The Mystic Christian Reader

Thanks to a link from the Blog of my old friend Travis Polling (Sister Anna Bap's Famous Radical Pie), I found THIS link to the "test your spiritual type" website. This website proports to tell you what KIND of Christian you are. I thought that was pretty silly... Till I took the test. As soon as I saw "Franciscan Prayer" at the top of my results page, I KNEW this little Java script had it's shit together. Totally cool! So Check it out!

Here's my results:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Spirituality Type: PATH OF SERVICE (Franciscan prayer)

About 38 percent of the population is this spiritual type--but far fewer of this type come to church regularly.

Like Saint Francis of Assisi, those who follow the path must be free, unconfined, and able to do whatever their inner spirit moves them to do. They don't like to be tied down by rules. One thinks of Saint Peter impetuously jumping into the water to join Jesus as a typical action of this type.

Franciscan spirituality leads to acts of loving service which can be a most effective form of prayer. The gospel stories about Jesus have a special appeal, particularly the Incarnation of God in the life of Jesus, which is the center around which Franciscan life and spirituality revolve. Franciscan prayer is flexible and free-flowing making full use of the five senses and it is spirit-filled prayer.

Those on this path can make a meditation on the beauty of a waterfall, flower, meadow, mountain, or ocean—all of God's creation. There is more stress in prayer on the events of Jesus' life on this teaching. Like Saint Therese of Lisieux, prayer is done with total concentration—as if this is the most important thing to be doing at this moment Therese did all tasks knowing that each was a part of the total harmony of the universe.

By Roger O'Brien.
Found in VISION: http://www.vocationguide.org
© National Religious Vocation Conference
------------------------------------------------------

Weird... A little java script has me all figured out. Therese and Francis are mi familia and my patrons. I'm in love with Therese and want to be Francis' best friend. Cool. Check this little site out!

While it may come as a shock to many Christians, scholars generally agree that the 4 Gospels contain 4 different versions of Jesus' public life. While their messages are similar (although addressed to different audiences and with different agendas), the chronological order of events, and even the places which events take place do not always agree. As soon as one begins to study the Bible closely, with even a small amount of open-mindedness, it becomes impossible to read it "literally" or see it in any way as an historical document. This is especially true for the "bookends" of the Bible--Genesis and The Revelation of St. John. Just as with the Gospels, a close reading of the first two chapters of Genesis reveal not one, but two distinct creation stories. The first is laid out for us in Genesis 1:1-2:3. This is the 6-day creation with one day off, the text which fundamentalists and creationists pound again and again in the fight against the Darwinian theory of evolution and even, as ridiculous as it may seem, the insistence that the earth is only 4,000 years old.

The other creation story is contained in Genesis 2:4-25. This story is more heavily focused on the creation of human beings and the relationship between men and women.

Here is the account of the creation of humans and animals in the first creation story:

"Then God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind and everything that creeps upon the earth after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
"Then God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild beasts of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 2:25-27 Lamsa Translation)

Here is the same account, but from the second story:

"And the Lord God formed Adam out of the soil of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...
"Then the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper who is like him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was its name. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to all fowl of the air, and to all wild beasts; but for Adam there was not found a helper who was equal to him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh and in its stead; And the rib which the Lord God had taken from Adam he made a woman, and brought her to Adam. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:7-9, 18-23, Lamsa Translation).

Clearly, these are two distinctly different stories. First, and most glaring to me, is the fact that the order of creation is changed. In the first story, God creates animals first, and afterward creates man and woman at the same time. In the second story, man (the male) is created first, then God creates a bunch of animals in a futile attempt to find one which will be a suitable companion for Adam. Adam rejects one after another, till finally God sedates him, takes a rib from his side, and uses it as some sort of seed to create a woman.

Another, more subtle difference, which is a telltale sign for scholars that these two stories are not only different, but were written at very different times, is the change in names used to refer to God. In the first story, God is called simply "God". The Hebrew word used here is elohim. In the second story, the name becomes the Lord God. The Hebrew used here is adonai elohim. The difference is subtle, but important for those dating scriptures.

So, not only have we established that there are two disagreeing versions of the creation of mankind within the same chapter of Genesis, we have seen that these two versions were probably written at different times in human history, and (like the 4 Gospels) probably have different agendas and audiences. What am I getting at, you may ask? Am I saying the Bible is not a reliable document? Most definitly not. The Bible is one of the most reliable documents on earth, but not as an historical document, but as a spiritual document. These creation stories are myths, that is, they are meant to convey a spiritual Truth, not to be taken as historial fact. For me, the first creation myth paints God as the ultimate artist, and teaches that we should appreciate the world as His Art. Everything around us was painted on a blank canvas of black void, and we were placed in that work that we might appricate and enjoy it. The second myth, I feel, speaks of the creation of sexuality. In many Western Mystery traditions, the first human was either asexual or hermaphroditic (being either both male and female or neither male nor female). Then, some fundamental act separates the two, and Soul Mates are created. One becomes two, and the meaning of life is the reunion of the male and female aspects of our own soul--the healing of duality. I think this story of Adam's rib can easily be taken as a version of that myth; although there are many other interpretations, some less woman friendly than mine. It is not my place to say that my interpretation is better than those, only that it speaks more to the truth as I have experienced it.

The Vatican, it seems, agrees with my hypothesis that the book of Genesis is NOT an historical document, but a spiritual one. Earlier this month, in a press conference, Cardinal Paul Poupard spoke of the dangers of reading the Bible too literally and of rejecting the findings of Science. Read more for details:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article copied from the Washington Post. Click Here for the original.

Vatican: Faithful Should Listen to Science
By NICOLE WINFIELD
The Associated Press
Friday, November 4, 2005; 10:12 AM

VATICAN CITY -- A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the "mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

"The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future," Poupard said.
But he said science, too, should listen to religion.

"We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said.

"But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said.

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."
Poupard and others at the news conference were asked about the religion-science debate raging in the United States over evolution and "intelligent design."

Intelligent design's supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis."

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."

He was asked about comments made in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who dismissed in a New York Times article the 1996 statement by John Paul as "rather vague and unimportant" and seemed to back intelligent design.

Basti concurred that John Paul's 1996 letter "is not a very clear expression from a definition point of view," but he said evolution was assuming ever more authority as scientific proof develops.

Poupard, for his part, stressed that what was important was that "the universe wasn't made by itself, but has a creator." But he added, "It's important for the faithful to know how science views things to understand better."

The Vatican project STOQ has organized academic courses and conferences on the relationship between science and religion and is hosting its first international conference on "the infinity in science, philosophy and theology," next week.

I just wanted to pass on this piece of Gospel (greek for "Good News") I got today from a member of the OES (Order of Ecumenical Franciscans) email list. Rejoice!

Nov. 11, 2005 .
By United Methodist News Service
http://tinyurl.com/74ph4

Ninety-six United Methodist bishops have signed a statement repenting "of our complicity in what we believe to be the unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"The signers include more than half of the denomination's active and retired bishops, both within the United States and in the Central Conferences outside the United States. Bishop Kenneth Carder, one of the signers, told United Methodist News Service on Nov. 11 that the statement had been nearly six weeks in the making.

The statement confesses "our preoccupation with institutional enhancement and limited agendas while American men and women are sent to Iraq to kill and be killed, while thousands of Iraqi people needlessly suffer and die, while poverty increases and preventable diseases go untreated."While the sacrifices of military personnel are valued, true security does not lie in the weapons of war, the bishops pointed out.

The bishops committed to praying daily for the end of war in Iraq and all wars in general, reclaiming the idea of living "faithfully in the light of God's new creation" and pledging to peacemaking as an "integral component of our own Christian discipleship."

They also called upon United Methodists to object to "solutions of war that conflict with the gospel message of self-emptying love" and work toward "unity in a world of diversity."

On Nov. 4, the Council of Bishops adopted a resolution calling on President George Bush to draw up a plan and timeline for withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. Another statement on Iraq had been issued by the council a year and a half earlier.

In the "Resolution on the War in Iraq," the bishops noted that "peacemaking is a sacred calling of the Lord Jesus Christ," and that the denomination's Book of Discipline declares war "incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ."

The resolution stated that "the continuing loss of Iraqi civilian lives, especially children, and the increasing death toll among United States and coalition military, grieves the heart of God." The bishops said the U.S. government's reasons for war - "the presumption of weapons of mass destruction and alleged connection between al-Qaida and Iraq" - have not been verified, and that the violence in Iraq has created a context for "gross violations of human rights of prisoners of war."

In October, the United Methodist Board of Church and Society passed a resolution calling on the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq. "As people of faith, we raise our voice in protest against the tragedy of the unjust war in Iraq," the resolution stated. "We urge the United States government to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of its troops. The U.S. invasion has set in motion a sequence of events which may plunge Iraq into civil war."

Today, I found a wonderful article about the current nature of spiritual debate in our American political world. I have, in the last few years, avoided much political discussion outside my very close friends, simply because I felt that there were other things more productive to talk about. It was enough to say that I was unhappy with the current administration, and that I wish if they were going to carry Jesus around like a banner, that they'd at least LISTEN to what the guy had to say. Our Great Christian President, George the Second, when asked in the 2000 debates who his "favorite philosopher" was, he answered "Jesus Christ." The man's actions in the last 5 years show me he doesn't know much about Jesus' teachings on unconditional love, helping the poor or the children, or on non-violence.

Anyway, I found this great article on the topic from Salon.com. The original can be read Here

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rescuing Jesus

Bush & Co. have hijacked Jesus, using him as the poster child for their callous worldview. It's time to rescue Christ from his kidnappers.

By Alessandro Camon

Oct. 07, 2005 Harriet Miers, should she be confirmed to the Supreme Court, will be the resident evangelical Christian. She shares her religious background with George W. Bush, whose claim to have chosen her based on "knowing her heart" has as much to do with the born-again faith he shares with her as with her long service in his inner circle. This choice might have left secular conservatives perplexed or downright dissatisfied, but is an obvious crowd-pleaser with the Christian right. Above all, it reflects the importance of Christianity for Bush, widely described as the most devout president in history.

But as we brace for more battles over abortion rights, gay marriage, stem cell research and so forth, it's time to ask just how Christian the supposedly pious Bush administration really is. Because what happened in New Orleans, and what has been happening in Iraq, raises serious questions about whether Bush & Co. deserve to be called Christian at all.

Natural disasters are often labeled "acts of God." Those who take the expression literally may think that God is punishing our sins (a belief shared by some Christians with those Muslims who think Katrina is Allah's reprisal), or they may struggle to reconcile the idea of an infinitely good God with the devastation he brings upon us. But you don't have to take the expression literally to feel that natural disasters call into question the meaning of life. They cut us down to size, and challenge us to rise up again. They make us mourn for the dead and reach out for the survivors. If we do believe in God, even just a little bit, they are a true test of our faith, and an opportunity to do what we preach: to give, to comfort, to assist.

Wars are acts of man, yet all too often are fought for a "holy" cause, painted as deeds of "infinite justice" or "crusades" of good vs. evil. But it's when we look at the victims that faith is truly tested. A religious person will have the chance to show all his horror, regret, compassion, forgiveness. In war, many parents will lose their children, a sacrifice so profound that it is more than a human being can be expected to bear; a sacrifice that is, in fact, made by God -- the Christian one -- and proof of godliness. (In one of the harshest and most controversial biblical tales, Abraham is ready to sacrifice his son before God, as he believes God asked him to do, but God stops him before he goes through with it. However one wants to interpret the tale -- whether it's about obedience or misunderstanding -- the point is, God doesn't actually want to impose on a parent the loss of a child.) To those who suffer such a loss, we have a chance -- and an obligation -- to offer utmost solidarity.

The administration's lethargic and callous response to the call after Hurricane Katrina, just like the president's coldheartedness toward Cindy Sheehan, suggests that the people who govern us are as willing to invoke Jesus as their guide, their inspiration, even their "favorite philosopher," as they are firmly unwilling to behave anything like Jesus.
"What would Jesus do?" has been a favorite slogan of the Christian right. It's a rhetorical question, meant to display lofty concerns and stake the high ground. It's not meant to be answered; in fact it's usually not even asked in relation to the things Jesus cared about.
It's time to put that question to better use.

Should a nation rush into an unprovoked war whose justification is weak at best, and fraudulent at worst? What would Jesus do?

A mother mourning the death of her son in that war asks for a chance to speak to the president about her grief, and to have her questions answered. What would Jesus do?
Thousands of men, women and children are left behind in the flood with no food, drinkable water or medical aid. What would Jesus do?

Would Jesus rush to war, or neglect to interrupt his vacation to meet the mother of a dead soldier, or abandon the people of a ravaged city? Would he promote tax breaks for the rich, undercut education, support the death penalty?

The answers are painfully easy. We know what Jesus would do, because he did do it, or talked about it in no uncertain terms. Jesus was for peace, for the poor, for the afflicted, for the children, and against the death penalty -- of which he was a victim. Anybody who denies this, or who argues that it's possible to be a good Christian without adhering to these basic positions, is basically betraying Christ.

We could ask some harder questions. Would Jesus really frown upon homosexuality? Would he seek to prolong life at all cost, even when in the form of a persistent vegetative state? Here many believe the answers are in the affirmative, or at least much more uncertain. But homosexuality existed in Jesus' times. And what Jesus had to say about it was, in one word, nothing. Unlike poverty, it just wasn't a concern. As far as pulling the plug, being a Christian means to believe that life doesn't end with the physical death of this body, on this earth. That's when a far better, everlasting life begins. (The one legitimately complex issue is abortion, and one can see a case for Jesus being generally against it; still, it is not something he directly spoke about.)

The American Christian right has hijacked Jesus Christ. It has made him into a brand, a logo, a bumper sticker. It celebrates his suffering on the cross, but largely neglects what he had to say. It prefers an Old Testament God, a "Jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children." It elevates success to proof of God's favor, and washes its hands of responsibility for the poor. It combines a self-righteous vision of Americans as the chosen people with shrill intimations of imminent apocalypse, to justify indifference to the rest of the world and to the planet itself. It sticks to the letter of the Bible with arbitrary selectiveness, so that it can endorse creationism and condemn homosexuality while acknowledging that (contrary to Old Testament wisdom) the earth is in fact round, and slavery is not OK.

It's a twisted, schizophrenic form of religion that mirrors the most reactionary form of Islam. (Not by chance, both the Christian right and conservative Muslims are at odds with women's rights, and fiercely homophobic.)

A lot can be said about the theological fallacies and over-simplifications of the Christian right. Take the way it reads the Commandments. What, for example, does "not to take the Lord's name in vain" mean? Is it a prohibition against using the word "God" in casual conversation? Or does it forbid Christians from going to war in the name of God? And what about "love thy neighbor"? Does it refer to the guy next door, who shares our tax bracket? Or is it about all of our fellow humans, whether similar or different? In fact, is it not an exhortation to love precisely those who are different?

Most important, though, is how Christians actually relate to Christ.

Jesus was a poor man. He started a movement of the poor, for the poor. This isn't socialist revisionism: This is what the Gospels say. Jesus defied authority, and spread a message of hope, tolerance, inclusion.

He said:
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal ... For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

He also said:
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Moreover:
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

And of course, he said:
I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. (...) Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of my brothers, you did it to me.

Does this sound like the voice inspiring this administration? Or the voice they go out of their way to ignore?

Last month, President Bush said that Hurricane Katrina exposed the problem of persistent poverty in this country. But why did the problem need to be exposed in order to warrant his concern? Was the president not aware of it before? And what about poverty in the rest of the world -- a problem that the Bush administration stubbornly refuses to make a priority, which in fact its policies greatly exacerbate?

To hold a president (or a justice) up to such a high standard as the teachings of Jesus would be unfair, if it weren't the president himself who claimed to act in Jesus' name. It's time for Bush, the Republican Party and the Christian right to be confronted with their failings as Christians. If there is a worthy measure of anybody's religious commitment, it has to be how it's expressed in action. It's not how you talk the talk that makes you a true Christian. It's the deeds you do -- and those you don't.

Liberals have let the right claim Jesus for themselves. But the legacy of Christ is far too precious to be left in the hands of the hypocrites who use it to justify war, bigotry and injustice. It is time to reclaim Jesus -- not to start another religious party, but to free him from the one that's hogging him as their poster child. It's time not just to ask "what would Jesus do?" but to actually listen to the answer.

It's about poverty. It's about peace. No true Christian can have anything more important in mind.

-- By Alessandro Camon

Today's reading comes from the 11th chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew, verses 28-30:

"Come to me, all you who are tired out and carrying burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am genial and meek in my heart, and you will find rest in your souls. For my yoke is very pleasant, and my burden is light."

It is interesting, and very revealing to examine the root of the word "Yoke." A Yoke is the large wooden harness that is used to tie an ox or a buffalo to a cart or plough that they might do work for their master. So, here, The Master is saying that becoming His oxen, his workers, is an easy burden. This may seem at odds with other places in the Gospels and Epistles, where we are told that to be a disciple of Christ is to be rejected by society, to be spit upon. The whole of the Catholic faith seems sometimes constructed upon the foundation of the correctness of suffering. What then, is Jesus saying here?

The "lightness" The Master speaks of is a lightness of the Spirit, an inner serenity. It is interesting to note that the English word "yoke" is a derivative of the Sanskrit word "Yoga" (Sanskrit being the oldest surviving language in the Indo-European language family). Yoga means "to tie or hook together," and as we have said before, a yoke is a tool for attaching a load to work animals. In order to gain the deeper understanding of The Master's words, then, it is useful to know WHAT "binding" is implied in the term Yoga. While we in the West tend to think of Yoga as a bunch of stretching exercises like an Indian calisthenics or something, this physical Yoga, or HATHA Yoga, is only one aspect of a whole system of philosophy, meditation, and postures which are designed to bind the Soul of the individual to God. This is nearly identical to the analogy Christ makes in another part of the Gospel where he speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven as a wedding, where He is the Groom and the Human Soul the Bride.

The deeper meaning of this passage, then is that once we bind ourselves to Christ; once our consciousness is wedded to His, all our burdens (our stresses, emotional considerations, our responsibilities in the world) will become light and easy. Even this so-called suffering, which is considered a hallmark of the Christian life, will seem like nothing at all, and we will be able to bare it easily and without worry or stress. Christ is telling us that when we bind ourselves to His Consciousness, we are lifted up to a state of mind beyond worry and weight to a place of Serenity, Light, and equanimity.

A couple friends asked me where I was getting the Bible verses I was quoting (which translation), so I decided to feature my Favorite Book in this post.

The Bible I use most often, although I ALWAYS reference 2 or 3 others (till I learn to read Biblical Greek and Syriac myself), is "The Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text" translated by George Lamsa. This book is an English translation of the Peshitta, the official Bible of the Eastern Orthodox Church. This text is written in Syriac, a language also called "Eastern Aramaic," which is similar to the Aramaic spoken by Jesus and his contemporaries, though not identical (think Mexican Spanish vs Spanish Spanish). Lamsa felt that growing up in a Semitic, Aramaic-speaking desert tribe made him especially qualified to translate and comment on the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.

I enjoy Lamsa's work because he approaches his subject matter as a scholar, doing well for the most part of keeping his personal theology out of the matter at hand and approaching the translation from the view of a "cultural insider" without ramming his personal views on God or the Spiritual World down his readers' throats.

Those familiar with the Hebrew/Greek or KJV-based translations will not feel like they're in completely new territory as they plumb the depths of the uniquely Semitic Biblical world that this book illuminates. Lamsa does his best to use similar phraseology and style to the KJV (occasionally, even, at the expense of a more mystical reading of the work), which eases us into this new way of reading old stories.

Generally speaking, reading "The Holy Bible" is like getting a hopeful second opinion after your Dr. tells you the cancer is inoperable. Lamsa explores the dual (or triple) meanings of words in Semitic languages (like Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic) and shows us that the physical, "Literal" and Non-Mystical interpretation of these well-known scriptures may not have been inherent in their writing (as they seem to be from the Latin and Greek texts) but that there may be MANY meanings for a particular verse, some which even seem "Eastern" in the sense of Buddhist or Taoist.

So READ THIS BIBLE, and USE IT; either as your primary Bible, or to supplement your well-worn "Western" Bible.

Get it at amazon.com HERE

You can also read it online for free HERE

For further Aramaic and Peshitta resources, check out the works of Neil Douglas-Klotz HERE

And the Church of Lamsa's protege, Rocco Errico HERE

Shalom

My friend Aubrey has a quote from Marcus Auraleus in her email signature:

"Very little is needed to live a happy life"

Whenever I get a letter from her, I really contemplate this little phrase, which comes in a cursive font with a little cartoon rose on each side. I like it because it's a GREAT motto for her and her partner Matt. They are, more than anyone else I know, easily contented with little, with the simple, the quiet, the slow. As one who attempts to live in the immitation of Christ, It stands out to me as almost a mantra. This little verse could easily have been a truism for Jesus and his Apostles, just as it surely was for our Beloved Father Francis and Sister Claire of Assisi. It is a truth for the Amish, the Menonites, and the Brethren (three AMAZING groups of American Christians), and was a motto of the homesteaders and Pioneers who travelled across the Great Plains with fiddle and hoe in hand.

What I LOVE about getting this from Aubrey is that while her and Matt would most definitly NOT identify themselves as Christians, this is a MOST Christian of mottos. Not Christian in the closed-off, Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell/Fred Phelps sense of the word, but in the expansive, Jesus/John the Baptist/St. Francis sense of the word. This is the Christianity I hope to be an example for in the world, and I love that this lesson comes from a non-Christian friend's quote of a non-Christian Emperor.

Shalom

As a free-thinking, open-minded Christian who strives in his life to be as Christlike as possible (with mixed results), I find myself constantly at odds with the Fundamentalist, born-again doctrine that says all we must do is "accept Jesus Christ into our lives" and everything will be great from there on in. There's nothing else to do. You can be a wonderful person who cares for people and is generous and loving, but if you haven't "given your life to Jesus", then you will certainly burn in Hell. However, one can pretty much do whatever one wants, consequence-free, as long as he has accepted Jesus as his Savior and asks for forgiveness for whatever he's done. This man is garanteed to go to heaven.

This is not to say that all born-again Christians are doing terrible things all the time and then asking for forgiveness later on. On the contrary, many of them are very good people, who work just as hard as anyone else at being what they believe to be a right and moral person. This is the most we can truly ask of anyone, that they are living their lives to the best of their abilities as their own spiritual tradition dictates.

The Born-Again tradition is firmly grounded in the teachings of the Bible... Saddly, reading The Bible is a passtime that has rapdily gone out of style, even among us Christians who profess to follow its precepts. How surprised I was to find that in Matthew 7:21-23, at the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Himself spoke out against the Born-Again theology.

"Knowing the correct password--saying "Master, Master,' for instance--isn't going to get you anywhere with me. What is required is serious obedience--doing what my Father wills. I can see it now--at the Final Judgment thousands strutting up to me and saying, "Master, we preached the Message, we bashed the demons, our God-sponsored projects had everyone talking.' And do you know what I am going to say? "You missed the boat. All you did was use me to make yourselves important. You don't impress me one bit. You're out of here.' (from "The Message")

Or, from a more "conventional" translation:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (from NIV)

Clearly to me, Jesus is saying here: "Just calling me 'Master' is not enough. You have to do the REAL WORK (aka: the Will of The Father) in order to get into Paradise on Judgement Day. The important question is: What is the REAL WORK? What is the Will of The Father? I believe that in this respect, the Born-again theology is PARTIALLY correct. The goal IS to have a PERSONAL relationship with Christ, and therefore with God. Again a question arrises: What is a PERSONAL relationship with God? It is a realationshp where we listen more than we speak, where we quiet our minds and open our Hearts so that God can enter there. A famous painting of Jesus has Him knocking at a door. The artist was once asked why the door had no handle. He said the door was the door to our hearts, and that it only opened from the INSIDE. We had to let God in. The best way to do this to follow the advice of Psalm 46, verse 10:

"Be still, and know that I am God"

After finishing "Lamb," I decided I was going to embark on a true reading of the New Testiment. I called myself a Christian as a kid, and after a somewhat long break, am doing so now again... So I thought it would be pertinant to actually read the document from which I proport to believe.

As I read, I found that much of what I'd been raised on as "The Gospel Truth" was anything but. Today's case in point: The baptism of Jesus as recorded by St. Matthew (3:16,17)

"16And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

How is this different from the scene as Sunday School and the movies have taught us to remember it? "The Gospel Truth" shows us CLEARLY that this experience, so familar to our Protestant American mind, with the bird and the booming voice of God from heaven (probably sounding a great deal like Charton Heston or James Earl Jones, if we are to believe the movies) was an INTERIOR experience of Jesus'. The Bible states explicitly that "the heavens were opened up to HIM" and "HE saw the spirit of God".

So, what our cultural memory teaches us is the "Gospel Truth" is actually NOT. The people surrounding Jesus that day didn't hear the booming voice of God from the sky, and they didn't see a dove made of light decend upon Jesus. Only Jesus saw these things. The experience that St. Matthew recounts here is the moment of enlightenment of Jesus, the event of his "Christing"

The deeper revelation of this verse, if we are to read into it a bit, is even more illuminating. If the voice IS God addressing Jesus, why would He say "THIS is my Son?" Wouldn't He say "YOU are my Son?" Since He didn't say that, we must assume that Jesus THE MAN isn't the Son of God as we have prevoiusly been raised to believe that He was. Instead, God addresses Jesus and says THIS is my Son. Whom, then is God refering to?

I believe that God references THE EXPERIENCE... The CONSCIOUSNESS... Jesus became THE CHRIST at that moment. God was refering to the EXPEREINCE or the STATE OF MIND that Jesus was witnessing at that moment when He said "THIS is my son..." The body of Jesus ben Joseph became a recepticle for the only begotten Son of God at that moment, just as we all can also become, for does it not say, in John 1:12--

"But as many as received him, to them gave He power to become THE SONS OF GOD, even to them that believe on his name"

Thanks to a little "visiting home" gift from my friend Aubrey, I was blessed with the joy of reading "Lamb" a nove by Christopher Moore which proports to tell the story of Jesus from the vantage point of his best friend "Levi, who is called Biff". Biff is something of a heathen, has a MASSIVE crush on the Virgin Mary growing up (can you blame him), and looses his virginity to Mary Magdalene on the eve of he and Jesus leaving Nazareth for the "Lost Years" period.

The Beauty of this book is how it uses humor, sarcasm, and irreverence, to tell some of the "alternative" theories about Jesus, especially those regarding the infamous "Lost Years." This book has Jesus and Biff inventing "Judo" (aka: The way of the Jew), rescuing Untouchable children in India from being sacrificed at a Kali ritual, and Biff claims over and over to be the inventor of sarcasm.

There is also an interesting side story, taking place in the "present", where Biff has been resurrected from the dead by the angel Raziel to write his Gospel. Since angels have no freewill and can only do what they are told by God, They are portrayed in the book as somewhat dimwhitted as compared to the humans. It's funny! I recommend this book to everybody, especially those without a sense of humor regarding the "Only Begotten Son." The sad thing is, the people who need this book the most are those who would probably consider it a one-way ticket to Hell. Read "Lamb" and laugh your ego off! Get it here on Amazon.com

So... This is my introduction to the world of the blog. My mission, should I choose to accept it, is to promulgate the concept that one CAN be a Christian in this world and at the same time honor the Truth in ALL religions. I am a mystic, an armchair scholar of religious history, and a Good (Gnostic) Catholic Boy. I currently reside in Sacramento, CA, but my wife and I will be on the road starting New Year's Eve, heading back to reside in the Midwest after a 4-year absence, due to the forthcoming birth of our new son. He's due May 13! Then, we'll be winter/summer'ing in Lansing, MI before moving to (insert name of city where I get accepted to Graduate School). I'm planning on a Theology Masters/Ph.D. Program in Biblical Languages and Early Christian History, and would like to go on to be a university or Community College teacher and perhaps give lectures at progressive churches on early Christian history and the evolution of Christian theology.