However, it is not Christianity as the teaching surrounding the experience of Christ within that is to blame, but Christendom as a social phenomenon dominated by a corrupt Catholic intellectual establishment or populist Protestant anti-intellectual leadership that has rejected psychological knowledge.
Hi Wonder Girl,
I had a kind of spiritual crisis regarding this issue a couple years ago. The more one reads about Christian history, the more one has to face the fact that the Church (and many of the subsequent institutional and authoritative bodies of Christianity) has committed egregious and basically innumerable sins . . . sins that are perhaps cumulatively greater than any other single ideological body in human history. The conundrum for me became: how can the institution of Christianity repent for all this?
A side concern was: how much of the institutional corruption has influenced the dogmas of Christianity and how much have these dogmas contributed to or facilitated the corruption? The more thoroughly I examined the relationship between dogma and actual transgression or abuse, the more the two seemed to me inextricably intertwined. This is especially evident in many of the dogmas derived from the early Church Fathers. In fact, I came to believe that the dogmas chosen by the Church to uphold (or inflict) were almost always the ones that most enabled its quest for power (and the empowerment of its priestly class at the expense of others).
The primary example would be Augustine's "Faith Alone" notion (that faith alone and not good works will lead to salvation and heaven). This sort of blind acceptance doctrine enabled the Church to draw attention away from the ravaged and destitute peasantry that was being usurped to put money into the Church's coffers (in return for the promise of eternity in heaven . . . which was for sale throughout the dark ages).
But we have to keep in mind that the Bible itself (and not only the theology) was being constructed (and selected from numerous texts) by the Church at the same time Augustine and the other Church fathers were writing their theological treatises. The entire religion was still in a process of becoming what it would eventually appear as to us. This selection process also involved the destruction of any texts that were deemed "non-canonical" by the Church. Most of this was the Gnostic writings, some of which appear to be just as old as Mark . . . and perhaps even predate the letters of Paul deemed legitimate (by modern scholars) in their preliminary forms. But the destruction of texts also included pagan criticisms of the Christian movement. Only a couple of these survived because they were preserved by the Church Fathers in attempts to refute them . . . but it is reasonable to presume there were many.
The prevailing pagan notion of early Christianity appeared to be that it was a fabricated religion that offered nothing original and was promoted deceitfully and/or ignorantly by its proponents. Even at the very beginning, the critics of Christianity were in no way convinced that an actual person named Jesus of Nazareth had "founded" the religion. The Romans even thought of the Christians as "atheists".
Even before texts contradicting Christian dogma were destroyed (and their creators persecuted and murdered), some of the leaders in the Church power structure (like Eusebius of Caesarea, 275-339 CE) had started doctoring other texts and histories, some proto-Christian and some pagan, to reflect the very historicity of Jesus that was the chief pagan criticism of Christianity. Many of these doctorings are acknowledged today while others are excepted as legitimate primarily by believers in spite of the numerous suspicious elements involved in their appearances (e.g., not appearing in history until many centuries after they were supposed to have been written).
Ultimately, there is not enough historical evidence to construct (or to decisively reject) the historicity of Jesus. All we know for certain is that the pagan Romans found the claims of historicity unbelievable and that some of the earlier Church Fathers sought to remedy this issue by fabricating or doctoring texts that seemed to provide "evidence" of historicity.
After Christianity came to power in Rome officially (with Constantine) a massive purging of the pagan intellectuals and upper and middle classes was instituted. It is unclear how many pagans were murdered over a period of a couple hundred years. It could have been hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions. But it is not, I think, unfair to call this purge the first wide-scale act of Christian power the world knew.
Whether the details (were they all known) might prove these atrocities "less bad" or "worse" than my description above, I believe one is faced (in the presence of the facts) with the realization that the origin of the Christian religion was probably the most despicable religious birth in history (and I have only skimmed a sliver of all there is to say).
In any case, regardless of what this disgusting origin ultimately means, it informs us that there was no
recorded time in Christian history during which the faith enjoyed a peaceful, spiritual, and non-ignominious existence. That is, the Gospels themselves cannot be corroborated by any other historical evidence. If anything, the existing historical evidence is unfriendly to Christian legitimacy.
Maybe the religion originated with a true and wise leader . . . but what we have received historically is not his word or message, but almost entirely (if not entirely) the construction and amalgamation of numerous politically-motivated writings determined to construct an institution of political power and influence. The "real" Jesus (and the real history of the man and his so-called apostles) simply vanishes behind all the machinations of the Church and the early Christian writers.
I know most people who even remotely consider themselves Christian don't embrace my rendition of early Christian history (and in fact, few Christians every bother to read about Christian history, especially beyond the sanctioned texts), but as I have no ideological indebtedness to the Church or any other institution of this era, I sought out an understanding of this history that did not confine me to believers alone. And I believe what I have very briefly glossed above is legitimate.
So, in the face of this, I had to ask myself: what is the worth of Christianity? Can its mythos be separated from its dogma and revolting history? What is the value of the Christian mythos?
Now here, I do see value. But valuation of the Christian mythos requires many qualifiers that can, in themselves, be disconcerting to those who want to draw faith and meaning from Christianity. Some have used these "qualifiers" as arguments against the historicity of Jesus . . . but these arguments don not contain enough evidence in and of themselves to support this claim (in my opinion). Still, they offer more reasons to be suspicious.
What I am primarily referring to is the fact that the Christian mythos contains basically nothing that is original. The Christian stories of the Bible can be seen as syncretized conglomerations of Judaic and Hellenistic myths. For instance, the entire notion of the coming of the messiah, the mythos of this messiah, was well-established before the purported time of Christ. Messiah cults were abundant . . . and only really disappeared with the destruction of the Temple and the defeat of the Jews in the Jewish Wars in the first and second centuries. The notion of a militaristic Jewish Messiah was abolished. But the pacifist messiah was style prefigured in Jewish literature, especially in the idea of the prophets and the suffering servant.
But there was another source of mythos that was (or so it seems) utilized to build the Christian mythos. This was the contribution of the Mystery Religions, which practiced a death and rebirth rite. Some of the Mystery cults used baptismal rituals to signify this (and the Gospels even acknowledge the preexistence of the baptismal cult of John). The Mystery Religions' mythos was usually drawn from the pre-existing "dying gods" or godmen. These (e.g., Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Adonis, and then Mithras) figures were associated with the solar and/or vegetation cycle. They died as seeds are buried or as the sun sets and were reborn as plants sprouted out of the earth or the rose in the East. The Mystery rites (that involved these gods . . . other rites involved some variation of the Persephone/Demeter myth) were designed to place the initiate into the shoes of the suffering god where he would be persecuted (a la the later Passion of Christ), die symbolically, and be transformed/resurrected.
The dying god was often the consort of the Goddess (such as Isis) . . . and there were also rites in which the women wept for the death of the god/consort. We see some of this in the Gospels with the presence of the women at Jesus's tomb, and with the anointing of his body. These were all symbols left over from the Goddess/Mystery rites. Does this mean that these things didn't actually happen to a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans? Who knows? All we know is that this was a staple of the Goddess/Mystery religions of the East, and the parallel is worth noting.
Along with this notion of the dying god as consort of the Goddess, we get the symbol of this god as a god of love. Sometimes this was a physical love or potency, but it was also often interpreted as an all-loving attitude. He was an "innocent", a lamb . . . and his destruction was the result of great sins on the part of mankind.
And I won't even get into the parallels with the Hebrew scapegoat ritual.
The point I mean to make is that all of this fed into the Christ mythos. The pagans who criticized Christianity recognized this and scoffed at Christianity as a "rip off" of the Eastern Mystery Religions. Of course, this criticism is largely stricken from Christian history . . . and since the Christians (once politically empowered) burned the great pagan libraries to the ground, they reserved for themselves the right to retell history as they saw fit.
So we ask ourselves, then, what is there about the Christian mythos that makes it unique from these pagan Mystery Religions (other than the Jewish trappings)? Well, that's difficult to say. One thing I can think of was clearly illustrated in the battles between the Catholic Church and the Gnostics (who the Church eventually annihilated). The Gnostics generally saw the Christ figure as a role model who was meant to be emulated. The Gnostic initiate was supposed to strive for a personal, spiritual rebirth in which he (or she, in some cases . . . the Church didn't allow women to participate, by contrast) in effect
became Christ. The Church (which was basically an anti-Gnosticism) did not allow its members to formulate this kind of direct relationship with God. It was made very clear that the priests and bishops
were God as far as the congregation was concerned. The Church had a much more authoritarian structure that insisted the "Christian experience" could only be mediated by its official priestly class. By contrast, the Gnostics didn't seek to form official Churches, but preferred looser groups in which all members were able to participate on the highest levels . . . sometimes even writing their own Gospels. Personal experience of Christ and God was considered the point of their spiritual pursuits.
But Gnosticism was destroyed as a heresy at the beginning of the Christian dark ages. Many of their heretical ideas only remained in verbal and "occult" histories. As Jung noted, when the medieval alchemists began creating (or at least preserving) their texts, it was clear that they were the heirs of Gnosticism.
In my personal opinion, the alchemists were the "keepers of the true Christian flame". They constructed a philosophy that was, effectively, the "completion" of the mythos the Church presented. In alchemy, the transformative death/rebirth philosophies that inspired the Mystery Religions and the Gnostics were reconstructed and elaborated on. But of course these writings were heretical . . . and like heresies tend to be, they were couched in a nearly impenetrable, symbolic language.
My greatest concern regarding Christianity today is that, without some kind of alchemical "completion" of the mythos, the conventional mythic dogma will never inspire Christians to strive for consciousness . . . which is where true morality lies. In faith, acceptance, unquestioning belief in authority there is no facing of the shadow or of ones true sins. Just because one can repress, deny, or remain ignorant of their sins, doesn't mean that these sins don't exist. And it is not by "faith alone", in my opinion, that one can have a relationship with God or be "reborn". One cannot sin mindlessly and then be absolved by a priest. If we do not accept responsibility for our own sins, then we give them a freedom to control us (as we give such power to control to the authorities and dogmas we submit ourselves to unconsciously).
But for the changes I feel are necessary to be instituted by a church is, I think, far more than can be reasonable asked from an institution that has never had any interest in these problems for a millennium and a half. I don't see any salvation for institutional Christianity. If there is any hope, it is in the hands of individuals . . . and specifically in the hands of heretics. The soul of Christianity has always been kept alive by heretics . . . as it has always insisted on severing light from dark, believer from heretic.
And it isn't like we can just toss nearly 2000 years (far longer if you date the mythos to its pagan origins) of symbol system reinforcement out the window. We can't just say, "Hey, the Church is evil. I'm ditching the whole shebang!" First of all, the myth of the godman has sparked our imaginations for millennia for a reason (not a fluke). Secondly, we have nothing to replace it with. Modern science and technology, as compelling as they may be to us, do not really contain a symbol system. They don't tell us about or inner worlds, or unconscious.
And, in spite of all the atrocity connected with Christian power and practice, Christianity represents two thousand years plus of contributions, additions, and philosophical revisions to its mythos (most of which are not sanctioned by the Church, of course). We can't just make up a new myth and expect to achieve the level of intuitive or spiritual thinking around this myth that has arisen over the years around (secular or folk) Christianity. We have learned to "think spiritually" within the Christian paradigm . . . and I personally doubt (as Jung sometimes did as well) that New Age and Eastern Philosophies will ever provide substitutes en mass.
I know I am personally drawn to the "underground" of Christian mythos . . . the same prima materia the alchemists derived their lapis from. I think it is still fertile . . . but it is a much more challenging process, working with this dark stuff, than, for instance, New Age fancies (which are uplifting and ego-aggrandizing much of the time). I enjoy the fire and brimstone edge of Christianity . . . but it can't be interacted with unconsciously (or else we only see, or become, devils).
In my opinion, any progress among Christian individuals will be made by examining the ugliness attached to Christianity . . . specifically its history. The "new Christian" will not be the fundamentalist zealot who denies the evidence of history, but the ethical journeyer who sees this ugliness and wants to remedy it, correct it. I have no faith in Christians who cannot or do not want to see the ugliness of the faith's history. There has been too much denial in the Christian mindset already.
But in this shadow of Christianity there is a very real chance for rebirth. To look it square in the eye is to die to the faith . . . and only then (in my opinion) can the Christian truly be reborn in consciousness (or in Christ, if you prefer). But the prevailing dynamic of ignorance and repression will not benefit the Christin mythos.
Regrettably, I have yet to meet any Christians who have been willing to look at the history with a neutral eye, accept the possibility that it is all a crock of hooey (or that, even if it had legitimate roots, it was quickly and irrevocably perverted by power), and still find a way to draw meaning (or create meaning) from it.
But to think that Christ (and the pursuit of Christ) is an uplifting salvation, a "feeling good about God", is to my mind, an atrocity of misunderstanding. Christians want to have the rebirth without suffering the death first. And I don't mean a period of "loss of soul" and depression followed by the realization that, with Jesus, life is just swell (drugs will have the same effect). I mean the recognition that what you are founding your spirituality on is possibly a load of propagandistic crap original designed to part the Mark from his dime . . . and that this propaganda was used to justify the torture and murder millions of people. When you face that true death of faith, you are forced to become responsible for the creation of faith and the relationship with God. The blind dependency must be thrown off.
It is in this, and only in this, that the Christian can be reborn . . . as far as I can see. Christianity cannot be a happy little faith. To say today, "I am a Christian" is to stake your claim as the heir of the Christian legacy. It cannot be shirked off.
It is the True Cross. If one cannot bear this with conscious intention and acceptance, then they should consider themselves to be part of the problem rather than the solution (or acknowledge that they use Christianity to make themselves feel better, not to find a way to give back to God).
Of course, no one is lining up to sign themselves over to this kind of Christianity. Which is probably why I consider Christianity a practice most suited to the weak of faith (I mean
conventional Christianity). Sorry, I know this sounds harsh, but it is the only rational conclusion considering the understanding of Christian history and faith I have touched on above.
But then, I am especially cranky when it comes to this specific issue . . . and perhaps my attitude should be taken with a grain of salt. Not everyone is required to take their dose of religion with brutal honesty and crushing darkness . . . as is my personal, possibly masochistic inclination. In fact, this is not what people use religion for in general . . . so it is entirely unfair of me to ask this of others.
-Matt