The Psyche > Religion and Spirituality

How Can Christianity Progress?

(1/9) > >>

Matt Koeske:

--- Quote from: Sealchan ---Inappropriate literalizing is a common mistake made by mono-modal knowers.  They have to do this in order to pick up truth-real estate from other contexts.  The irony is that the faith that is often the very foundation of the belief system in question is dropped the moment literalization occurs.  That so many people don't see this, I believe, is because of the predominant, common sense of mono-modal truth.  Those Christians who put their faith in the literal historical accuracy of the Bible are as lost as if they denied the God who is, after all, beyond any book or words, no matter how holy or ordained anyone has claimed those words to be in the name of that God.  Many Christians worship the Bible, not God. 

Of course, in denying the ultimate authority of the Bible, I am stepping out of most Christian collective systems for determining spiritual truths.  I can do this with my Promethean nature relatively easily.  Am I not stepping into the role of Satan who, according to one story, has himself cast into Hell because he would not go against God's original order to bow to no one but Him?  Then God created humans and told the angels to serve them.  In Satan's refusal he was cast into Hell.  Similarly with Brunnehilde in Wagner's Ring trilogy.  She obeys her father Wotan's original deepest wish after her father changes his orders and is punished in a kind of Hell.  This proceeds the glorious coniunctio in Wagner's opera fortunately.

Now if I were to propose a God-Satan reconciliation, how many Christian friends would I make?  Heck if God and Satan could work things out, why not Bush and Bin Laden?  But these days, Christianity is suffering from lack of interest due to its general inability of the Christian community to develop its relationship to God over time.  One can still walk into a church and hear such non-sense as literal warnings against witchcraft. 

And what greater criticism is there against a way of knowing than a mass exodus of those who were raised in that tradition?

Still, I see myself as Christian...but I have to largely carve out my own understanding.
--- End quote ---

I have split this topic off from another conversation ("On Belief").

I'm hoping to spark some kind of intelligent discussion on the Christian mythos.

Sealchan (whose interesting comments are quoted above) sees himself as a Christian . . . whereas I do not.  And yet, I recognize that my symbol system is largely Christian . . . and I have had to wrestle mightily with Christian ideas and symbols and Christian history in my own religious life.

Many questions could be asked, but I'll start with just a few:
1) How can the pursuit of consciousness (or Jungian individuation) be compatible with the Christian belief system?
2) Does Christianity have to change/adapt in order to be functional in our age of technology and rationalism?  If so, how do we decide what stays and what goes?
3) Ultimately, what IS the value of Christianity and its mythos?  What is worth preserving and nurturing?

Please feel free to use these or your own preferred points of entry.

One warning, though.  This topic (although I hope for it to remain respectful) is not meant as an ideological powwow either for or against Christian dogma.  It is a discussion or debate about the religion's value and meaning.  Both proponents and opponents are asked to try to think outside the box.  To think progressively rather than prejudicially.

Yours,
Matt

Sealchan:
Okay, I think I am ready to speak directly to all of this.  May the Holy Spirit guide me through these words.  If not, then let Jesus guide me toward a better understanding...


--- Quote ---1) How can the pursuit of consciousness (or Jungian individuation) be compatible with the Christian belief system?

--- End quote ---

So far, in my reading of Jung, the following are some basic principals of the psychology of spirituality that would apply to Christianity.  (I have not yet read Aion which, as I understand, is Jung's attempt to address this subject directly):

1.  The polarization of opposites and the resolution of problems by way of the third (perspective)
2.  The Self as psychological goal; individuation
3.  Symbolic images as the forms of God's manifestation but never directly, wholly of God Himself
4.  Active imagination as conscious efforts to evoke "manifestations of unconscious contents"

Edward Edinger, in Creation of Consciousness, describes, in his view, what Jung meant by individuation as basically the creation of new awareness and discrimination.  The accumulation of scientific knowledge is a clear example of this, but also all other forms of human knowledge too require our deepest efforts in order to bring to light where darkness has previously prevailed.  The very idea of creating consciousness is a metaphor attuned with the spreading of God's word and otherwise shedding light where darkness as evil had prevailed.

The central understanding of Christianity is that Jesus dies on the cross to save us from our sins.  It is not, however, just the fact that he died but who he was (the Son of God) and how he died (without having committed sin) that is equally important.  Jesus' life and teachings are an example of what God looks like when He takes the form of man.  We are created in His image so this is not such a counter-intuitive possibility.  Since we are not God there is no way we could be as Jesus was, but we must all try.  His existence and person and teachings are like a beacon we must face towards.  His personality can be experienced with us as a living presence.  This is where Jung's psychology provides vital understanding on the nature of how this is true.  I believe that the Self is the image of Jesus as it touches on the individual psyche.  Howsoever this universal archetypal image presents itself, we know that Jesus has met us halfway between ourselves and God.  Recognizing an inner person as the Self requires an understanding of Jungian psychology.  In this way, it should be possible to distinguish a relationship with God from an encounter which one mistakenly attributes to God.


--- Quote ---2) Does Christianity have to change/adapt in order to be functional in our age of technology and rationalism?  If so, how do we decide what stays and what goes?

--- End quote ---

The Bible is the great historical tale that introduces us to the forms of relationship with God.  However, the various churches must realize this, God is not dead, we still can have a relationship with Him.  And what He says to us is of more importance than anything written in the Bible. 

The greatest controversy here is how to establish the authority of one's supposed word from God, especially when it might seem to contradict something in the Bible.  I believe that the Bible gives us the clues we need to recognize, in the character of a person, their closeness to God.  We also each have to focus on our individual relationship with God even while we commune with other Christians to make sure we are not loosing our perspective.  There are no guarantees here, but there are many established practices and teachings in the Christian tradition that should help.  Jesus was not one to lay out a bunch of rules, he was one to direct our hearts to the rules at hand and then consider what is Holy. 

When Jesus dies on the cross he went willingly but not deservingly.  This complete self-denial, while conscious, indicates the ideal awareness at once at touch with Heaven and with the mystical depths.  Stretched out on the cross, he stood for a position between the opposites, never allowing Himself to succomb to a biased attitude.  His detractors could not catch Him in a logical inconsistency.  He fully knew what He was saying and what His inquisitors were saying.  Jesus represents pure consciousness, the idea of it in a particular historical, physical form.


--- Quote ---3) Ultimately, what IS the value of Christianity and its mythos?  What is worth preserving and nurturing?

--- End quote ---

Christ is the ideal form of our individual consciousness.  The mythic themes that surround Christianity emphasize the spiritual goal as a human goal.  We can achieve spiritual transformation through our open hearts and also effect an paradise on Earth.  My belief is that the true Kingdom of Heaven is to be established on Earth and that there will be trials to undergo before the completion of that just as Jesus had to suffer through the Passion on his way to the cross where he gloriously conquered that which we all most fear...death.

Archetypally, we reach deepest into our souls when we experience the crucifying pull of the opposites which wish us to fall to one-side or the other on any particular issue.  When you walk between the warring factions of the opposites, you suffer for the sins of others.  You are seen as the enemy by both sides.  But if you can take up your cross, you can shed light where it has not been shed before and "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The really hard part here is that constrictive movement that communities of knowers create when they gather together as a church and proclaim their identity and goal.  With power comes corruption and the institutions of the churches are certainly corrupted.  But without this power, how would the stories have been preserved?  How could we say that we could move closer to creating the Kingdom of Heaven?  Certainly we have not escaped the ravages of sin.

I see science as having evolved out of the Catholic churches love of God and His Creation.  Science is an effort to understand the creation that God has made and has declared "good".  We are given dominion over this creation.  Science also hands us the tools to create great evils.  But this is our lot.  We ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and so we can make ourselves to suffer.  But if God did not intend this possibility would He have created such a tree?

And truly, Jung's psychology, as an extension of science, is a worship of God.  By coming to know the world that God created, we see the true background against which our choices are made.  Only against this deeper psychological background do we come to an understanding of what is God's way and what is not.  Never is this a simple cut and dry matter.  We must always struggle with staying on the path.  In this is both bliss and suffering.

Christianity also suffers from a lack of mysticism.  Mysticism is immensely valuable.  But a plain, common sense understanding is equally valuable.  Isolating yourself in meditation as Buddhists do is valuable but so is going out into the work and living as others do.  Christianity holds much of value that other religions do not address.  And Christianity, as a human practice and institution, has wrongly suppressed many ways of knowing God.  Jesus shows us that we must walk, open arms outstretched, with heart into these polarities and embrace the full truth.  From this living in the tension of opposites we create a third thing...consciousness.

I speak from no special authority.  If these words ring true with God, then I attribute their truth to God and my ability to speak them as a great blessing.

Amen.

Wonder Girl:
Matt,

As a Christian I find it regrettable that the church has moved away from an emphasis on progressing in inner experience and transformation in favor of either ritual divorced from its purpose or efforts to deny the shadow side of experience in favor of promoting a 2-dimensional family oriented humanoid prototype.  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. 

The Christian message still speaks to the heart of human psychological experience and need.  It asserts that we have created a relationship with the shadow and created the shadow itself through our own actions, and that this shadow has the power to finally claim us and hold us in death, death not just of the body but also of the soul, and that our worst nightmares are an accurate apprehension of the psychic and spiritual consequences of our wrongdoing and our inabiity to extricate ourselves from the power of evil.

It is only through undefensive self-examination that we can take responsibility for our own wrongdoing, and through this process of consciousness and repentance for our actions in crucifying the inner Christ, we are forgiven. More than that, we are promised that we will be transformed through the archetypal power of the resurrection of the Good in Christ.  We do not possess this transformation in the present, though we are aware through our experience and God's promise that it has begun (sanctification) but we nonetheless claim its ultimate completion as our identity in the present (justification) and destiny in the future (glorification).

Jungian thought can assist us in an undefensive examination of the shadow while still being able to acknowledge the element of evil that resides there in the absence of its integration with the good, and in this sense evil can be seen as a consequence of separation from the Good, on the basis of fear, choice, or loss of access to repressed contents. But the danger in modern Jungian discourse in its sometimes anti-Christian emphasis (perhaps due to a reaction to the judgmentalism of much Christian teaching) seems to be the immaturity of reverting to a pagan thought process that would celebrate the shadow for its own sake without an awareness of the gravity of the danger it poses.

It is my vision to see these 2 approaches to spirituality integrated.

Wonder Girl

Kafiri:

--- Quote from: Matt Koeske ---
...
I'm hoping to spark some kind of intelligent discussion on the Christian mythos.

Sealchan (whose interesting comments are quoted above) sees himself as a Christian . . . whereas I do not.  And yet, I recognize that my symbol system is largely Christian . . . and I have had to wrestle mightily with Christian ideas and symbols and Christian history in my own religious life.

Many questions could be asked, but I'll start with just a few:
1) How can the pursuit of consciousness (or Jungian individuation) be compatible with the Christian belief system?
2) Does Christianity have to change/adapt in order to be functional in our age of technology and rationalism?  If so, how do we decide what stays and what goes?
3) Ultimately, what IS the value of Christianity and its mythos?  What is worth preserving and nurturing?

Please feel free to use these or your own preferred points of entry.

One warning, though.  This topic (although I hope for it to remain respectful) is not meant as an ideological powwow either for or against Christian dogma.  It is a discussion or debate about the religion's value and meaning.  Both proponents and opponents are asked to try to think outside the box.  To think progressively rather than prejudicially.

Yours,
Matt

--- End quote ---

In some ways Matt and I share a worldview regarding religion.  I dislike dogma of any kind it seems, and for that reason I reject atheism as well as organized religion. I am more comfortable with the label of "nontheist."  If you are unfamilar with that term take a look here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheist  There are folks from organized religions who are nontheists, see for example:  http://www.nontheistfriends.org/  The main point of nontheism is that the existence, or non-exsitence of a supernatural deity is neither provable, or disprovable and is therefore irrelevent to me and not worth me wasting my time on.  But like many who study Jung religious myths often contain useful, and in fact sometimes, stunning psychological insights.

Matt posits the issue of individuation in a christian belief system; Jung provides some guidance:

--- Quote ---
The religions, however, teach another authority opposed to that of the "world."  The doctrine of the individuals dependence on God makes as high a claim upon him as the world does.  It may even happen that the absoluteness of this claim estranges him from the world in the same way he is estranged from himself when he succumbs to the collective mentality.  He can forfeit his judgment and power of decision in the former case(for the sake of religious doctrine) quite as much as in the latter.  This is the goal the religions openly aspire to unless they compromise with the State.  When they do, I prefer call them "creeds."  A creed gives expression to a definate collective belief, whereas he word religion expresses a subjective, relationship to certain metaphysical, extramundane factors.  A creed is confesion of faith intended chiefly for the world at large and is thus an intramundane affair, while the meaning of and purpose of religion lie in the relationship of the individual to God(Christianity, Judaism, Islam) or to the path of salvation and liberation(Buddhism).  From this basic fact all ethics is derived, which without the individual's responsibility before God can be called nothing more than conventional morality.
C. G. Jung, from the essay Religion as the Counterbalance to Mass-Mindedness, found in The Undiscovered Self, pp. 30-31.
--- End quote ---

For me a working defintion of individuation is provided by Erich Neumann:

--- Quote ---The goal of life now is to make oneself independent of the world, to detach oneself from it and stand by oneself....
Erich Neumann, The Origins and History of Consciousness, p. 36.

--- End quote ---

The detachment of oneself from the collective is a massive undertaking whether one is a Christian detaching from a creed, or for me, detaching from the collective mentality.  LOL here, I got my first hint of this issue in a movie, of all places; in the movie "Bull Durham," Annie asserts:

--- Quote --- "Annie: The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness."
quote found at:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094812/quotes
--- End quote ---

Annie's gripe defines the problem that all of us who struggle with consciousness deal with:  how does one live one's life in a world, culture, political system, economic system, and the like that are all founded on unconsciousness? IMO the Christinan myth hints at and in some cases provides answers.

Matt Koeske:

--- Quote from: Wonder Girl on March 31, 2007, 01:29:38 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---

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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page