Augustine's Enchiridion

As I read the Enchiridion I could not help but find myself thinking of the world as Augustine knew it. He lived in one of the most transformational times in Western (perhaps world) history, the disintegration of the Western Roman Empire. I took note that his City of God was prompted by the sack of the Eternal City.

The Sack of Rome by the Visigoth King Alaric and his army was a tragic event for the Latin West. But, Alaric’s sack was not as violent as one might think. Alaric was a semi-Romanized Goth who led an army of Foederati. They were seeking pay, titles, land and such things that might have allowed them to be incorporated into the Roman Empire; they did not seek to destroy it. If the arrogant Valens had handled the situation of the Danube crossing better perhaps the tragedy could have been avoided altogether.

Now I flash to the time when Augustine is writing the Enchiridion. The West has all but fallen. Germanic tribes occupied vast tracts of the Empire and within a few years Gaeseric would be leading his armies to into Africa itself. Africa was wracked with violence and religious strife. Everywhere he looked the world he knew was falling apart. I tend to think this constituted a real and present danger to folks like Augustine. Where the sack of Rome was perpetuated by an enemy far away who sought to be incorporated into the Imperial order, the Vandals were a horse of a different color. Nor, were the Vandals far away, they were scouring the sea in piratanical raids that the Roman Navy was becoming unable to resist. The Vandals were not the Goths, Gaeseric was not Alaric, Augustine and his contemporaries had every right to know fear.

In 421, the year Augustine wrote his Enchiridion, the Church was a bubbling cauldron. The struggle with the Donatist’s was still fresh in the minds of Christians, the Pelagian controversy was in full swing and the life and death struggle with Arianism, once thought defeated, was coming into the for again, on the spears of Germanic tribesmen.

Pelagianism can be drawn around a few central points;

1. Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.


2. Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.


3. Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.


4. The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.


5. The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.


6. Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

To my 21st century ears these sound like rational and sane statements of a legitimate faith perspective. But, to the Ortho-Catholic party of Augustine’s time these were dangerous heresies that must be stamped out. Augustine opposes Pelagius’s theology in a number of places in his handbook; some to be noted are as follows;

XXVI-Through Adam’s sin his whole posterity were corrupted, and were born under the penalty of death which he had incurred
XLV-In Adam’s first sin many types of sin were involved.
XLVI-It is probable that children are involved in the guilt not only of the first pair, but of their immediate parents as well.
LI-All men born of Adam are under condemnation, and only if new born in Christ are freed from condemnation.
Augustine goes out of his way to refute Pelagian thought without actually addressing the Pelagian issue head on. Arian Christology is attacked the same way and if the primary tenants of Arian Christianity were held in contrast to Augustinian thought a similar result would manifest itself.

Respose on Creed

Thanks for your response. I don't know...I don't thinks it's wrong to call them to the carpet, they were wrong. "One" of the results of Nicaea was religious persecution, and much of it was persecution of Christians by Christians. It was steady and relentless and did not cease until those who believed differently were obliterated or forced to flee into the Parthian Empire or elsewhere. This deep rooted intolerance manifested itself again with the persecution of the Cathars and the Bogomils and others; it can even be seen in the Inquisition (Of course most Protestants would say that the Inquisition was over the top since they found themselves on the short end of that stick). Constantine supported these actions and perhaps even encouraged them. They could not have taken place under the umbrella of Imperial authority unless he had given the nod. Religious persecution is and was wrong in any guise. The so-called orthodox "Christians" turned on fellow Christians once they attained secular power almost immediately; it was not Christian behavior and was inexcusable.

I don't suggest that every group of worshipers need accept every mode of worship within its ranks; congregations and denominations should be free to decide who can join their church. But, they should be tolerant of others who want to worship differently from them at the church down the road. People who are following their own leadings and seeking after the Divine after the promptings of their own hearts. Nor, is it okay for one group to claim the mantle of Christianity exclusively and define others who believe or worship differently outside the pale and worse force them to convert or be subject to persecution. That is just what happened in late antiquity and still to some extent happens in Christendom today (not so much persecution, but defining individuals based on their acceptance of one sect's unique beliefs). The whole idea of a creed, any creed designed to identify what it means to be a Christian was a step down the wrong path.

You wrote, Thus, while the Nicene creed supported a view opposed to Arianism, and while Constantine desired that the church remain unified because it would be politically advantageous to him, the majority of the bishops present at the council really had no initial opinion on the matter, preferring to remain loyal to Tertullian's view of one substance, three natures (G, 164). And, as can be demonstrated by later history and the dominance of Arianism in practice in various regions, the disagreement about the nature of Jesus had to be worked out in practice, because a mandate from this council was not sufficient to convince the actual believers.

This is true, we agree, but I think we interpret it differently. I think the fact that the Bishops held to a different belief before Nicaea to be a condemnation of the whole process. They either caved in to political pressure from the Emperor or they threw their beliefs to the wind when the opportunity to attain secular power and wealth presented itself. Also, you are correct that Monophysite belief continued to be dominant in some areas, but this was not the result of acceptance or pluralism. It was because the secular and ecclesiastical authorities were unable to "force" them to adhere. The Monophysites survived due to their own tenacity, not any cessation of persecution or benign tolerance on the part of the authorities. The cruel treatment of their fellow Christians did come back to haunt the Orthodox when Islam marched through the Eastern provinces. The persecuted eastern churches fell to the invaders with little opposition. In fact, they had more religious freedom under the Caliphate than they did under the Empire. But, this was of little consolation to the unnumbered masses that fell under Imperial persecution.

I'm sorry, but I see most of what happened after Nicaea as wrong and a great tragedy. What we have is a case of the victors writing the history. And more than victors they were apologists. If we put ourselves in the place of the people that were persecuted by the Christian Empire, be they Pagan, Jew or non-orthodox Christians, it is difficult to find the silver lining. There is no need for every Christian to believe alike, there is no need for a common denominator, the Mystery of Christ is for the individual to interpret for themselves. We have to be willing to call a spade a spade. Many of the so-called orthodox Christians of the time were little better than fanatical, intolerant, savages. Look at the crazed monks did who attacked Hypatia. The histories of late antiquity are filled with barbarous acts of Christian against Jews, Christian against Pagan, and Christian against Christian. Much of this hatred and violence sprang forth from the well of the Nicene Creed. I am droning on....let me close by saying that all the apologetic rhetoric about their good intentions...and how they needed to figure it all out so they could know what happened in the after life, etc, all that is irrelevant. The Christians aided and abetted, and in many circumstances promoted the persecution of people who believed differently, many of them fellow Christians.

Whatever good some Bishops may have thought would come from the Nicene Creed was far outweighed by the religious persecution and violence that followed. The Creed was bad, it promoted intolerance and caused the deaths of countless believers and the world would have been a brighter place without it. What troubles me is now that we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight why do we still try to defend the whole idea. We as a society should be able to stand aloof and condemn it as a policy that did more harm than good to the community of believers.

Church Fathers

I think many of the church fathers we are dealing with were nuts. I don’t think that just because they can throw together a few theological statements cohesively proves their sanity. Self castration (eek!) and other forms of bodily mutilation, failing to wash themselves…sometimes for decades, diatribe after venomous diatribe against people who believe differently than themselves, these are just a few symptoms of the symptoms of their madness.

We…and I mean modern society, seem determined to continue holding these folks in high repute just because they were on the winning side and their “truth” was the truth that has echoed down through the ages. My wife works as a public defender and we have joked that these “Fathers”, if they were espousing their rhetoric today, or behaving as the histories represent them, would be hooked and booked and given a thorough psychological examination, many of whom would fail, being found to be a danger to themselves and/or others. I know, I know, we should try to look at them as their contemporaries did…well, a filthy, unwashed, self mutilating madman spewing hate was just as crazy in late antiquity as he is now.

If we are able to step beyond apologetic misconceptions and view these people through a different lens, the way we see things change. So many of them spent more time attacking other believers than promoting their own beliefs. Irenaus and his “masterwork” was a religious intolerant that would not be accepted by most of us in today’s relatively pluralistic society. Augustine expended considerable time and effort attacking Manicheans and Pelagius and some people revere him as a saint. I know apologists say he felt obligated to renounce Manichaeism since he had promoted it before but that is just making excuses. Would we accept the same from a Catholic leader who joined the Mormon Church and then started publishing anti-Catholic books? Would we nod in approval as he condemned Catholics as heretical? I don’t think so. These people sound like the Jerry Fallwell’s and Pat Robertsons’ of their day.

Now, none of this means that everything they said or wrote is crazy. Charles Manson made some very astute observations about capitalism and the mistreatments of the poor by the rich….but he was a crazed homicidal lunatic. None of this means that they are not worthy of study….Hitler wrote Mien Kamph and in order to understand the history of Nazi Germany it needs to be read and understood. In order to understand the evolution of Christianity we need to understand the men who established conventional orthodoxy. When we look at them through the lenses of rose colored glasses we fail to see them and the system the established for what it and they were.

The “Fathers” established a church that gave us intolerance, persecution hate, war and pogroms. It gave us corruption, greed, lust, and the secularization and politicization of the Christian tradition. Through the middle ages the Church was a political monstrosity that sought to exert its power throughout Christendom, bestowing and withholding church favor in furtherance of a narrow and partisan political agenda. It gave us the Crusades. It gave us the sack of Constantinople and the destruction of the Eastern Empire, it gave us the Inquisition, and the depth of its corruption led to the reformation and the resulting religious wars that wracked the European continent, it gave us the slaughter of indigenous people around the world, and many, many more horrific crimes across the globe and across time to numerous to enumerate.

These “Fathers” were what they were and failing to look at them for what they were is failing to see them for who they were….as it was written, “By their fruits you shall no them”. The fruits of the fathers are there for all to see….intolerance, persecution, death, war.

When I look back through the mists of time I have much, much more in common with the Gnostics and the Pagan Mystery religions than any of the Fathers or the Ortho-Catholic Church they brought into being.

The Thunder Perfect Mind

The Thunder, Perfect Mind

I was sent forth from the power,
and I have come to those who reflect upon me,
and I have been found among those who seek after me.
Look upon me, you who reflect upon me,
and you hearers, hear me.
You who are waiting for me, take me to yourselves.
And do not banish me from your sight.
And do not make your voice hate me, nor your hearing.
Do not be ignorant of me anywhere or any time. Be on your guard!
Do not be ignorant of me.
For I am the first and the last.
I am the honored one and the scorned one.
I am the whore and the holy one.
I am the wife and the virgin.
I am <the mother> and the daughter.
I am the members of my mother.
I am the barren one
and many are her sons.
I am she whose wedding is great,
and I have not taken a husband.
I am the midwife and she who does not bear.
I am the solace of my labor pains.
I am the bride and the bridegroom,
and it is my husband who begot me.
I am the mother of my father
and the sister of my husband
and he is my offspring.
I am the slave of him who prepared me.
I am the ruler of my offspring.
But he is the one who begot me before the time on a birthday.
And he is my offspring in (due) time,
and my power is from him.
I am the staff of his power in his youth,
and he is the rod of my old age.
And whatever he wills happens to me.
I am the silence that is incomprehensible
and the idea whose remembrance is frequent.
I am the voice whose sound is manifold
and the word whose appearance is multiple.
I am the utterance of my name.
Why, you who hate me, do you love me,
and hate those who love me?
You who deny me, confess me,
and you who confess me, deny me.
You who tell the truth about me, lie about me,
and you who have lied about me, tell the truth about me.
You who know me, be ignorant of me,
and those who have not known me, let them know me.
For I am knowledge and ignorance.
I am shame and boldness.
I am shameless; I am ashamed.
I am strength and I am fear.
I am war and peace.
Give heed to me.
I am the one who is disgraced and the great one.
Give heed to my poverty and my wealth.
Do not be arrogant to me when I am cast out upon the earth,
and you will find me in those that are to come.
And do not look upon me on the dung-heap
nor go and leave me cast out,
and you will find me in the kingdoms.
And do not look upon me when I am cast out among those who
are disgraced and in the least places,
nor laugh at me.
And do not cast me out among those who are slain in violence.
But I, I am compassionate and I am cruel.
Be on your guard!
Do not hate my obedience
and do not love my self-control.
In my weakness, do not forsake me,
and do not be afraid of my power.
For why do you despise my fear
and curse my pride?
But I am she who exists in all fears
and strength in trembling.
I am she who is weak,
and I am well in a pleasant place.
I am senseless and I am wise.
Why have you hated me in your counsels?
For I shall be silent among those who are silent,
and I shall appear and speak,
Why then have you hated me, you Greeks?
Because I am a barbarian among the barbarians?
For I am the wisdom of the Greeks
and the knowledge of the barbarians.
I am the judgement of the Greeks and of the barbarians.
I am the one whose image is great in Egypt
and the one who has no image among the barbarians.
I am the one who has been hated everywhere
and who has been loved everywhere.
I am the one whom they call Life,
and you have called Death.
I am the one whom they call Law,
and you have called Lawlessness.
I am the one whom you have pursued,
and I am the one whom you have seized.
I am the one whom you have scattered,
and you have gathered me together.
I am the one before whom you have been ashamed,
and you have been shameless to me.
I am she who does not keep festival,
and I am she whose festivals are many.
I, I am godless,
and I am the one whose God is great.
I am the one whom you have reflected upon,
and you have scorned me.
I am unlearned,
and they learn from me.
I am the one that you have despised,
and you reflect upon me.
I am the one whom you have hidden from,
and you appear to me.
But whenever you hide yourselves,
I myself will appear.
For whenever you appear,
I myself will hide from you.
Those who have [...] to it [...] senselessly [...].
Take me [... understanding] from grief.
and take me to yourselves from understanding and grief.
And take me to yourselves from places that are ugly and in ruin,
and rob from those which are good even though in ugliness.
Out of shame, take me to yourselves shamelessly;
and out of shamelessness and shame,
upbraid my members in yourselves.
And come forward to me, you who know me
and you who know my members,
and establish the great ones among the small first creatures.
Come forward to childhood,
and do not despise it because it is small and it is little.
And do not turn away greatnesses in some parts from the smallnesses,
for the smallnesses are known from the greatnesses.
Why do you curse me and honor me?
You have wounded and you have had mercy.
Do not separate me from the first ones whom you have known.
And do not cast anyone out nor turn anyone away
[...] turn you away and [... know] him not.
[...].
What is mine [...].
I know the first ones and those after them know me.
But I am the mind of [...] and the rest of [...].
I am the knowledge of my inquiry,
and the finding of those who seek after me,
and the command of those who ask of me,
and the power of the powers in my knowledge
of the angels, who have been sent at my word,
and of gods in their seasons by my counsel,
and of spirits of every man who exists with me,
and of women who dwell within me.
I am the one who is honored, and who is praised,
and who is despised scornfully.
I am peace,
and war has come because of me.
And I am an alien and a citizen.
I am the substance and the one who has no substance.
Those who are without association with me are ignorant of me,
and those who are in my substance are the ones who know me.
Those who are close to me have been ignorant of me,
and those who are far away from me are the ones who have known me.
On the day when I am close to you, you are far away from me,
and on the day when I am far away from you, I am close to you.
[I am ...] within.
[I am ...] of the natures.
I am [...] of the creation of the spirits.
[...] request of the souls.
I am control and the uncontrollable.
I am the union and the dissolution.
I am the abiding and I am the dissolution.
I am the one below,
and they come up to me.
I am the judgment and the acquittal.
I, I am sinless,
and the root of sin derives from me.
I am lust in (outward) appearance,
and interior self-control exists within me.
I am the hearing which is attainable to everyone
and the speech which cannot be grasped.
I am a mute who does not speak,
and great is my multitude of words.
Hear me in gentleness, and learn of me in roughness.
I am she who cries out,
and I am cast forth upon the face of the earth.
I prepare the bread and my mind within.
I am the knowledge of my name.
I am the one who cries out,
and I listen.
I appear and [...] walk in [...] seal of my [...].
I am [...] the defense [...].
I am the one who is called Truth
and iniquity [...].
You honor me [...] and you whisper against me.
You who are vanquished, judge them (who vanquish you)
before they give judgment against you,
because the judge and partiality exist in you.
If you are condemned by this one, who will acquit you?
Or, if you are acquitted by him, who will be able to detain you?
For what is inside of you is what is outside of you,
and the one who fashions you on the outside
is the one who shaped the inside of you.
And what you see outside of you, you see inside of you;
it is visible and it is your garment.
Hear me, you hearers
and learn of my words, you who know me.
I am the hearing that is attainable to everything;
I am the speech that cannot be grasped.
I am the name of the sound
and the sound of the name.
I am the sign of the letter
and the designation of the division.
And I [...].
(3 lines missing)
[...] light [...].
[...] hearers [...] to you
[...] the great power.
And [...] will not move the name.
[...] to the one who created me.
And I will speak his name.
Look then at his words
and all the writings which have been completed.
Give heed then, you hearers
and you also, the angels and those who have been sent,
and you spirits who have arisen from the dead.
For I am the one who alone exists,
and I have no one who will judge me.
For many are the pleasant forms which exist in numerous sins,
and incontinencies,
and disgraceful passions,
and fleeting pleasures,
which (men) embrace until they become sober
and go up to their resting place.
And they will find me there,
and they will live,
and they will not die again.

Boff on the Infancy & Midrash

What precisely happened at the birth of Jesus? What is the message that Luke and Mathew sought to transmit in the history and infancy of Jesus. The accounts of his birth are not without problems but a sophisticated theology, one that was thought out in every minute detail, lies hidden behind the candid simplicity and lyricism of the Gospel scenes. Faith does not exclude nor does it dispense with reason. True faith seeks to comprehend, not abolish the mystery, and discern the real dimensions in wonder, to praise the gracious logic of God.

Mark affirms: In the baptism by John, Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit and proclaimed Messiah and Liberator. Mark has no account of the Infancy and begins with the teaching of the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. Matthew’s Gospel shows Jesus from the very moment of his birth as the Messiah and, through a genology shows that history from Abraham was moving towards him. Luke goes one step further and shows that all of humanity since the birth of Adam has been moving towards the moment of Jesus’ birth. John builds upon the story even further in proclaiming that Jesus was the son of God even before his birth.

As we can see from these examples, the more people ponder Jesus the more his Mystery is discovered. Given this and given their understanding of the resurrection the apostles began to reread the whole life of Christ, reinterpret his words, and retell his miracles. The theological meaning of the accounts of the infancy does not consist in narrating facts concerning the birth of Jesus. Rather through theological narrations they are an announcement of who and what Jesus is. In his life there lay hidden the secret meaning of all history and in him all the prophecies of human hopes for liberation and the fullness of God were realized.

The book of Esdras said that the Messiah was expected at the end of the eleventh week of the world, seventy-seven days. Luke constructed his genealogy to show that each of the seventy-seven antecedents of Jesus represented day. Matthew did something similar. Using a numerological formulation stemming from the name David construed three times 14 generations. He broke his genealogy into three separate groups; Abraham to David, David to the exile and the exile to Christ. A high point followed by a low, followed by the definitive High point in Christ. Matthew also insets 4 women all of ill repute to teach that Christ assumed the highest and lowest points in history and that he also took human ignomies upon himself.

Boff then inserts a footnote; Matthew wants to prove that Christ is really a descendant of David. But since Joseph was not the father of Jesus in the traditional since and Mary as a woman did not count in Jewish genealogical legalism Matthew had to solve it through other means, he has Joseph name the child. By naming him Joseph who was a descendant of David and the spouse of Mary became the father of Jesus in a legal since and thus Jesus is inserted into the Davidic line.

Luke compares and contrasts the lives of Jesus and John and shows them to be in parallel. But, Luke takes great pains to show that Christ is greater than John. There is correspondence between the two annunciations. However at the annunciation of the birth of John, Gabriel does not give a salutation, he only says that Zechariah’s prayer was answered. In contrast Mary receives an angelic salutation, and he reverently observes that she has one God’s favor. Luke also uses another numerological formulation to show his readers that Jesus is in accordance with Daniel’s prophecy that the Messiah would come after seventy weeks of years. All of the words spoken by the angel and the virgin at the annunciation are connected to similar or equivalent words spoken in other OT situations.

Boff notes that traditional teaching has accentuated Mary’s virginity, physical and perpetual, “before, during, and after giving birth”. He then shows that the Gospel perspective is different. Christ is at the center and Mary’s virginity is a function of Christ. He notes that the NT calls Mary the Mother of Jesus in all but two situations. The very conception of Jesus is described in a form that expresses how the glory of God is manifested in the tabernacle of the alliance. Just as the tabernacle is full of the Spirit of God, so the same way and more is the Son of Mary, who truly merits being called the Son of God. By the power of the Spirit there appears one who is so impregnated by the Spirit that he gets his existence by the spirit alone. Christ is a new creation of the same Spirit that created the world. This is the profound theological statement that Luke wishes to transmit, not so much to describe a miraculous biological phenomenon.

Boff then moves into the question of the location of the birth. If he is revealed to be the Messiah and is the Son of David as prophecy tells then he also should be born in Bethlehem not Nazareth. Luke is not so much emphasizing geography but making a theological reflection about Bethlehem and its messianic significance to make it clear that Jesus is Messiah. To have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke creates a situation where the Joseph and Mary are forced to leave Nazareth and go to Bethlehem. To this ends he uses a census that was conducted in A.D. 6. Luke uses a historical fact and projects it into his story.

Boff addresses who the Shepherds in the fields were or what the represented. Boff says theologically speaking, the shepherds are the representatives of the poor, to whom the good news was announced and to whom Jesus was sent. Here is no vestige of pastoral romanticism. The shepherds constitute a despised class and their profession made them impure before the law. Christ was shown to be sent precisely to the religiously marginalized and the classless. More than likely this message was not actually transmitted to shepherds in the fields of Bethlehem but was meant for Luke’s readers in order to show them that he, in whom they believe, is the true liberator.

Matthew has four episodes that relate to the Infancy; the arrival of the Magi, the flight of the holy family, the killing of the innocents, and the return from Egypt. Boff then asks us to consider whether they are actual historical events or might they be Midrash. (Midrash: a historicization of a passage of scripture or an amplification that embellishes a fact to emphasize its message)

As we have seen, for Matthew, Christ is the Messiah. One of the Prophecies concernining the Messiah refer to the fact that at the end of times kings and nations would come to Jerusalem to adore God and the Messiah bringing gifts, hence the Magi go to Jerusalem before going to Bethlehem. They follow a star called the star of the king of Judah. A star was seen before the births of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. Astronomical study has shown us that about 7 B.C. a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter occurred in Pisces. To Hellenist astrologers Jupiter represented the King of the Universe, Saturn was the star of the Jews and Pisces referred to the end of time. This was interpreted by the Magi to mean that in the country of the Jews a sovereign King was born who pertains to the end of time.

Just as the Lukan narrative traced the parallels between Jesus and the Baptist, Matthew traces the similarities between Jesus and Moses. The Jews of NT times believed that a Messiah-Liberator would come in the last days performing miracles like Moses. We know that Matthew presents Jesus as a new Moses, and that like the first liberator Jesus gave a new law from a mountain; the Sermon on the Mount.

We can see many Midrashic parallels between Jesus and Moses. Pharaoh is notified by Magi of the birth of a liberator; Herod is informed in a similar manner. Pharaoh and all of Egypt are terrified; Herod and all of Jerusalem are perturbed. Both Pharaoh and Herod decide to kill innocent children. Both Moses and Jesus escape the slaughter. Both Moses’ father and Joseph learn in dream there sons are to be saviors. The destiny of the new Moses repets the destiny of the first. The parallels need not be historically accurate. They are to show that Jesus is the long awaited Messiah-Liberator.

Boff points out that we have erred by approaching the Gospels incorrectly. They are not nor were they intended to be historical. They are announcement and preaching. At the time the NT was compose Midrash was a widely used form. It took a scriptural fact or saying then fashioned and embellished it with the intention of underling some truth of faith. There are real facts contained therein but they are clothed in a theological form, in a language that is almost incomprehensible. But, it is within this literary form that the message is hidden, the message we must unravel, retain and proclaim. If we try by every means to safeguard the historicity of every scene we end up losing the message intended by the inspired authors.

All this constitutes an order of symbolism and not of a reality of brute fact. The symbol is, humanly speaking, more real and significant than historically factual clod data. Myths and stories when understood and accepted as such make us plunge into the depths of a reality where we begin to perceive the meaning of innocence and reconciliation.

Development of the early church.

Christianity developed in a world of highly syncretistic religion; Alexander the Great and thereby Hellenic culture had overrun much of the civilized Near Eastern world and influenced many local religions. Despite this milieu, mystery religions weren't to become popular in what would become known as the province of Judaea. There are parallels to be observed, however, between how early orthodox Christianity developed and aspects of gnostic mystery religions.

Platonic philosophy told of The Form of the Good, also known as "Plato's god," that could be used to explain deeper levels of dualistic thinking (the inner mystery). The idea of religious narratives as literal truth could be discounted in this process. A variety of other esoteric stories were syncretised from pre-existing mythologies about vegetative/fertility deities, reinterpreting an original tale of a pagan deity to one allegorically symbolizing the awakening of knowledge (gnosis) and the abandonment of an initiate's prior life.

This interpretation of religion was spread throughout the Hellenic sphere of influence, meeting with similar themes from Persian gnosticism. These mystery religions could absorb earlier religions (at least among the literate), the central figure in the mystery could be interchangeable thereby; Egypt had Osiris, in Rome, Bacchus, in Greece, Dionysus, in Phrygia (western Anatolia) Attis, and in Samaria, Antiochus, etc. They all could become metaphors for dualistic esoteric and even occult thought processes beyond their original function. Because of broad similarities between the original figures, some observers have classed them collectively as life-death-rebirth deities.

Despite being surrounded by, trading with and eventually being conquered by cultures with both vegetative/fertility and, later, gnostic/mystery religions, Judaism tended to remain distinct over time in the face of political and cultural pressures. Some scholars, such as George Mendenhall from the University of Michigan and Gary Herion from New York's Hartwick College, theorize that the original teachings of Moses and the prophets were a reaction against the surrounding pagan religions of Egypt and the Near East, and this distinction is what allowed them to survive being absorbed completely into the mainstream of their surrounding environment. Eventually, Gnostic Christianity and Manichaeanism evolved as later, obvious, syntheses of gnosticism and Judeo-Christianity.

Many early vegetative/fertility and later gnostic/mystery religions had similar outward manifestations, some resemble those of Christianity. At the core of most of the mystery religions was the idea of a god born as man from a human mother but with a god as father, so as to represent both the earthly part of mankind and the spiritual part of a divinity merged. The subject goes on to die, for the sins of man or as a representative of the seasonal vegetative cycle, enters the underworld, and is restored to life.

Followers of some mystery religions had a ritual bath or cleansing (in some locations by full immersion in water), and considered themselves afterwards to have been reborn. The early Christian church father Tertullian commented that in certain Mysteries it is by baptism that members are initiated and they imagine that the result of this baptism is regeneration and the remission of the penalties of their sins.

Another religious practice similar to Christianity was the symbolic re-enactment of the death of their god, in many areas using bread and wine to symbolize the body and the blood; this was partly chosen due to the original vegetative nature of the gods (for example, Dionysus was originally associated with grapes) or, because of an ancient Near Eastern political covenant ritual. One surviving inscription regarding this (and explicitly referring to a form of Osiris-Dionysus) states that "he who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he shall be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation".

In Euripides' play The Bacchae, Dionysus founds a new religion, and is plotted against by the king, Pentheus; he is arrested, unjustly found guilty, and executed wearing a crown of ivy (which was standard garb for Dionysus), which bears some similarity to tales of Jesus' death. This play was a satire on the relationship between the mystery religions (one devoted to Dionysus and another to Demeter) and the priests of other faiths. Stories and images of Dionysus, for example, Aristophanes' The Frogs, depict him riding on a donkey (one of the animals Dionysus was particularly identified with) on the way to his death, with the crowd waving branches towards him (an ancient practise for welcoming important figures—in Jerusalem it was often done with readily available palms).

Dionysus was also associated with certain trees, and consequently some versions of the myth have him being crucified on one, as attested by various images of various of the manifestations being crucified. Images from other mystery religions also feature crucifixion. One early second century image of crucifixion survives as a wall graffito in Rome, and most scholars so far have considered it depicts Jesus, although it does not specify the identity, and the crucified figure has a donkey's head, an animal associated with Dionysus (although the image is thought to be satire).

Mystery religions also taught that the central figure will return at the end of the world to judge mankind (living and dead); however, this was understood to have the deeper meaning that mankind's fate lay in its own hands and failing to listen to the lessons of the mystery religions would lead to disaster. Similar themes are found in the texts of the Bible, especially in the books of Deuteronomy ("Blessings and Curses") and Exodus (the "Covenant Code") as well as the Beatitudes ascribed to Jesus. Echoes of this are also found in the Hindu and Buddhist concept of karma.

Other parallels exist in stories about Jesus, for example, according to Tacitus, Dionysus was thought to have turned water into wine at a marriage, (a story related to his status as a wine god). Another nativity parallel is that of Dionysus himself being born in a cave, in the presence of three shepherds, which, although seeming at odds with modern interpretations placing the birth of Jesus in a stable, was the original understanding of Christians - the Greek text only specifying a manger and in Bethlehem stables were often housed in caves.

Worship of Mithras (known as Mithraism) developed in the Roman army during the first century BC, though it is currently unknown how this particular mystery religion originated, as it appears to have little to do with the Zoroastrian Mithra. Since it developed amongst a group of highly mobile people (professional soldiers), it quickly spread to the outer regions of the empire. It soon proved to be amongst the most popular of the mystery religions, and at Rome, by the start of the third century emperors were openly encouraging it, as the religion favoured their rule.

One of the ancient gods associated with Mithra was Ea, the moon god, and god of the waters. Ea was referred to as Oannes (or sometimes considered as Oannes' father), which resembles the Greek word Ioannes (i.e. John). According to the myths, Oannes spent the days teaching mankind wisdom. Consequently Ea was thought by Joseph Campbell to be the origin of the story of John the Baptist.

Jesus allegedly was born on the winter solstice (when the sun starts to reappear), six months after John was born on the summer solstice (when the sun starts to disappear); John baptises with water (the symbol of Ea) and Jesus with fire (the symbol of the sun); and Jesus is born to a young virgin whereas John is born to an old married woman. These comparisons, together with the biblical passage where John says to Jesus "as you become more, I must become less", lead Campbell to think that John is used in the story as a representation of the moon, and Jesus as the sun.

By the end of the 3rd century, the popular cults of Apollo and Mithras had started to merge into the syncretism known as Mithras Sol Invictus or simply Sol Invictus (the unconquerable sun—a term also used by other cults), and in 274 the emperor Aurelian (whose mother had been a priestess of the sun) made worship of this form official.

The Emperor Constantine I was, like emperors before him, high priest of the Mithraic religion. However, he was also interested in creating unity for the sake of ease of governance, and to this end involved himself in a dispute between Christian groups over Arianism, summoning the First Council of Nicaea. Constantine mitigated some differences between Christianity and its main competitor, the official religion of Sol Invictus. In doing so, he moved the date of celebration of Jesus' birth to December 25th (since this was the date that Mithras' birth was celebrated, and that of Bacchus (another form of Osiris-Dionysus) as well that of other winter solstice festivals such as Saturnalia).

Popular legend holds that Constantine I was Christian; however, he never publicly recanted his position as high priest of Mithras Sol Invictus, and the only alleged occurrence of Constantine I converting was on his deathbed (as reported by later Church Fathers), which is impossible to verify. However, it was not that unusual for people in the fourth century to avoid fully converting to Christianity until quite late in life, because of the strong warnings against continuing in sin after having converted and the spiritual consequences thereof.

Mainstream Christianity differed from gnostic interpretations of the religion because orthodox Christians took the literal interpretation as the correct one, as would newcomers to the mysteries, thus attracting greater numbers of adherents. This was observed quite early, for example, the second century Celsus (whose words are preserved in Origen's Contra Celsum, a text designed against Celsus) states that Christianity continues to spread amongst the vulgar, nay one can even say it spreads because of its vulgarity, and the illiteracy of its adherents. And while there are a few moderate, reasonable, and intelligent people who are inclined to interpret its beliefs allegorically, yet it thrives in its purer form amongst the ignorant.

Shocked by this development, the emperor Julian (later denoted "the Apostate" because of his departure from Christianity) attempted to restore the previous religion by suppressing and persecuting Christianity, while encouraging both Judaism and a sort of neo-paganism. However, this was short lived, as emperors such as Constantine II repealed Julian's actions and encouraged the growth of Christianity. This state of affairs was finally enforced by a decree in 394 (by Theodosius, an Emperor who ascribed to Christianity) which banned outright any non-Christian worship. After the ban, and subsequent suppression, many Mithraeums were converted into Christian churches (such as Notre-Dame du Taur, and the Church of San Clemente), often dedicated to the archangel Michael.

There is no shame.

There is no shame in being a Liberal.

There is nothing un-American about being a Liberal. In fact, there is a certain stubborn patriotism in believing that the massive transfer of wealth the last twenty years in the United States is very bad for our country. The rich are getting richer while the poor struggle for any chance of achieving the American Dream.

Buried under the avalanche of establishment publicity are the hidden historical facts that the overwhelming number of social benefits that have trickled down to the people from their legislators all generated on the left side of the aisle. Social Security, voting rights, Medicare, support for the arts, aid to education, worker's compensation, environmental protection, access for the disabled, talking books, veterans' benefits AND the G.I. Bill, are examples of programs we take for granted today. Flawed and in need of fine-tuning though some of them may be, our lives would be unimaginably weaker and bleaker without them. They all started with shoves from Liberals.

Liberals understand that the richest cultures are made up of mixtures of ethnicity, religion, language, traditions, and the other many factors that determine a society. We realize only thirty per cent of the world is white. We know that civilization requires tolerance. We tend to throw our arms wide open to embrace both new ideas and change. We have noticed that Nature teems with alteration and development, and that if you are not open to adjustment, you get swept away.

Liberals like equal opportunity and a less-tilted playing field, and we don't think the door to betterment should be slammed shut on those who have yet to succeed. Too often in this country wealthy people try to manipulate the system so that they can keep their piles of money while preventing others from an equal chance at making theirs, and this manipulation disguises itself as thin political philosophy. Real wages--the measure of what you can actually buy with what you earn--have declined every year for almost thirty years, while our stock market demonstrates year after year of record growth. Liberals don't think it is fair to boost profits while cutting wages. We have noticed that the average family today requires TWO paychecks to live the way it did forty years ago with only one wage earner. We don't think it is fair to give generous dividends to stockholders while moving entire industries to countries with cheaper labor.

We believe that it is our obligation to hand to future generations a planet healthier than the one we inherited, and that enormous profit for a few is no reason to increase ecological decay. While cleaning up pollution in the U.S. is important, very important, it is equally critical to encourage other countries to cease the degradation of their own environments. We all breathe the same air and drink the same water. The world's supplies of both do not respect lines on a map.

Liberals believe---as all rational people must-- that our children deserve our best because they are the future. Rather than simply spouting pro-life slogans, however, we believe in and work for, and are willing to pay for, better neo-natal care, child care, school, day care, medical care, education, school nutrition, and job training. We think public colleges should be free.

We Liberals love our country, and want to keep it safe. We are not opposed to a military per se, nor are we opposed to rewarding the young women and men who are serving in our armed forces personnel for their noble service and sacrifice for their country. What we DO object to, however, is the use of our military might to shore up the interests of the wealthy, both foreign and domestic. Too many of our campaigns the last fifty years have been veiled attempts to do just that. We believe that vigorous debate, full access to information, and open dialogue are all important to a functioning democracy.

Of course this is just the opinion of one old fashioned, museum quality, tax and spend, bleeding heart liberal.

Guess who coined these sayings.

Who do you think may have coined these neat little sayings?

"The glory of God is intelligence."

"It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance."

"A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge."

"Knowledge saves a man, and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge."

"Whatsoever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life will rise with us in the resurrection."

"If one man, by his diligence, obtains more knowledge than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come."

""Adam fell that man might be, and men are that they might have joy."

"This is the glory of God—to bring to pass the immortality and the eternal life of man."

"If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves."

"Jesus was in the beginning with the Father. * * * Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."


If you did not say Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism you are wrong.

I was way off myself and will not humiliate myself by enumerating all of my incorrect assumptions Let it be enough to say I never would have guessed it if I had all day. The Mormonism I’m aware of seems to have morphed into something completely different than that which is represented in these sayings. I can’t wait to ask a couple of LDS neighbors about it and hear there take on things.

Harriet Martineau

Harriet Martineau was a journalistic pioneer from the United Kingdom. Her Father and Mother were Unitarians and raised Harriet and her sisters in a far more liberal fashion than the times otherwise dictated. They were educated in their family home after the fashion of their brothers. But, when they were of appropriate age her brothers went off to college. The sisters were consigned to remain at home pursuing the domestic duties which dominated female life in early 19th century Britain.

Her early trouble hearing progressed into deafness by the time she reached puberty. By her early adulthood she was using an ear horn in order to engage in conversation. Near the end of her life she once stated that her deafness, “…was the best thing that every happened to me….since it provided, “the grandest impulse of self mastery.

Harriet lived in a time when women of the upper classes were denied equal rights, careers, or access to education. They rarely traveled and were dismissed in scholarly circles. Harriet, thanks to her progressive upbringing and indomitable spirit was able to overcome these obstacles and became a recognized leader in her field.

Harriet began her career writing for the Unitarian journal, The Monthly Repository, a fount head of progressive ideals challenging the traditional order.
Much of her early work was written from an early feminist standpoint arguing that the differences between the intellectual capacity of men and women at the time stemmed from educational and societal prejudices. Her other initial efforts were religious in nature and written from the perspective of the progressive doctrines of the Unitarian church.

In 1831 Harriet wrote: “The Illustrations of Political Economy,” a work on politics and economics designed for the lay reader based on the Unitarian principles of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. After arduous efforts on her part Harriet was able to find a publisher for this successful series of books. It brought her national recognition and financial security for the remainder of her life.

With her new found financial security Harriet was able to leave the United Kingdom on an extended tour of the United States. Harriet’s “The Society in America” has become the foundational work for the modern science of Sociology.
She applied observational techniques from which she drew informed conclusions.

In this pioneering work she critized America’s failure to live up to the idealism of the founding fathers. She was particularly critical of the treatment of women whom she found to be treated little better than slaves. She argued for the liberation of women so that, “marriage might not be their only object in life”.

Despite the unique nature of her work and its undisputed originality she has been somewhat ignored and denied credit due her. She is mostly remembered for her translation of “The Positive Philosophy of August Comte,” a pivotal work that she edited and condensed from its original six volumes down to two volumes. She worked resolutely to correctly translate and verify this scientific work allowing it to permeate English circles where it influenced the likes of John Stuart Mill. Today, somewhat after the fact, Harriet Martineau has been given her place in the history books. Today she even has a chair in the University of Massachusetts sociology department in honor of her contributions.

Wake up and Know the Truth

Wake Up! Rouse yourself from the dream you mistake for the real world. See through the illusion and recognize the truth. This is the way it is for those who have cast ignorance aside, as if waking from sleep. Experiencing the Light is like waking up...Rejoice in the Dawn!

I was not surprised

I was not surprised to learn that women were/are the backbone of the Catholic practice of devotion to the Saints. The Braude article has given me a different paradigm through which to view the role of women in church. I see the rise in the veneration of Jude in direct correlation to the rise of a new sense of self worth in women. The model of Therese (at least as she was viewed in the time referenced) was a model of submissiveness, humility and silence. It was a model whose time had come and gone, and I for one say good riddance. I am glad that the new version of Therese as envisioned by contemporary scholars represents independence and innovation; perhaps those characteristics will resonate with a new generation of young women. Perhaps this new vision of spiritual innovation and independence will help lead American Catholicism towards the liberalization of its outmoded & gender biased policies.

I am also not suspired to learn that there are varied and differing reasons between the practical and spiritual aspects of devotions. I can see why, for strictly materialistic reasons one parish, diocese of shrine would want to promote the veneration of one saint over, often at the expense of another. When I was living in Germany I did a little travel around Europe. And, although the churches are pretty much empty there is a large tourist industry built around the saints. It was everywhere; come see the hand of so-and-so, the virgin appeared here, or we have the skull of St. someone else in our cathedral. My friends and I talked about it at the time but we failed to understand the spiritual ramifications of such tourism. It just seemed rather gruesome and somewhat opportunistic way to make a quick buck from the tourist trade. After reading this article I understand that the money made from tourism may well be just the tip of the iceberg. I imagine that there are many devout Catholics who donate huge amounts of money to the cult centers of the various saints. On the other side of the coin there are many people whose lives have been changed by their devotion to their particular saint. The deep spiritual transformations, the personal mystical experiences, and the heartfelt loves these people have experienced should not be cavalier dismissed, even if the tradition is alien to us.

Orsi and I seem to have come to a similar conclusion that women turned away from Therese and her “suffering” and “self-abnegation” towards “…a saint whose existence was rooted in their needs and who would not only understand and comfort them, but empower them as well”. But I would add that Jude should be just one next step in the emancipation of Catholics of both genders. This new vision of Therese sounds like just the tonic needed to stir things up.

1. Early Therese…Submissiveness, Humility and Silence


2. Jude…Understanding, Compassion and Empowerment


3. New Therese…Fierce Independence & Spiritual Innovation
   

All Truth is God'sTruth

There are many doors that lead to the Divine. If we knock on any of them God will answer us.

We should not be obsessed with finding a single path, adhering to a particular doctrine or set of beliefs. Nor should we allow our faith to become dominated by following rules and doing and believing as others would have us. That is not the path to Salvation. True Salvation only comes through an essential change in consciousness which has nothing to do with obeying rules. Don't shy away from exploring faith traditions outside your experience, be a Seeker.

We need a new New Deal.

Inaugural Speech of Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Given in Washington, D.C. March 4th, 1933

President Hoover, Mr. Chief Justice, my friends: This is a day of national consecration, and I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our nation impels.
This is pre-eminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

So first of all let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear. . .is fear itself. . . nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days. In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels: taxes have risen, our ability to pay has fallen, government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income, the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade, the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side, farmers find no markets for their produce, the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply.

Primarily, this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failures and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True, they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money.
Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored conditions. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers.

They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths.

The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money, it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.

The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow-men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be values only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit, and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing.

Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance. Without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This nation asks for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously.

It can be accompanied in part by direct recruiting by the government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our national resources.

Hand in hand with this, we must frankly recognize the over-balance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land.

The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities.

It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss, through foreclosure, of our small homes and our farms.

It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced.

It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character.

There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act, and act quickly.

Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order: there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

These are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.

Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo.

Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are, to point in time and necessity, secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy.

I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic.

It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in and parts of the United States. . . a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer.

It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.

In the field of world policy I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor. . .the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others. . .the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize, as we have never realized before, our interdependence on each other: that we cannot merely take, but we must give as well, that if we are to go forward we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of Bøê Coêine, becaus =Dêithout such discipline, no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective.

We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline because it makes possibly a leadership which aims at a larger good.

This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will hind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.
With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people, dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors.

Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form.

That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.

It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me.

I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis. . .broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity, with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values, with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike.

We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action.
They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I will take it.

In this dedication of a nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come!
***

We are what we think.

We are what we think.
All that we are arises from our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
and trouble will follow you.
As surely as the wheel follows the ox
that draws the cart.

We are what we think.
All that we are arises from our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
and happieness will follow you
as your shadow, it will be unshakable.

Become a Child

Jesus said, "From Adam to John the Baptist, among those born of women, no one is so much greater than John the Baptist that his eyes should not be averted.

But I have said that whoever among you becomes a child will recognize the (Father's) kingdom and will become greater than John."

Jesus said, "The person old in days won't hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live.

For many of the first will be last, and will become a single one."

Paul's Prayer

The Prayer of the Apostle Paul

My Redeemer, redeem me, for I am yours; the one who has come forth from you. You are my mind; bring me forth! You are my treasure house; open for me! You are my fullness; take me to you! You are (my) repose; give me the perfect thing that cannot be grasped!

I invoke you, the one who is and who pre-existed in the name which is exalted above every name, through Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lords, the King of the ages; give me your gifts, of which you do not repent, through the Son of Man, the Spirit, and the Paraclete of truth. Give me authority when I ask you; give healing for my body when I ask you through the Evangelist, and redeem my eternal light soul and my spirit. And the First-born of the Pleroma of grace -- reveal him to my mind!

Grant what no angel eye has seen and no archon ear (has) heard, and what has not entered into the human heart which came to be angelic and (modeled) after the image of the psychic God when it was formed in the beginning, since I have faith and hope. And place upon me your beloved, elect, and blessed greatness, the First-born, the First-begotten, and the wonderful mystery of your house; for yours is the power and the glory and the praise and the greatness for ever and ever. Amen.

Walk in the Light

Walk in the Light

This is a traditional Quaker hymn exploring the legacy of the first Quaker, George Fox. It illustrates the many affinities between the Gnostic quest for spiritual enlightenment and the Quaker journey toward the Light.

There's a light that was shining when the world began,
And a light that is shining in the heart of Man:
There's a light that is shining in the Turk and the Jew,
And a light that is shining, friend, in me and in you.
Walk in the light, wherever you may be,
Walk in the light, wherever you may be!
In my old leather breeches and my shaggy, shaggy locks,
I am walking in the glory of the light, said Fox.

With a book and a steeple and a bell and a key
They would bind it for ever-but they can't, said he.
O, the book, it will perish, and the steeple will fall,
But the light will be shining at the end of it all.
Walk in the light, wherever you may be,
Walk in the light, wherever you may be!
In my old leather breeches and my shaggy, shaggy locks,
I am walking in the glory of the light, said Fox.

"Will you swear on the Bible?" "I will not," said he,
"For the truth is as holy as the Book to me."
"If we give you a pistol, will you fight for the Lord?"
"You can't kill the devil with a gun or a sword."
Walk in the light, wherever you may be,
Walk in the light, wherever you may be!
In my old leather breeches and my shaggy, shaggy locks,
I am walking in the glory of the light, said Fox.

There's an ocean of darkness and I drowned in the night
Till I came through the darkness to the ocean of light;
And the light is forever, and the light will be free,
And I'll walk in the glory of the light, said he.
Walk in the light, wherever you may be,
Walk in the light, wherever you may be!
In my old leather breeches and my shaggy, shaggy locks,
I am walking in the glory of the light, said Fox.

Thomas the Twin

A Guide

A GUIDE FROM THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE
From The Inward Light Volume XLIV #97
By Ina Hicks

Gret Baumann-Jung suggests the Aquarian Age began with Russia’s first space probes. If it was earlier with the explosion of the atomic bomb, it was perfect timing for the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic texts. The earthen pots containing Gnostic writings were found in Nag Hammadi, Egypt in December, 1945.

It did not take very long for the Dead Sea Scrolls to come to our attention bringing new knowledge of the Essenes. That knowledge had a strong influence on the counter-culture movement and the massive raising of consciousness regarding the importance of diet. We have not become all that capable of communal living nor all that convinced of eating whole grain and raw plants, but we have come a long way in the trying.

The journey from Nag Hammadi’s pots to easily available translations took about thirty years and again the timing was perfect. Those years were characterized by change and openings that brought increased receptivity to our minds.

I first heard of the Nag Hammadi scrolls in an article by Alex Jack in East West Journal, April, 1978. From having read The Nag Hammadi Library, Alex Jack wrote of a new way to look at the feeding of the multitudes. The nourishment came from the message Jesus brought. The two fishes were the opposing energies and Jesus was teaching the union of opposites. “Light and darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor the evil evil, nor is life life nor death death.”1

The second teaching in the feeding of the multitudes is symbolized in the loaves of bread. The four elements are represented by grain (earth), heat for baking (fire), liquid (water), and leavening (air). The fifth and most important element is the attitude of the baker, that which is added which is of the self. I wanted to know more.

The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels, one of the international team translating the Coptic into today’s languages, was published in 1979. From this book I learned the Gnostic view of God the Father/God the Mother. “From the power of the Silence appeared a great power, the Mind of the Universe, which manages all things, and is a male … the other … a great Intelligence … is a female which produces all things.”2

Images from the Gnostic writings have astounding meaning for me, that I have only begun to internalize or, in some cases, have experienced before. Sethian Gnostics explain that heaven and earth have a shape similar to the womb. Last winter at Wellspring3 Raye Mathis spoke of solar wind, how a picture of the sun with its wind currents trailing behind would be egg-shaped with the solar system encased in the albumen, as it were. A protective, embracing enclosure in space or “the space vessel of lights” that Keith Kinsolving wrote of in the fall 1980 issue of Inward Light.

One short tractate found at Nag Hammadi that is not directly attributed to the Gnostics or any other group is “The Thunder, Perfect Mind.” Each reader will find a particular part of it more powerful than the rest, I suspect. For me it is:
I am the silence that is incomprehensible and the idea whose remembrance is frequent.I am the voice whose sound is manifold and the word whose appearance is multiple.I am the utterance of my name.

Recently someone asked me the significance of Jungian psychology and Quaker religion in our Conference on Religion and Psychology. “Is there some connection between the two?” she asked. Given the insight of our blessed founders I would have to say that Gnosis is the connection. George Fox and C. G. Jung each had visions of Light within the Darkness. George Fox beseeched the clergy to tell him what they knew, not what the Bishop or the Book said. Jung worked at drawing from his clients what they knew about themselves from the unconscious. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus is quoted, “The Kindgom is inside of you and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you will dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.” Also from the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted, “If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”

Now that I am studying The Nag Hammadi Library, I feel a growing certainty that Gnosticism was not just a rejected faction of early Christianity. It is a movement through time of a way that has touched poets and seers and those who respond to the poetry and the visions. The fecund seeds lay buried under heavy Piscean materialism until Aquarius picked up the pots.

Through Keith Kinsolving we learned at Wellspring that we are in a period of transition between Pisces and Aquarius, symbolized by a shadowy mandorla, which I see as a feminine symbol of emergence or birth. We are neither here nor there but moving, often in two directions at once, knowing on one level, doing on another, feeling stress from our inability to be what we know. If we can learn to live with this “cosmic itch” within ourselves, the unity of opposites might be nearer at hand than it ever has been.

By its nature Gnosticism seems unorganizable, an intolerable trait by Piscean standards, but by Aquarian … ?

All Truth is God's Truth

A Gnostic's achieving knowledge of self, a Buddhist's experience of enlightenment, Thomas's finding of the Kingdom, Tillich's moments of true reality, a Quaker's Inward Presence -- all may be regarded as different ways of referring to unitive experiences, which reach beyond the ordinary activity of the mind or belief in systems.

In much contemporary thinking "mysticism" has a negative resonance, suggesting something occult, supernatural, magical, intellectually mushy, paranormal. We might well be wary about reporting experiences to our friends as being "mystical." To admit the overwhelming character of a unitive experience goes against our pride in rationality. Scientific rationalism (which dominates our modern mind-set) regards mysticism with suspicion. And so do mainstream monotheisms, which regard Creator and creature as distinct entities and discourage private pursuits of enlightenment not mediated by the church.

Some mystics say that their illuminations are experiences of a kind wholly different from any other, having nothing to do with the life of this world. And yet every mystical system assumes that, from the first clouded glimpses of "truth," the seekers may progress toward higher and higher states until, if they are fortunate, they will have the ultimate flash of enlightenment. If only a few can scale Mount Everest, all presumably can explore with benefit the Himalayan foothills.

For most men and women mysticism embraces much more than the rapturous ecstasies of a few "perfected ones" and the associated speculations of mystical thinkers. The Buddha, it is said, pointed out that rain from the heavens waters alike all kinds of flora, growing in the same soil, but grass and bushes and trees grow to different heights according to their natures. In the same way, he said, the Enlightened One's teaching is of one essence, but each seeker will respond according to his or her capacity.

A leading Quaker writer notes that "all our human knowledge happens to us in world and time, and what seems to go beyond them, in moments of great spiritual experience, we do not know clearly but see as in a glass darkly. We have merely a feeling of something that transcends our grasp, that is, at the other side of "'knowledge'" in the more common sense of the word."

Hagia Sophia Enthroned

In Gnosticism

In Gnosticism we see a theology centered around two ideas: that a "divine spark" which resides in all of humanity, that of the divine in everyone, the Christ Within.  It is this Divine spark itself, this infinite power within human beings, that is the means of salvation. It is the universal root, which exists as a potential in everyone.

Gnostic thought also teaches us that the process of salvation represents a universal principle that Jesus demonstrated for humanity so that people could follow his example.
We are responsible for our own salvation.  We are charged to seek after the knowledge that is necessary for us to reach an enlightened state. In Gnostic thought Jesus is our guide.

Wisdom

“The beginning of wisdom lies in taking seriously that we are dealing with a reality that transcends the world of the everyday, even as that reality is known in the world of the everyday.  (Marcus Borg)

I believe that his female personification of Wisdom is important for a number of reasons. First, the illustration that Wisdom is something real and tangible.  Something we can truly and fully know rather than something conceptualized or idealized.  Wisdom is a real thing that we can come to understand through effort, study and adherence to its manifested leadings.  Also, I believe that it is important to show the female gender in a different light than what may be found in some other books of the bible such as Hosea 1:2-3:5 or Amos 7, where the wives of the Prophets are described as prostitutes even if meant allegorically it does damage in the hands of patriarchal conservatives.  The prejudice in scripture against women can be seen as early as Genesis where blame for the fall is cast upon Eve.  In Exodus 20:17 we see women described as property. Leviticus 12 teaches that women are made unclean by giving birth (of course for a longer period for girls as opposed to boys) and in Chapter 15 we see the text condemn them to uncleanlieness for something as natural as a menstrual cycle.  The “test” for adultery in Numbers 5:13-21 or the “virgin” test of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 are truly barbarous folly.  As we move through the scriptures we find more and more unflattering and cruel representations of women.  Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is perhaps one of the most insensitive and cruel, commanding that a woman is required to marry her own rapist.

Admittedly the personification of Lady Wisdom-Sophia is counterpoised by Mistress Folly but, even in that incarnation the feminine image is independent, alluring, and powerful and compelling in her own right, something that seems lacking elsewhere in scripture.

The Path to Gnosis

Cain and Abel

When I the story of Cain and Abel I felt it reach out to me on a personal level. It’s a powerful tale that contains simple truths. Perhaps, as has been suggested it was written to illustrate the long standing rivalry between herdsman and farmers, nomads and city folk. But, it also represents the timeless and commonplace difficulties of sibling rivalry within the family structure. When my sister and I were growing up we were blessed in having both maternal and paternal grandparents living near us and involved in our lives. And, as sometimes happens, despite their love for both of us they sometimes exhibited preferential treatment. Our paternal grandparents favored me and our maternal grandparents favored Kim. As God was the parent of Adam and Eve, God was the grandparent of Cain and Abel. After coming to this realization the memories of my familial situation flooded over me. When we were growing up this favoritism was not apparent to me. I may have been blind to it because I, like Abel, was not the one who felt the jealously and resentment. My paternal grandparents were quite were quite well off and their favoritism for me manifested itself in material ways which in my youth I did not recognize as unfair. My sister and I did not speak of this until they had long passed away and I did not know how she really felt until years later. We spoke, we prayed, he hugged and we cried and then we put it behind us. I have to say that Cain’s slaying of Abel is completely foreign to my experience. Maybe it was because his grandparent was God, which brought about jealously beyond my experience. Or, perhaps he was quite young and unaware of the ramifications of his actions. The slaying of Cain may even have been unintentional. Perhaps it never happened and serves only to warn us of what could be.

Howard Thurman

Howard Thurman was one of the great theological minds of the twentieth century.  He grew up in an economically depressed household but, in a community infused with love and compassion.  Howard seems to have always been a spiritual, mystical and introspective boy.  In the spiritual autobiography we viewed in class he seems to have felt the stirring of mysticism at a very young age.  Perhaps this was due to his very nature; perhaps it was due to some of the formative influences he was exposed to at a very tender age.  I am of the belief that it was both.

He tells of his time spent with his back against the bark of a great old oak tree in his yard.  He describes it as great in stature and covered with mossy growth.  Howard would rest his back against the might tree and speak to it.  He also enjoyed watching the tree sway in the wind during great storms.  I imagine young Howard taking note of the tree’s swaying with the wind, rolling with the punches, yet never succumbing to outside forces due to the strength of its roots.

Another powerful influence on his life was certainly his grandmother who grew up as a slave.  One of her early memories was of a slaveholding woman beating her white child for teaching the alphabet to a Negro.  At that moment she knew that letters must contain some power.  She passed this belief on to her grandson who took her guidance to heart.  
He was determined to get to school and tells us a wonderful story of his efforts to get there.  He was in a train station on his way to college and discovered he did not have enough money to ship his trunk to his destination.  He was so frustrated that he broke down into tears right then and there.  As he was sitting there full of despair he met a kindly stranger who responded to his need.  This man walked over to the counter with Howard, purchased the necessary transportation voucher and handed it to Howard.  That unnamed man’s act of kindness enabled him to go forward and illuminate the world through his light. He tells us that while he was at school a wonderful teacher went out of her way to tutor him on the side.  He tells us a story about the establishment of his interfaith-intercultural church in San Francisco and despite the fact that there was little money and much risk, all things fell into place.

One of the most constant messages that resonate in the story is that God will provide.  If you follow the path that he lights before you anything is possible.  When I read the words of Howard Thurman or hear his heartfelt testimony I know that god will make a way for me.  I need only have confidence in myself and the faith in him and God will provide for me as well.

Jesus-Krishna

Limits

Everything has limits, even tolerance, because not everything in this world is worthwhile. The prophets of yesterday and today sacrificed their lives because they raised their voices and had the courage to say: You are not allowed to do what you are doing. There are times when tolerance means complicity with crime, guilty omission, ethical insensitivity or simply, accommodation.
We should not be tolerant of those who have the power to eradicate life from the Planet and to destroy a great part of the biosphere.  We have to keep them under strict control.
We should not be tolerant of those who kill innocent people or sexually abuse children. We must apply the law to its fullest extent to them.
We should not be tolerant with those who enslave children, making them work to produce goods at lower prices to reap huge profits in the world market.  We must apply to them the world legislation.
We must not tolerate the terrorists who, in the name of their religion or political agendas, commit crimes and slaughter human beings.  We must stop them and bring them before the tribunals of justice.
We must not tolerate those who implement corrupt policies that waste public resources. We have to be especially hard on these people because they squander the good of the whole community.
We must not tolerate those who traffic in weapons, drugs and prostitution, using kidnapping, torture and physical elimination of human beings.  There are clear punishments for them.
We must not tolerate practices that, in the name of culture, cut off the hands of the thieves and force women to endure genital mutilation.  Human Rights must prevail over those practices.
On all these levels we must never be tolerant, but decisively firm, rigorous and severe. This is a virtue of justice, not a vice of intolerance.  If we do not do that, we will have no principles and will be accomplices of evil.
Unlimited tolerance destroys tolerance, in the same way that liberty without limits leads to the tyranny of the strongest. Both liberty and tolerance, then, need the protection of law.  If not, we will see the dictatorship of those whose world vision claims to be the only one, unique, and denies all others.  From this springs anger and the desire for revenge, the breeding ground of terrorism.
Where are then the limits of tolerance?  They are in suffering, in human rights and in the rights of nature.   Tolerance ends whenever a person is dehumanized.   No one has the right to impose unjust suffering on other.
These rights are stated in the Letter of the Human Rights, of the UN, signed by all countries.  All traditions must follow these precepts.  Practices that imply violations of such pronouncements cannot be justified.  The Letter of the Earth protects the rights of nature.  Anyone who violates them lacks legitimacy.
Finally, do we have to be tolerant with the intolerant?  History shows that to combat intolerance with intolerance leads to a spiral of intolerance.  The pragmatic attitude seeks to establish limits.  If intolerance means crime and the evident abuse of others, the rigor of the law must prevail and intolerance must be limited.  Outside of this legal restriction, there must be liberty.  The intolerant must be confronted with the reality that all share as our living space, engaging him in constant dialogue to make him think about the contradictions of his position.  The best path is a total democracy that tends to include everyone without exception, and respects a common social pact.

What did Jesus Want?

What did Jesus really want?
This is a powerful question. The answers we see in Boff resonate within me and I have co-opted much of what I am learning from him into my personal faith. But, I understand how they could make some shake in their boots. And, how others would be moved to rise up in opposition to the coming of the Kingdom of God.
It is so much better for the “haves” to promote a golden age to come “just around the corner”. “Don’t worry about the present; God will soon be whisking the faithful away to a better place.” They have something to fear if the poor and the downtrodden want to see their lives improved here and now, in this world. Their exploitive socio-economic systems stand in opposition to the imposition of the Kingdom. Slaves liberated, Debts pardoned, land redistribute equally all will be enacted in the coming Kingdom.
Jesus has come to herald the way, a new Moses. Sent to free his people from the bondage of their oppressors. A New order in which property and wealth will be distributed to each according to their need. A truly Utopian society where all stand equal before God. I know many have said that Liberation Theology is not Marxism, true. But, it is strongly influenced by Marxist thought. The Kingdom as envisioned by the theologians greatly resembles a state governed by Marxist principles. Not the old classical Marxism to be sure, but one that has evolved and changed over time. A Marxism that embraces faith, not one that is opposed by a Church. A Church that is a tool of the exploiters and is used by them to oppress the huddled masses. A truly faithful church that seeks to liberate God’s people and joins with them in the struggle to be free.
Jesus wants Revolutionary Praxis. Jesus wants the old order overturned. Jesus wants property redistributed and the downtrodden lifted up. Jesus wants God’s people to be free.  The People of God must be prepared to risk all and follow Him.  Gandhi, Dr. King and others have shown the way.  War must be waged to be sure, but in another divergence from classical Marxism, it must be a Lamb's War.  Guided by the principals of faith and fought in a non-violent fashion.  The Battlefields are everywhere; the picket line, prayer vigils, protest marches, the voting booth, everywhere.  Perhaps the most important battle will be fought from the pulpits and in the pews.