THE PROBLEM WITH RELIGION
As many of you know from reading my past posts, my definition of religion is extremely broad and includes both secular and theistic ideologies. I admit that the idea or notion of secular religion is not readily accepted, but I feel it important to understand its ramifications as I move forward in looking for a solution to problems that arise from religion, as a whole. We still tend to think in dualistic terms when it comes to religious ideologies, which encompasses both theistic and secular ideologies. Throughout my blog, I have maintained that human beings are religious by nature; that is, they come together through a bond of shared ideologies whether it is secular or theistic; that this coming together to form ideologically based communities exemplifies the fundamental impulse of religion - our need for each other.
Over time this need became differentiated, as we perceived our experiences in our world differently and led to humans seeing other human beings differently. As such, I have talked about the differentiating paradigm of religion that gives rise to not only different versions of theism, but also has given rise to secular ideas; nationalism, globalism,capitalism, socialism, democracy, theocracy, and so on.
I quite agree with those who argue that religion is a problem, but I would add that religion is a problem only to the extent that humans are a problem. Religions, like all human creations, eventually become a repository of human dysfunction. For some, like atheists, the answer is ridding the world of theism, as though it is a cause of human dysfunction. What I would say is that theism magnifies such dysfunction, but is not the cause. Rather, I would say that when any religious ideology is left on its own, as a self-regulating entity, which many theistic religions are prone to do, problems begin to arise as that religion becomes increasingly incapable of processing unfamiliar events and ideas. Atheism is not the solution, as Atheism, itself, is religion, if not a not a theistic one.
For example, there is a growing number of intellectuals, who identify as atheist, who believe theistic religions are detrimental and have no relevance in today's world. Some have written thought-provoking, if not inspiring, books on the problems theism poses. While they might take issue with my broad definition of religion, they are by my definition of religion, a religion and advocating a form of theism that I would identify as inspired intellectualism or intellectual spiritualism - a theistic-like way of perceiving the awesome grandeur of being and the cosmos without the need for an out-there-other, commonly known as God.
They are religious in their notion of an ideal world that is void of theism. Proof of their religious nature is in the simple fact that they write books. Why say anything if you don't want people to come your way or (in their case) you don't think your helping people or helping the world wake up to one's understanding of reality which is driven by a personal need or desire to enlighten others - to better their lives which, in turn, betters one's own.
You don't have to be a theist to be religious . You don't need to belong to a church, mosque, temple or an organization. All you need is an idea that you identify with or invent an Ideal concept as one's personal compass. Even if you were to keep such ideas or a sense of the Ideal to oneself, it would shape one's perspective of the world as it would shape one's personal identity - what it means to be you to you. Isolative idealism, however, is religion gone mad in the form of a self-absorbed delusion, as it ultimately defies the religious impulse of needing others to survive.
Having clarified my reason and purpose for taking a months long excursion into what I consider the most influential theological perspectives that evolved from the teachings of an itinerant, early first century rabbi and the environmental or historical conditions that produced a body of teachings about that rabbi resulting in a new theistic religion, I think it important to take a look at what I consider to be the seeds of Christianity, as a way of looking at what causes our ideologies and concepts of the Ideal.
THE NARROWING OF RELIGION
To begin with is the realization that all religions evolve from events and the human experiences that result from them. Human experiences lead to notions of cause and effect. Facts, in themselves, are often unsatisfactory in explaining occurrences. Humans are prone to look deeper as to what caused a factual event to occur. We look at not only the cause and effect of an event, but also the affect it has on our human nature. This leads to ideological beliefs that can become concretized into concepts of an Ideal.
I submit that this evolutionary thought process is true for all religions, both secular and theistic. That we have a divergence and a plethora of religions is the result of the plethora of divergent events that led to differing human experiences and the effect they collectively had on us. As cultures evolved and tribalism evolved into defined political and religious states, this plethora of religions increasingly narrowed from familial/tribal religions to distinct global religions that people of different nations and states subscribed to. Monotheism, itself, is a prime example of narrowing in theistic religion. The emergence of atheism is further evidence of theistic narrowing. In fact, this narrowing is accelerating as our experiences are shaped by shared global events. Out of narrowing comes expansion of new ideologies; as such narrowing is a precursor to dramatic ideological change. It is this narrowing of religion that has led me to consider a potential global understanding of religion that I call Religious Singularity.
Evolution of every kind is initially exponential, marked by rapid expansion and growth, until it reaches a certain point at which the size and scope of what has evolved produces a gravitational effect that slows everything down to an observable past. In terms of ideas, evolution is paradoxical; in that, the events that lead to dissipation of old ideas also lead to the creation of new ones. Human behavior mimics these evolutionary patterns, including the religions we developed.
To examine religious evolution and the effect of religious narrowing on a discrete level brings me to the theistic religion I was born and raised into, Christianity. In the scope of theistic religions, Christianity is a relatively newcomer, along with Judaism, its parent religion, and Islam, its sibling religion. Christianity's formation was rapid by evolutionary standards and can be readily traced in its canonical scriptures, which are among its earliest known writings.
EVENTS
So let's examine the events that play a role in the emergence of religions and of Christianity, in particular. Historical events have brought about and shaped all three Abrahamic monotheisms, Judaism, Christianity, Islam. For Judaism it is the Babylonian Captivity and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, for Islam it is Mohammed's experiences in Mecca and Medina, for Christianity it was the crucifixion of Jesus around 30 CE and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
Whereas these formative events are documented in sacred Jewish and Islamic literature, apart from accounts of the crucifixion in canonical gospels, the impact of Jerusalem's destruction is less obvious in Christianity's New Testament. In fact, Christians in church pews today are virtually oblivious to the impact the Fall of Jerusalem had in forming the religion they belong to. This is because the New Testament doesn't talk about it other than in the vague language of Jesus foretelling its occurrence in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. The Gospel of John doesn't contain Jesus's prophetic foretelling of the Temple's destruction and it is not referenced in any of Paul's letters, which were written before its occurrence.
In my opinion all of the canonical gospels were written after 70 A.D.. My reason for believing this is they would not have contained Jesus's predicting the Temple's destruction had it not occurred. Mention of Jesus's prediction in the Synoptic Gospels was used to validate Jesus as a prophet because the intended audience of these gospels knew it had occurred. The Gospel of John treats the Temple as the place where Jesus showed himself to be the Son of God and where he was rejected. It is not missed because the Johannine theological perspective was being shaped by events that were occurring at the time it was being written. The Temple reemerges in the Book of Revelation as an Ideal - as the heavenly Temple.
THE SEEDS OF CHRISTIANITY
What we see in the earliest development of Christianity are catalytic events that lead to ideologies about them. Christianity is rooted in beliefs first developed by its parent religion, Judaism and reiterated in a creative fashion by a man called Jesus of Nazareth - an itinerant Jewish rabbi who emerged on the world scene at the start of the first century CE, in an area called Galilee in the Roman province called Palestine.
The collected sayings of Jesus are contained in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These sayings mostly consist of parables and collections of random teachings that were used to form Jesus's Sermon on the Mount or Sermon on the Plain. All of Jesus's teachings are firmly rooted in Hebrew Scriptures he was familiar with. What Jesus did that would serve to plant the seed for a new religion was to define these these teachings in a relational manner, in which the individual finds himself or herself in personal relationship to God as Father and, by extension, in a relationship with every other human being. In this sense, Jesus could be identified as a forerunner of humanism or theistic humanism.
Familial love, in the sense of God being father of all - making all of us, friend and foe alike, brothers and sister. This is central to Jesus's teachings. What shaped Jesus's particular theocentric humanism can only be speculated at, but I believe that events in his life led him to make profound observations about his own religion, Judaism, and the world at large. He was able to do this by looking at what I will refer to as "What Is," a common philosophical thread found in all major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.) and schools of philosophy. Christianity, for the most part, has not fully embraced what I consider Jesus's most important teachings. Instead it and its sibling religion, Islam, veered into apocalyptic eschatology which produced salvation theologies.
Judaism, itself, emerged from a tribal religion that, at the very least, accepted a polytheistic view of theism; in that, every other kingdom had its gods and goddesses. There was a narrowing of this polytheistic view prior to the Babylonian Captivity, but Abrahamic monotheism was cemented during and after that event, resulting in the Judaic Ideal of only one God, the God of Abraham, who is God over all.
A SPECULATIVE VIEW OF JESUS'S LIFE
The reality is that we know virtually nothing of Jesus as a person, apart from what can be deduced from the gospels written about him, which are heavily mixed with metaphor and myth. For instance, we know nothing of what shaped his views, the experiences that taught and lead him to become a teacher and preacher. That side of Jesus's life is a blank page which is notably reflected in the earliest gospel, the Gospel of Mark, which says nothing of his birth and early life.
The historical assumption is that Jesus was born into a poor Galilean family and had no formal education; that he could neither read nor write. The theological assumption is that he was born into poverty to be one with the poor of the world and did not need an education because he is the Son of God and is, by virtue of his divine nature, omniscient.
In my opinion, Jesus was not born into abject poverty; that his family had means or access to relatives or friends who had financial means to give him at least a rudimentary education. The phrase used in the canonical gospels, "He speaks as one having authority" is interpreted as meaning that people were surprised that this poor Galilean had the ability to sound intelligent. While there may be a grain of truth to that, it most likely indicates that he was well-educated and was able to take on other educated types, like the legal experts of his time, the scribes.
As such, Jesus would be similar to other inspirational leaders of the time, Buddha who started out as a prince, Socrates, who came from aristocratic roots. They didn't write books. They weren't particularly concerned with creating their own legacy, but rather were concerned with "What is." Like others who came later; Francis of Assisi, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus came to identify with the poor and the needy as a choice informed by observation and personal experience with the poor. In other words he was neither too near nor too far away from suffering, but at the right spot which allowed him to take the education he had and apply it to the observations and experiences that shaped his teachings.
In considering the accounts of Jesus's birth and early childhood as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, one can, without much imagination or speculation and with a rudimentary knowledge of the times in which Jesus was born, extract an alternative narrative to what these two gospels say of Jesus's upbringing in more credible manner that is void of the mythic embellishment found in these accounts. In fact, one could easily account for the teachings of Jesus that are found in the Synoptic Gospels, if such mythic embellishments had never existed. Without them Jesus's teachings would remain as relevant today as they were when the time he first presented them.
So without these embellishments, what can be credibly deduced from these two gospels?
Jesus is born to parents named Joseph and Mary. They may have traveled to Bethlehem or to a nearby village during the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria because of a revolt against being taxed by the Romans that was brewing in Galilee, by a Zealot, Judas of Galilee. The probability exists that Jesus's parents had friends or family connections in Bethlehem or near Jerusalem, who were people of monetary means, like Joseph of Arimathea or Mary and Martha of Bethany.
The Galilean revolt would have happened around or shortly after Jesus's birth. As Jesus' parents were Galilean, it's credible that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or nearby village to avoid the immediate effects of that revolt. Being from Galilee raised the specter of guilt by association under territories rule by Herod the Great. As things became dicey for Galileans, anywhere in Palestine, I can see the family being encouraged to leave the area until things settle down, and so they move to Egypt, presumably Alexandria, which had a large Jewish community.
It seems likely that Jesus was bright and inquisitive as a young child. Alexandria was an extremely cosmopolitan and intellectual center in which a number of cultures met. It was also the home of Philo the great Jewish philosopher who lived and taught during the time Jesus was there. Much of what Jesus taught is similar to the views and teachings of Philo. It is possible that the young Jesus was taught by Philo or by one his students.
Upon returning to Judea as a young adolescent, Jesus may have also spent time learning from scholars in the Temple precincts, which may have given rise to the story of Jesus at the age of twelve teaching the scholars in the Temple. As things settled down in Galilee, Jesus returned to Nazareth and his family's home. I find it interesting that he is referred to the carpenter's son and not as a carpenter, himself. It begs the question what Jesus did for living before his becoming a teacher.
What we can deduce from his teachings is that he had a profound understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures that just didn't happen. He was taught and well-versed in them. When the gospel accounts say that he read from the scrolls, I don't doubt that he did. It is from his deeply rooted and profound understanding of Judaism that he developed a unique understanding of the divine relationship between humans and God on a personal level of intimacy with God.
Jesus reinterpreted the quintessential law of Judaism to love God with all of one's being as synonymous with loving one's fellow human being, or to turn it around, to love what God loves as the highest form of love that one can give to God.
He illustrated this teaching in both word and deed, and it captured the hearts and the imaginations of a people desperately in need of love and a change of perspective as to their value in the eyes of God.
As far as belonging to a particular group, I do not see Jesus belonging to any. He was not Essene, Pharisee, Sadducee, or a Zealot. I would describe Jesus as an intellectual outlier who was charismatic, eloquent, and passionate about his insights into humanity's intimate relationship with God as our Father. His non-alliance to any particular group afforded him the ability to openly talk about his perception of the way things were at the time. What appears to have motivated him the most was the plight of the disenfranchised; namely, the impoverished, the sick, and most importantly, the social outcast. Jesus viewed their treatment of these individuals as pariah by the devout religious leaders of his time as tantamount with putting the goodness of God and God's creation on the backburner of Judaism.
In this sense, Jesus became an activist, literally reaching out to lepers and the clearly identified "sinner" of his day and literally bringing them to the table, back to the goodness and love of God that Jesus understood as extending to all of God's creation. His approach was counterintuitive and confusing to the religious leaders of his day, who wanted to categorize him in terms they could understand. Was he the Messiah? Was he a prophet of some kind? According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus applied the vague term, Son of Man, to describe himself, which contained multiple meanings and defied categorization.
The New Testament identifies two religious groups that were prominent in Judaism at the time of Jesus's ministry, the Pharisees who sought to preserve Jewish tradition from encroachment of Hellenization by maintaining personal purity through strict adherence to their laws, and the Sadducees who sought to maintain control of the Temple and what little autonomy the Judean elite had left under Roman rule. Judaism and the political geographic entity called Judah was being squeezed from all sides, which resulted in Judaism becoming increasingly narrow and polarized.
For the most part, Jesus flew under the radar of the Sadducees. His popularity as a teacher and healer was largely amongst the poor and disenfranchised, which likely made up the vast bulk of his following. He didn't make, what we would refer to today as, headlines. For the most part he didn't make huge waves that would catch the attention of the elite and powerful. The Pharisees were seemingly interested in him and his understanding of scripture. They would engage him along with the scribes in discussions and debates. He attracted a Zealot following also, in that some of his disciples were identified as Zealots, like Judas Iscariot and Simon the Zealot.
He didn't come to the attention of the Sadducees (the elite and powerful) until he entered Jerusalem along with an entourage of admiring followers prior to the Feast of Passover, which they undoubtedly viewed with suspicion as his being another Galilean trying to incite a revolt. This was, in their minds, confirmed when Jesus overturned the money changers' tables in the Temple's precincts which struck me as uncharacteristic of Jesus who became incensed by the thievery that was permitted by the Temple authorities. His passionate display of anger caught the attention of the Sanhedrin and was to become his undoing. The Jewish ruling body, the Sanhedrin, was not about to risk another Roman intervention to put down a revolt in the Temple during Passover, so they quickly hatched a plot to get him arrested and executed by the Romans and thus avoid risking a popular backlash by his followers. Their plot, aided by the disillusioned Judas Iscariot, succeeded to the extent they achieved in getting the Romans to do the deed, but as we know from the Gospels, they didn't avoid the ire of Jesus's followers.
What the Sadducees were not prepared for or were not aware of is just how many people knew Jesus or how many lives he touched by his actions and teaching. Not only did Jesus fly under their radar, his followers also did. Getting the Romans to crucify him created a groundswell of outrage among those who followed him and, oddly enough, they weren't outraged at the Romans, they were outraged at their own religious establishment's injustice.
Those who followed Jesus knew that what Jesus taught should not have resulted in his death, and so, Jesus doesn't die. His followers claimed to experience Jesus in visions, and visions, being what they are, required explanations. As such the resurrection of Jesus cannot be considered in any modern sense a historical event. What these visions led to was an ideological belief based on Jewish concept of resurrection which was expressed in the ideal conceptualization of Jesus resurrected. Once the word got out that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, belief in this idealized Jesus, spread like wildfire.
The gospels go out of their way in having Jesus buried quickly after being crucified. I think this highly unlikely. My reason for thinking this is because if Jesus was crucified for being an insurrectionist, the Romans would have left his body to rot or be carrion for birds and wild animals in order to send a graphic example to any who entertained the idea of insurrection. Furthermore, the Sadducees and the Sanhedrin, as a whole, would have wanted to send the same message to any fly-by-night, wannabe messiah or they wouldn't have asked that he be crucified. They could have easily dispatched him upon being identified by Judas or had him stoned for blasphemy.
My point is simply this, that religions emerge from catalytic events in real time. The events that seeded Christianity can be historically traced to events that occurred during Jesus's lifetime and beyond. The single most important event that can be directly linked to Jesus personally and that planted the seed that would become a new religion was Jesus's crucifixion. Had he not been crucified, it is questionable if any of us would have heard about him.
* * * * * * * * * *
As we begin to understand our universe better, we are beginning to understand our world better and role we play on this fragile planet home of ours, Earth. While I am no scientist or mathematician by any measure, I have gained an appreciation for what they have taught us about the environment we find ourselves in. What they teach us about the macro and microcosm that surrounds us, that it is part of our very being and is played out on a human scale in everything that we encounter.While our grasp of this knowledge is nascent at best and limited to our ability to know anything, it has informed us as to the ideals and ideologies that we have created or discovered as we experience this side of life, which may be the only life we will ever experience in the form of life we now possess and know.
My purpose, contrary to what many might think, is not to debunk religion or Christianity, but rather to understand religion as a deep human function that shapes every perception that we humans collectively possess. I will continue to reference my own religion, Christianity, as an observable example, in the hope that what I say about it will cause others to look deeply at their own religious ideologies, whether secular or theistic.
"All is one" is perhaps one of the oldest and most profound religious idea every intuited by human beings. Its simplicity belies its infinite meanings and applications. Religious singularity is an attempt to look at the ALL to find the ONE - the common thread - to broaden our scope in order to understand the religious nature of being human, and by it, to find solutions to immense problems we face living on this speck of cosmic dust, we call home.
Until next time, stay faithful.
I have discovered what appears to have been the problem with readers being unable to comment on my posts. Hopefully, this has been corrected.
ReplyDelete