To the Shores of Sure

 

Within the isolation of their remote land,
from inside the work of their silent meditations,
each sage had apprehended a light the night sky,
a light indeed so singular and so great that 

the light of ordinary day seemed dim.

This light appeared
in the person of a star,
speaking and singing,
brightening and ringing,
inviting the seers on a journey
to a distant land
to see the birth
of a baby of light.

So, out of the land of Un-Sure,
the seers went forth,
guided, fed and nurtured
by this amazing star.

Having finally arrived, they found
a humble stable,
a humble couple,
and humble witnesses
to a humble birth
of new light.

The seers bestowed
what gifts they had to give
to mark the occasion,
to bless the child,
this newborn star,
burning brightly
at his mother’s breast.

This bright star
—the embodied ancient of days:
maker-father;
wisdom-mother;
innovator-child—
then proclaimed:

All that has been,
All that is now,
All that will be
has waited for this new light,
which a light that lights 

beyond the brightness and clarity
of even the visible light.

Know that this light is always present:
within every person
there is a cave of mysteries,
the fresh and fragrant wellspring
of this inimitable light.

You are the light of the world!
How so ever you see the star
shows you in a role
as light embodied,
and in a form appropriate
to this and every moment,

Your inner light is not about
worship self-served in apathy,
but about discernment to
action in service to others.

Every person with a love of learning,
take heed of this truth:
the divided house cannot stand;
what can divide light?
Only darkness.

Yet glorious light pools everywhere;
there is no place untouched by this light,
very light of very light,
begotten, not made,
meant to bring an end to all mysteries
with the simple truth that
we are, all and each,
light for each other,
to lighten the world.

Therefore, the time of waiting is past;
it is time to rise from your dreams.

 

Awaken and go forth
to fulfill your light in the world,
that you may overflow
with benevolence and peace,
blessing all along your way
for all your days.

Thus, having blessed the light
and having been blessed by the light,
having heard the homily of light,
the seers returned home,
—ever after known as the Shores of Sure—
to live out their calling in service.

© 2023 by Elisabeth T. Eliassen & songsofasouljourney.blogspot.com

NOTES and COMMENTARY: This bit of writing (perhaps a work in progress) is my odd sort of commentary on a pseudepigraphical writing known as the Revelation of the Magi, extant in the form of an 8^th century manuscript in Syriac, preserved in the Vatican Library (Biblioteca apostolica, syr. 162) that may have a 5^th century antecedent in another language. This is an interesting hash of a tale that contains, among other things, the suggestion that the magi are twelve descendants of Seth in a distant land of Shir, who received stories or texts from Adam about “the fall;” a visitation from a polymorphous star being; a journey to see the birth of the baby; anointing of the sages and their return to the land of Shir from which they came; the arrival of Judas Thomas to the land of Shir to preach in summation to the sages.

A few lines stood out to me, when I read the translation of the text in Brent Landau’s dissertation on the work. “And you will see the completion of all the mysteries in Jerusalem, and everything that was spoken with you will become true for you,” is spoken by the star prior to the journey. “Therefore, rise and go in peace to your light-receiving land, because you have been deemed worthy to receive the perfect light of the heavenly majesty, and to come worship it with your gifts in joy. Behold, you have completed everything that you were commanded by your fathers, and you have also been deemed worthy to know and learn the ancient hidden mysteries, which were written for you from the first generations. Now, behold, you have seen the completion of your mysteries…” The star child sums things up, “And it was not in vain that you were created in the world, and heaven and earth and all the worlds came into being for your sake.”  

Meta-message to me: Clarifying light makes an end to all mysteries.

//

Religion, like politics and philosophy, is about governance. 

Ideally, the best kind of governance is self-governance.

Practically speaking, the only kind of governance is self-governance. 

Sages, seers and prophets suggest a self-governance that is inspired by awe in and duty toward a universal, parent-like deity. The christian writings that purport to record the teachings of Jesus have been eclipsed by redactions, sectarian battles over interpretation, apologias that strive to turn the hero into a god from before all time, and provide colliding sacred and secular visions of the best way to control the masses in conservative hierarchical fashion, so that an elite small group wields (hopefully benign) power and metes out a meager sort of justice (when it suits).

Millennia of competing religions behaving badly, in sectarian Technicolor, has had the effect of tossing out the holy child with the dirty bath-water of political corruption, most often reflected as authoritarianism that goes against all practical realities of self-governance. 

In the canonical gospels and within other texts that record what Jesus was apparently saying and teaching, the message is unequivocal that if you believe in the god of Mosaic law then you must self-govern in a way that serves others simultaneously with self. This is what is meant by righteousness and equity. This is what communion is all about. Jesus was talking about oppressed people turning the tables and rethinking their lot by understanding themselves as having a critical, on-the-ground and irreplaceable role in community. Religion stomps this message right out, countering with a top-down authoritarian model that states people can’t possibly be good, god should strike you down because of that, but Jesus took it for Team Sin, so that you don’t have to self-govern or be accountable. But then, because of that, you can’t have a say or a role beyond following a series of hollow leaders, doing what you are told, paying up your money and taking your chances.

If there is truth in all of this god-talk, it lies in the message that we are each a unique occurrence of light in the world; this means we have something to live up to and live for, through ethical self-governance that serves community and eschews the kind of personal power that is destructive and greedy. Self governance does not mean self-serving; it means an economy of duty to others, as well as self. Duty is best accomplished out of necessity, and more so by choice. We have not one, but many roles to fulfill for ourselves and for others; this is the significance of the polymorphic star-child. Living in a state of holiness and grace is living in the faith that your best efforts will be met by those of others, and that this is aided and blessed by the workings of the Divine Unseen. 

This is the Epiphany I have received from a lifetime of readings in and meditations on religion, philosophy and history, and I share it heartily with you. 

May you receive many blessings on your journey, and share your light with the world.

//

Revelations of the Magi: The Lost Tale of the Wise Men’s Journey to Bethlehem, © 2010 by Brent Christopher Landau, Harper Collins NY

Image: Gentile da Fabriano, Adoration of the Magi, 1423, tempera on panel, 283 x 300 cm (Uffizi Gallery, Florence)

Magic versus Magical Thinking, a Practical Guide (Part 1): Of Recipes, Rites and Action

 

In the beginning, when people were evolving, power was present in the place where one found oneself—by power, I mean the inherent dangers of a place, such as raging waters, sheer cliffs, and roaming gigantic flesh eating creatures. Survival, in such places, came to be seen as a certain sort of blessing, and the people who seemed to have better survival tools (or rather who seemed to make better choices) came to be revered. Some of those revered people, when asked to what they attributed their success at overcoming adversity, might have said something like, “I owe it to the benevolent spirit of the place,” by which they might have meant that they had learned by experience, trial and error, how to make good choices in a hostile environment. Indeed, some people are better suited to survival in certain places than others, and this can only be the result of an education by experience that teaches a type of discernment when it comes to making choices, especially when the unexpected happens. Such people, when they die, become the stuff of legends, and sometimes the legends of such people become so famous, they are turned into demi-gods.

Another scenario related to hero worship is the worship of forces of nature, such as water, air, fire, quaking earth, and the like, seen and unseen. Survival of the fittest when it comes to forces of nature is also an aspect of the power of place, where the unexpected happening can limit or endanger chances of survival.

Yet another scenario related to worship is the reverence of any thing or being that produces food. In such a scenario, corn is reverenced, wheat is reverenced, cows are reverenced, and so forth.

I will say that none of these models of reverence is inherently incorrect; these are all valid examples of reverence and respect. With reverence and respect to the powers of place, to the life-giving powers of food produced in the natural world, to exemplars of right discernment and choice, one is able to learn from past example, build on that with innovation, and survive, even to the point of producing offspring that carry the species forward in time toward newer innovation.

I will now identify an aspect of these primitive forms of reverence that I believe to be incorrect: magic.

This is not to say that magic and magical moments do not exist or that they are irrelevant. Magic is very real; it may be the most real thing there is. Magic goes back to the power of place and the power of the unexpected. Magic is an experience, an awesome and unexpected result. The error comes when people believe they can recreate a magical experience by performing a litany of rites, instead of living and experiencing, learning. The error occurs when people do not, as the heroic exemplars of the past did (or may have done), use and build on the knowledge acquired through experiences of surviving the powers of place and the unexpected to make choices, then accept responsibility for inauspicious outcomes. 

Simply put, one person’s choice might work for someone else, but this is not necessarily the case, and is most often not. In the words of a song Doris Day sang, but hated:

“Que sera, sera

Whatever will be, will be

The future's not ours to see

Que sera, sera

What will be, will be

Que sera, sera.”

The Great British Bake Off television series delivers a concrete example of what I am talking about. At some point, all the participants are given the same recipe to prepare. Amazingly, the results are different for every single participant. Why? They are all using the same ingredients in the same weather conditions, with roughly identical equipment. Why is it that the results can be so different?

Recipes (receipts, in old style) are scientific formulae from the realm of the practical cook. Someone made a tasty dish and invited friends to dinner. The friends really enjoyed the dish and wanted to recreate it in their own homes, so they asked for the receipt, which was a list of ingredients, most often, including a sketchy explanation of how the ingredients were to be combined. The cook had been preparing the dish for so long, it was second nature, and they figured another (experienced) cook would know what was intended.

Here is a recipe from “Good Things to Eat as Suggested by Rufus [Estes]”:

Mushroom Sauce, Italian Style—(for macaroni, spaghetti, ravioli and rice)—a small piece of butter about the size of an egg. One or two onions, cut very small. About two pounds of beef. Let all brown. Prepare as you would pot roast. Add Italian dried mushrooms, soaked overnight in hot water, chopped in small pieces. Add about one-half can of tomatoes. Let all cook well. Salt and pepper to taste. Add a little flour to thicken. 

The beef, is it cubed or a slab of meat? Small, medium or large onions; yellow or red? What quantity of dried mushrooms? What size can of tomatoes are we talking about? Do you know how to make pot roast? Is this done in the oven or on the stovetop? What sized pot to use? Any added liquid, or do the tomatoes suffice? At what temperature? For how long?

The experienced, practical (that is, practicing) cook can take that receipt, procure the ingredients, and turn them into a delicious meal. In the hands of others, “results may vary.” And that is the truth of the matter, results do vary; life is not cast by lots, nor can the turn of a card predict outcomes—that is magical thinking. 

That’s all for now. Not sure when the next installment will be, but I can say that it will have something to do with praxis, religion, reason and governance.

Dividing Division

Once to ev'ry man and nation comes the moment to decide,


In the strife of truth and falsehood, for the good or evil side;


Some great cause, some great decision, off'ring each the bloom or blight, 


And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.

~ James Russell Lowell

Within the past week, I was reminded of this text by my friend Suzanne, who said of it “If we get beyond the obvious sexist language, there is a pointed message for every believer, a call to social decision and activism, even if our efforts do not end well. It is a powerful, discomforting hymn, and seems very apt for this moment.” A few days later, this same friend made the following observation: “Some of my Christian friends believe that Christianity is under attack. It is. From itself.”

Humanity, in general, and the United States particularly, has not been in such upheaval since the H1N1 pandemic of 1917-19, which was on the heels of WWI. The uncoordinated response of our civic leaders in the United States could be addressed here, but that is part of a larger discussion I’ll save for another time. What I find profoundly disturbing is the poor example set by mainstream christian church leaders, particularly of the mega-church variety, in how to address the pandemic – to the point, pastors seem to prefer large maskless, in-person crowds, rather than the safer live-stream or even pre-recorded services.

When some congregants are challenged with regard to going about maskless, they claim this is self-determined choice made “in faith,” adhering to “the will of God.” Pastor Tony Spell, of Life Tabernacle Church in Baton Rouge, LA, was quoted in the Washington Post as saying “We feel we are being persecuted for the faith by being told to close our doors.” I’ve seen posts on Facebook – and have actually heard regular church-going people say in public – that being forced to wear a mask is (1) an act of “faithlessness”, (2) “surrendering to fear” and (2) “an assault on my constitutional rights.” In a letter to the editor of a newspaper, one writer declared, “If we fall in love with Jesus, God will heal our land.” 

Interestingly, citizens of the United States wrestled with these same issues during that H1N1 pandemic of one hundred years ago. Unfortunately, average citizens of the nation today don’t seem to have learned much in a hundred years about how to deal with the threat of viruses, despite all of our scientific advances. But, what seems worse is that great masses of citizens have not learned, in all that time, that self-determination and secular freedom cannot overrule public health orders, and neither can they overcome a virus. A virus is not an idea. You can’t argue with a virus. A virus is not a terrorist plot. A virus has no religion. If faith was indeed the medicine needed to eradicate the threat, I feel sure that the virus would have been eradicated in an instant, or maybe never have presented, at all. That the virus is still rampant means that people need to engage whatever critical thinking ability they might have, look for real solutions, follow advice from epidemiologists and act responsibly in public settings. A virus is not a political tool, but the presence of this one is certainly being used to polarize the masses, to profit from suffering, and to sow doubt and fear. 

The attitudes recently displayed in my greater community, the disdain for rules imposed on the religious and non-religious alike, have made me think long and hard about my dealings with the general public and my understanding of my faith, and how frequently my understanding seems at odds with what I see acted out in public, particularly by those who identify as faithful christians. In the past few weeks, I've realized that I have thought on these matters much over the years.

I think it started in the 1970s when, as a youth, I remember being disturbed when I noticed Ichthys (fish) signs appearing in the windows of businesses in the town where I lived. Even as a naive youth, I felt there was something off, something fundamentally wrong with this. The signs seemed to telegraph the message, “we cater to Christians.” This seemed to me to go completely against the teaching of Jesus, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” This seemed to me to go completely against the teaching of Paul from Galatians 3, where he says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Time has marched on since then. Today, it sometimes seems to me that the greater mainstream modern christian mission is intent on a type of control that is anything but reflective of that fruit of the spirit, listed in Galatians 5, self-control. The mission is now about mass control of the public and the marketplaces, dictating what people can be and do, as well as what they can't. Those christians that engage in exercising this control at the political level are using secular freedoms and contortions of the law as tools to accomplish these goals. Such goals have nothing to do with being responsible, honoring freedom, human rights, individual personhood or – do I have to say it? – with honoring God. These goals have been lobbied long and hard the halls of our local municipalities and state capitols, and now they seem to have been installed at the very pinnacle of our government, through a figurehead who is anything but godly. 

A political minority is now in the process of reversing decades of modern human progress. Biblical scriptures are being used to return America to the way it was a hundred years ago or more, to deepen systemic racism and implicit bias, to allow the “free” market to tell us what we need (and deliver it at the highest cost to any people on the face of the earth), to dictate what people can do with their bodies (without offering public support for the policies imposed), to tell people how they must define their personhood, and at times suspending their rights. Scripture is being used to divide and rule. People are being told on the one hand that their lives are self-determined (via their Constitutional rights) and on the other that they must live by faith (via their religion). That “results may vary” is beside the point; if you don’t succeed, it’s surely because you lack faith or don’t work hard enough. 

But it is patently incorrect that the church universal is a “by faith only” institution. For one thing, the exercise of religion by faith alone is fatalistic, is it not? Declaring all circumstances and situations to be “God’s will” is asserting that results (good or bad) are inevitable. This is not what scripture is intended to teach; if this were the case, we might as well bury our heads in the sand and give up. But if Jesus taught anything, it is that we must never give up, especially not in the face of hardship. 

All that I have said above is merely a prelude for what I will do next, which is to unpack a portion of Mathew, Chapter 10, from my understanding of it. [And I apologize if it seems like I am leaping around; but all that is written in this essay seems related and cohesive to me.] In this section of Matthew, Jesus has empowered the disciples to heal and has commissioned them to go, first, into the Jewish communities to preach and heal. They have been told not take anything with them, to seek the hospitality only of those willing to offer it. Jesus tells them to use their judgment and inner wisdom in their encounters. Then he says, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword,” and then he enumerates a list of “divisions.”

Of all the passages in this complex gospel, I have considered this one much over the years. For a long time, I thought this uncharacteristic of Jesus. But over time I have come to a different way of thinking. What has Jesus been preaching, since Chapter 4? “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” For Jesus, the kingdom of God is here, but people are not living it—for myriad reasons, but primarily because their hearts and vision are not properly aligned with a few vital truths. Predominant among these truths is that social equity is mandated within the kingdom; no one is better than anyone else, or worse—unless they act in a way that does not respect the rule of law and the individual. 

When Jesus talks about dividing people from family or other groups, I’m fairly certain he is talking about separating people from ways of thinking and understanding that have been promulgated by custom and culture, ways of being that are rote, formulaic, even work-around rather than genuine, practical or direct. What specific results of this cleaving are possible? I believe the cleaving intended to separate people from ideas of caste and class, wealth and poverty, strength and weakness, so that individuals are understood based on who they are and how they act, rather than based on an assigned label, to be treated formulaically according to some custom or rule. 

The first time we hear “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” it is delivered (in Chapter 3) by John the Baptist. John’s message is no less violent than when Jesus talks about bringing a sword, but the resulting message is the same. “Bring forth fruit worthy of repentance.. Even now the axe is laid on the root of the trees; therefore, every tree which does not bring forth good fruit will be cast into the fire.”

After years of thinking about these passages, the meaning that they hold for me now seems so uncomplicated. John and Jesus sought to divide us from the delusion of division.

To divide us from divisions, what could that mean? Well, I think that is about making us whole, healing us for the work of the kingdom. What is kingdom of God like in such a case? It is a place – even a political system – where everyone has personhood, place, and role, where every challenge and need is appropriately met, at a shared cost. As Martin Buber wrote in I and Thou , “All real living is meeting.”

And so, I return to the sentiments expressed by James Russell Lowell, from whose longer poem, entitled “Verses Suggested by the Present Crisis” (published in the Boston Courier on December 11, 1845) the hymn text quoted above is derived. A later verse proclaims:

We see dimly in the Present what is small and what is great,


Slow of faith how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate,


But the soul is still oracular; amid the market's din,


List the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within,

—
"They enslave their children's children who make compromise with sin."

 And still later in the poem:

They have rights who dare maintain them; we are traitors to our sires,

Smothering in their holy ashes Freedom's new-lit altar-fires;

Shall we make their creed our jailor?  Shall we, in our haste to slay,

From the tombs of the old prophets steal the funeral lamps away

To light up the martyr-fagots round the prophets of today?

And with these thoughts, I conclude by proclaiming that the sword continues to be wielded, “the soul is still oracular,” and “the kingdom is at hand.”  I hope that mainstream christianity will find its way out of the wilderness it has created for itself and for all of us.

I personally believe that every moment is alive for new and thoughtful choices, always ready for healthy repentance and renewal, if one will allow oneself to be divided from division.

But, please, do not be divided from your facemask, at least until the pestilence is gone.

© 2020 by Elisabeth T. Eliassen and songsofasouljourney.blogspot.com

The Origins of the Universal Themes of our Lives

All words are built upon all words.

The above quote is mine, oft repeated to my children during their formative years.

How do I come by this statement, and what does it mean?

When I was a child, I received a special Christmas gift from my great uncle. It was a collection of Greek myths, vetted for the young reader. I read that book over and over, until the page corners were all dog-eared and soft as leather When I later read the library many of us call “The Holy Bible,” I was struck by thematic similarities in the stories. The Bible even contains duplications of stories, each version with a slight difference—and I could also see thematic similarities between Greek mythology and Scripture. What could be more similar than the theme of the hero surviving multiple trials? And what could be more true of everylife?

And yet, through the ensuing years, I realized that these collections of literature were held in academic silos, never being truly and honestly held up to the same scrutiny and academic rigor, much less honest comparison. Mythological literature was studied in one way, “sacred” literature in another.

Justice, I had been taught via the church, is what one trusts a supernatural being will bring about…

And yet… and yet…

So, what do I believe? 

Well, I’ve been thinking about this for a long time. I’ve been reading in this vein—well, actually in two veins simultaneously—all my life long. I do not proclaim to be an expert in ancient literature, but I have read a lot of books on the subject(s), and I would have to say that there are blind spots, many blind spots, in our general education on matters mythological and spiritual.

I currently believe that the academic approach with regard to early introduction to Greek literature is a worthy endeavor. This provides a good start to presenting our common life themes. 

Yes, the subject runs into the world of the sacred, or the immortal, and we, being mere mortals, can hardly be expected to understand the unseen.

However, my personal experience of comparative mythology and comparative religious literature (as a non-classics scholar, a non-seminarian) has shown me a stark truth that the average person is all too willing to overlook: Mythology and Scripture share a role in presenting all the universal themes that occur in mortal life. While the ideas of the ancient Greeks do not seem to hold sway in modern times, truly the epic nature of life enjoys all the drama that can be found in Greek literature—and Biblical epic.

So many people are prepared to believe and have faith in a being that acts proxy or go between, an intermediary between this world and the sacred, unseen.

What do I mean to suggest with that outrageous statement? 

Well, first of all, the epic nature of Greek mythology and Biblio-sacramental literature is not all that different. The relationships that can be found between each of these sets of literature are by no means confined to these sets or generations, as the relationships reach back to earlier literatures, even to the earliest examples of Western literature. 

All of our history of literature is comprised of and built on clear and similar themes with variations; similar narratives as viewed through, sometimes, different lenses, and/or offered with different motives—frequently to explain what has just happened or to explain far distant historical events, or perhaps indicate the future.

The homework on all of this, by the way, has been done by bone fide scholars—and not just recently—but the results have largely been ignored, if not scoffed; previous work of classicists on ancient literature and its common themes has been ignored by Biblical scholars, to the detriment, I think, of all followers of Judeo-Christian faith. Christians, in particular, do not realize they err and even sin with regard to what they falsely believe is exceptionalwith regard to their faith. The average Christian is, I have found, frightfully ignorantof the context of writings they will quote by chapter and verse and claim to live by. Moreover, they are ignorant of how many innocent people have died throughout the centuries, so that they could wallow in their false sense of exceptionalism. In many cases, the Gospel message has been excised completely from their consciousness, if not twisted out all sense. [Contrast this with Thomas Jefferson’s exercise in recreating the New Testament by extracting everything outside the Gospel message, with the goal to bring that into harsh focus.]

If one looks critically at all the extant ancient literature available, one can see a very important and universalset of moral themes. The just person, the ethical person, must be an exemplar of hospitality to other. The only way that one be such is to examine and evaluate self, with an eye to self-improvement and, if need be, self-healing. The Greeks are purported to have invented journaling as a tool to self-knowing and self-improvement; this is an admirable technology still practiced in modern times. But the modern public has become disconnected with intent of this tool, just as it has become disconnected from the universality of themes contained in its world literature.

I propose that the universal themes within our ancient literature point to something vital and true: The Human Species is one single race, albeit divided politically, divided regionally, divided in so many natural and unnatural ways.

If this is indeed the case, then we are all meant to have a role in the lives of those in our community, with all the best of intent. Perhaps social justice, ancient and modern, is about insuring that we are capable of being the hero in our own lives, that our personal heroism in the face of trial is supported in the community, that our individual heroism has a role in supporting the community.

I know I will write about this more, but what I set here is enough, for now.

My wish for you in 2020 and beyond: Be the hero of your story and ours; be the light and love of mindfulness, generosity and thoughtfulness, ethical action and sustainability that makes a difference in your community; may health and prosperity visit you, your friends and family, and the ever widening spirals of your acquaintance; and may the abundance, blessings and beauty of this world be upon you, to uplift you as you shine your light! 

Priesthood or Discipleship? Where does authority truly lie?

One of the news items this week had me thinking, once again, about the programmed failure of organized religion to be equitable to all people. The pastor at small Roman Catholic parish in San Francisco has declared that girls will no longer be allowed to serve at the altar. The reason given is that serving at the altar is the first step toward becoming a priest, and since women can’t become priests, that role must naturally be reserved for boys. The Archbishop of the local Diocese allowed this decision to stand.

[Before I continue, I want to be clear that I am not a Roman Catholic, but belong to a Protestant denomination. I am a practicing Christian, but I constantly question doctrines and practices, believing that many of them are completely in error and beside the point.]

To my understanding, the person of Jesus showed himself to be a radical against the actions of the Temple priesthood. If you really read the canonical gospels, you see that Jesus conveys, in his actions and words, the notion that such hierarchical “management” schemes really only serve to allow a small group of people to control a large group of people (and money), and that the taking of such authority mostly leads toward a sense of entitlement and corruption among the “management class,” not toward justice or service or the addressing of need. More importantly, Jesus sees that the apathy of those who are not in power (all those who are disempowered or outcast) leads them to emulate bad behaviors or actions exhibited by those in control.

Said differently, many average people create and maintain a corrupt status quo by following the example of those in authority. When Jesus spoke to people, he was not interested in hearing about complaints or excuses. He seemed interested in the “what are you going to do about it?” part of any discussion. Whenever he was asked to do something or say something, to judge or to decide, to a great extent, he more often than not eschewed arbiter roles, preferring that people engage in their own problem solving, rather than allowing “the system” to offer the last word. As we know only too well from experience, when we leave anything “to the system,” the results tend to be unsatisfactory.

This is why I think Jesus was not pointing to a new kind of priesthood, but rather advocating for a discipleship of personal engagement and responsibility—even activism. Outcasts were assigned their status on whose authority? If the only authority and judge is a deity, then how can any temporal court make such a determination? Will healing and recovery take place? Will social justice be served? Or is this just a way of dismissing all who are deemed unsavory? These are the sorts of discussions Jesus attempted with his disciples. I rather think he expected such discussions to lead to affirmative action within his community. When affirmative action was not forthcoming, he would resort to “healing” people. He encouraged self-healing and renewed personal esteem.

When Jesus left the scene, things returned to more of the same old same old, all of which hinged (and still does to this day) on “authority.” Who had the authority and who didn’t? Was this to be a dynastic succession or a hierarchical elect? Yes, yes, the disciples were told… Peter and Paul… Stephen… James… someone was left in charge... but what actually happened? Why does “the Church” work in a way that is so different from what Jesus did and said while he was alive?

All we know is what has come down to us: the priesthood “after the order of Melchizedek.” However it was that this came about, whose ever bright idea it was, this is the foundation on which the Christian religion was built. And it is, I believe, in error. The error was made and exists primarily in order to establish and maintain an authority to control people, as well as to lend credence to all those people who have claimed such authority. This method of organization does not reflect what Jesus was teaching, and I am convinced Jesus would think much of what goes on today, under his authority and in his name, is sacrilegious.

If you think about it for a minute, you see that our entire frame of reference around what can be known is built on all that has been known before. College students are asked to express original thoughts, but only if they hang on some previous authority (hence, the need for footnote after footnote, reference after reference, and a pile of book titles). This is how we “prove” our knowledge and our thinking: we read what is out there and then we bring forth our own notions about it, but we must cite authority in order to make our claim.

This may be part of what happened to the early Christian community. Unfortunately, the original message got lost in a power struggle. How this happened, we will never know for certain, but what is clearer to see is that hierarchical power is involved, resulting in control over the masses. Constantine’s adoption of Christianity was purely in order to gain authority, control, money and conformity from a growing group of people. You could even say assurance of complicity was part of the bargain.

A more appropriate way to view the message of Jesus is through the window of the 20^th century Platonist philosopher, Iris Murdoch. Her book title “The Sovereignty of Good” is a kind of summation of what we should have ended up with. What might that look like? Sabbath meetings in which all were welcome, and all who came were fed; studies of Torah and how it could be applied to current community issues; presiders would be different each week, so all could experience and learn benign leadership; discussion of people and their needs, including ideas about how those could be addressed, who would volunteer to help, what could be given now. That is how I would characterize the Work of the People, the Sovereignty of Good.

Instead, what we see from the Roman tradition that has come down to us is an intercessory leadership. A priest is there to order or lend authority and to be an intermediary between an individual and God. In that role, the priest has the power to make rules, to demand obedience, oaths, confession and contrition, and to exact payment for wrongs done. Note: I am being simplistic in this to the purpose of illustrating how far away this is what Jesus presented.

Jesus told people to do the right thing, even if that meant going against a law or an authority figure. Doing the right thing, he suggested from within his understanding of Torah, is what God would want at all times. Doing the right thing is a happier way, a moral way, a peaceful way, the way of righteousness.

I further put it to you that one of the things Jesus did was overthrow the notion that a priesthood was required to lead people to righteousness. Priesthood demands obedience; discipleship requires personal will and action. Those who adhere only to obedience are liable to abdicate their personal responsibility and their will. I am sure that is not what Jesus meant for his followers; certainly, the gospel texts do not convey that message to me. I am convinced, for example, that the passage “render under Caesar what is Caesar’s; render unto God what is God’s” is a direct call to honor the best practices set out in Torah—merely following temporal laws alone is not sufficient to fulfill the commandment, “love thy neighbor.“

To honor Caesar, you must follow temporal laws; to honor God, you must have the will to be responsible, to honor and support all people in all ways, every day.

The author of the letter to the Hebrews declared Jesus to be a priest "after the order of Melchizedek." The person of Melchizedek figures very abruptly in, then disappears altogether (!) from Genesis; but for a mention in one Psalm. The reference from Genesis in the letter to the Hebrews is used to lend authority to the notion of Jesus as High Priest. The name Melchizedek means Righteous King, and he comes from Salem, which means Peace--clearly, this is highly metaphorical passage, intended to lend authority to people in the situation described in Genesis: a shift in dynastic leadership polity from the sons of Aaron to the sons of Abraham.

By contrast, Jesus calls us each to be responsible for our actions, and all responsible to one another—that each person's service to another is a sacrifice and a blessing that results in equity and peace. Neither gender, nor station in life, has anything to do with service or social responsibility, righteousness or godly love. These are all things self-governed, and will-propelled, by love, not ordered by a priest. That is discipleship.

It is too bad “the Church” lost that memo… It is working so hard at the wrong sort of corporate compliance.

Of course, I went through all of this just so I could make the observation that it certainly is most backward and unproductive, if not also decidedly unJesus-like to deny girls the opportunity to serve in fellowship. If the call was to serve, then all should.

Meditations on Institutional Dilemmas

Religion is all about promoting ethical action. Government is all about promoting justice.

Or are they?

Senior clerics in Iran criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for consoling Hugo Chavez’s mother with a light embrace at the state funeral for the deceased leader; physical contact between unrelated men and women considered sinful according to current Islamic codes of behavior.

Prominent Cardinals are now in Vatican City participating in the conclave that will select a new Pope. Several of these Cardinals have been implicated in covering up child abuse scandals, or financial or other improprieties—yet they do not recuse themselves from participation in the conclave that will select the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kansas, has actively protested against homosexuality, abortion, Judaisim and Islam, and Roman Catholicism, and hosts of other things. Protest is one thing; hate-filled vitriol being poured out as free speech is another.

Here’s the thing: Religion is intended to guide people toward ethical interaction. Government is supposed to insure justice. What is all too apparent is that the humans who lead these institutions are not always following the intent that has been laid out in the scriptures or laws they are supposed to be stewarding.

This leads the average person to confront a huge moral dilemma: Follow institutional interdiction just because someone at the head office says so, or do what is right and just despite the interdiction.

The real-world results of this dilemma create a huge psychological mess, not to mention a whole lot of civil litigation. We are all riding two horses, at various times. It is a world-class case of cognitive dissonance of crowds!

Hillel the Elder is quoted in the Talmud as having said “What is hateful to you, do not do to another”, and likewise, the second century Rabbi Akiva cites Leviticus 19:18 as the greatest commandment in Jewish doctrine: "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”  The Christian Gospel message of Jesus is “Love thy Neighbor as thyself.” The Quran clearly defines moral standards in Chapter 17:22-37, and Islamic jurists of the Middle Ages introduced many modern seeming civil rights concepts and freedoms, even for women, that have appeared in constitutional law during the past two hundred years.

That rights and freedoms are restricted, that “neighbors” are infringed upon and excluded, that civil rights are not being upheld for all individuals, such are amoral and unethical actions, and yet is so transparently visible among those who have been assigned moral authority.

When the institutions have been hollowed out by immoral and unethical authoritarians, who act contrary to the standards they are meant to uphold, what is the “believer” to do?

The case of the Pussy Riot punk rock group and its public political protest against the cult of Vladimir Putin and his governmental repression on Russia, particularly from the standpoint of women’s issues, from within the sanctuary of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow is very interesting. The Putin regime has been befriended and supported by the Russian Orthodox Church. In support of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Putin regime has suppressed and restricted Protestants, despite the fact that the post-Communist Russian constitution allows freedom of religion. Protestant churches have been closed, with charges of spying or money laundering or other impropriety; Protestant denominations have been labeled “cults” and have been spoken against by church leaders in media. Democracy is not being demonstrated in such actions, and neither is Christian charity. Good old-fashioned authoritarianism is apparently alive and well in Russia, but not only in Russia.

What is an ethical person to do when the authorities are corrupt? Does corruption irreparably taint the institution? What happens when good people follow bad leaders and false precepts?

I do not have an answer for you. If I had an answer for you, I would not want you to follow it.

You must follow what your own heart and mind tell you, what your connection to the Divine speaks in you or your sense of what is right tells you.

I can tell you that I long ago answered that question for myself, and the answer is illustrated by the following story from the Buddhist tradition.

Once there were two monks traveling when they arrived at a river. At the river they discovered a woman struggling to get across. Without a second thought, the older of the two monks asked the woman if she needed help, then swiftly picked her up and carried her across to the other bank.

For Buddhist monks, especially in ancient times, any contact with the opposite sex would be strongly frowned upon, if not forbidden. The actions of the older monk greatly troubled the younger monk, who allowed his feelings to fester for several miles, as they continued their journey.

Finally, the younger monk confronted the older monk, "How could you have done such a thing? We are not even supposed to be in a woman's presence, but you touched her, carried her even!"

The older monk calmly replied, "I put that woman down miles ago, back at the river. But you are still carrying her."

The younger monk realized the older monk was indeed correct and they continued on their journey.

Thoughts on International Women’s Day

Today is International Woman’s Day. This is not a day I celebrate; it is a reminder to me that, while “Baby” (Wow! Remember that patronizing Virginia Slims ad slogan?) has come a long way, there is still a huge distance that needs to be crossed before there is anything remotely like equality among genders, let along among races. This kind of recognition day seems a hollow sort of political lip service, not a day of genuine respect and honor.

Here is brief rundown of a few of recent international news items that prove the dream of gender equality and mutual respect is still a dream:

•  Todd Aikin, former republican member of the House of Representative, serving Missouri’s second district declares that women who are “legitimately raped” do not get pregnant.
• A female medical student in South Delhi is gang raped, her male companion beaten. This woman died of her injuries. In Delhi, incidents of rape are reported to authorities every two hours.
• Rainer Bruderle, a pro-business Free Democrat in Germany reportedly commented how well one female journalist could “fill out a dirndl.”
• An Indonesian high-court judge, interviewing for a position on the Indonesian Supreme Court, suggested that women might "enjoy" being raped. (He did not get the appointment he sought.)
• A Vatican assessment found that The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, whose members represent 80% of Catholic nuns in the United States, have fallen under the sway of radical feminism and needed to hand control of their group over to a trio of bishops.
• Malala, twelve-years-old student and education activist from Pakistan is shot in the head.
• Ireland has only just acknowledged and officially apologized for governmental complicity in consigning women who had been labeled as “fallen women” to prison-style laundries run by Catholic nuns, where they labored for no pay. More than 10,000 women worked in 10 laundries from 1922 to 1996.
• Medical research tends to focus on male research subjects.

I could report more, but I think that is unnecessary. Women of today, if they are allowed to work, earn between 20% and 30% less than men for the same work. Women are frequently denied reproductive, as well as other, health choices and resources. There are governments and religions that do not allow women to work outside the home, to receive education, to show their faces in public, to be seen in the company of men other than male relatives. The women are told that these policies are made out of respect for them, that men were made to serve women; however, if disputes occur where there is a woman involved, it is always alleged to be the fault and responsibility of the woman, and the woman is made to suffer abuse and punishment at the hands of spouse or other male family members that is either condoned or ignored by officials. Millions of women and their children, worldwide are endangered by domestic abuse, war, trafficking, slavery, pollution, political and financial inequity.

The celebration of the beauty, strength and bravery of women should happen everyday. Likewise, men need to be celebrated, too. I am grateful for the many women in my life, starting with my own mother, who have shaped me as a person by being strong role models, pioneers and trail blazers. And I am grateful for men who have been role models, pioneers and trail blazers.

I would rather see all such recognition days fade away into the kind of world community that offers mutual respect as a primary motivating force within a Commonwealth of Humanity.