During a conversation with my daughter, the mother of two of
my young grandsons, she told me that she was thinking about
the place of religion in the life of her family. As a parent, in a religiously divided family, I had allowed a huge gap to develop in this space for my children, a fact that has caused me personal guilt for a long time. I decided to seize this opportunity to at least try to do something constructive in this space and wrote this paper.
There are times, as you get older, when you feel a desire to examine what you really believe. It is quite easy, with family and friends and similarly curious people, to do that about subjects like politics, fitness, culture, investments and finance. Religion, however, is an entirely new frontier with respect to the thought and intimacy you must bring to the subject – and perhaps, even courage.
What is this part of life called religion? Why do people get so anxious about this subject? What role can religion play in your life? Can historical context promote understanding? Is there religion without faith? This paper searches for some answers.
There are times, as you get older, when you feel a desire to examine what you really believe. It is quite easy, with family and friends and similarly curious people, to do that about subjects like politics, fitness, culture, investments and finance. Religion, however, is an entirely new frontier with respect to the thought and intimacy you must bring to the subject – and perhaps, even courage.
What is this part of life called religion? Why do people get so anxious about this subject? What role can religion play in your life? Can historical context promote understanding? Is there religion without faith? This paper searches for some answers.
A little anecdotal personal history
Religion has always been a deep part of my life. I am 72 years
old as I write. I was brought up in the Catholic Christian faith – Roman Catholic to be specific. Nuns taught me until I was fourteen years old. I was an alter boy, helping to serve the Mass, since I was in the fifth grade. Jesuit priests were my teachers for four years of high school. Other religions were 2 foreign to me as a child. I was taught that the Roman Catholic Church was the one true religion.
The Church, indeed, was at best antagonistic to other religions. I was also told that I could not read certain books which presented ideas contrary to Catholic thinking, this under pain of sin. This applied to movies as well. The secular world was largely unknown to me. I emerged from a very Catholic Loyola High School, entered USC and immediately joined a fraternity. It was a cultural shock. Pakistan was easier to handle, four years later during an overseas assignment, than was the 1961 secular culture of USC.
My Catholic education did not promote understanding and thinking, at least not that I can remember. It taught doctrine, rules, and dogma and simply demanded that I believe, question none of it, and risk living in sin if I chose to do otherwise. I learned about hell at the same time I learned about love – and it seems, a lot more about hell.
In other words, I was a pretty normal Catholic grammar school boy, circa 1950s, as near as I can gather.
But, there was enough about love, enough that was beautiful, that I never lost the connection with the Church. The Church had been in my life since birth. My mother was deeply religious. The Church was family. It wasn’t something I chose. Like family, there was both love and anger. I have always been a deeply loyal person and that trait affected how I regarded my, sometimes, dysfunctional relationship with the Church.
As time went on, about when I entered graduate school at age 22, I became deeply hungry for more information. For me, if I were to gain a greater understanding about religion, and even about my Church, I was going to need to do it largely on my own. I recall reading a book, The American Catholic Dilemma, where the author addressed the conflict inherent in being an intellectual and also a Catholic. It was a struggle. (Years later, while on an active Army assignment, I befriended a Catholic Chaplain who personally knew the author of this book. He told me that the author had left the faith.)
During my youth I had developed a deep attachment to Jesus – His story and His love. Like for so many others, the connection grew from the story and from witnessing how much good had been done in His name. This propelled me somewhat. Somehow, regular attendance at Catholic Mass stuck with me, first as an obligation, and later as an event that morally centered me once or more a week and provided a regular period of time for reflection and thanks.
Some time in my thirties, I tired of the Sunday morning homilies (talks). I started bringing a copy of the New Testament to mass, one which I had possessed since high school, and began reading. In reality, I had never really read the New Testament and had mostly listened to the interpretations of teachers. This was like a first encounter. Much of what I now read genuinely surprised me. I came to realize that I knew nothing and what I had previously thought I had known, or tried to read, wasn’t close to the mark. I discovered the mystery of these books. This was really the start of the journey.
I have explored my religion, and many other religions, through books, articles and occasional conversations for at least the past fifty years. I became deeply interested in what history had to offer. I wanted to know where this all came from and what was at its core. I have no idea how many books or articles I have read on the subject – 200? 500? Many more? I read much of the Quran when I lived in Pakistan in my early twenties. I explored the Hindu culture at the same time and later read books on the Buddha. I read deeply scholarly books and also very light touching books. One of the most impactful reads was a magazine article, in the Atlantic many years ago, setting out the conceptual structure for a study of the “historical Jesus.” The historical Jesus! What does history say? Where is the history to be found? Also, the author of that article introduced me to the theologian, Hans Kung.
My life has been one of goodness and of sin. I regret the sin and I am thankful that it has also included good works. I credit myself with knowing the difference between the two and always trying to improve. But, I have also been weak. However, I do not believe that you must be a saint to write a statement about religion. In fact, I rather think you might be better off being a sinner. I feel well qualified.
During my life, there have been many things about Catholic teachings and laws that have deeply troubled me. Some things simply did not make sense to me or seem very helpful. These feelings applied equally to other religions and also to those proclaiming the religion of non- religion.
I evolved to a belief that I had a moral obligation to figure it out for me. The Catholic Church called me a cafeteria Catholic – that I picked and chose at my convenience – rather than embracing it all, as I was told to do. I rejected that belief as both insulting and unfair. Rather, I believed that perhaps I had an obligation to myself to find the right way by integrating what Catholicism gave me with the best of what the rest of the world gave me. I would just need to figure out where that journey of learning and understanding would take me. The journey goes on!
As I said above: this is my take, on this date, in this year. Perhaps it will stimulate thought and individual investigation.
The Church, indeed, was at best antagonistic to other religions. I was also told that I could not read certain books which presented ideas contrary to Catholic thinking, this under pain of sin. This applied to movies as well. The secular world was largely unknown to me. I emerged from a very Catholic Loyola High School, entered USC and immediately joined a fraternity. It was a cultural shock. Pakistan was easier to handle, four years later during an overseas assignment, than was the 1961 secular culture of USC.
My Catholic education did not promote understanding and thinking, at least not that I can remember. It taught doctrine, rules, and dogma and simply demanded that I believe, question none of it, and risk living in sin if I chose to do otherwise. I learned about hell at the same time I learned about love – and it seems, a lot more about hell.
In other words, I was a pretty normal Catholic grammar school boy, circa 1950s, as near as I can gather.
But, there was enough about love, enough that was beautiful, that I never lost the connection with the Church. The Church had been in my life since birth. My mother was deeply religious. The Church was family. It wasn’t something I chose. Like family, there was both love and anger. I have always been a deeply loyal person and that trait affected how I regarded my, sometimes, dysfunctional relationship with the Church.
As time went on, about when I entered graduate school at age 22, I became deeply hungry for more information. For me, if I were to gain a greater understanding about religion, and even about my Church, I was going to need to do it largely on my own. I recall reading a book, The American Catholic Dilemma, where the author addressed the conflict inherent in being an intellectual and also a Catholic. It was a struggle. (Years later, while on an active Army assignment, I befriended a Catholic Chaplain who personally knew the author of this book. He told me that the author had left the faith.)
During my youth I had developed a deep attachment to Jesus – His story and His love. Like for so many others, the connection grew from the story and from witnessing how much good had been done in His name. This propelled me somewhat. Somehow, regular attendance at Catholic Mass stuck with me, first as an obligation, and later as an event that morally centered me once or more a week and provided a regular period of time for reflection and thanks.
Some time in my thirties, I tired of the Sunday morning homilies (talks). I started bringing a copy of the New Testament to mass, one which I had possessed since high school, and began reading. In reality, I had never really read the New Testament and had mostly listened to the interpretations of teachers. This was like a first encounter. Much of what I now read genuinely surprised me. I came to realize that I knew nothing and what I had previously thought I had known, or tried to read, wasn’t close to the mark. I discovered the mystery of these books. This was really the start of the journey.
I have explored my religion, and many other religions, through books, articles and occasional conversations for at least the past fifty years. I became deeply interested in what history had to offer. I wanted to know where this all came from and what was at its core. I have no idea how many books or articles I have read on the subject – 200? 500? Many more? I read much of the Quran when I lived in Pakistan in my early twenties. I explored the Hindu culture at the same time and later read books on the Buddha. I read deeply scholarly books and also very light touching books. One of the most impactful reads was a magazine article, in the Atlantic many years ago, setting out the conceptual structure for a study of the “historical Jesus.” The historical Jesus! What does history say? Where is the history to be found? Also, the author of that article introduced me to the theologian, Hans Kung.
My life has been one of goodness and of sin. I regret the sin and I am thankful that it has also included good works. I credit myself with knowing the difference between the two and always trying to improve. But, I have also been weak. However, I do not believe that you must be a saint to write a statement about religion. In fact, I rather think you might be better off being a sinner. I feel well qualified.
During my life, there have been many things about Catholic teachings and laws that have deeply troubled me. Some things simply did not make sense to me or seem very helpful. These feelings applied equally to other religions and also to those proclaiming the religion of non- religion.
I evolved to a belief that I had a moral obligation to figure it out for me. The Catholic Church called me a cafeteria Catholic – that I picked and chose at my convenience – rather than embracing it all, as I was told to do. I rejected that belief as both insulting and unfair. Rather, I believed that perhaps I had an obligation to myself to find the right way by integrating what Catholicism gave me with the best of what the rest of the world gave me. I would just need to figure out where that journey of learning and understanding would take me. The journey goes on!
As I said above: this is my take, on this date, in this year. Perhaps it will stimulate thought and individual investigation.
An approach
I have organized this essay into several parts. I started with
subjects that seemed easy to discuss and advanced to those
that were more challenging. How odd that it was easier to
discuss God than to examine the Catholic Church.
I have started with reflections on a code of conduct.
I have then attempted to give you my sense of God, as outrageous as it might seem that someone would dare to do that. (You see what I mean? No one makes excuses for giving you their take on finances, social conventions, fitness, or politics. But, on religion? On God?)
Then, I have moved on to religion. In this case, I cannot even pretend to dabble in all major religions. So, after showing appropriate respect, the remaining parts of the essay deal with the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
I proceed to the point in time where Judaism clashes with the message of Jesus Christ. This clash gives birth to Christianity. It is the first decade, A.D.
I then focus on Jesus because, without an understanding of Jesus there is no understanding of Christianity.
I then take up the first century of Christian thinking because the core of Christianity is found at that time. The normal, predictable corruption of man has still not arrived.
After that, we will look at the development of the Christian Church until it reached a state of relative peacefulness with its external environment and an early stage of formalized beliefs – all of this in the fourth Century. Now not persecuted, it moved on to persecute, both other Christians, and also non-Christians, particularly Jews.
Then, because I am curious about the development of the Roman Catholic Church, we will follow the historical path as long as necessary.
I have been affected by many books, but especially, deeply affected by the writings of Hans Kung, a Catholic theologian and historian without peer, in my mind. I have read at least eight of his books. I quite freely draw from them in this essay, and virtually all of the unattributed quotes are from Kung’s writings. He is quite controversial within Catholic Church circles. Almost all historical facts are drawn from a Hans Kung book, Christianity: Essence, History, and Future. His book, On Being a Christian, opened me to the study of the “historical” Jesus. Many times I have not even put his words in quotes. If I am stating a fact, I got it from somewhere.
A lot of work went into this essay. My goal was to make it as rigorous as possible. This is not an easy read. My goal has not been to describe a belief structure that one might adopt, or quickly reject; but rather, to try to describe how people have gone about developing their beliefs, and the context thereof, so that the reader can figure out some things for herself.
So, here goes.
I have started with reflections on a code of conduct.
I have then attempted to give you my sense of God, as outrageous as it might seem that someone would dare to do that. (You see what I mean? No one makes excuses for giving you their take on finances, social conventions, fitness, or politics. But, on religion? On God?)
Then, I have moved on to religion. In this case, I cannot even pretend to dabble in all major religions. So, after showing appropriate respect, the remaining parts of the essay deal with the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
I proceed to the point in time where Judaism clashes with the message of Jesus Christ. This clash gives birth to Christianity. It is the first decade, A.D.
I then focus on Jesus because, without an understanding of Jesus there is no understanding of Christianity.
I then take up the first century of Christian thinking because the core of Christianity is found at that time. The normal, predictable corruption of man has still not arrived.
After that, we will look at the development of the Christian Church until it reached a state of relative peacefulness with its external environment and an early stage of formalized beliefs – all of this in the fourth Century. Now not persecuted, it moved on to persecute, both other Christians, and also non-Christians, particularly Jews.
Then, because I am curious about the development of the Roman Catholic Church, we will follow the historical path as long as necessary.
I have been affected by many books, but especially, deeply affected by the writings of Hans Kung, a Catholic theologian and historian without peer, in my mind. I have read at least eight of his books. I quite freely draw from them in this essay, and virtually all of the unattributed quotes are from Kung’s writings. He is quite controversial within Catholic Church circles. Almost all historical facts are drawn from a Hans Kung book, Christianity: Essence, History, and Future. His book, On Being a Christian, opened me to the study of the “historical” Jesus. Many times I have not even put his words in quotes. If I am stating a fact, I got it from somewhere.
A lot of work went into this essay. My goal was to make it as rigorous as possible. This is not an easy read. My goal has not been to describe a belief structure that one might adopt, or quickly reject; but rather, to try to describe how people have gone about developing their beliefs, and the context thereof, so that the reader can figure out some things for herself.
So, here goes.
Core Morality: Is there a universal consensus?
Perhaps any discussion of religion must start here. Any parent might be attracted to a religion as a supporting element in the profound parental responsibility of developing a core morality within their children and also a sense of ethics. Put another way, while an individual, for whatever reason, might reject religion, this decision does not allow the individual a free pass to reject a moral standard. Moral standards and civilized society are inextricably connected.
For thousands of years, the core element has been the Ten Commandments. The first four of these are difficult for some people because they deal with the primacy of God: worship only God, and one God. (The roots of monotheism.) No idols before God. No taking the Lord’s name in vain. Worship God on the Sabbath. The fifth commands that you honor your mother and father. The remaining five are at the core of the laws of most nation states: don’t kill, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, nor covet the things of your neighbor, be it his home, his possessions, or his wife.
Jesus did not alter these commands. Rather, He put them into perspective. He challenged people to think deeply about each. But, when asked to summarize which commandments were most important he answered: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. These, He said, were the greatest commandments.
Like Christianity, the core of Islam is also built on the foundation of the Ten Commandments.
I have never come across a genuinely alternative ethic. For example, the movies people love are almost always about some act of goodness or nobility. There are evil people in this world but I have never encountered a contrarian ethic or morality that was the foundation of anything permanent.
Some very deep thinkers have taken a stab at modernizing the core to put it into words that fit the 21 st Century. Among the chroniclers of such thinking is Hans Kung, who will reemerge in this note a number of times. Kung has written dozens of books and is nearing the end of his life. One of his more recent books is titled, What I Believe – truly a treasure of first-rate thinking.
I will give you a little background on him so that you might appreciate his thinking. He is Swiss, and is an ordained Catholic priest. He is a world-renowned theologian. He has also had many profound disputes with the Catholic hierarchy. He was an influential participant in Vatican II, the counsel set up by Pope John the XXIII, in 1962, to reopen the Catholic Church and deeply examine what was right, and what was wrong, with the Church. (I was 20 years old and, like most Catholics, was very aware of the importance of the Council. It was a big deal.)
Kung is a master of all major religions and has been a consistent force for re-integration of the world’s religions. He is as ecumenical as they come.
Drawing from years of work, and from many studies, conferences, and papers, and influential conferences within the United Nations family, Kung has gathered together these observations about morality and summarized this collective thinking, as follows:
Finally, Kung has beliefs that are even more challenging because they address how one puts these principles into practice. He says, every individual and every institution has a fourfold responsibility:
These, I believe, are the core principles and they are humbling. This is why we are all sinners at one time or another because each of us has failed to live up to these standards – some of us more than others. But, these are the standards. If one dares to become a great person, to improve and grow, one can measure his progress, or correct her behavior, against these standards. There are people who do not follow this model. They want to be measured against their wealth or other worldly achievements. There are people who find it too hard to guide their life with this code, and simply disregard it. But, I have found no evidence in my life that moving away from these principles enhances a person’s chance of experiencing happiness, real self-actualization, fulfillment, contentment, stability, or peace.
Perhaps it all starts, as Kung argues, with a person having a trust in life – that is, that life is meaningful, purposeful, important; as opposed to nihilism – that is, that life is meaningless, not important, and has no real purpose. Putting your trust into a meaningful life is greatly enhanced by having a design specification for such a life. Throughout the ages, the design architecture for a good life has always been there, needing only to be applied to the task at hand.
Hence, if you are weighing a consideration about religion and the role it might play in your life, it probably starts with some very serious thinking about your core ethic. If you buy into the universal standard, then you may feel free to ask yourself: will a religion help me, and my family, pursue this standard; and if the answer is yes, which religion helps me best?
For thousands of years, the core element has been the Ten Commandments. The first four of these are difficult for some people because they deal with the primacy of God: worship only God, and one God. (The roots of monotheism.) No idols before God. No taking the Lord’s name in vain. Worship God on the Sabbath. The fifth commands that you honor your mother and father. The remaining five are at the core of the laws of most nation states: don’t kill, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, nor covet the things of your neighbor, be it his home, his possessions, or his wife.
Jesus did not alter these commands. Rather, He put them into perspective. He challenged people to think deeply about each. But, when asked to summarize which commandments were most important he answered: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. These, He said, were the greatest commandments.
Like Christianity, the core of Islam is also built on the foundation of the Ten Commandments.
I have never come across a genuinely alternative ethic. For example, the movies people love are almost always about some act of goodness or nobility. There are evil people in this world but I have never encountered a contrarian ethic or morality that was the foundation of anything permanent.
Some very deep thinkers have taken a stab at modernizing the core to put it into words that fit the 21 st Century. Among the chroniclers of such thinking is Hans Kung, who will reemerge in this note a number of times. Kung has written dozens of books and is nearing the end of his life. One of his more recent books is titled, What I Believe – truly a treasure of first-rate thinking.
I will give you a little background on him so that you might appreciate his thinking. He is Swiss, and is an ordained Catholic priest. He is a world-renowned theologian. He has also had many profound disputes with the Catholic hierarchy. He was an influential participant in Vatican II, the counsel set up by Pope John the XXIII, in 1962, to reopen the Catholic Church and deeply examine what was right, and what was wrong, with the Church. (I was 20 years old and, like most Catholics, was very aware of the importance of the Council. It was a big deal.)
Kung is a master of all major religions and has been a consistent force for re-integration of the world’s religions. He is as ecumenical as they come.
Drawing from years of work, and from many studies, conferences, and papers, and influential conferences within the United Nations family, Kung has gathered together these observations about morality and summarized this collective thinking, as follows:
- “Evil is what violates, harms and hinders humanity…So humanity is the first fundamental principle of a common ethic.”
- “The basic demand for humanity is defined more closely by the age-old Golden Rule, the principle of reciprocity, mutuality…Do not do to another what you would not want done to you.”
- “The Golden Rule of Mutuality is the second fundamental principle of a common ethic of humankind.” Kung goes on to say that he has told representatives of politics, business, culture, and sport that “ This Golden Rule should apply not just between individuals, but also between social and ethnic groups, nations, and religions.”
- “There are four ethical imperatives which occur not only in the Ten Commandments of the Hebrew Bible, confirmed in the New Testament and the Qur’an, but also in Patanjalil, the founder of Yoga, in the Buddhist canon and in the Chinese tradition: ‘Do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, do not misuse sexuality.’
Finally, Kung has beliefs that are even more challenging because they address how one puts these principles into practice. He says, every individual and every institution has a fourfold responsibility:
- “Commitment to a culture of non-violence and a respect for all life: respect life. According to an age-old directive: ‘Do not kill’ – do not torture, torment, violate.
- “Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order: act justly and fairly. According to an age – old directive: ‘Do not steal’ – do not exploit, bribe, corrupt.
- “Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life in truthfulness: speak and act truthfully. According to an age-old directive: ‘Do not lie’ – do not deceive, forge, manipulate.
- “Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women: respect and love one another. According to an age-old formulation: ‘Do not commit immorality, do not abuse sexuality – do not cheat, humiliate, dishonor.”
These, I believe, are the core principles and they are humbling. This is why we are all sinners at one time or another because each of us has failed to live up to these standards – some of us more than others. But, these are the standards. If one dares to become a great person, to improve and grow, one can measure his progress, or correct her behavior, against these standards. There are people who do not follow this model. They want to be measured against their wealth or other worldly achievements. There are people who find it too hard to guide their life with this code, and simply disregard it. But, I have found no evidence in my life that moving away from these principles enhances a person’s chance of experiencing happiness, real self-actualization, fulfillment, contentment, stability, or peace.
Perhaps it all starts, as Kung argues, with a person having a trust in life – that is, that life is meaningful, purposeful, important; as opposed to nihilism – that is, that life is meaningless, not important, and has no real purpose. Putting your trust into a meaningful life is greatly enhanced by having a design specification for such a life. Throughout the ages, the design architecture for a good life has always been there, needing only to be applied to the task at hand.
Hence, if you are weighing a consideration about religion and the role it might play in your life, it probably starts with some very serious thinking about your core ethic. If you buy into the universal standard, then you may feel free to ask yourself: will a religion help me, and my family, pursue this standard; and if the answer is yes, which religion helps me best?
The Mystery of God
You cannot talk about ethics, morality, and religion without
thinking about God. God is at the center of the three great
monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I believe a person can live by the universal standards, and still not believe in God. But, it seems to me, a person cannot believe in God and ignore these standards. The belief in God and these standards are inextricably connected.
But God is also a conundrum. The disciple John writes in his First Letter: “ let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God; for God is love…. No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.”
When I first read this, I was struck by the absolute clarity of those six words in italics. Where is God? Why can’t we see Him and touch Him? What does He look like? How does He express Himself. What does He want? Who is He or Her, or It?
When I grew up, I was seeped in the Catholic tradition, and taught that Jesus was God, was divine, but also human, and that made everything easy. I didn’t need to think about God. I didn’t need to worry about this mystery. I had an easier focus, Jesus the Son of Man, predicted by the Hebrew Bible. He was a real person. He was a historical reality. In Jesus, God was simply one of us. I got off easy.
I sidestepped this question for years. Then, at the age of 61, I came down with a serious case of pneumonia. I was so sick. Energy left me. So did sleep. For the first week or so, during which time I lost 8-10 pounds off of a fairly lean body, all I could do was lay on my bed. I couldn’t sleep. I could read a little, but not business type reading. Mostly, I could think.
The issue of God was on my mind. I was reading a book by a Protestant bishop who was struggling with this concept. As I read, and as I thought, I tried to confront this issue: what were the important questions? What did I believe? Why was the question even a bit fearful? Might there not be a God?
There were a few things that I had to address. If God existed – that is, the all knowing, all loving, all powerful first mover, center of the universe – then I had to acknowledge that God was not, of course, a human being. I had to discard the human being as a model of what God must be. I had to set aside all that is important to humans and recognize that so much of that would not be important to God. I had to admit that there were no images that had helped me throughout my life that would help me with this question, because a human being cannot even imagine images of God. God can be believed, but God cannot be knowable because God is actually fundamentally beyond the scope of the human mind to imagine.
How can one say, I know there is a God, when no one can truly have any way of actually knowing that. How can any one say, God does not exist, when equally, there is no way of knowing that for certain. Has there ever been a phenomenon in the human condition that did not have a start? Has any energy been produced that didn’t have an initial movement of energy?
Is not God the central question of human existence? Is not the object of theo-logy – Talk of God – to focus on God’s cause?
Famous atheists such as Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud may argue that belief in God is a mere projection.” We want God to exist so we make him exist.” But, at the same time, projection is no more rational as a belief that God does not exist. “Why should something that I wish, hope for, long for, a priori not exist?” My power of imagination is active everywhere. I project something into just about everything.
Something does not exist just because I want it to. But, in the same way, “the reverse is also the case; it does not necessarily not exist just because I wish it to.”
Kung was asked, “Have you ever doubted the existence of God?” He replied, “ Not God, but the proofs for his existence.” He goes on to say “ Immanuel Kant, a central figure in modern philosophy, born in the1720’s, convinced me at an early age that ‘pure’ or theoretical reason has its limits. And that means that scholarly proofs of God are not possible. Why? Because God does not exist as an object in space and time. He is not the object of vision and knowledge that can be proved scientifically. Reason cannot rise beyond the horizon of our experience, to the real God, penetrating space and time through the power of thought.”
“ No, there is no compelling proof for the existence of God but there is no proof against! Why? Because a negative judgment would likewise go beyond the horizon of space-time experience. Anyone who concedes that we cannot peer behind the curtain of phenomena may not also assert that there is nothing beyond it.”
“All the statements of physicists refer to physical space, space-time. Physicists cannot and will not answer questions outside the possibility of physical measurement. If it is to remain true to its method, science may not go beyond the horizon of experience in its judgments.”
Let’s pause, relax for a moment, and think in non scholarly terms about what Kung is saying. I enjoy the writings of Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicists, about whom a movie was recently made. I suppose he leans atheistically. But, to target our reflection on Kung’s point made above, I offer an anecdotal observation made by Hawking in his book, The Grand design. I couldn’t find the exact quote, but the context was this. He was writing about size and distance and rather discounting the notions of science fiction with respect to space travel as being, in his mind, rather outside rational speculation.
He wrote that with current science a space ship can be hypothesized to travel in space at something less than 150,000 miles per hour. At that speed, if we targeted the area around Alpha Centauri, the closest star to our sun, in effect, our backyard, it would take longer to get there than civilization on earth has existed. If you consider the technology of Voyager I, which has actually been in flight for years and is much slower than the hypothetical speed, that space ship is targeted to get into the area of Alpha Centauri in about 40,000 years.
The Hubble Telescope has produced fantastic photographs of a universe that damn near peers back to the beginning of time. But the analysis of all of this is based on math. No human can actually conceive of much of any of it. You could relate an ant to the size of earth and that relationship would be easier to contemplate than to relate human beings to billions of galaxies, and supposedly, maybe billions of universes, existing in a time and space continuum that is beyond human comprehension. There is nothing we can relate it to. Its dimensions, with respect to both space and time, and are beyond human sensibilities. And yet, science treats it as if we actually understood what all of that means.
These thoughts have humbled me over the years and have caused me to consider whether there are dimensions of existence and reality that are vastly beyond my comprehension even though I sense that there must be some there, there.
Kung goes on: “ Perhaps there are events and interactions in our universe that are not visible in physical space, experiences in our human life that cannot be verified scientifically. ‘So I had to abandon knowledge’, writes Kant in his preface to the second edition of The Critique of Pure Reason (1787), ‘ in order to make room for faith.’ “
Kung goes on to say “ there are various ways to ’transcendence’, to a meta-empirical reality beyond the senses, to that great mystery that we call God.” He offers three approaches, “not as proofs, but as indicators, as a stimulus for reflection, towards ‘tracking” transcendence. “ The first is from biology, the second from mathematics, and the third from music.
Now let me say, this is hard stuff. The hard part is staying honest, rigorous, and serious. There is no room here for providing Kung’s full exploration of these three dimensions – these three approaches for the consideration of God – but I will humbly attempt a brief summary of each, and if you are enticed for more I would suggest a careful exploration of his short book, What I Believe, one of the few treasures I have found on this subject.
The Approach from Biology:
Kung is saying that science and the belief in God are not in conflict. The subject of God stretches the human sensibilities, of which science is one dimension. But no science can embrace the whole of reality.
The Approach from Math:
I particularly enjoy this above observation because I have always felt that to understand God, and to believe in God, you must suspend your comfort that what we know and what we see is all there is. Kung observes that if we can understand the concept of infinity in math, why is it such a leap to postulate the possibility of another kind of infinity, not found in math, that we might call eternity. The only way, to my thinking, that a human being, who lives in his observable space time world, can make any sense out of the scope of the universe – billions and billions of whatever, billions and billions of miles away (actually trillions), billions and billions of years to come into being – is to imagine that there must be another way to look at this.
I was intrigued by Eben Alexander’s book, Proof of Heaven. Now, let me quickly pause. Esquire Magazine had a long article debunking his near death experience. My brother actually heard him speak last year and was not impressed. And, there are countless books on near-death experiences. So, I am not saying that this book proves anything. (It is quite fascinating.) However, I was very intrigued with how he described his near death experience as consisting of a set of phenomena relating to time and space that simply did not exist as an observable reality in his conscious life. He described, as the reality that he had experienced in a near death state, one that might exist if Kung is on to something with his sense of things that there may be dimensions out there that we simply do not understand or know of.
The Approach from Music:
This one is especially for you.
So, music rather turns us in to a higher harmony. How can that be explained? What is going on here? Is this proof of anything? Absolutely not. But is it worth thinking about? Why yes. In my life, I have many times connected a transfixing piece of music with full absorption in a book. Madonna’s transcending voice in Evita…what happens now?…while I am reading a compelling biography of Bobby Kennedy, while on a transoceanic flight. Michael Crawford singing Music of the Night, while I am flying on a Pam Am 707 to Saudi Arabia, just transfixed by this piece of music being introduced on a plane music system for a new play opening in London. Rhapsody in Blue, for 50 years. Pet Clark singing, over and over, Don’t Sleep in the Subway, Darling while I am reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X, while working in New York City in the summer of 1968 as a RAND analyst, occasionally walking the slums at night with officers of the New York City police force. As with you I am sure, the list is very long. In each of these cases, the music caused the story to be gigantically magnified and actually allowed me to feel as if I were living in the story, and made me want to know how the story should affect my life.
So Hans Kung is helping us think about things we know that might provide an entry way into thinking about God, that might show us that there is so much we do not know, so much that we are given permission to believe. Because, at the end point, this is really where we end up. Belief in God is an act of faith. “God is and always remains the incomprehensible, invisible, indefinable…God is the wholly Other, different from man and the world.”
But, not believing in God is equally, and no less so, an act of faith. Do you choose to trust in life, or to put your faith in nihilism – in nothingness? Does life have a core meaning or is life a huge accident, devoid of any spiritual meaning? Just because one does not want to address and think about such a profound conundrum as God “does not allow them to speak with authority about their conclusion that, therefore, since I am unwilling to address it, therefore, there must be nothing.”
The Middle Space: there is a God, but He doesn’t care about us.
Some great thinkers, such as Spinoza and Einstein, occupy this space. Einstein said “ I believe in Spinoza’s god who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
Einstein also said this: “ to sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and who’s beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense, I am religious.”
Did order just happen, or was it intentionally made to happen? Is harmony a random, non-guided result of some energy force?
I am obviously not a theologian. I am just a simple person trying to convey what I have learned. I resent religious types who talk about God as if He were a person, and convey their beliefs with almost a scientific certainty. For me, this insults God. God is too big a mystery to be experienced this way.
So I simply choose life in all its mystery, including a God who can be addressed by me. I choose a core meaning – a core spirituality. I choose a life model built over thousands of years on a deep and abiding belief in God because it shows me how to improve, how to make adjustments, and how to become a better person. These choices fill my heart. These choices allow 21 me to cry at movies, be over whelmed by music, to be filled up with the laugh of a small child, or of a very old person, and even to love my dog. This choice makes me believe that this letter to you, my daughter, is actually important. Otherwise, this letter means nothing, has no meaning, and is the statement of a foolish and meaningless man. My dreams have always been built on this choice. But it is a choice.
But God is also a conundrum. The disciple John writes in his First Letter: “ let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God; for God is love…. No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.”
When I first read this, I was struck by the absolute clarity of those six words in italics. Where is God? Why can’t we see Him and touch Him? What does He look like? How does He express Himself. What does He want? Who is He or Her, or It?
When I grew up, I was seeped in the Catholic tradition, and taught that Jesus was God, was divine, but also human, and that made everything easy. I didn’t need to think about God. I didn’t need to worry about this mystery. I had an easier focus, Jesus the Son of Man, predicted by the Hebrew Bible. He was a real person. He was a historical reality. In Jesus, God was simply one of us. I got off easy.
I sidestepped this question for years. Then, at the age of 61, I came down with a serious case of pneumonia. I was so sick. Energy left me. So did sleep. For the first week or so, during which time I lost 8-10 pounds off of a fairly lean body, all I could do was lay on my bed. I couldn’t sleep. I could read a little, but not business type reading. Mostly, I could think.
The issue of God was on my mind. I was reading a book by a Protestant bishop who was struggling with this concept. As I read, and as I thought, I tried to confront this issue: what were the important questions? What did I believe? Why was the question even a bit fearful? Might there not be a God?
There were a few things that I had to address. If God existed – that is, the all knowing, all loving, all powerful first mover, center of the universe – then I had to acknowledge that God was not, of course, a human being. I had to discard the human being as a model of what God must be. I had to set aside all that is important to humans and recognize that so much of that would not be important to God. I had to admit that there were no images that had helped me throughout my life that would help me with this question, because a human being cannot even imagine images of God. God can be believed, but God cannot be knowable because God is actually fundamentally beyond the scope of the human mind to imagine.
How can one say, I know there is a God, when no one can truly have any way of actually knowing that. How can any one say, God does not exist, when equally, there is no way of knowing that for certain. Has there ever been a phenomenon in the human condition that did not have a start? Has any energy been produced that didn’t have an initial movement of energy?
Is not God the central question of human existence? Is not the object of theo-logy – Talk of God – to focus on God’s cause?
Famous atheists such as Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud may argue that belief in God is a mere projection.” We want God to exist so we make him exist.” But, at the same time, projection is no more rational as a belief that God does not exist. “Why should something that I wish, hope for, long for, a priori not exist?” My power of imagination is active everywhere. I project something into just about everything.
Something does not exist just because I want it to. But, in the same way, “the reverse is also the case; it does not necessarily not exist just because I wish it to.”
Kung was asked, “Have you ever doubted the existence of God?” He replied, “ Not God, but the proofs for his existence.” He goes on to say “ Immanuel Kant, a central figure in modern philosophy, born in the1720’s, convinced me at an early age that ‘pure’ or theoretical reason has its limits. And that means that scholarly proofs of God are not possible. Why? Because God does not exist as an object in space and time. He is not the object of vision and knowledge that can be proved scientifically. Reason cannot rise beyond the horizon of our experience, to the real God, penetrating space and time through the power of thought.”
“ No, there is no compelling proof for the existence of God but there is no proof against! Why? Because a negative judgment would likewise go beyond the horizon of space-time experience. Anyone who concedes that we cannot peer behind the curtain of phenomena may not also assert that there is nothing beyond it.”
“All the statements of physicists refer to physical space, space-time. Physicists cannot and will not answer questions outside the possibility of physical measurement. If it is to remain true to its method, science may not go beyond the horizon of experience in its judgments.”
Let’s pause, relax for a moment, and think in non scholarly terms about what Kung is saying. I enjoy the writings of Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicists, about whom a movie was recently made. I suppose he leans atheistically. But, to target our reflection on Kung’s point made above, I offer an anecdotal observation made by Hawking in his book, The Grand design. I couldn’t find the exact quote, but the context was this. He was writing about size and distance and rather discounting the notions of science fiction with respect to space travel as being, in his mind, rather outside rational speculation.
He wrote that with current science a space ship can be hypothesized to travel in space at something less than 150,000 miles per hour. At that speed, if we targeted the area around Alpha Centauri, the closest star to our sun, in effect, our backyard, it would take longer to get there than civilization on earth has existed. If you consider the technology of Voyager I, which has actually been in flight for years and is much slower than the hypothetical speed, that space ship is targeted to get into the area of Alpha Centauri in about 40,000 years.
The Hubble Telescope has produced fantastic photographs of a universe that damn near peers back to the beginning of time. But the analysis of all of this is based on math. No human can actually conceive of much of any of it. You could relate an ant to the size of earth and that relationship would be easier to contemplate than to relate human beings to billions of galaxies, and supposedly, maybe billions of universes, existing in a time and space continuum that is beyond human comprehension. There is nothing we can relate it to. Its dimensions, with respect to both space and time, and are beyond human sensibilities. And yet, science treats it as if we actually understood what all of that means.
These thoughts have humbled me over the years and have caused me to consider whether there are dimensions of existence and reality that are vastly beyond my comprehension even though I sense that there must be some there, there.
Kung goes on: “ Perhaps there are events and interactions in our universe that are not visible in physical space, experiences in our human life that cannot be verified scientifically. ‘So I had to abandon knowledge’, writes Kant in his preface to the second edition of The Critique of Pure Reason (1787), ‘ in order to make room for faith.’ “
Kung goes on to say “ there are various ways to ’transcendence’, to a meta-empirical reality beyond the senses, to that great mystery that we call God.” He offers three approaches, “not as proofs, but as indicators, as a stimulus for reflection, towards ‘tracking” transcendence. “ The first is from biology, the second from mathematics, and the third from music.
Now let me say, this is hard stuff. The hard part is staying honest, rigorous, and serious. There is no room here for providing Kung’s full exploration of these three dimensions – these three approaches for the consideration of God – but I will humbly attempt a brief summary of each, and if you are enticed for more I would suggest a careful exploration of his short book, What I Believe, one of the few treasures I have found on this subject.
The Approach from Biology:
- “An evolution towards humankind is a scientific fact… Astrophysics has discovered what had to be balanced precisely so that after billions of years life could arise: the fine tuning of energy and matter, of nuclear electromagnetic forces, of the force of gravity and energy through nuclear reactions in our sun. But, it is more than understandable that physicists and non-physicists as well ask whether all of this developed completely by chance toward life, indeed toward human beings. Are so many ‘chances’ chance? And is not such a chance an empty principle of explanation.”
- Kung points out that astrophysicists and biologists assume some sort of a super law in all of this fine tuning, that this tremendous development ran according to a ‘very special recipe’ sometimes referred to as the anthropic principle, that on the basis of this hypothesis, human beings could and did come into being. “But can and could mean that something can be demonstrated scientifically. There is no proof for a had to.”
- Believers also cannot seize on this principle as a sort of proof of God, as some have, suggesting that God was the guiding hand.
- “The fact is science is incapable of giving an empirical, mathematical foundation for such a meta-natural law. Science is no more responsible for the negation of God than for the affirmation of God…No science can embrace the whole of reality.”
Kung is saying that science and the belief in God are not in conflict. The subject of God stretches the human sensibilities, of which science is one dimension. But no science can embrace the whole of reality.
The Approach from Math:
- Kung starts by just observing that even some of our most profound observations can, over time, be found to be incomplete or inaccurate. From the time of the Greek mathematicians until Einstein physical space had been defined as three-dimensional. Since Einstein’s theory of relativity, physical space is now defined as four- dimensional time-space or space-time – time combined with space. He observes this is actually “a new model for the universe that is confirmed by measurements and space travel, but cannot be depicted as a four- dimensional entity.” New models of the universe are kind of rare.
- Kung is particularly interested in the mathematical dimension of infinity, “ which is constantly but invisibly present in mathematics….any figure can be endlessly projected, multiplied, divided, but need not be calculated 17 into every day equations….The question arises whether there could not be something like a real dimension of infinity present in all things, even if, like four-dimensional space, it cannot be depicted tangibly, because it is a reality beyond space and time.” Finally, he goes on to say that “ this real dimension of infinity would no longer be a category of space-time but of eternity, which mathematical scientific reasoning cannot attain.”
I particularly enjoy this above observation because I have always felt that to understand God, and to believe in God, you must suspend your comfort that what we know and what we see is all there is. Kung observes that if we can understand the concept of infinity in math, why is it such a leap to postulate the possibility of another kind of infinity, not found in math, that we might call eternity. The only way, to my thinking, that a human being, who lives in his observable space time world, can make any sense out of the scope of the universe – billions and billions of whatever, billions and billions of miles away (actually trillions), billions and billions of years to come into being – is to imagine that there must be another way to look at this.
I was intrigued by Eben Alexander’s book, Proof of Heaven. Now, let me quickly pause. Esquire Magazine had a long article debunking his near death experience. My brother actually heard him speak last year and was not impressed. And, there are countless books on near-death experiences. So, I am not saying that this book proves anything. (It is quite fascinating.) However, I was very intrigued with how he described his near death experience as consisting of a set of phenomena relating to time and space that simply did not exist as an observable reality in his conscious life. He described, as the reality that he had experienced in a near death state, one that might exist if Kung is on to something with his sense of things that there may be dimensions out there that we simply do not understand or know of.
The Approach from Music:
This one is especially for you.
- “Music has a mysterious mathematical structure, expressed in the note system and the infinite possibilities of using it. But, there is something that the mathematician cannot do, which is to produce a mathematical proof that can demonstrate music to be beautiful.”
- Musicians can sense, trace, hear and express in their works realities that break through physical space, the space of energy and time. Like any sound, music is a physical phenomenon, and physics has made a thorough investigation of it in acoustics. But it is not just a physical phenomenon that can be grasped by physics alone.”
- “Great music can give you a little bit of ‘bliss’, the word that Mozart himself used.”
- A person can open herself to music, let it flow into her, and abandon herself completely to it, with the intelligence of the heart, which binds, integrates and communicates totality.
- Kung asks what has happened when you feel that “the body of sound (music) is no longer outside you, but part of your being? When the music embraces you, permeates you, and resounds from within, when you feel wholly turned inward with eyes and ears, body and spirit, when the I is silent and everything external, any subject-object split, ceases to exist – what has happened?”
- Kung observes that great music (Mozart for him) seems to show how fine and narrow the boundary is between music, the most unobjective of all arts, and religion, which has always especially had to do with music. Both, though different, point to the ultimately unspeakable, to the mystery.
So, music rather turns us in to a higher harmony. How can that be explained? What is going on here? Is this proof of anything? Absolutely not. But is it worth thinking about? Why yes. In my life, I have many times connected a transfixing piece of music with full absorption in a book. Madonna’s transcending voice in Evita…what happens now?…while I am reading a compelling biography of Bobby Kennedy, while on a transoceanic flight. Michael Crawford singing Music of the Night, while I am flying on a Pam Am 707 to Saudi Arabia, just transfixed by this piece of music being introduced on a plane music system for a new play opening in London. Rhapsody in Blue, for 50 years. Pet Clark singing, over and over, Don’t Sleep in the Subway, Darling while I am reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X, while working in New York City in the summer of 1968 as a RAND analyst, occasionally walking the slums at night with officers of the New York City police force. As with you I am sure, the list is very long. In each of these cases, the music caused the story to be gigantically magnified and actually allowed me to feel as if I were living in the story, and made me want to know how the story should affect my life.
So Hans Kung is helping us think about things we know that might provide an entry way into thinking about God, that might show us that there is so much we do not know, so much that we are given permission to believe. Because, at the end point, this is really where we end up. Belief in God is an act of faith. “God is and always remains the incomprehensible, invisible, indefinable…God is the wholly Other, different from man and the world.”
But, not believing in God is equally, and no less so, an act of faith. Do you choose to trust in life, or to put your faith in nihilism – in nothingness? Does life have a core meaning or is life a huge accident, devoid of any spiritual meaning? Just because one does not want to address and think about such a profound conundrum as God “does not allow them to speak with authority about their conclusion that, therefore, since I am unwilling to address it, therefore, there must be nothing.”
The Middle Space: there is a God, but He doesn’t care about us.
Some great thinkers, such as Spinoza and Einstein, occupy this space. Einstein said “ I believe in Spinoza’s god who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
Einstein also said this: “ to sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and who’s beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense, I am religious.”
Did order just happen, or was it intentionally made to happen? Is harmony a random, non-guided result of some energy force?
I am obviously not a theologian. I am just a simple person trying to convey what I have learned. I resent religious types who talk about God as if He were a person, and convey their beliefs with almost a scientific certainty. For me, this insults God. God is too big a mystery to be experienced this way.
So I simply choose life in all its mystery, including a God who can be addressed by me. I choose a core meaning – a core spirituality. I choose a life model built over thousands of years on a deep and abiding belief in God because it shows me how to improve, how to make adjustments, and how to become a better person. These choices fill my heart. These choices allow 21 me to cry at movies, be over whelmed by music, to be filled up with the laugh of a small child, or of a very old person, and even to love my dog. This choice makes me believe that this letter to you, my daughter, is actually important. Otherwise, this letter means nothing, has no meaning, and is the statement of a foolish and meaningless man. My dreams have always been built on this choice. But it is a choice.
The Great Religions
I thought the first two parts of this essay would be the most
difficult. But, as I outlined this third section, I began to change
my mind because, to be fully candid, I had to be accepting, and
indeed, an active part of deep criticism of the Catholic Church,
which is of course my Church of worship. This was not easy. Of
course, it is the Church of which I know the most, both its
strengths and weaknesses. Its sins, omissions, lust for power,
influence and control are the sins of men. The shocking fact of
the Catholic Church is that in spite of all of its human failings it
also has great beauty and substance and the message at its core
is as strong as ever.
What are the Great Religions?
The monotheistic religions line up with the belief in one God, and a God that has a personal connection with each human being. Judaism is the first great monotheistic religion, with roots that stretch for four thousand years. Christianity emerged from Judaism in half that time, removed many of its trappings, focused on the Judaic core, and then over hundreds of years assumed its own trappings. Islam emerged from the Arab World, its core built also on Judaism, and to a degree on Christianity – Islam recognizes Christ for His greatness – and immediately developed its own trappings.
The great Mystic religions are Buddhism and Hinduism, both formed in India around the fifth century, BC. Buddhism is non- theistic. A deity is not at the core. Hinduism is very diverse and can be both non theistic and theistic.
None of these religions would do battle with the principles of core morality discussed at the start of this essay. At the same time, terrible things have happened in the name of religion. The Inquisitions are large examples found within the Christian Roman Catholic Church. Regarding Islam, terrible things are happening even today in the name of Allah. Judaism has had its share of atrocities.
Until the early 16 th Century, and the Protestant Reformation, initiated by Martin Luther, there was essentially one Christianity, with two centers of power, one in the East, in present day Turkey, and one in the West, centered on Rome. The most fundamental differences between the two were the recognition and acceptance of papal authority (the Roman Pope), which was rejected by the Eastern rite, which also adopted less of the trappings that grew up in the Western Church.
Since the East didn’t recognize indisputable Papal authority, it didn’t recognize much of the dogma and doctrine that the Roman Pope promulgated over the ages. Subsequent to the Reformation in the West, whose leaders disputed much of the same subjects as the Eastern Church, there emerged a number of major forms of Christianity, specifically that evolving from Martin Luther and that from John Calvin. In the modern era, religions such as Baptists and evangelical faiths too numerous to count have emerged. The New Testament of Jesus Christ is also claimed to be part of Mormonism.
For the sake of this essay, I will not spend more than these few words on the mystic religions and on Islam. The mystic religions, at their heart, are centered on a way of life, a mode of behavior that can lead to peace, stability, and personal growth. There is much about each that is very beautiful. But, I do not have a sophisticated knowledge of either. I could certainly write more than a few paragraphs, but I’ll resist the temptation. In the final analysis, if one starts with a search for God, concentrating on faiths that have God at the center is probably more useful.
In order to understand the monotheistic religions let us start by considering this framing: with all large religions, there are at minimum two fundamental dimensions. First, its core beliefs; and, second, its trappings (laws, dogmas, doctrines, rules, legal structures) that have been attached to the faith by countless leaders over countless years and that eventually become very intertwined and indistinguishable from the core for most believers. All religions evolve, sometimes in very constructive ways and often in destructive ways. If I had to guess, I would say that the trappings built up around religions create problems for many people and often obscure the core of what religion has to offer.
Islam embraces the basic precepts of the Judeo Ten Commandments. But the Quran, the basic book of Islam, addresses many dimensions of life including both core beliefs and what I am calling trappings: forms of worship, wide rules of behavior, ceremony, punishments and so forth. Islam is a lot more sophisticated, beautiful and similar to Christianity and Judaism than one would think observing the horrible events in today’s Middle East. However, Islam was almost fundamentally militaristic from its very beginning. Islam emerged from Arabia, has always had its focus on the Arab world, its basic book is supposed to be read only in Arabic, has grown to other 24 areas, and has a lot of trappings. I am going to assume that you probably are not very much interested in Islam. If you are, we can easily expand this discussion.
What are the Great Religions?
The monotheistic religions line up with the belief in one God, and a God that has a personal connection with each human being. Judaism is the first great monotheistic religion, with roots that stretch for four thousand years. Christianity emerged from Judaism in half that time, removed many of its trappings, focused on the Judaic core, and then over hundreds of years assumed its own trappings. Islam emerged from the Arab World, its core built also on Judaism, and to a degree on Christianity – Islam recognizes Christ for His greatness – and immediately developed its own trappings.
The great Mystic religions are Buddhism and Hinduism, both formed in India around the fifth century, BC. Buddhism is non- theistic. A deity is not at the core. Hinduism is very diverse and can be both non theistic and theistic.
None of these religions would do battle with the principles of core morality discussed at the start of this essay. At the same time, terrible things have happened in the name of religion. The Inquisitions are large examples found within the Christian Roman Catholic Church. Regarding Islam, terrible things are happening even today in the name of Allah. Judaism has had its share of atrocities.
Until the early 16 th Century, and the Protestant Reformation, initiated by Martin Luther, there was essentially one Christianity, with two centers of power, one in the East, in present day Turkey, and one in the West, centered on Rome. The most fundamental differences between the two were the recognition and acceptance of papal authority (the Roman Pope), which was rejected by the Eastern rite, which also adopted less of the trappings that grew up in the Western Church.
Since the East didn’t recognize indisputable Papal authority, it didn’t recognize much of the dogma and doctrine that the Roman Pope promulgated over the ages. Subsequent to the Reformation in the West, whose leaders disputed much of the same subjects as the Eastern Church, there emerged a number of major forms of Christianity, specifically that evolving from Martin Luther and that from John Calvin. In the modern era, religions such as Baptists and evangelical faiths too numerous to count have emerged. The New Testament of Jesus Christ is also claimed to be part of Mormonism.
For the sake of this essay, I will not spend more than these few words on the mystic religions and on Islam. The mystic religions, at their heart, are centered on a way of life, a mode of behavior that can lead to peace, stability, and personal growth. There is much about each that is very beautiful. But, I do not have a sophisticated knowledge of either. I could certainly write more than a few paragraphs, but I’ll resist the temptation. In the final analysis, if one starts with a search for God, concentrating on faiths that have God at the center is probably more useful.
In order to understand the monotheistic religions let us start by considering this framing: with all large religions, there are at minimum two fundamental dimensions. First, its core beliefs; and, second, its trappings (laws, dogmas, doctrines, rules, legal structures) that have been attached to the faith by countless leaders over countless years and that eventually become very intertwined and indistinguishable from the core for most believers. All religions evolve, sometimes in very constructive ways and often in destructive ways. If I had to guess, I would say that the trappings built up around religions create problems for many people and often obscure the core of what religion has to offer.
Islam embraces the basic precepts of the Judeo Ten Commandments. But the Quran, the basic book of Islam, addresses many dimensions of life including both core beliefs and what I am calling trappings: forms of worship, wide rules of behavior, ceremony, punishments and so forth. Islam is a lot more sophisticated, beautiful and similar to Christianity and Judaism than one would think observing the horrible events in today’s Middle East. However, Islam was almost fundamentally militaristic from its very beginning. Islam emerged from Arabia, has always had its focus on the Arab world, its basic book is supposed to be read only in Arabic, has grown to other 24 areas, and has a lot of trappings. I am going to assume that you probably are not very much interested in Islam. If you are, we can easily expand this discussion.
Judaism and Christianity
Let me start with what may seem to be a strange statement: in
the competition between Christianity and Judaism, Christianity
won.
In the middle of the first century there lived in the Palestinian region Hebrew Jews and Jewish Christians. There were also Hellenistic Jews, steeped in Greek Culture, who were part of the Jewish Diaspora who lived outside Palestine, typically in the area north and into Greece and Syria, and even in Egypt.
The Jewish Christians were fewer in number and were almost all tied directly back to the people who had a personal experience with Jesus Christ. They were as Jewish as any other Hebrew, and fully practiced Jewish rites, but they also were people who elected to follow the “Good News” of Jesus Christ. That is, the Jewish Christians were still Jews who also sought to pattern their lives after Christ’s message. They did not intend to become non-Jews. They saw no conflict.
Essentially, fifty years later, perhaps a hundred years after the death of Christ, few remained in Palestine. Many of the leaders were executed by Jewish authorities, most notably, James the Just, often described as the brother of Christ, who, while greatly admired by the Jewish leadership (hence, the name they gave him) was also martyred by them in Jerusalem around the year 62. Others must have left during the uprising against the Romans, which started in the year 66 and concluded in 72, during the so-called First Jewish War. In the end, Jerusalem slowly faded away as the center of Christianity.
Thus, the core ethic of Judaism and the most core beliefs of Christianity are largely the same. Jesus did not invent a new Ten Commandments. Jesus was not trying to create a “new” religion as such. Jesus was trying to bring a deeper focus on human behavior that reached beyond the Commandments and put its core emphasis on trust in God and love of neighbor – and challenged people to live in extraordinary ways to align their lives with this emphasis. In the end, the Christian message won the competition largely because it was taken to the non-Jews (gentiles) who lived throughout the world, as well as to the Jews in Palestine and the Jewish Diaspora, and because of that larger “market size”, expanded incredibly. Prior to this time, non-Jews had very little contact with Jewish monotheism. In effect, they were not welcome. Judaism was a relatively exclusive club. Outsiders were not generally wanted. (Paul discusses this in Romans.)
Let us spend a little time trying to unravel Jesus Christ.
No serious scholar disagrees that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. He lived and he died. He had no wealth. He led no army. He did not seek political power. He was a public figure for no more than three years, and perhaps for even less than a year. He had no political agenda (“my kingdom is not of this world”). He undoubtedly had remarkable charisma. He invited individuals to “follow me”. He railed against bureaucracy. His closest allies were illiterate. He had tremendous compassion for the poor and the disenfranchised. But, he had friends who were wealthy. He excluded no one from his embrace. A prostitute about to be stoned was defended by Jesus, saved by Jesus, and forgiven by Jesus. Some of his closest allies were women, which was alien to the culture of that time. He enjoyed life and chose a wedding party to make his first public statement, and built the statement around wine, an alcoholic beverage.
Jesus was largely disgusted by all of the trappings – sorry, I can’t find a better word – that had grown up around the Jewish religion – “the Law”, is as exact as I can get. The well-known example relates to the Jewish Sabbath day. On that day, a Jew was supposed to do practically nothing. Jesus helped people on the Sabbath, and was criticized. The Law could be pretty over whelming.
If Jesus lived today, I imagine he would be equally critical of all of the trappings that have developed around the Catholic Church – dogma, doctrines, and Church law. It seems that, for Jesus, all of these trappings got in the way of, or indeed, conflicted with the core message of trusting in God and loving your neighbor. Stoning a prostitute might be aligned with some Law, but it is not an act that shows love for your neighbor. Excommunicating a devoted, but divorced Catholic, might be aligned with Church laws, but it does not express love for your neighbor.
Truly, Jesus was a quite remarkable person.
The historical record about Jesus is limited. There are skimpy mentions or references to Jesus among a handful of historians and scholars of that era, specifically Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, writing in the year 90. But, essentially, the writings of the New Testament are the only historical record that has survived to our time. These writing include the four gospels, The Acts of the Apostles, the 14 Letters of St. Paul, and 8 other letters from some of the apostles and other followers. These are the 27 “books” of the New Testament.
Every so often there is an announcement that some remnant of writing has been discovered, such as the recent big deal about the gospel of Judas. These situations always turn out to be very incomplete and without any high level of proof. Or, you’ll hear mention of a document called “Q” which is actually not a document at all but rather an attempt to analyze all of the similar statements in the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), arriving at this or that conclusion. In fact, the historical record is very limited, and relies on the New Testament and a few other writings from that time.
It is believed that the earliest of these writings were the letters of St. Paul, dating perhaps to the period of the fifth decade of the first century. The four gospels are believed to have been written as early as a decade or two later. It is believed that the last gospel, which is attributed to St John, was written toward the end of the Century.
So, if anyone attributes a saying to Jesus, a command from Jesus, a belief of Jesus, a belief of the followers of Jesus, a belief of the Jewish Christians, or anything else and you cannot find supporting information for that belief within the New Testament, well then, it is most certainly made up.
For example, in the first one hundred years of the early church, women were remarkably prominent in the leadership, notwithstanding that women rarely played such a role elsewhere in the culture of that day. Today, in the Roman Catholic Church, women are subservient to men and, for example, cannot be priests. Men caused that. There is no basis for this discrimination in the New Testament, nor was such discrimination part of the first century of the Church.
Jesus is at the center of Christianity. Take Jesus out of Christianity and there is no Catholic or Greek Orthodox Church or Protestant Church. Take Caesar out of Rome and Rome 28 remains. Take Lincoln out of America and America remains. Take Moses out of Judaism and Judaism remains. But, Christianity is about “ the all-determining significance of a concrete human figure, Jesus the Christ… it does not have its basis in any principles, ideas, or concepts, but in a person…who represents a cause, the embodiment of a ‘new way’ of life.”
It is built around a single man.
The Jesus message: Go beyond the Ten Commandments
“ Jesus made the cause of the God of Israel his own…with a view to human salvation…He called not only for the renewed observance of God’s commandments but for a love which in individual instances extends to unselfish service without hierarchy, to renunciation even without receiving anything in return, to boundless forgiving. It is a love which even includes the opponent, the enemy: love of God and love of neighbor in accordance with the criterion of self love (‘as yourself).”
Reflect on the Laws of Judaism, the dogma and doctrine of Catholicism, the rules and laws of the Quran. All of these laws per se would be secondary for Jesus because he believed that such laws were there for the sake of human beings. At least with respect to Churches and formal religion, one gets the sense some times that these institutions have turned His message upside down. Humans are there for the sake of the laws. Pope Francis shocked church convention when he said about gays, “Who am I to judge,” a thought that aligns with the origin of Christian thinking, two millenniums ago, to focus more on the board in your eye, than the spec in your brother’s eye. Modern day Catholics are not used to this kind of thinking coming from their Pope.
In the middle of the first century there lived in the Palestinian region Hebrew Jews and Jewish Christians. There were also Hellenistic Jews, steeped in Greek Culture, who were part of the Jewish Diaspora who lived outside Palestine, typically in the area north and into Greece and Syria, and even in Egypt.
The Jewish Christians were fewer in number and were almost all tied directly back to the people who had a personal experience with Jesus Christ. They were as Jewish as any other Hebrew, and fully practiced Jewish rites, but they also were people who elected to follow the “Good News” of Jesus Christ. That is, the Jewish Christians were still Jews who also sought to pattern their lives after Christ’s message. They did not intend to become non-Jews. They saw no conflict.
Essentially, fifty years later, perhaps a hundred years after the death of Christ, few remained in Palestine. Many of the leaders were executed by Jewish authorities, most notably, James the Just, often described as the brother of Christ, who, while greatly admired by the Jewish leadership (hence, the name they gave him) was also martyred by them in Jerusalem around the year 62. Others must have left during the uprising against the Romans, which started in the year 66 and concluded in 72, during the so-called First Jewish War. In the end, Jerusalem slowly faded away as the center of Christianity.
Thus, the core ethic of Judaism and the most core beliefs of Christianity are largely the same. Jesus did not invent a new Ten Commandments. Jesus was not trying to create a “new” religion as such. Jesus was trying to bring a deeper focus on human behavior that reached beyond the Commandments and put its core emphasis on trust in God and love of neighbor – and challenged people to live in extraordinary ways to align their lives with this emphasis. In the end, the Christian message won the competition largely because it was taken to the non-Jews (gentiles) who lived throughout the world, as well as to the Jews in Palestine and the Jewish Diaspora, and because of that larger “market size”, expanded incredibly. Prior to this time, non-Jews had very little contact with Jewish monotheism. In effect, they were not welcome. Judaism was a relatively exclusive club. Outsiders were not generally wanted. (Paul discusses this in Romans.)
Let us spend a little time trying to unravel Jesus Christ.
No serious scholar disagrees that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. He lived and he died. He had no wealth. He led no army. He did not seek political power. He was a public figure for no more than three years, and perhaps for even less than a year. He had no political agenda (“my kingdom is not of this world”). He undoubtedly had remarkable charisma. He invited individuals to “follow me”. He railed against bureaucracy. His closest allies were illiterate. He had tremendous compassion for the poor and the disenfranchised. But, he had friends who were wealthy. He excluded no one from his embrace. A prostitute about to be stoned was defended by Jesus, saved by Jesus, and forgiven by Jesus. Some of his closest allies were women, which was alien to the culture of that time. He enjoyed life and chose a wedding party to make his first public statement, and built the statement around wine, an alcoholic beverage.
Jesus was largely disgusted by all of the trappings – sorry, I can’t find a better word – that had grown up around the Jewish religion – “the Law”, is as exact as I can get. The well-known example relates to the Jewish Sabbath day. On that day, a Jew was supposed to do practically nothing. Jesus helped people on the Sabbath, and was criticized. The Law could be pretty over whelming.
If Jesus lived today, I imagine he would be equally critical of all of the trappings that have developed around the Catholic Church – dogma, doctrines, and Church law. It seems that, for Jesus, all of these trappings got in the way of, or indeed, conflicted with the core message of trusting in God and loving your neighbor. Stoning a prostitute might be aligned with some Law, but it is not an act that shows love for your neighbor. Excommunicating a devoted, but divorced Catholic, might be aligned with Church laws, but it does not express love for your neighbor.
Truly, Jesus was a quite remarkable person.
The historical record about Jesus is limited. There are skimpy mentions or references to Jesus among a handful of historians and scholars of that era, specifically Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, writing in the year 90. But, essentially, the writings of the New Testament are the only historical record that has survived to our time. These writing include the four gospels, The Acts of the Apostles, the 14 Letters of St. Paul, and 8 other letters from some of the apostles and other followers. These are the 27 “books” of the New Testament.
Every so often there is an announcement that some remnant of writing has been discovered, such as the recent big deal about the gospel of Judas. These situations always turn out to be very incomplete and without any high level of proof. Or, you’ll hear mention of a document called “Q” which is actually not a document at all but rather an attempt to analyze all of the similar statements in the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), arriving at this or that conclusion. In fact, the historical record is very limited, and relies on the New Testament and a few other writings from that time.
It is believed that the earliest of these writings were the letters of St. Paul, dating perhaps to the period of the fifth decade of the first century. The four gospels are believed to have been written as early as a decade or two later. It is believed that the last gospel, which is attributed to St John, was written toward the end of the Century.
So, if anyone attributes a saying to Jesus, a command from Jesus, a belief of Jesus, a belief of the followers of Jesus, a belief of the Jewish Christians, or anything else and you cannot find supporting information for that belief within the New Testament, well then, it is most certainly made up.
For example, in the first one hundred years of the early church, women were remarkably prominent in the leadership, notwithstanding that women rarely played such a role elsewhere in the culture of that day. Today, in the Roman Catholic Church, women are subservient to men and, for example, cannot be priests. Men caused that. There is no basis for this discrimination in the New Testament, nor was such discrimination part of the first century of the Church.
Jesus is at the center of Christianity. Take Jesus out of Christianity and there is no Catholic or Greek Orthodox Church or Protestant Church. Take Caesar out of Rome and Rome 28 remains. Take Lincoln out of America and America remains. Take Moses out of Judaism and Judaism remains. But, Christianity is about “ the all-determining significance of a concrete human figure, Jesus the Christ… it does not have its basis in any principles, ideas, or concepts, but in a person…who represents a cause, the embodiment of a ‘new way’ of life.”
It is built around a single man.
The Jesus message: Go beyond the Ten Commandments
“ Jesus made the cause of the God of Israel his own…with a view to human salvation…He called not only for the renewed observance of God’s commandments but for a love which in individual instances extends to unselfish service without hierarchy, to renunciation even without receiving anything in return, to boundless forgiving. It is a love which even includes the opponent, the enemy: love of God and love of neighbor in accordance with the criterion of self love (‘as yourself).”
Reflect on the Laws of Judaism, the dogma and doctrine of Catholicism, the rules and laws of the Quran. All of these laws per se would be secondary for Jesus because he believed that such laws were there for the sake of human beings. At least with respect to Churches and formal religion, one gets the sense some times that these institutions have turned His message upside down. Humans are there for the sake of the laws. Pope Francis shocked church convention when he said about gays, “Who am I to judge,” a thought that aligns with the origin of Christian thinking, two millenniums ago, to focus more on the board in your eye, than the spec in your brother’s eye. Modern day Catholics are not used to this kind of thinking coming from their Pope.
The Message
Jesus said: “Follow me.” He did not ask his followers for a
confession of faith. He asked for actions. Jesus’ thoughts, as
compiled by Matthew and Luke (authors of two of the gospels)
as the Sermon on the Mount, “are and remain ethical appeals”.
These words are the core of Christian ethics. They amount to a
tremendous challenge for Christianity itself, the Churches, and
for individuals. The sayings are simple, clear, liberating
calls…”often deliberately formulated in an exaggerated way (‘If
any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also’), without any ifs and buts….they are vivid appeals for a
radical fulfillment of the will of God from case to case in favor
of one’s fellow human being.”
“So we can understand why the apostle Paul- here too in striking accord with the Jesus of history – was right when he expressed the conviction that someone who loves has fulfilled the law.
“Here love is not understood as a primarily sentimental and emotional inclination (which in fact it is impossible to have for everyone), but as a being there for others which shows good will and a readiness to help. Jesus embodied this love in all of His teaching and behavior, conflicts and suffering.”
Let’s step back for a moment. This is heavy stuff. I am going to provide you an example fresh from today’s news to help clarify how the Sermon on the Mount might differ from the Ten Commandments. The subject involves politics, and is about Hillary Clinton, and specifically, the behavior and use of the Clinton Foundation. Some are arguing that the Foundation has misused funds, or that donors bought influence from the State Department when Hillary was Secretary of State. The defense from the Clinton side has consistently been that no laws have been broken.
OK, here’s the issue. It used to be the case that what was most emphasized in government service was ethical behavior, a clear step beyond the law. Specifically, a person of sound ethics chose to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you were a public servant, you just did not do that!
Avoiding conflicts of interest is much harder than obeying the law. It is a higher standard that used to be expected of people in such positions.
In a similar way, Jesus demanded a higher standard than strict observance of the Ten Commandments. For all individuals, treating others as you wish to be treated is much harder than defending your legal rights.
For Christians, the way of Christ is the road to true happiness. It is a way which includes “boundless forgiving”, as we are forgiven. It is a “Jesus who showed solidarity with us, and all of our imperfections.” Being a Christian is an attempt to “achieve a humanism which can cope not only with all that is positive but also with all that is negative, like suffering, guilt, meaninglessness and death, in an unshakeable trust in God which in the end does not rely on its own achievements and successes but on God’s grace and mercy.”
“So we can understand why the apostle Paul- here too in striking accord with the Jesus of history – was right when he expressed the conviction that someone who loves has fulfilled the law.
“Here love is not understood as a primarily sentimental and emotional inclination (which in fact it is impossible to have for everyone), but as a being there for others which shows good will and a readiness to help. Jesus embodied this love in all of His teaching and behavior, conflicts and suffering.”
Let’s step back for a moment. This is heavy stuff. I am going to provide you an example fresh from today’s news to help clarify how the Sermon on the Mount might differ from the Ten Commandments. The subject involves politics, and is about Hillary Clinton, and specifically, the behavior and use of the Clinton Foundation. Some are arguing that the Foundation has misused funds, or that donors bought influence from the State Department when Hillary was Secretary of State. The defense from the Clinton side has consistently been that no laws have been broken.
OK, here’s the issue. It used to be the case that what was most emphasized in government service was ethical behavior, a clear step beyond the law. Specifically, a person of sound ethics chose to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you were a public servant, you just did not do that!
Avoiding conflicts of interest is much harder than obeying the law. It is a higher standard that used to be expected of people in such positions.
In a similar way, Jesus demanded a higher standard than strict observance of the Ten Commandments. For all individuals, treating others as you wish to be treated is much harder than defending your legal rights.
For Christians, the way of Christ is the road to true happiness. It is a way which includes “boundless forgiving”, as we are forgiven. It is a “Jesus who showed solidarity with us, and all of our imperfections.” Being a Christian is an attempt to “achieve a humanism which can cope not only with all that is positive but also with all that is negative, like suffering, guilt, meaninglessness and death, in an unshakeable trust in God which in the end does not rely on its own achievements and successes but on God’s grace and mercy.”
Jesus of Nazareth? Who Was He?
“He died as a young man after an amazingly brief activity of at
best three years, perhaps only a few months: betrayed and
denied by his disciples and followers; mocked and scorned by
his opponents; abandoned by God and his fellow human beings
in the most abominable and thorough rite of dying, which
according to Roman jurisprudence could not be inflicted on
criminals who were Roman citizens, but only on slaves and
political rebels: the cross.”
Who were his followers, in particular, the “twelve”? They were mostly illiterate fisherman, or craftsman, a tax collector (not an esteemed profession) – very common people. Some were married. Most were not from Jerusalem, but probably from Galilee, and other places north. They were not soldiers. They were not political. They were not religious leaders. They did not have wealth. Many were women, a sub-class of human being at that time. The common feature seems only to have been that they came in contact with Jesus and He had some kind of magnetic force that caused them to want to follow him.
When Jesus was arrested, they ran away. There was no battle. There was fear. The leader of the group – called Peter – denied he even knew Jesus when directly confronted by Jesus’ opponents on the night Jesus was arrested. Only one of the twelve was at the cross when Jesus died. James the Just, Jesus’ brother, or at least an intimate family member, apparently did not buy into Jesus’ prophetic mission before his death. (He was not one of the twelve.) Jesus was publicly tried both by a Jewish court and a Roman procurator, tortured, gruesomely executed, dead as dead, and buried in a tomb the day after he was arrested.
This was Jesus. He wrote nothing – not a word. He created no formal organization.
Then, a short time after Jesus’ death the entire group of them were preaching the gospel – the Good News of Jesus – in public squares in Jerusalem, deeply committed to the Jesus message, knowing it was the same message that got Jesus killed, and seemingly not caring that they were putting their lives in jeopardy. Eleven of the revamped twelve (we all know what happened to Judas) would eventually be killed for their beliefs. Only the apostle John seems to have died of natural causes in old age.
What happened?
One answer is that we may never know or don’t care. Another is that something rather astonishing must have happened because of the totally incongruent individual behavior that developed afterwards among those who followed Him. Their behavior fit with nothing that preceded it. What could have caused them, the apostles and close Disciples of Christ, to develop such courage, conviction, energy, skill, commitment and persuasive capabilities? What message of hope can be found in a gruesome death? Where do cowards find such courage? How did a group of ordinary commoners, who were sort of Jesus’ groupies, suddenly become charismatic people on their own?
Kung puts it this way: “We have simply to note that just as the cross is a harsh, cruel and undeniable fact, so it is an equally undeniable fact that the very first generation of Christians already saw the cross of Jesus in quite a different light – not a gallows of the ostracized, not a scandal to a Roman citizen, not a divine curse to a believing Jew, nor a barbaric folly to an educated Greek; but a sign of salvation. Why? In short, because on the basis of particular charismatic experiences (‘appearances’, visions, auditions) and at the same time a biblical pattern of interpretation, they had come to the conclusion that the crucified Jesus had not remained dead but had been raised by God to eternal life, exalted to God’s glory.”
“The confusion of Jesus’ disciples was removed by the Easter experience.”
Who were his followers, in particular, the “twelve”? They were mostly illiterate fisherman, or craftsman, a tax collector (not an esteemed profession) – very common people. Some were married. Most were not from Jerusalem, but probably from Galilee, and other places north. They were not soldiers. They were not political. They were not religious leaders. They did not have wealth. Many were women, a sub-class of human being at that time. The common feature seems only to have been that they came in contact with Jesus and He had some kind of magnetic force that caused them to want to follow him.
When Jesus was arrested, they ran away. There was no battle. There was fear. The leader of the group – called Peter – denied he even knew Jesus when directly confronted by Jesus’ opponents on the night Jesus was arrested. Only one of the twelve was at the cross when Jesus died. James the Just, Jesus’ brother, or at least an intimate family member, apparently did not buy into Jesus’ prophetic mission before his death. (He was not one of the twelve.) Jesus was publicly tried both by a Jewish court and a Roman procurator, tortured, gruesomely executed, dead as dead, and buried in a tomb the day after he was arrested.
This was Jesus. He wrote nothing – not a word. He created no formal organization.
Then, a short time after Jesus’ death the entire group of them were preaching the gospel – the Good News of Jesus – in public squares in Jerusalem, deeply committed to the Jesus message, knowing it was the same message that got Jesus killed, and seemingly not caring that they were putting their lives in jeopardy. Eleven of the revamped twelve (we all know what happened to Judas) would eventually be killed for their beliefs. Only the apostle John seems to have died of natural causes in old age.
What happened?
One answer is that we may never know or don’t care. Another is that something rather astonishing must have happened because of the totally incongruent individual behavior that developed afterwards among those who followed Him. Their behavior fit with nothing that preceded it. What could have caused them, the apostles and close Disciples of Christ, to develop such courage, conviction, energy, skill, commitment and persuasive capabilities? What message of hope can be found in a gruesome death? Where do cowards find such courage? How did a group of ordinary commoners, who were sort of Jesus’ groupies, suddenly become charismatic people on their own?
Kung puts it this way: “We have simply to note that just as the cross is a harsh, cruel and undeniable fact, so it is an equally undeniable fact that the very first generation of Christians already saw the cross of Jesus in quite a different light – not a gallows of the ostracized, not a scandal to a Roman citizen, not a divine curse to a believing Jew, nor a barbaric folly to an educated Greek; but a sign of salvation. Why? In short, because on the basis of particular charismatic experiences (‘appearances’, visions, auditions) and at the same time a biblical pattern of interpretation, they had come to the conclusion that the crucified Jesus had not remained dead but had been raised by God to eternal life, exalted to God’s glory.”
“The confusion of Jesus’ disciples was removed by the Easter experience.”
The Way of Jesus transcends his physical death.
Emerging from this phenomenon were two immensely
important developments, with significantly different origins.
First were the phenomena of the “Twelve”. They had
experienced the resurrected Christ, whatever that exactly
meant. They lived and talked Christ resurrected. They counted
themselves as witnesses to the resurrection – to the
continuation of a living Christ in some substantive form. And
apparently there were others who had a similar experience.
Paul writes that Christ appeared to 500 people in one case.
They knew this to be the case and built every day of their
remaining lives on this foundation. And it was that astonishing
commitment and belief that sustained a movement that has
lasted for 2000 years and has embraced millions upon millions
of people, in every region of the planet earth.
The leadership was centered in Jerusalem. They were Jews. After a time, the leader of the group was James, the brother of Jesus. Peter had departed. They scattered out into the world. Peter is assumed to have ended up in Rome. They preached the good news based fully on their direct knowledge and experience with Christ. So, while one can believe anything, at least in this case the direct linage can be seen.
But there was another phenomenon that occurred that may be even less explainable. There was this Jewish Pharisee, named Saul, who was also a Roman citizen, who comes on the scene after the human Jesus is gone. He was a devout Jew. He was educated, unlike the apostles. He was also among the Jewish authorities that were deeply threatened by the preaching’s of the Jewish Christians and were working hard to eliminate them.
These Jewish Christians were preaching heresy. Their ideas and beliefs were interpreted as an affront to the “Law”. It came to be that a man, by the name of Stephen, who was a known follower of Christ first identified in the Acts of the Apostles (one of the major books of the New Testament), was arrested for public preaching, tried and stoned to death in Jerusalem by a group of Jewish authorities. Among them was Saul, of Taurus, who by his account, held the garments of those throwing the stones. Stephen was the first Christian martyr. He wasn’t to be the last. Saul was directly complicit in his death.
Some time thereafter Saul was on a mission to Damascus. The history is that he was being sent to Damascus to organize the local resistance to Christianity, and to gather Jewish Christians and bring them back to Jerusalem, where the Jewish authorities would deal with them. But then something happened during his journey, some sort of charismatic event / conversion experience. Paul described it as a revelation. He experienced Jesus as being alive in a vision. He regarded his experience as equivalent to that which the apostles had with the resurrected Christ. Overnight, it turned him into the most staunch believer and defender of Christ.
Several months later, he reappears on the scene as “Paul”. He is not only found to have, over night, become a believer, but he has totally dedicated his life to bringing the Jesus story to people from Syria to Rome. Even more astonishingly, his beliefs and words seem to be perfectly aligned with Jesus’ message, sayings, teachings and example. He had never met Jesus. He had not met any of the twelve. He was educated and not susceptible to normal overtures. He was a public enemy of Christians. It is not even known how he came to understand the Way of Christ since he witnessed nothing and, clearly, was not hanging out with Christians.
In time, Paul believes that his purpose is to bring the Jesus message to non-Jews – so called gentiles. Perhaps because his conversion occurred in Syria, his missionary work spread north from there, certainly to Syria and Greece, and eventually, as far west as Rome.
He visits Jerusalem some time after his conversion experience and meets with some unnamed Jewish Christians. He is not trusted. He departs. For three years, he hones his message. Then, he goes to Jerusalem and meets with Peter and John for the first time and they spend only about two weeks together. He doesn’t see Peter again until fourteen years later. (The sources for this are Paul’s letters.)
Paul develops, essentially, into the first Christian theologian. He formalizes the theology. He becomes the great teacher. He recruits numerous leaders. He travels over much of the known and civilized world. He writes.
As the mission of Paul developed, a lot of tension grew between the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians over whether a Christian must also commit to the Jewish Law. While Paul is a Jew, and adheres to the Law, he does not believe that new Christians must also follow the Law. This becomes the big conflict between the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians. In the end, Peter, James (the Just) and John – also Jewish Christians – side with Paul. Undoubtedly, a Jewish world of ideas and Jewish theology left an indelible stamp on the whole of Christianity, down to the present day. But Christianity and Judaism are destined to become different strands of monotheism.
Paul is an educated person, unlike the twelve. He is a prolific writer. Fourteen letters (epistles) survive which set out as comprehensively as we know the original faith paradigm of Jesus Christ. The alignment between Paul’s epistles and the four gospels and the Acts of the Apostles is nothing less than astonishing, given that Paul never met Jesus Christ, and spent so little time with those who knew Jesus.
The leadership was centered in Jerusalem. They were Jews. After a time, the leader of the group was James, the brother of Jesus. Peter had departed. They scattered out into the world. Peter is assumed to have ended up in Rome. They preached the good news based fully on their direct knowledge and experience with Christ. So, while one can believe anything, at least in this case the direct linage can be seen.
But there was another phenomenon that occurred that may be even less explainable. There was this Jewish Pharisee, named Saul, who was also a Roman citizen, who comes on the scene after the human Jesus is gone. He was a devout Jew. He was educated, unlike the apostles. He was also among the Jewish authorities that were deeply threatened by the preaching’s of the Jewish Christians and were working hard to eliminate them.
These Jewish Christians were preaching heresy. Their ideas and beliefs were interpreted as an affront to the “Law”. It came to be that a man, by the name of Stephen, who was a known follower of Christ first identified in the Acts of the Apostles (one of the major books of the New Testament), was arrested for public preaching, tried and stoned to death in Jerusalem by a group of Jewish authorities. Among them was Saul, of Taurus, who by his account, held the garments of those throwing the stones. Stephen was the first Christian martyr. He wasn’t to be the last. Saul was directly complicit in his death.
Some time thereafter Saul was on a mission to Damascus. The history is that he was being sent to Damascus to organize the local resistance to Christianity, and to gather Jewish Christians and bring them back to Jerusalem, where the Jewish authorities would deal with them. But then something happened during his journey, some sort of charismatic event / conversion experience. Paul described it as a revelation. He experienced Jesus as being alive in a vision. He regarded his experience as equivalent to that which the apostles had with the resurrected Christ. Overnight, it turned him into the most staunch believer and defender of Christ.
Several months later, he reappears on the scene as “Paul”. He is not only found to have, over night, become a believer, but he has totally dedicated his life to bringing the Jesus story to people from Syria to Rome. Even more astonishingly, his beliefs and words seem to be perfectly aligned with Jesus’ message, sayings, teachings and example. He had never met Jesus. He had not met any of the twelve. He was educated and not susceptible to normal overtures. He was a public enemy of Christians. It is not even known how he came to understand the Way of Christ since he witnessed nothing and, clearly, was not hanging out with Christians.
In time, Paul believes that his purpose is to bring the Jesus message to non-Jews – so called gentiles. Perhaps because his conversion occurred in Syria, his missionary work spread north from there, certainly to Syria and Greece, and eventually, as far west as Rome.
He visits Jerusalem some time after his conversion experience and meets with some unnamed Jewish Christians. He is not trusted. He departs. For three years, he hones his message. Then, he goes to Jerusalem and meets with Peter and John for the first time and they spend only about two weeks together. He doesn’t see Peter again until fourteen years later. (The sources for this are Paul’s letters.)
Paul develops, essentially, into the first Christian theologian. He formalizes the theology. He becomes the great teacher. He recruits numerous leaders. He travels over much of the known and civilized world. He writes.
As the mission of Paul developed, a lot of tension grew between the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians over whether a Christian must also commit to the Jewish Law. While Paul is a Jew, and adheres to the Law, he does not believe that new Christians must also follow the Law. This becomes the big conflict between the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians. In the end, Peter, James (the Just) and John – also Jewish Christians – side with Paul. Undoubtedly, a Jewish world of ideas and Jewish theology left an indelible stamp on the whole of Christianity, down to the present day. But Christianity and Judaism are destined to become different strands of monotheism.
Paul is an educated person, unlike the twelve. He is a prolific writer. Fourteen letters (epistles) survive which set out as comprehensively as we know the original faith paradigm of Jesus Christ. The alignment between Paul’s epistles and the four gospels and the Acts of the Apostles is nothing less than astonishing, given that Paul never met Jesus Christ, and spent so little time with those who knew Jesus.
A Church starts to form.
In time, a community of those who believed in Christ develops
(“a short definition of Church”), a community of those who
have committed themselves to the person and cause of Jesus
Christ and who bear witness to it as hope for all men and
women. Noticeable among these communities are two rituals –
baptism and a meal. Baptism is the first basic symbol of the
new faith community, a rite of initiation if you will. (Forms of
baptism had long been in use in Judaism.) The celebration of a
communal meal may have been a central element that held the
Christian community together. “People gathered regularly in
private houses for prayer and the ‘breaking of the bread’ and
‘partook of food with glad and generous hearts.’” At a very
early stage, this meal was called ‘Lord’s Supper’ or “Eucharist”.
Christian Community: First Hundred Years
The major points to be made about the first hundred years
might be these:
An interesting fact is that Jewish Christianity survived, somewhat independent of Hellenistic Christianity, for a very long time, perhaps into the middle of the fifth century. Recall, these were people who followed Christ, but continued to live within the religious traditions of Judaism. All of the original apostles were of this tradition.
The dominant challenge for Jewish Christians came from the Jewish leadership. The Jewish Christian view on Christ was not welcome and they were “excluded from the Synagogue”. In effect, the Jewish Christians were excommunicated. By the year 100, the Jesus Way – confession of the Messiah Jesus and particularly in synagogue life and worship – had failed. Judaism and Christianity would be separate. Then, in the year 135, the second major Jewish rebellion against Rome occurred which led to the complete destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish Christians left Jerusalem forever.
By the year 110, a contemporary Christian leader, Ignacious of Antioch, was taking the position that “you could not combine belief in Jesus with Jewish practice.” Others (Irenaeus) reiterated that view toward the end of the second century.
Jesus was a Jew. The apostles were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Most of the original Christians in Palestine were Jews. It took over two centuries for Christianity to fully separate itself from Judaism.
Paul led the shift to a Hellenistic centered Christianity, as Antioch was the center of his mission to the gentiles. And while Paul practiced the halakhah – the rituals of Jewish law –his conversion of gentiles could not have been accomplished if he demanded adherence to Jewish law and custom. Paul concluded that the ritual was not necessary. What was required was a “trust in God and a trust and acceptance of God’s will” as proclaimed in the actions and words of Jesus Christ. Only faith was required for ministry. A person didn’t have to be elected, didn’t need to be among the elite.
While the Jews had been missionaries – that is why there were Hellenistic Jews outside of Palestine – Judaism was essentially an exclusive club. (Jews were not supposed to have any material dealings with non-Jews, which makes converting non-Jews rather difficult.) Paul’s removal of the ritual trappings and his commitment to inclusion made mass adoption of the religion – Christianity – easier and allowed it to become a world religion. This is one reason why Christianity won the competition. Paul gets the greatest amount of credit for this, yet he was martyred in Rome by the year 64.
- The Good News spread rapidly and the community of believers greatly expanded.
- The early church was generally egalitarian, although culture starts to take over the role of women even in the Pauline Community.
- Power was distributed. While James was eventually regarded as the senior person among the Jewish Christians centered in Jerusalem, there is no evidence that this amounted to any kind of centralized control.
- When conflicts arose – such as among Paul, Peter, James, and John with respect to the criticality of Jewish tradition and the Law for new Christians – they worked them out and achieved alignment.
- Early on they started referring to themselves as Christians.
- Paul’s influence on the early Church was without peer.
- By the end of the Century, the Church was developing in both Antioch, present day Turkey, and in Rome. Antioch was part of Syria at that time, and was the most important Eastern city in the Roman Empire. It was also the primary base for Paul. Rome and Alexandria (Egypt) were the two bigger cities in the Empire.
- It is believed Paul was martyred in 64. No date is assigned to Peter’s death. Tradition has it that Peter spent many years in Rome and died there during the reign of Nero. But, there is not a word about this in the New Testament.
- There is no information about Peter’s later years in the last gospel, that of John, believed to have been written at the end of the century, and the three letters attributed to John.
- Christianity flourished, despite Jewish persecution in Jerusalem and Roman persecution, particularly in Rome.
An interesting fact is that Jewish Christianity survived, somewhat independent of Hellenistic Christianity, for a very long time, perhaps into the middle of the fifth century. Recall, these were people who followed Christ, but continued to live within the religious traditions of Judaism. All of the original apostles were of this tradition.
The dominant challenge for Jewish Christians came from the Jewish leadership. The Jewish Christian view on Christ was not welcome and they were “excluded from the Synagogue”. In effect, the Jewish Christians were excommunicated. By the year 100, the Jesus Way – confession of the Messiah Jesus and particularly in synagogue life and worship – had failed. Judaism and Christianity would be separate. Then, in the year 135, the second major Jewish rebellion against Rome occurred which led to the complete destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish Christians left Jerusalem forever.
By the year 110, a contemporary Christian leader, Ignacious of Antioch, was taking the position that “you could not combine belief in Jesus with Jewish practice.” Others (Irenaeus) reiterated that view toward the end of the second century.
Jesus was a Jew. The apostles were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Most of the original Christians in Palestine were Jews. It took over two centuries for Christianity to fully separate itself from Judaism.
Paul led the shift to a Hellenistic centered Christianity, as Antioch was the center of his mission to the gentiles. And while Paul practiced the halakhah – the rituals of Jewish law –his conversion of gentiles could not have been accomplished if he demanded adherence to Jewish law and custom. Paul concluded that the ritual was not necessary. What was required was a “trust in God and a trust and acceptance of God’s will” as proclaimed in the actions and words of Jesus Christ. Only faith was required for ministry. A person didn’t have to be elected, didn’t need to be among the elite.
While the Jews had been missionaries – that is why there were Hellenistic Jews outside of Palestine – Judaism was essentially an exclusive club. (Jews were not supposed to have any material dealings with non-Jews, which makes converting non-Jews rather difficult.) Paul’s removal of the ritual trappings and his commitment to inclusion made mass adoption of the religion – Christianity – easier and allowed it to become a world religion. This is one reason why Christianity won the competition. Paul gets the greatest amount of credit for this, yet he was martyred in Rome by the year 64.
The Church
Paul started the Church ministry. Kung writes that unity and
order existed in the Pauline Community. By the year 55 there
was already a sort of code: obedience to the Lord; benefits to
the community; action in solidarity; dialogue in partnership; an
authority structure; and, finally, a sense that the way functions
were exercised was important. That is, an institution evolved,
with a sense of critical processes, and a sense that some form
of organization was necessary to execute processes with
authority. The Church became an entity. Institutionalization
developed.
By the year 110, a monarchial structure, similar to that which exists to this very day, was clearly in use. At the top were the bishops, who were supposed to represent the Way of Jesus. The Presbyterate was to act as the apostles would have acted. The Deacons, the third level down, had broader and smaller authority, to represent the Way of Jesus. The People were the fourth level.
Ignacious of Antioch was also the first person to use the term “Catholic Church”, also around the year 110.
By the year 135, the leading church of Christ was in Rome. By the year 235, Roman bishops are key actors in the Church. 40 During the period 140-200, human culture and ancient tradition are starting to affect the Church dialogue, with respect specifically to hostility toward women and hostility to sex, both of which have survived to this day. Critically important, these views were not aligned with Jesus, the Jewish Christianity community, or with the Pauline community.
In the year 260, there was an unsuccessful program of major persecutions by the Romans, a threat that existed, in one form or another, from the beginning. There were just too many Christians in too many places, up and down the strata of contemporary Roman life.
By the year 313, Constantine was the emperor of Rome and for politically expeditious reasons declared freedom for all religions. Active Roman persecution of Christians was over.
In 325, he abolished crucifixion as a form of execution, largely to please the Christians. Also, at this time, Constantine became the sole leader of the Roman Empire, and he made his headquarters in the East (modern day Turkey), not in Rome.
So, let’s pause the narrative here for a time. The United States has existed for 239 years, if you start with July 4, 1776. Christianity had existed for almost 300 years before it found peace with organized governments. That is a long time to sustain a belief under threat of death. And like all religions, you need to distinguish between the core spiritual message and the cultural trappings that humans attach to their institutions, as was mentioned above.
In 325, Constantine gathered in Nicaea bishops from all over the empire in an ecumenical council and tasked them with forming an agreement with respect to the core doctrine of Christianity – not the message of Jesus, but more their belief structure about Him. From this developed the Nicean Creed, a prayer that is recited (or heard) by every Catholic community in every Mass (Catholic church service) that takes place in the present world.
The Creed is somewhat thought provoking because it puts at the center of Christianity a set of beliefs that perhaps cannot be unequivocally defended by the historical record of the New Testament. At the heart of this would certainly be the identity and origin of Jesus and His complex relationship with God.
One view, supported by the Creed, puts Jesus and God as One, and defines that relationship as having existed for all time. In this regard, we have the issue of Christ’s divinity. The other view, not found in the Creed, has a subtle, but profound, difference. John, in his gospel, identifies the Word, the “Logos”, the essence of God’s eternal nature and will as being indistinguishable from Jesus. In this belief, “Jesus represents the perfect, indistinguishable, word of God. He is in perfect alignment. Jesus’ message is God’s message. God is reachable through Jesus. Jesus is a man but, everything he represents, is the representation of God.”
Did this alignment, indeed, co-existence, occur before Christ became man? Did this alignment start with the human Jesus? I have never found that to be particularly important. What I have found to be important is that Jesus represented a conduit to God, an intermediary. As John said, no one has ever seen God. But John believed that the Word of God, the Logos, and Jesus were indistinguishable.
None of this causes any confusion with the Way of Christ, the core message of the Church. The Creed doesn’t even address the message. Rather, it addresses theological and philosophical dogma and doctrine that, while very important to the Church leaders, attempting to reconcile three hundred years of debate and discussion, is perhaps not nearly as important to current day believers.
Believers can embrace the message and, for whatever deep feelings they may have, choose to integrate it into their lives as a way to pursue happiness, fulfillment, and prolonged human peace. Believers can embrace a monotheistic, personal God and accept the word of God as passed down through the Jewish tradition, and enhanced by the Jesus message. Or, having accepted God, believers may easily embrace Jesus as God’s Word and representative on earth because, after all, if you believe in God, then, it is quite easy to believe in the Easter experience. And if you believe in the Easter experience then you may embrace Jesus in the most personal way and make Him an integral part, even the dominant part, of your everyday life.
By the year 110, a monarchial structure, similar to that which exists to this very day, was clearly in use. At the top were the bishops, who were supposed to represent the Way of Jesus. The Presbyterate was to act as the apostles would have acted. The Deacons, the third level down, had broader and smaller authority, to represent the Way of Jesus. The People were the fourth level.
Ignacious of Antioch was also the first person to use the term “Catholic Church”, also around the year 110.
By the year 135, the leading church of Christ was in Rome. By the year 235, Roman bishops are key actors in the Church. 40 During the period 140-200, human culture and ancient tradition are starting to affect the Church dialogue, with respect specifically to hostility toward women and hostility to sex, both of which have survived to this day. Critically important, these views were not aligned with Jesus, the Jewish Christianity community, or with the Pauline community.
In the year 260, there was an unsuccessful program of major persecutions by the Romans, a threat that existed, in one form or another, from the beginning. There were just too many Christians in too many places, up and down the strata of contemporary Roman life.
By the year 313, Constantine was the emperor of Rome and for politically expeditious reasons declared freedom for all religions. Active Roman persecution of Christians was over.
In 325, he abolished crucifixion as a form of execution, largely to please the Christians. Also, at this time, Constantine became the sole leader of the Roman Empire, and he made his headquarters in the East (modern day Turkey), not in Rome.
So, let’s pause the narrative here for a time. The United States has existed for 239 years, if you start with July 4, 1776. Christianity had existed for almost 300 years before it found peace with organized governments. That is a long time to sustain a belief under threat of death. And like all religions, you need to distinguish between the core spiritual message and the cultural trappings that humans attach to their institutions, as was mentioned above.
In 325, Constantine gathered in Nicaea bishops from all over the empire in an ecumenical council and tasked them with forming an agreement with respect to the core doctrine of Christianity – not the message of Jesus, but more their belief structure about Him. From this developed the Nicean Creed, a prayer that is recited (or heard) by every Catholic community in every Mass (Catholic church service) that takes place in the present world.
The Creed is somewhat thought provoking because it puts at the center of Christianity a set of beliefs that perhaps cannot be unequivocally defended by the historical record of the New Testament. At the heart of this would certainly be the identity and origin of Jesus and His complex relationship with God.
One view, supported by the Creed, puts Jesus and God as One, and defines that relationship as having existed for all time. In this regard, we have the issue of Christ’s divinity. The other view, not found in the Creed, has a subtle, but profound, difference. John, in his gospel, identifies the Word, the “Logos”, the essence of God’s eternal nature and will as being indistinguishable from Jesus. In this belief, “Jesus represents the perfect, indistinguishable, word of God. He is in perfect alignment. Jesus’ message is God’s message. God is reachable through Jesus. Jesus is a man but, everything he represents, is the representation of God.”
Did this alignment, indeed, co-existence, occur before Christ became man? Did this alignment start with the human Jesus? I have never found that to be particularly important. What I have found to be important is that Jesus represented a conduit to God, an intermediary. As John said, no one has ever seen God. But John believed that the Word of God, the Logos, and Jesus were indistinguishable.
None of this causes any confusion with the Way of Christ, the core message of the Church. The Creed doesn’t even address the message. Rather, it addresses theological and philosophical dogma and doctrine that, while very important to the Church leaders, attempting to reconcile three hundred years of debate and discussion, is perhaps not nearly as important to current day believers.
Believers can embrace the message and, for whatever deep feelings they may have, choose to integrate it into their lives as a way to pursue happiness, fulfillment, and prolonged human peace. Believers can embrace a monotheistic, personal God and accept the word of God as passed down through the Jewish tradition, and enhanced by the Jesus message. Or, having accepted God, believers may easily embrace Jesus as God’s Word and representative on earth because, after all, if you believe in God, then, it is quite easy to believe in the Easter experience. And if you believe in the Easter experience then you may embrace Jesus in the most personal way and make Him an integral part, even the dominant part, of your everyday life.
The Catholic Church through the ages
The Catholic Church is an institution run by men and, as such,
is capable of the magnificence of human beings and the lowest
behavior that humans can manifest, just like all of us.
- It treats women badly and for this there is no support in the New Testament.
- It treats sexuality with great hostility and for this there is no support in the New Testament.
- Among other things, it has demanded for half of its historical existence, that priests be celibate. (Such rules evolved after almost ten centuries. In the early middle Ages, a married priesthood was still largely the custom. Compulsory law of celibacy was not enacted until 1139.)
- Since the time of Augustine, in the year 400, it has practiced a hostile attitude about sex, a repressive attitude, and discouraged healthy discussion the likes of which might have prevented much of the clerical sexual abuse criminality of our current age.
- In the middle Ages, the notion was developed and grounded that sex was only for procreation. This amounted to a “doctrinal derailment of the bodily.”
- It defines, as its absolute authority figure, a Roman Pope, glossing over the historical reality that no such authority was given to a Roman bishop at Nicaea, and that Constantinople, not Rome, was inaugurated as the Roman capital in 330, and that the empire was divided into a Western Roman Empire and an Eastern Roman Empire in 395. It took from the 5 th to the 11 th Century to establish the papal dictatorship. “It was the Greeks versus the Latin’s.”
- The East/West divide is so fascinating that it deserves a few more words. For years after Constantine, The East was as powerful in Christian leadership as the West. But then Islam emerged, appearing in 622. Mohammad died in 632. Islam was politicized and militarized almost from the start. The Muslims quickly conquered Arabia, Syria and Palestine, then Persia and Egypt by 642, and overran Eastern Christianity by the 8 th Century. In time, Islam was the driving force of the Middle East and Turkey and, as a result, the Eastern Christian leadership – the Church – was not a political match for the Christian Church of the West.
- The Orthodox Catholic Church – Russian Orthodox/Greek Orthodox – has never accepted through out the ages the Roman authority that to a real degree evolved from the political weakness of the East. The political East-West divide – Russia and the West – that contemporary Americans know so well has much of its origin in this 44 conflict, which has lasted for 900 years. Indeed, Putin has spoken of these religious differences as a material part of what divides Russia from the West.
- In part, this Church conflict also has military overtones. The Crusades were launched in 1095 to take back Palestine, especially Jerusalem, and other Holy Christian places, which had been conquered by the Muslims. Indeed, Jerusalem was taken back during the first crusade and the West captured Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, in 1204, perhaps setting in place a tone of Eastern subservience to the West for centuries. (The other six of eight crusades over a couple hundred years were highly unsuccessful.)
- The Roman Catholic Church operates from a monarchial structure, centered in Rome, managed by a Pope who is, pardon the thought, as much a dictator as any monarch can be. The Pope, all alone, can declare a doctrine of the Church, claiming that he exercises the authority of Christ, notwithstanding dubious claims of any historical precedent in the New Testament nor throughout the first several hundred years of the Church.
- In the 16 th Century, the Church leadership threw out of the Church deeply Christian people who’s major complaints were to reject some of the trappings put on the Church by men and to urge the Church to re- emphasize the core messages of the New Testament, for example, where ordinary people were not treated as subservient to Church leadership – where leadership was a mission to serve the people, not the other way around. These protests, of course, led to the Protestant Reformation.
- By allowing the Roman Pope to define Christian doctrine and dogma, as if he alone spoke for Jesus, to be obeyed at the risk of eternal damnation, it enabled a man, Pope Pius 45 XI, in 1930, to apply his limited world view in a proclamation on the subject of birth control, which has caused untold spiritual destruction to so many Catholics for so many years.
- And because the Church is a totally human institution, it has had more than its share of corrupt leaders through the ages, even to this day, as exemplified in history by the popular TV show, the Borgias, which was a reasonably approximate presentation, and the present day scandals about the Vatican Bank.
- It has provided a conduit to Jesus for millions upon millions of people, through the ages.
- As an institution, it has defended the Way of Jesus. The Way of Jesus accepted us all as sinners and asked only that we put our total Trust in God, and God’s Way, and through this Trust, be saved.
- It has generally provided enlightened leadership – deeply spiritual leadership – that has preserved the Christian tradition over two millennia.
- The fathers of the Church have the same need for salvation as the rest of us. Jesus argued for unlimited forgiveness which we are allowed to grant to all those who have led the Church, as it is granted to us, and to also recognize that, in spite of their humanity, they preserved the Message, largely unchanged, for the rest of us.
- The Church has also accomplished astonishingly wonderful things in almost countless ways: its services, its charities, its schools, its hope, its forgiveness, and its protection of the core Message.
- The Church has given us the gift of an overwhelming number of priests, nuns, deacons and bishops who have dedicated their lives to service and have also helped the laity better understand the Way of Christ, both in their words and in their deeds.
What of the Future
The Catholic Church has been around for a long time. It is as
old as Judaism was at the time of Christ. The institution of the
Church, like all institutions, has many flaws. Churchill said
about democracy that it was the worst political system one
could imagine, except when compared to all of the others. And
he meant the entire sentence! Perhaps one might say a more
limited thing about the Roman Catholic Church.
Its core message has been preserved for two millennia. But, over such a long time, the cultures of ages have deeply affected the evolving institution. In a sense, the most remarkable fact may be that the Church has survived in spite of the follies of imperfect men.
It should also be recognized that the trappings installed around the Church – the rites, celebrations, dogmas, doctrines and power structures – are the things that people do to organize their lives, to secure some form of exact guidance, to become powerful over others and to propagate rules that enable expansion and consistency. These accoutrements are just so human! In fact, for many people, the rules are easier than thinking through some issues for themselves. Think how much easier it might be for a good person to live by the letter of the Ten Commandments, Jewish Law, Church Law, and the Quran than to live by the Sermon on the Mount. For example, the formal laws of religions seem to have a hard time discouraging people from passing judgment on others. But Jesus said, do not worry about the speck in your brother’s eye. Worry about the board in your eye.
In effect, Jesus got to the core of things. It isn’t about going to Church or Temple. It is about how you behave when you are not in Church. It isn’t about preaching to others about how they should behave but rather setting a very high standard about how you should live. It isn’t about being fully justified in your anger and disappointment at a relative, friend, or even a stranger; but rather, it is about unbounded forgiveness, without conditions. It isn’t about worrying how some poor souls got down in the dumps; it is only about helping them in spite of how they got there. It is about an almost unnatural respect, an unbounded admiration, for human beings leading to an unlimited care for these creatures because this is what God wants, as told to us by Jesus. Damn, this is a challenge. Compared to this challenge, being an admirable member or leader of just about any formal Church, Temple, or Mosque is down right easy.
With respect to my Church, the Catholic Church, it might be relevant to think back to the year 1209 when a person named Francis of Assisi appeared on the scene. He was, quite factually, an important person in Church history, and most applicable to our contemporary world, for two reasons. First, it is his message. Second, it is that he tried to make his case from inside the Church and stayed obedient to the Pope, Innocent III, until he died in 1226, thereby attaching his life story and his message to the continuing Church.
The Church leadership had moved increasingly away from the Way Of Christ. It was going to become even more corrupt until it eventually righted itself in the 15 th Century. Francis wanted to “rebuild the fallen Church”, from within. As dangerous as he appeared, he had committed himself to the Church, and was 48 “not in opposition to orthodox teaching,” so at least got his audience. He wanted Church leadership to “ return to true discipleship of Christ.” His message was “back to Christ”. The message was away from “possessions”, and toward an “inner freedom from possessions.” He stood for a return to humility, the renunciation of power, in exchange for more patience and more simplicity. His message deeply conflicted with the “centralized, legalized, politicized, militarized and clericalized Roman system of that day.” But, he was greatly respected by the current pope, and to a degree, he listened to him. The pope knew that the Church of that day was in great need of reform. Small changes were made.
This history might help explain why there is so much excitement within the catholic community of today that the new pope selected the name of Francis. It was a truly dramatic statement. Will his efforts lead to a profound examination and re-thinking within the Church, similar and advancing beyond what was started by John XXIII with Vatican II in the early 1960’s? It can’t be known, but there is hope.
Its core message has been preserved for two millennia. But, over such a long time, the cultures of ages have deeply affected the evolving institution. In a sense, the most remarkable fact may be that the Church has survived in spite of the follies of imperfect men.
It should also be recognized that the trappings installed around the Church – the rites, celebrations, dogmas, doctrines and power structures – are the things that people do to organize their lives, to secure some form of exact guidance, to become powerful over others and to propagate rules that enable expansion and consistency. These accoutrements are just so human! In fact, for many people, the rules are easier than thinking through some issues for themselves. Think how much easier it might be for a good person to live by the letter of the Ten Commandments, Jewish Law, Church Law, and the Quran than to live by the Sermon on the Mount. For example, the formal laws of religions seem to have a hard time discouraging people from passing judgment on others. But Jesus said, do not worry about the speck in your brother’s eye. Worry about the board in your eye.
In effect, Jesus got to the core of things. It isn’t about going to Church or Temple. It is about how you behave when you are not in Church. It isn’t about preaching to others about how they should behave but rather setting a very high standard about how you should live. It isn’t about being fully justified in your anger and disappointment at a relative, friend, or even a stranger; but rather, it is about unbounded forgiveness, without conditions. It isn’t about worrying how some poor souls got down in the dumps; it is only about helping them in spite of how they got there. It is about an almost unnatural respect, an unbounded admiration, for human beings leading to an unlimited care for these creatures because this is what God wants, as told to us by Jesus. Damn, this is a challenge. Compared to this challenge, being an admirable member or leader of just about any formal Church, Temple, or Mosque is down right easy.
With respect to my Church, the Catholic Church, it might be relevant to think back to the year 1209 when a person named Francis of Assisi appeared on the scene. He was, quite factually, an important person in Church history, and most applicable to our contemporary world, for two reasons. First, it is his message. Second, it is that he tried to make his case from inside the Church and stayed obedient to the Pope, Innocent III, until he died in 1226, thereby attaching his life story and his message to the continuing Church.
The Church leadership had moved increasingly away from the Way Of Christ. It was going to become even more corrupt until it eventually righted itself in the 15 th Century. Francis wanted to “rebuild the fallen Church”, from within. As dangerous as he appeared, he had committed himself to the Church, and was 48 “not in opposition to orthodox teaching,” so at least got his audience. He wanted Church leadership to “ return to true discipleship of Christ.” His message was “back to Christ”. The message was away from “possessions”, and toward an “inner freedom from possessions.” He stood for a return to humility, the renunciation of power, in exchange for more patience and more simplicity. His message deeply conflicted with the “centralized, legalized, politicized, militarized and clericalized Roman system of that day.” But, he was greatly respected by the current pope, and to a degree, he listened to him. The pope knew that the Church of that day was in great need of reform. Small changes were made.
This history might help explain why there is so much excitement within the catholic community of today that the new pope selected the name of Francis. It was a truly dramatic statement. Will his efforts lead to a profound examination and re-thinking within the Church, similar and advancing beyond what was started by John XXIII with Vatican II in the early 1960’s? It can’t be known, but there is hope.
My Beliefs
- I do not know whether I am up to living the Sermon on the Mount. And whether I am ever successful in doing so, I will leave this up to the judgment of God, and leave the subject between Him/Her/It and me.
- Of course, and so obviously, I am unworthy of even discussing any of this within the context of my own flawed life; but unfortunately, I am the one up to bat, so I must try. This is my gift to you, which may be received openly and carefully, or may be discarded as the useless ramblings of an older man.
- I embrace the message and do my best. I thank God for the part about forgiveness.
- I embrace a belief in God. As a scholar, as an expert in some fields, as a very discerning individual, as a rationalist, as a humanist, I have concluded, overwhelmingly, that I have this right – that I can make this leap of faith even more easily than the one it would take to reject God.
- I embrace God’s message.
- I embrace Jesus as God’s Logos and have had him as my friend, through thick and thin, during down times as well as good times, during periods of doubt and periods of conviction, in spite of my sinfulness and occasional goodness.
- I embrace the Church, with all of its flaws, because it continues to be a loving conduit to rightfulness and frequently brings me real peace and contentment. In addition, I have found Christian communities within Catholicism that are actually trying, with all of their power, to live the Way of Christ. And I also admit, many times I fully enjoy the rituals.
- I hold with much greater respect than I did in previous years the other Christian faiths, devoid of some of the trappings of the Catholic Church – though perhaps having some of their own – that are trying their best to bring the Jesus message to everyday people. The hundreds of hours spent developing this statement have taught me things that have only deepened this respect. In recent years, for example, I have developed a lot of respect for the message preached on TV and radio by Joel Osteen.
- I pray that I might live to see a single Christianity, with universally shared power and authority, so that we might return to a time before the Reformation, and get it right this time.
- I embrace with respect and love the Jewish religion of my forefathers and recognize, and always have, its presence in the core of Christianity. Judaism and Christianity are inexplicably linked – forever.
