake that you can’t have and still eat, one is left with having to choose between them. My study of Jesus has not revealed that he had much—if anything—to say about the eschaton, the end of time. Again, the apocalypticism of Scripture has emerged from other sources of interpretation, but I cannot find that Jesus was ever one of them. Jesus’ gospel is not one of future events but is rather about the imminence of God’s presence in our lives. This is a fundamental difference of opinion, and its affect upon worldview is profound because it is quite apparent that those whose faith is placed in a future replacement are not going to be interested in working on solutions for the present. Which worldview do we want in control of the red button in the Oval Office?

Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!

Incite was “dark” yesterday (I just love thespian terminology) because I had the opportunity to eat lunch with my lovely wife who was in the neighborhood complying with her civic duty to respond to a jury summons. After spending an afternoon of not being allowed to do anything but read the books she had brought with her, she was released without being seated.

My remarks today are prompted by the notification I just received from “upstairs” that I am required to—once again—be fingerprinted, a process that I have already been through for two law enforcement agencies, an NASD registration, the privilege of driving a school bus, and part of the screening for my current employment. What has the FBI done with all those perfectly fine fingerprints I’ve already submitted? This is the question I asked my union steward who replied that it’s all part of Homeland Security and that, even though disturbed by the requirement, the union is helpless to do anything about it. Really?

This is not totally unrelated to the thoughts I’ve been sharing about Jesus, Christianity, the antichrist, etc. A theme that runs throughout Judeo-Christian scriptures is, “fear not; be not afraid.” It is in this context, then, that I assert that the current fear tactics generated by the government, ala Bush, are antithetical to the millennia-old faith which it purports to condone. While it is true that I have nothing to hide, and that in this instance just one more set of prints will be added to my file somewhere, it is truly an invasion of my privacy for no other reason than to perpetuate the atmosphere of fear that the antichrist generates in order to feed upon it.

What’s next? The division I work for routinely takes DNA swabs to establish paternity. Is the day coming that Homeland Security will deem a genetic test to be more useful than fingerprints? And will We the People passively acquiesce in order to “prove” that we are patriotic? A great evil is at work in our land, my friends, and I’m beginning to think that it’s time we do something about it.

Don't Get Mad, Get Even!

I sometimes give Mary a hard time about my being happy when she’s happy, but there’s a lot of truth to it. If I’m doing something that makes her unhappy, even if I suppose that what I’m doing makes me happy, my exclusion of her feelings robs any happiness I might be seeking of its authenticity. On the other hand, if I’m doing something that makes her happy, the genuine happiness I derive from hers far outweighs any indulgence of my own selfishness. From the butterfly effect to string theory, cosmological web-of-life worldviews all emphasize the importance of maintaining a dynamic balance of self and other. In my studies of Jesus and the religion that evolved in his name, I have come to understand his Christological revelation to human consciousness to be that true happiness is composed of self and other. This insight is the common denominator of all the great religions and faith traditions of the world: the ethic of mutual reciprocity. Simply put, the Golden Rule of doing to others as you would have them do to you.

I have accused the Bush Administration of being the antichrist, and while it is not alone in its immoral and evil actions it does perfectly illustrate why I feel justified in making such a judgment. The evangelical Christian question, “What would Jesus do?” has profound implications when applied to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Go to your own Bible and look up Jesus’ take on “an eye for an eye.” So, terrorists strike. The Bush Administration retaliates in kind and then goes on to escalate it to an imperialistic preemptive attack and occupation. While piously pronouncing that God has ordained him President, Bush manipulates the Christian Right with claims of a rigorous prayer life that supposedly guides his actions. Bullshit! Even a literal interpretation of Scripture cannot reconcile such atrocities with the way of the Christ. And is anyone happy? I daresay not! Our warring world still awaits a genuinely Christ-like response—not of retaliation—but of mutual reciprocity.

Why Bother?

“Lord, I want to be like Jesus in my heart.” The old spiritual gets right to the point. Having a week to relax and reflect led me to ask, what difference does it make, anyway? Why waste my time and that of my readers trying to cut through all the layers of tradition in an attempt to discover the real Jesus? Albert Schweitzer and others have already done a masterful job of revealing the historical Jesus, so what am I hoping to add?

I am quite convinced that as our species evolves, unique and original ideas become increasingly rare. Contemporary humans are more and more left to variations on themes that have already been composed, while the genuinely new discoveries are as likely as not corporate. Therefore, I must accept that I have nothing new to offer, only my personal insight.

What intrigues me about Jesus is that he was able to communicate a promise: We can live in harmony with our Creator and in so doing know true happiness. I cannot think of anyone who does not want to be happy. The quest for happiness appears to be common to all people. The evidence is overwhelming, however, that very few of us ever achieve genuine happiness. My guess is that this is because we don’t know what true happiness actually is, and because we don’t we chronically fall short of the mark by pursuing mirages of what we think happiness should be.

Was Jesus a happy man? I don’t know. I like to think that he was. If he knew the formula for authentic happiness, this would help to explain the strong, charismatic attraction that drew others to him. It also helps to refocus our attention on what he had to say rather than all the things that have been said for him since. It may still be possible to realize peace on Earth and goodwill to all humankind if we choose to discover in the Christ serious happiness.

Love Him or Hate Him?

Remember Yasser Arafat? I mention him because my guess is that this leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization bore a stronger resemblance to the human Jesus of Nazareth than most of the iconoclastic imagery that has evolved over the last two millennia, particularly the Aryan revisionism. In other words, try to imagine a feisty little Jew from Palestine agitating and irritating the rich and powerful, and you may begin to see a different Jesus than the one that was presented to you in Sunday school. Now, I know what comfort there is in the squeaky-clean, spotless robed, clean-and-combed, manicured version of the Savior, but it unfortunately probably isn’t consistent with reality. This really need concern only those who profess to be Christian, and by that I mean those who claim to be disciples of Jesus as the Christ. But for those who do, there is a genuine dilemma about which Jesus they think they are following: the sanitized superman created by a developing religion, or the itinerate Nazarene preacher who chose fishermen and tax collectors to be his friends and students.

I’m taking off next week to visit Mom and Kim and her family, so I may not get many entries posted (especially if I can’t get the Word program in my laptop to cooperate better than it did on our trip earlier this summer to Lincoln). That’s why I thought I would just toss out the controversial (oh, that it could be considered inciting; better yet, insightful) notion that we need to think a little more carefully before we go shouting around that we love Jesus. He might have been someone that we would detest. History informs us such was the case for the majority of his contemporaries.

Consider This Man Dangerous!

Jesus was a dangerous man! At least this is how he was perceived by the establishment—both the Roman Empire and the Jewish Temple. So what made this prophet of love and peace so threatening? I think it must have been his message that the middleman isn’t necessary. Jesus went directly to the Man, and his radical message by example was that anyone else could (or still can) do the same. Jesus didn’t need the Temple priest to connect with God. Jesus didn’t seek the permission of the ruling authority to go straight to the top (a weak metaphor theologically). Jesus was in complete communion with his Creator, and the good news he preached was that this relationship was available to everyone regardless of gender, creed or color. A contemporary scenario might go something like this: George W. Bush believes that he has been instructed by God to wage war on the Iraqis, and because he is President makes it so. But along comes Nobody who just as sincerely believes that God has communicated to her/him that violence of any kind is immoral. Or, the Pope believes that he has been instructed by God to keep women out of the priesthood. Again, along comes Nobody who proclaims that God has communicated to her/him that exclusion of anyone from the Body of Christ is immoral. The revelation of the Christ is one of equality, and such insight is heresy to those who covet power. Who was this Jesus to proclaim that the reign of God is imminent? Even a casual review of the gospels will reveal that this was the question being asked by the powers of his time, and why Jesus was considered so dangerous that he had to be eliminated. Jesus’ demeanor may have been meek and mild, but his gospel continues to turn the world of the pseudo-powerful upside down.