TALES OF THE MYSTIC JOURNEY - PETER AND PAUL

We turn to the Christian scriptures in our examination of the mystic journey.  Paul and Peter are identifiable historical figures in Christian scriptures. We know Paul as a historical figure because he wrote letters to the early churches he helped establish.  We know Peter is a historical figure because Paul wrote about having conversed with Peter.

Both Peter and Paul have transfigurative name changes. Peter starts out as Simon and Paul starts out as Saul.  Transfigurative moments and transfigurative name changes are common in all religions in which an individual is the beneficiary of some event or events that changes the perspective of the person, how the person is seen, or both.

My interest in writing about Peter and Paul in the same post is to compare and contrast two individuals who, in my opinion, represent two separate mind types but end up sharing the same perspective about Christ and the Church.

PETER

Peter is a principal character in the formation of Christianity.  Peter is a depicted as a person who "gets" things before he understands what he has gotten.  Peter whose original name was Simon was given the name Peter by Jesus after he responds to Jesus's question, "Who am I?" When Peter replies, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God," Jesus gives him the name Peter, the rock.[1]

Peter proves to be anything but rock solid, apart from having an apparent concrete mind.  Within two verses of calling Simon, Peter, Jesus is calling him Satan.  Peter can strike one as a bumbling idiot at times, but I would suggest otherwise.  Peter is intuitive and more right brained than left.  He gets the bigger picture, but doesn't grasp its full implication until later.

Peter grows or transforms into his transfiguration.  In fact, I would say Peter has several transfigurative moments that change his perspective of things.  I find it interesting that the two later gospels Matthew and John refer to Peter as Simon Peter; whereas, Mark and Luke call him Peter.

While the reason for calling Peter, Simon Peter can be explained as there being two disciples named Simon, one who is also called Simon the Zealot, the reference to Simon Peter may have to do with there being something very "Simon" about Peter.  In other words, outwardly speaking, Peter's personality did not change.  On the surface, he remained recognizably Simon.  What changed or (perhaps more accurately put) what was exposed in his transfigurative name change was the depth of his faith-vision.

Peter intuitively knew that he was engaged with something larger than himself. What that meant for him would emerge over time.  The Simon part of his persona (as is basically true of all surface personas) wanted to control or give the impression of being in control of the events in his life, but the reality is that his Peter persona was attuned to the flow of events that were shaping who he became.

Being named Peter by Jesus aided Peter in recognizing and accepting the transfigurative moments he encountered; such as, the Transfiguration of Jesus, his denial of Jesus at Jesus’s trial as foretold by Jesus, his witnessing Jesus's empty tomb, the Pentecost event, his trance on the roof top at Joppa.[2] All such events led Simon to probe and find the solid foundation of his integrity that made him Peter. Peter's story is very similar to Jacob's story. Both were works in progress that took time to be transfigured.  Both retained their surface personas but were given a different perspective of the world around them which allowed them to embrace the journey they embodied.

PAUL

Unlike Peter, Paul impresses me as being left brained; analytical and pragmatic.  Paul's transfiguration is best described as a conversion rather than a transformation.  Both Peter and Paul experienced pause prior to transfiguration.  In Peter's case one might be able to cite several moments of pause; such as, Jesus's rebuke of him, calling him Satan after naming him Peter, his bizarre reaction to the Transfiguration of Jesus, and his denying Jesus at Jesus's trial before the Sanhedrin.

Paul's moment of pause was much shorter and was the result of his blinding vision of Christ.  Paul is both converted and transfigured in one event.  His moment of pause is the literal blindness he endured after seeing the blinding light of Christ.  While much of Simon remains with Peter, most of Saul is lost in Paul. What Paul retains is his sense of pragmatic integrity.  Paul not only gets the bigger picture in Christianity, he understands how to make it work.

Since I have discussed much of Paul's theology in other posts, I won't go into it here. [Click here, here, and here to view them.] What Paul shares with Peter is an expansive vision of the mystic journey that all of creation is on.  While Peter witnessed the metamorphosis of Jesus into the risen Christ, Paul envisioned the risen Christ as the Body of Christ in the world; the metamorphosis of us all, symbolized as the Church.[3]  Peter understood Paul's vision, but lacked the ability to convince others of its relevance in the Church at Jerusalem. In some ways, Peter and those who knew the person, Jesus, could not see the full implication of Jesus's resurrection as Paul did. Having never known and having never met Jesus as another person but only experiencing him as the risen Christ freed Paul to see the much larger implication of Jesus's resurrection.  Peter came to share that vision and, like Paul, became an apostle to gentiles and the legendary founder of the Church at Rome.

INTEGRITY AND FAITH

The mystic journey is in many ways a story of transfiguration into one's true or whole self; a person of faith and integrity.  It appears rare to find a person who has both in equal measure.  As the mystic journey is about one's transfiguration into a whole being as part of Paradise Regained, we see in these tales of well-known biblical characters that their personal faith and integrity emerge as their life stories unfold.  Peter and Paul represent such emergence.

Looking from a distance of some two millennia, it would appear that Simon had a foundation of faith upon which to build, but lacked the integrity that would be found in becoming Peter.  Likewise, Saul had plenty of religious integrity but lacked faith which he would discover in becoming Paul.  Peter and Paul became whole beings as they transfigured into their true selves; capable of seeing the bigger picture and doing their part to broaden the perspective of us all.

Until next time, stay faithful.

---

[1] Matthew 16:18

[2] Acts 10:10

[3] See Galatians 3:28

TALES OF THE MYSTIC JOURNEY - JOB

The Book of Job is perhaps one of the most baffling pieces of ancient literature.  It is certainly one of the most baffling pieces of Hebrew and Christian scriptures.   The only effective way, at least for me, to understand Job is to read it as a myth, but not only a myth but rather as a mythic play - perhaps one of the earliest examples of a play in Canaanite and Hebrew culture and literature.

In fact, Job is so much like a play that Archibald MacLeish wrote a modern version of it called, "JB" in 1958.  Job also fits well into the realm of mystical literature as saying something about the mystic journey on this side of life; particularly, about the pauses (transitional moments that give us pause to consider who we are and what's happening) that occur.

Job is a tragic character, whose tragedy has nothing to do with anything he's done but rather what is done to him as a result of divine challenge initiated by God to Heaven's court adversary, Satan.  As a play, we, the audience, take a seat next to God as observers of a human tragedy in need of an explanation for which no logical one exists.  

Job's suffering serves no purpose. It does not make Job a better man.  It does not make God a better god. If anything, this play validates the colloquial sentiment, "shit happens."  With this tale, we enter into deep psychological terrain as Job and his three oldest friends engage in a dialogue trying to fill in the blanks as to why Job, a righteous man, finds himself in such a miserable state; setting the mood and conditions for us to be the jury.  So, if you haven't read the Book of Job or haven't read it this way; as a play, do so now and then come back to this post.

* * * * * * * * * *

WHY?  WHY NOT?

There are many ways to interpret Job.  Many see it as an examination of suffering or as meditation on Theodicy, as to how an all-powerful, all-loving God can allow suffering.  Suffering is very much an important factor in this tale, but if one treats Job as a play, suffering serves as a catalyst or a contextual prop for a broader discussion of the ontological question, "Why" to which the play gives an answer that many might consider unsatisfactory:  "Why not?"

In fact, the play begins with the answer in the form of the challenge God gives to Satan.  It is God who brings up Job and asks if Satan has given consideration to God's blameless and upright servant, Job.  Satan implies he has but then complains that God is protecting Job and in turn challenges God to remove God's protection and watch to see Job curse God to which God basically says, "OK, you're on. I won't protect Job on the condition you spare his life."   This divine challenge deepens as it results in increased suffering for Job; from losing his children and wealth to personal physical, mental, and spiritual pain. 

Now before one thinks this a glib or trite interpretation, wait, there's more.  The answer, "Why not," serves as a contextual setting in which the dialogue between Job and his three closest friends; Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar occurs.  Of course, Job and his friends have no knowledge of the divine wager involving Job's response to his suffering.

As an audience it helps, if possible, for us to suspend any knowledge about the conversation between God and Satan as Job and friends converse in order to see the play within the play.  The writer or writers of Job do an excellent job of helping us out.  They vividly depict the loathsome state Job finds himself in and introduce us to his wife whose name we are not given.  I think this is done with purpose. It somehow casts her brief appearance as a distraction of no consequence, but try to forget her.  One can't.

What she says shakes one into a realization that Job's situation is so painful that those around him are affected by it.  Job's wife sees the problem of his pain for what it is; Job holding on to his one reason for staying alive; his sense of integrity.  Job's wife knows of no reason for his suffering other than he is cursed; abandoned by God, and she advises Job to curse God in return and die.   Job agrees that God is the cause of his suffering; accepting, in general, the answer, "Why not," but in accepting this premise, Job finds he is unable to curse God for his suffering lot.

While Job accepts "Why not," as a premise for his suffering,  his sense of integrity, which is tied to his sense of justice demands an answer as to why him.  His reasoning mind cannot wrap around the abandonment he feels with God or the void of having no explanation.   "Having " makes "not having" a matter of justice, which invokes humans to reason.

Since Job's suffering does not reveal a reason, he pleads his cause to the void of his abandoned-by-God experience. Job's deeper pain is in being cut off from God.  Job goes so far as to say he could accept God killing him because God's doing so would make God present.  The worst torment for Job is the fact that he isn't dead but living as if he were dead; living without God's presence.

It is important for the reader to grasp Job's plight as Job understands it; otherwise, one is tempted to see Job as an arrogant, stubborn, bitter man who probably deserves what he is getting, which, in essence, is the conclusion his three oldest friends have come to.  There is a sense of arrogance in his standing up for his personal integrity.  He is stubborn in his resolve to get an answer, either dead or alive, and he is bitter about his life, but unlike his suffering, there is reason for his being so.

The dialogue between these four men is an examination of the human perspective on suffering, righteousness, and God's justice.  In the end, their speculative conversation proves irrelevant.  So I won't go into it, as interesting as it is.  The meanings of their names give one an idea of the perspective they are coming from.  Eliphaz means pure gold, as in God's righteousness and implies that suffering is for the unrighteous.  Bildad means old friend and his approach, while stating Job must have done something wrong his judgment is temperate in tone.  Zophar means rising early or chirping.  He is quick to pass judgment on Job as being arrogant.

If one would hear what they say outside the context of Job's story, one might think one was hearing a reading from one of the prophets or a Psalm.  By themselves they sound very scriptural, and they are, but they're contextually wrong in application and send the message: No one should use scripture in a speculative manner for determining the cause of another human's personal suffering or the cause of tragedy, in general.

There is one other character in this play that requires attention, Elihu.  Elihu means my God is He.  Elihu stands apart from Job's oldest friends.  He is young or younger and offers a defense of God after Job and his three friends are through speaking.  If I were to stage this as a play, Elihu would have been placed up stage in dim lighting serving, for the most part, as an observer throughout the play until he speaks.

While Job states he knows his redeemer (his defender) exists and will plead his righteousness in the courts of heaven[1], it is Elihu who shows up as God's defense lawyer and makes the case for God's righteousness in the court of Job and his friends; in the court of human reason.

In the end, it is God who declares his integrity and faith in what he has created, which Job's integrity validates. Human reason cannot fathom an answer to why or why not.  They are an ontological paradox - a Yin/Yang set. 

As a play within a play, I would stage it as if it were a dream from which Job awakens in a final scene that begins in total darkness with God voice addressing Job's friends; explaining that Job's children, property, and wealth are restored. Suddenly, a spotlight focuses on Job as he sits up eyes wide open in a bed.  Job awakens from what was a nightmare to the unexplainable reality that life happens and the richness of being.

PAUSE

Treating the tale of Job as play allows one to understand what I have been referring to as Pause.  In a Jobian sense, this life is nothing more than Pause, a period of transfiguration or a period of prepping us for transfiguration.  The theme song for Job could be the nursery rhyme:  "Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream" - An apt description of and good advice for the mystical journey we find ourselves on.

In Job the ontological question "Why" is answered with "Why not."  It is an unsettling answer that forces us to grapple with the temporal reality that this life is.  Life is meant to be lived.  Being is meant to be.  Questioning why one lives or why one is becomes a moot point in light of the fact that one lives and one is. The only answer to why is why not.

FAITH AND INTEGRITY

The depiction of God as being capricious serves as a clever device to force us to consider the meaning of life and the frailty of human reason to fully comprehend it. What Job, the character, demonstrates is that when reason is lacking we must rely on our personal integrity to muster the will to carry on and live.  As mentioned in past posts, integrity is linked with faith.

The story of Job never mentions faith, as the Hebrew word for integrity implies a state of being blameless which is the  basis for his debate with his friends, but in the course of this debate we see something more coming from Job than a mere arrogant, stubborn bitterness about being wronged.  His acceptance of “why not” exhibits a deep seated faith beyond mere belief.

What we encounter in the person of Job is an active longing for God that infers hope. The fact that Job defends his integrity reveals an act of faith.  His addressing the void of his abandoned-by-God state belies an unconscious validation of the deep faith he possesses in God who is listening and present in absence.  This is the true righteousness of Job.

It's not what Job did, but rather who he is.  His complaint to the void is an act of faith and demonstrates who he is. It is what links him to God whose faith in creation demonstrates God's integrity.  Faith and integrity (being out true selves) is what links us all to God. 

With this post, we leave the Hebrew scriptures and take a leap into Christian scripture as we continue to explore the Tales of the Mystic Journey.

Until next time, stay faithful.

---

[1] Job 19:25-27 “I know that my redeemer lives…” is largely interpreted by Christians as prefacing or presaging Jesus as the Christ.  I think this is a wrong interpretation, given the context of Job.  Such an interpretation serves to distract from what is really going on in this story.  What Job’s statement reveals is what these verses state – a deep yearning for God that is rooted in the deep stream of faith that Job makes this statement from.  The bold claim of Job (spoken from excruciating pain) that he will see God with or without his flesh has been again concretized as referencing the resurrection by Christians.  Again, this is spoken from a state of hopefulness rooted in faith rather than from certainty.  The translation of “yet in my flesh” can equally be interpreted as “yet without my flesh.” 

KEEP AWAKE - A Homily

KEEP AWAKE

“And what I say to you, I say to all:  Keep Awake.”

Mark13: 37

For the past several Sundays now, the Gospel lessons from Matthew 24 and 25 have been focused on the Eschaton, the end times; what is commonly referred to as the last judgement and the Second Coming of Christ.

It seems appropriate to end the Church Year by talking about the end of time, but today is the beginning of a new Church year and we’re still talking about the end of time. The fact is every First Sunday of Advent starts with one of three versions of the same account found in Matthew 25, Mark 13, or Luke 21, depending where we’re at in the lectionary’s three-year cycle.

We hear in today’s reading from Mark 13about the Son of Man, Jesus the Christ, descending in clouds with great power and glory and the angels gathering the elect from the ends of the earth and to the ends of the heavens at the end of the age.  In fact, Mark 13 is a shorter, albeit an earlier version of Matthew 24, 25 and Luke 21in which this discussion about the Son of Man coming in power and glory is set in Holy Week, the day before or the day of Maundy Thursday with Jesus and his disciples in the Temple precincts disciples commenting on the beauty and impressive structure of the Temple to which Jesus replies that not one stone will be left standing on the other. Jesus’s disciples ask, “When will this happen?  What will be the signs?”

This was an important question for Matthew’s, Mark’s, and Luke’s audience and congregations which primarily consisted of Jewish Christians, because by the time these Gospels are written, the Temple is destroyed, Jerusalem is in ruins and the Church of Jerusalem – the geographic center of early Christianity no longer exists because in 70 CE, the Romans destroyed it all.

And the question that is burning in their minds is “Where was Christ?

Why didn’t he come?  Isn’t this the end of the age?

Because if there ever was a time for Christ to appear – NOW is that time.” 

To answer these concerns these Gospel writers comb through Jesus’s teachings and reframe their congregations’ questions as the disciples’ question and presents “Jesus’s answer” in a context that encourages faith and hope for the long haul.

If one reads these accounts thoughtfully, it becomes clear that Jesus is not offering a prophecy about the future, which unfortunately has become the way most Christians think about these particular scripture readings.

Prophecy is nothing more and nothing less than pointing out the ignored obvious that’s happening under our noses, right now, along with a pinch of hope to get us through whatever it is being addressed at the time.  As is true of all prophets, Jesus was and is a prophet of the present.  He is the one who taught us, “… do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.”[1] And this approach can be illustrated by reading Jesus’ response to the disciple’s question of when that was left out of today’s reading.

This is Jesus talking:

"When you hear of hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come.  For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there ill be famines.  ...Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you be hated by all because of my name[2].”

Does any of that sound familiar?  

It should.   It’s almost daily headlines today. Jesus took their concerns and takes our concerns for the future and places them squarely in the present.

And here’s the clue that Mark is referencing the destruction of the Temple to his audience in Jesus’s voice:

“But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand)  then those in Judea must flee to the mountains;  someone on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take anything away;  someone in the field must not turn back to get a coat.”[3]

Mark’s original audience understood exactly what Mark meant by “let the reader understand.” The desolating sacrilege was the Roman banners flying where the Holy of Holies once was and the thousands of corpses of those trying to protect the Temple from desecration lay rotting in the open air.  This was the experience these early Christian congregations had gone through.  This is what they witnessed.

Jesus continues:  

… And if anyone says to you at that time, “Look! Here is the Messiah!” or “Look! There he is!”—do not believe it.  False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.”[4]

Let’s be clear about what Jesus is talking about when he talks about false Messiahs: He’s talking about individuals who at the time these gospels were being written and who in every age since that time have claimed: “I alone, can save you.”

In essence, Jesus’s answer to the question when will this occur has been through the ages, “NOW!”

What emerges from that moment on is an awareness the Apostle Paul wrote about some ten to twenty years before the destruction of the Temple; that we are called into a relationship that presents Christ to the world as the Body of Christ, the Church.

As Paul states in today’s second reading from 1 Corinthians: “You are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.  … God is faithful; by him you were called into the fellowship (into a relationship) of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” [5]

It can be speculated that in the two-hundred thousand years that identifiable Homo sapiens (us) have walked the earth, human behavior hasn’t changed much; which explains why the headlines haven’t changed much throughout history, but throughout the course of human history, we have been given a different perspective of who we are and who God is. 

Beginning with the Hebrew Scriptures, in Genesis, we learn that we are made in the image of God and throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures that understanding is deepened until we find ourselves, in Paul’s language, incorporated into the Body of Christ and find our being in the very Being of God.[6]

Advent always begins in Holy Week with Jesus telling us that “the son of Man will come again in power and glory,” but if the story of God’ incarnation in the form of Jesus should tell us anything, it is that God comes among us like a thief in the night[7] or like the midnight arrival of bridegroom[8]. 

The imagery of Jesus born in a barn and Angels announcing his birth to lowly shepherds on an isolated country hillside rather than in the palaces of kings or with trumpets blaring in the Temple precincts – should tell us something of how Christ’s coming again is revealed.

It is not likely to be seen with eyes that look for power and glory in the form of military might, swelled treasuries, gilded palaces, and lavish displays to underscore it all, but rather through the eyes of faith, because God is faithful, and God, in the form of the Son of Man, comes as one of us because he is one with us – Emmanuel.

So we start this new Church Year, as we start every new Church Year, with a reality check – that the world can indeed be a dark place in need of light, in need of a new perspective that is embedded in our faith of the Christ who came, in our love of the Christ who is, and in our hope of Christ who comes again.

Advent urges us to heed the call of John the Baptist to repent – to turn around and face the marvelous truth that God is with us. For in listening with the ears of our hearts and absorbing the stories of God’s love for us in Christ throughout the ages, we are given a new perspective of who we are in God. 

So let us keep awake, be present in the moment; be present to the moment, maintaining the perspective of who we are by God’s grace amidst any darkness we encounter by keeping lit the light of hope, faith, and love so that the Christ in us can greet the Christ who comes our way.

Nameste and Amen!

---

[1] See  Matthew 6:34

[2] See Mark 13: 1 through 26 for the full context of selected scriptures.  All quotations from scripture are in keeping

   with the Revised Common Lectionary as found in The New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition, the

   Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America

   © 1989, 1995

[3]  Mark 13: 14 - 17

[4]  Mark 13: 21- 22

[5] 1 Corinthians 1: 7 & 9

[6]  See Acts 17:28

[7]  See Matthew 24:43 and 1 Thessalonians 5:2

[8]  See Matthew 25:6