The Immaculate Misconception? All Life Has a Holy Promise 

The Reverend Peter Edward Lanzillotta, Ph.D.

December 8th is a special day in the Western religious calendar for the Roman, Greek, and Episcopal churches. It is feast or the day of The Immaculate Conception.

 If you were brought up a Roman Catholic or if you knew someone who was or is, chances you have heard of this day as being a unique, if not a curious part of the Advent season.

It is still quite a remarkable claim, and it remains one of the lesser understood but influential doctrines of faith that still exists today. For example, some treat Mary as the Queen of Heaven, (The Angelus and Hail Holy Queen, etc.) while others regard her as the prototype for all women and especially the ideals of motherhood. Others within Christianity simply and respectfully acknowledge her as the young mother who, at first doubted her selection, then accepted her special connection to God and Jesus and her central role in the essential theme of the season: The Christ birth event.  I will try to explain this belief, unpack its meaning, test its accuracy from a religiously inclusive perspective, and then present some startling, and dissenting conclusions.

The recognition of Mary’s special status within Christianity evolved gradually. It was not until her nature and being was declared unique that the larger impact was to affect our society. The proclamation of a binding, official doctrine for The Immaculate Conception became Roman church law in the year 1854, when Pope Pius IX issued a papal Bull… ((Historically, popes have always been known for their bull -I could not resist this pun!)

A Bull is an edict that carries with it the necessity of universal agreement or acceptance. It becomes a foundational belief, an indisputable article of faith. This edict declared that “The Blessed Virgin Mary, was conceived in a particular moment of grace, and preserved immune from every stain of original guilt [or original sin].” I contend that such a pious and unnatural statement served to reinforce prevailing Victorian attitudes and contradictions towards women, and it was a strong contributor to the negative Freudian view of women in society. This is the famous Mary vs. Eve and the Whore/Madonna beliefs…

It was, in my estimation, one of the religious actions that contributed to the wholesale devaluing and even the negation of women long associated with the Roman church…Unfortunately, some of these effects are still with us and acutely undermine women’s equality and freedom at quite a social price: from covertly accepting or tolerating violence against women, the woman’s duty to be passive, etc., to being a contributing block or obstacle to necessary options for birth control and the crisis of overpopulation, to widespread negation of reproductive choice, the need for quality lifelong sex education, and discouraging the funding of effective treatment that combats sexually transmitted diseases.

Contrary to popular beliefs, and a subject of much confusion for traditional Roman Catholics is that the doctrinal statement about The Immaculate Conception states that it was NOT Jesus who had an untainted, pure birth or who was born without sin, but that it was Mary HERSELF who was conceived and born without any stain of sexual sin- that original cursing, or the degrading, normal condition and circumstances of having a human birth. The doctrine further states that during her gestation in her mother’s womb, and before her birth, Mary miraculously received all the powers of baptism that cleanses away original sin, so that she alone could be born pure- different from all other women. This teaching has, as its corollary, that she HAD to be a pure vessel, an unblemished womb, so that she might then be selected and privileged enough to divinely conceive Jesus. (Theotokas)

 Now, lets start here to examine these teachings. In the spirit of healthy dissent, and based on accepted scholarship, we can understand the designation of Mary as a virgin in another way. I can conclude that the Greek translation of the word, virgin, can also mean a young girl, not just a pure or undefiled person. (The mistranslation of Isaiah 7) In that way, the idea of a Messiah being born conventionally or normally could be an acceptable religious conviction or in accord with the non-creedal Christian beliefs.

       As I understand it, the rationale behind wanting Mary to be immaculate comes from the ancient world notion that a God cannot be conventionally human; while they can and often do look human, that was only their outward appearance! The rival deities in ancient world or during Greek and Roman times- principally the Persian Sun God, named Mithras, was believed to have an immaculate birth- making him above mere humanity.

Looking Eastward, it was widely believed that Buddha, and the Hindu deity, Vishnu, had similar remarkably unique or supernatural origins. Therefore, to the Early Church Fathers who created orthodoxy and creedal beliefs for Christians to follow, they decreed or determined that it would be best to go along with this precedence for Jesus. They decided to write and to editorialize the Scriptures to include a virgin who gave birth miraculously to a Christ-child. In that way, they contended that their God was just as good as any of the other gods in Persia, Israel, or India! So, the idea and the ideal of a virgin and those birth legends about Mary’s sinlessness were created and eventually through uncritical repetition, became declared authoritative beliefs. When looked at it historically, I can empathize with that outlook, and can understand how it evolved, even if I strenuously disagree.

My preference for a religious ideal, be it of a man or a woman, a mother or a child, has to directly inspire and console me and address my human condition. He or she has to be someone I can relate to directly and daily: someone who struggles, changes, grows, and succeeds at gaining sufficient awareness to be able to bless, to help heal, and to lead me to my full humanness by modeling a greater wisdom, standing up for a larger sense of justice and an expanded sense of love. If I were to accept a singular, particular perfect woman giving birth to a unique god-man, I could not hope to be like them. I would always lose in comparison; always feeling inadequate, guilty or because I could not measure up, be a failure.

That does not inspire faith for me… It does serve effectively as an agent of thought, worship and practice that perpetuates negative self image, sin and guilt!  It would create a clear gap between the human and the divine, making only God as Jesus good, and Mary as the only perfect image of holy womanhood. This conclusion or image for what is good or divine can create or serve the attitude that condemns women and men for being normal- that is, having or being sexual and spiritual in the fullest meaning- it concludes in the doctrine of the necessity for cleansing Baptism, that every child born is somehow sinful.

Instead of perpetuating these fearful preoccupation’s with sex, sin, and guilt, religious liberals try to teach about how to best cultivate a healthy and responsible sexual identity, true self esteem, and how we can help each other to become more enlightened, compassionate, and free.

 Now, I would like to outline some alternative possibilities concerning Mary and Jesus that I assure you that I did not learn in any seminary. These are new, intriguing and challenging theories that come from Biblical criticism and Gnostic wisdom writings. What they state might startle you. They definitely bring out new dimensions of the Christmas story than what is ordinarily accepted and traditionally condoned.

Depending on how we are willing to look at the birth stories in the two Gospels, we can come to the conclusion that Mary was either especially blessed or that she was possibly promiscuous! While we are all familiar with the former rendition, most of us have not heard about the other scandalous possibility. This other explanation states that Mary was involved with another man, and that Jesus was illegitimate! Even though this is a minority opinion among radical scholars who contend that the original manuscripts infer such a fiasco, they cannot be disproven.

So we can ask: Which approach is more believable, anyway? The more miraculous Gospel accounts have to be accepted with a definite, unflagging certainty. From a less miracle based perspective, an outlook where one affirms that it is Jesus’ life and how he treated others that is far more important than either his birth or his death, it adds an intriguing, and for me, a more inspiring bit of scholarship to seriously consider.

First, let’s consider that Jesus had a normal, physical, human father; supposedly the Roman centurion named Panthera. ( Stephen Mitchell) That would make him a normal human being who later became a divinely inspired example of enlightened living.

Because I accept that there is an ongoing need to develop wisdom, gain insight, and cultivate one’s spiritual and ethical maturity all along and through one’s life, for Jesus to start out human gives me a greater respect for him, and gives me more hope that if I follow his example, I can become more balanced, whole, a truly healing, just, and helpful person. That’s my kind of Jesus; a regular guy who learned his metaphysical and ethical lessons so well, that he became the greatest Western example of embodied truth, wisdom, and love. He deserved the Biblical description that “he spoke with as one who had authority, [authenticity], not like the scribes and Pharisees.”

 Now let’s go a little deeper. What about being illegitimate? How could that be considered a valuable way to look at Mary and Jesus? In the culture of the Middle East, and we can probably say, up until the last twenty five years in Western society, to be born out of wedlock or to a single mother, was considered a social liability and even a moral disgrace. In Biblical times, remember, it was not only grounds for divorce, but like adultery for women, it too could carry a death penalty!

Mary, if the supposition holds, was a single mother who discredited her family, and luckily latched on to a kindly older man, Joseph, who would act as a guardian for her and her illegitimate son. She would have to live with the severe embarrassment, but only in her small town and among her immediate family. She was relived to learn that she had to go far away to live in Nazareth, Joseph’s hometown where none of the disgraceful details would be easily known.

Another interesting note: In Matthew’s Gospel we are given the genealogy of Jesus. There only four women appear. They are Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathesheba or in accord with Biblical facts, there was Tamar, who was the mother of her brother’s children; Rahab, the heroic harlot; Ruth, the opportunistic seductress; and Bathesheba the easily or all too willing unfaithful wife. … Do you see any pattern there?? Any reference point for Mary? And What of Jesus in this lineage? The Bible in Luke calls him, “Son of Mary”, which scholars conclude was a derogatory term… not the child of his father which would confer legitimate status; in other words, he was a bastard child, not the son of a Jewish man!

How could we relate to an illegitimate Jesus? How did he relate to his mother? What about the purpose of his mission? While these radical scholars are given to a more modern psychological interpretation, they can make a case by pointing to these facts: first, his rejection or at least his awkwardness in dealing with his mother- remember the Gospel account in Mark or Matthew where his apostles tell Jesus that his mother and brothers and sisters are outside? Do you recall what his response is? “Who is my mother, and who is my brother or my sister? Those who do the will of God are my mother, my brother or my sister.”

 A second supportive example comes from the well accepted fact that the writers of the Gospel took great pains to editorialize- to find Old Testament references to the Messiah and fit them to Jesus’ coming. They interpreted them as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy. Just like taking a reading from first Isaiah for the virgin birth, they also appropriated third Isaiah’s descriptions of the suffering servant. And what are we to make of the powerful words Mary declares in the birth story according to Luke? Are those the words of a meek and spineless woman? (The Magnificat for many reasons!)

No, not by any means! Her words reveal a gratitude for being chosen And the part most Christians seem to ignore, a deep longing for a God whose acts in society will reward humility and reform the world and create greater social justice. What can we deduce from such statements?

First, the Isaiah statement about the suffering servant foretells a man who is harmless, infinitely caring, humble, and of no status in the world. His power is one of moral truth, of righteousness, but it is not worldly, for it is neither regal nor economic. In the phrase, “he is a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief,” with suffering and humiliation. Here we could be receiving a substatantiation for a portrait of a man who could have grown up as a social outcast, a despised or at least a menial person who was well acquainted with misery, social prejudice, and economic, political, and religious power plays.

All one has to do, when reading Jesus’ or Mary’s words, is consider the basis for the worldwide liberation theology movement- a way of understanding Christianity which predicates its understanding of Jesus, Mary and God as having a preference for the poor… and to remember that more than half of all Jesus’s parables center on prohibitions towards riches, landowners, Pharisees, and the corruption’s of upper class power. To my estimation, it not such a far stretch to consider a Messiah – which means someone who comes to save, teach, heal and transform the world- who would look harshly on cultural biases, class-based oppression, and prefer that he and his followers identify with their spiritual birthright as the children of God: Blessed are the poor, the pure in heart, those who mourn, those seeking peace, and those who are reviled and persecuted for continuing his mission, or trying to live by following in his communitiarian and egalitarian example.

How do I welcome this possible, admittedly unconventional way of looking at Jesus? With a strange, warm, empathy and deep feelings of respect. I ask myself: Who deserves more of our admiration and allegiance? A God born as a man with perfect sinless understanding to a pure, undefiled woman? Or a a mortal who through his own devotion and dedication, through sweat and struggle, pain and suffering became someone who the world can gain inspiration and solace from? Because he was acquainted with disgrace and grief, he knew and felt the struggle each of us has to face in becoming a child of God in our own minds and hearts, in every aspect of our daily lives.

Well, that is a lot to chew on today, and I will stop with this last thought … When Jesus asked the apostles. ” Who do you think I am?” The answers he received ranged from you are a reincarnation of the old prophets, to the declaration that he was the Christ, the anointed son of the living God. Maybe, after today’s considerations, we could answer it differently…

If we were gathered at that place and time, if we were to gather in this place and time… Maybe our answer would be something like this:

“You, Jesus, are the poor, the outcast, the suffering hope for all the wounds of our humanity. We follow you because we believe in your promises, your healing reality among us. Because of you, and the way you taught and lived, we can now live with hope.”

So BE IT. AMEN

“The Magnificat” from The Gospel of Luke 1:39-55

And then she asked, why is this happening to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb jumped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.

And Mary said,” My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior

His mercy is for those who fear him, from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.

He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant, Israel, in remembrance of his mercy according to the promise made to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his decendants forever.

Looking at Jesus :

Jesus, the Five Gospels, and Liberal Christianity

The Reverend Peter Edward Lanzillotta, Ph.D.

It is safe to say that there would be no Christmas season as we have come to know it without the man, Jesus of Nazareth…

Yet, for all the volumes and tomes about him that fill vast libraries like no other theme, person or topic, little is truly known, and even less is taught about the variations in what we know about this remarkable teacher and proposed author of our Western religious traditions called Christianity.

What we can say is this: Physically, he was a Mediterranean man- that is dark haired, bearded, and his skin was heavily tanned as befits anyone who worked out in the sun, and walked extensively around his geographical area… Was he handsome?

We might never know beyond our reverent and often pious pictures- what we can affirm is that he never was that ideal image of an Northern European Christ that decorated so many Sunday School walls…. A blond, blue-eyed Jesus is truly out of the question! Jaroslav Pelikan wrote a book on the many faces of Jesus that describes how Jesus has been depicted in art through the centuries…)

We can conclude from the best sources looking into the sociology and anthropology of his times, that he was born and lived in a culture and an ethos that is similar to ours today- similar, but far from the same… When we exclude the advances of science and technology and focus on the essential facts, needs, and concerns of people, then, as now, human needs and priorities remain the same: the problems of peace and justice, hunger and homelessness, love and family are timeless. Life in Jerusalem, or in the major cities of the Ancient world like Antioch and Alexandria were teeming with a wide diversity of experiences, legalities, and varieties of belief; these places were also the centers for cross cultural trade, language, learning, religion and sociopolitical ideals….

2

In other words, similar to New York, Boston, Washington on our Eastern coast, or in the modern film, Jesus of Montreal.

The two eras and societies remain similar in other ways- most notably that both worlds had within them conflicting and contrasting religious views and values, with no one consistent guiding philosophy for their lives. With these facts as our givens, we can ask what in Jesus’s world view remains applicable and valid for us today?

Our more conservative sisters and brothers would exclaim “Everything!” But we as more critical and hopefully more discerning appraisers have to ask those cogent questions of our selves in order to reconcile and redeem all the negative past associations and inflictions of theology and nonsense that we were given during our childhood training or religious experience…. That means that we need to go beyond those childhood notions or be willing to discard and disregard those previous negative associations. As responsible and searching adults, our need is to look at the person of Jesus freshly- appraising the writings and the teachings about him in a way that is free of all the lingering anger and resentments you might still feel. We have to be willing to throw out all the old moralisms, trite clichés, or forced and rote cathcetical answers to begin again… (Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossen, Matthew Fox, and Bishop Spong’s Books)

But this time, this time in your adult search, you will fully engage your reason and apply your intelligence as you separate the wheat from the chaff, the gold from the dross in Jesus’ words. Freshly and completely, you can begin to discern the true from the false, the inspirational and the wise from the dubious or incomprehensible.

3

Before you react too hastily, that it is neither worth the effort or would reveal nothing new for you, let me remind you that it is an important part of being religious and inclusive means that we acknowledge gratefully all the past contributions, as well as courageously and independently stay open to new interpretations.

As this refers directly to our claims to intelligence, literacy and sophistication, I affirm that if you are Biblically illiterate, you have little chance of considering yourself an educated person- Most of Western art, music and literature contains Biblical allusions and references, so to be familiar with its contents is a mark of a well rounded intellect and refinement. If thus is your situation, maybe you should sign up for my course on a Bible Study for Seekers and Skeptics???!

Today, it is my intention to provide you with a groundwork for your refamilization. By assisting you with the insights from some of the latest research, and what the consensus of current scholarship reveals: Namely, that there is a religion of Jesus- his ideas, principles and the spirit of his teachings as he lived and taught them, from the words collected and given to us as the Gospels and then there is the religion about Jesus that was created by the Early Church through to the Reformation Church that became the standards of acceptable belief that defines orthodoxy or outlines mainline Christianity. First point for you to consider seriously- They are not the same, and often are in conflict in both belief and practice. (formally known as Orthopistis and Orthopraxis)

We find our sources for both points of view in the edited or redacted collection of writings and sayings known to us as the 4 or 5 (?) Accepted canonical Gospels.

4

To begin this appraisal, I can forward a guess that states that few of you were ever given a good grounding in Biblical knowledge as a part of your early education- if you received one at all! Few of you were given the insights that each of the four recognized Gospels contain a differing view of Jesus, and that you entirely free and accurate to choose which rendition or which blend of the various renditions that you prefer or that might speak to you or help you to appreciate the teachings in a cogent and useful way… ( the adult process to create a personal Canon of faith…)

This ability to mix and match in order to form your own conclusions about Jesus as the fully enlightened man, or as the Myth, the human ethical role model, or as the Messiah, etc., is a choice and an exploration that I feel is very worthwhile.

Now, quite briefly, I will give you an example of these differing views of the four Gospels and then I will also include one of the banned or Gnostic Gospels for your consideration as well…

The earliest or the first, according to most scholars, (and I happen to be one of the few that holds a dissenting view), is the Gospel according to Mark. Mark was written in approximately 65 CE or AD or 30-35 years after Jesus’s death. This shorter, inspirational biography was ostensibly written by Mark, a youthful follower of the Apostle, Peter. (Remember, disciple means sincere student or avid follower of, whereas the designation Apostle means someone who has had direct experience of a holy person or teacher… Please see sermon of Matthius and discipleship) Mark, as a brief, forceful and cogent account was presumably written for a Roman audience. I state these agreed on conclusions tentatively because even the most mainline scholars are not completely certain of authorship, time or the place and so we have to conclude that information about anything derived

5

from antiquity, means that our conclusions are educated guesses, not facts.

In Mark’s account, we are given an adult, almost Gentile Jesus… It is a Gospel of wonder and power, quite well suited to a Roman culture. Here, when Jesus is the baptized or becomes the enchristed one, he is chosen to preach a higher reality and model and higher sense of ethics. He is portrayed as a sharp, concise and demanding leader who can, at times, feel alienated and troubled by what he sees in human nature and human society. He is pictured as a religious teacher who scorns piety and any displays of self-righteousness, and adamantly tries to counter the prevailing attitudes of excessive legalism and hypocrisy.

In the Markan Gospel, we are given a Jesus who suffers on the cross as a result of the accumulated hatred of the powerful for his message of equality, justice and compassion. Here we are also given the time when Jesus was snubbed by his family and peers to the point that is his own disciples fail to understand what he taught them! In Mark, we are given the man Jesus as a prophetic herald whose command was to “watch and beware or be ready”- be ready to put your conscience ahead of your concern for convenience, ethics before expediency, and to place your reasonable understanding alongside your faith…

Originally, Mark’s rendition ends without a resurrection story, and we find a later addition or editorial that inserts it! This Gospel is a declaration that states that doing as I have done, living as I have lived, is enough for your salvation, your integrity, your sense of being, belonging, and for living justly. Because Mark avoids all the piety and projection of the other Gospels and all the difficult questions about Jesus’s birth and resurrection, it has always been the easiest version for religious liberals or those who are inclusive to accept or adopt.

6

There are some verses that are only found in Mark and nowhere else-The parable of the seed growing secretly… As the metaphor for how we can experience grace and how we grow in our spiritual understanding?

( One could insert a brief discussion of “Q” and the definitions of being a Synoptic , but I had to edit this into a sermon length…)

The next edited compilation in history was the Gospel according to Matthew, written about 75 CE or AD, and it is regarded to be the most “Jewish” rendition or portrayal. It gives the reader a picture of Jesus as being Lord, a Master, and as a Rabbi.

In Matthew’s version, Jesus represents the embodiment of all the Hebrew or Old Testament teachings concerning the Law and the Prophets. He is the Christ, the Messiah or the Anointed One- we are given that he is the one who was promised to the Israelites since the days of King David, who was also an anointed or chosen leader… He represents a new hope from an old promise. Matthew, then is the Gospel of faith. Matthew gives us a Jesus who is a teacher specially ordained by his unique birth who was to bring forth the Kingdom, not by power, but through service to the souls of others. Here is where we find the parables of the good servant who leads by example. Particular to Matthew are the parables about the Kingdom, Peter as the holder of the keys to heaven, and the most popular rendition of the collected words that form the text of The Lord’s Prayer.

In the next Gospel, the one according to Luke, written in approximately 100 CE or AD, some 75 years after Jesus, we are given another, differing perspective. This account is believed to be written for a more sophisticated audience of Greeks- it is

7

written in a polished style and aimed at people who were familiar with the teachings of Hellenism, including the works of Plato and Aristotle. Because of this, we get a less human depiction, but not one as metaphysical as John’s.

Luke’s Gospel begins with a chronology that goes back to Adam and that prepares us for a miraculous birth. Luke is the Gospel that introduces us to Mary most completely, and in general, Luke is the story line that treats women with the most dignity and respect, and where women are often seen in a positive relationship to Jesus. The author, Luke was a Greek physician, who is also the presumed author of the Book of Acts. Because of this, we have more of the healing stories in Luke than in any other Gospel- it is considered to be the Gospel of joy, and the Gospel of forgiveness. Luke shows Jesus teaching through the unique parable of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son to emphasize how we are to care about others unconditionally and to serve one another unselfishly.

The fourth or the last of the accepted or authorized depiction’s of Jesus is given to us in the Gospel according to John. This more metaphysical account was written last- in approximately 125 CE or AD, and teaches more about the nature of Christ or the divinity in the man Jesus, than emphasizing the ethics of the man and his teachings. In John we are given the most Godlike image closer to what Paul had earlier proclaimed in the Epistles that predate John.

This is the cosmic and mystical Gospel; Some would say it is nearly Gnostic in its approach. This Gospel is infused or embodied and then transmitted to us through the man, Jesus. Here Jesus uses the ” I am” statements to represent this unique and particular authoritative and divine connection. (apotheosis)

8

In this account, we are given more miracles and some parapyschological considerations. Here the Logos or divine Word suffices for a nativity story and the disciples know, early on,

who and what Jesus is- The Son of God- defined metaphorically as

anyone who lives in a strict accordance with God’s consciousness. This is the Jesus who is confident and exhalted. He is the one who clearly and exclusively provides for our salvation. Here the Greek notions of duality-that the flesh is weak and the spirit is dominant- are emphasized. Of course, John’s account is the one most favored by the high, liturgical and creedal churches.

Now, a little enticement to read more than what is condoned or accepted…. While these four accounts are sufficient to give you a very different and distinct views of Jesus, I feel that the more one reads and knows, the wider and the more inclusive and adaptable will be our understanding and appreciation… With that in mind, I want to introduce the 5th Gospel-the Gospel of Thomas. This previous banned or at least disregarded text has seen a resurgent of interest and authenticity. Here we are given distinct and pithy sayings without a story- sayings whose character and nature are very similar to both Mark and Matthew, and most influentially, are attributed to the same time frame which lends credence to these statements. We have, in Thomas, a Jesus that only speaks in the present tense- in the here and now which becomes timeless source of wisdom for us. Among the better known phrases and most startling ones that were quoted by the Early Church and that now come down to us are these:

“Protect your neighbor like the pupil of your own eye”

Split the wood and I am there, lift you a rock, and I am there”, “When the inside becomes the outside, when the male become the female and the female become the male, then you are

9

not far from the Kingdom”…. Interesting, even intriguing, right???

Well, that is enough of a brief introduction for today… Let me conclude by asking: Why is this important? People who are tolerant and accepting of many religious points of view. Since we are willing spirits and searching minds, we too can construct a story of the Good News, a living Gospel that we can appreciate and use for inspiration and understanding. And it just might be that a revitalized look at Jesus is what the whole renewed interest in spirituality is looking for… Who knows?

Today, we can make a fresh start… We can start by appreciating our centuries long struggle to uncover a meaning of Jesus for us today, to find a way of knowing and respect that is more enlightened, that is ever-changing, ever growing so that we can choose for ourselves how best to understand the indelible and permanent impact of this story on Western thought and on our Western civilization. Once we do, we can put all the old memories and insults behind us, and begin in the words of Marcus Borg: “To meet Jesus again, for the first time”…. Amen, So Be it….

The Unconscious GodReflections on the work of Dr. Viktor Frankl

　:

Many of us find ourselves engaged in a daily struggle. It is the search for meaning and relevancy in our lives. Humanity, our society is involved with a quest for such purpose and meaning for all that we face- in all that life present to us. The most common malady of our age is not cancer or stroke; nor it is the common cold…. It is the constant level of anxiety we face while trying to make our lives more meaningful.

We live in the age of anxiety- on that perpetually insists on asking us the imponderable questions that there is no time to answer: Why? How Come? What For? And even among those of us who have never studied any psychology, there is a common follow-up: What does this mean to me? What is the purpose of this person or event in my life?

We can find ourselves compelled to seek the answers to these existential questions and to try to decipher the riddles of purpose and meaning because if we do not seek a resolution to these questions, they will either haunt us or taunt us. Many times these Buddha-like questions contain the answers within them. Like a Zen Koan for spiritual development, and regardless of whether the question is a personal one or a global one, intimate or cosmic, we are bound to ask from somewhere deep within us, what does it all mean?

Most of us have experienced intense periods in our lives where these answers do not come readily, easily , if at all. These are times when we can feel out of touch with what is happening to us or around us. The significance of this eludes our ability to understand its purpose. This quest to solve the seemingly unfathomable is what Logotherapy is all about.

2

Logotherapy is a specific psychotherapeutic approach that seeks to defeat the feelings of meaninglessness. It roots are from the psychoanalytic school, yet they differ in their application and approach to problem solving. It is an approach that is the inspiration of Dr. Viktor Frankl. It source principally comes from his classical training in psychoanalysis plus his personal experience as a Auchwitz survivor. When combined in his life and thought, he came to the realization that people could understand having to deal with any trial or perilous suffering IF they were given a meaning or a purpose for it all.

Dr. Frankl concluded that for people to be freed of any injustice of their particular struggle , they first will require a reason for these challenges or trials. Without knowing why our tasks and trials occur, we are likely to feel empty, stressed, worried, and weary. Dr. Frankl’s states that understanding ourselves and our lives most fully comes when we resolve our questions into actions and insights. Furthermore, Dr. Frankl posits that the ability to answer these deep questions is our true human purpose and that it is the individual soul’s mission to discover the rich textures and layers of meaning that are present in their own existence.

Much of that potential lies trapped within us. It occupies a region of our being that psychiatrists would call the unconscious. Our goal is to become more aware of that material and thus release it into our conscious knowing, thereby discharging its anxiety and releasing its creative potentials.

Because those answers are locked up deep within us, they can sometimes be impossible to verbalize or grasp. These feelings and questions become filed away in an unreachable storage bin.

What Dr. Frankl discovered is that the unknown is NOT what we have not learned, for the unconscious can also be the ideas, feelings, that something that has always been there but that we were unaware of its existence. It is our stream of existence.

3

We need to express the fluidity of our lives and the flow of our feelings and how the tides of self and soul interact and comprise the whole of our being. All that we have experienced between the banks of the river of life and existence flows from within us. Our inner thoughts can rise to the surface and the large ideas of our purpose and those questions can flood our awareness. Sometimes the hidden rocks and the dangerous currents that we contain become exposed as obstacles in our flow and our awareness. These crags are chinks in our self image, these ripples and eddies are ways we suck ourselves down into our defenses. This unconsciousness stream flows throughout our the seasons and reasons of our lives and winds its journey through the layers of sediment and froth, and its contains all the rich deposits and answers that we seek.

To be alive is a fluid fact; we experience a flood of emotion, the swirling rapids of thought and the bubbles and tides of creativity, inspiration, and insight. Often the channels it runs through is an unconscious one, but the fact remains, that its runs and your river of life and meaning flows on….

Viktor Frankl observed this phenomenon in both his personal and clinical work. He formulated Logotherapy into a theory that he believed completed the work of Freud and gave it a spiritual and altruistic dimension. Frankl asserts that there is a companion to the Id. Freud postulated that the Id is the source of all drives, needs, desires and feelings. The principal ones being the drives for sex, aggression, and survival. Satisfaction or gratification of those drives and desires comes from releasing the energy of the Id called Libido. But that is where Freud essentially left off. Frankl goes further to attest to another dimension or resident factor in our minds. He sees the satisfaction of the Libido or other societal goals often contributing to our dissatisfaction and disillusionment. If we are successful in the world, we are haunted by the question:

Now what? or What then are we to do, feel, experience, etc.?

Frankl counters this dilemma of achievement by claiming that there is another source of behavior and purpose in our lives that resides deep within us- a religious or spiritual core that can influence and inspire us to answer those haunting or plaguing questions which becomes our quest for meaning. This other force or presence that Frankl posits that lives within us as the source of our existential answers and altruism is what he called our “Unconscious God.” This core or reservoir of true virtue and operating sense of morality, higher inspiration and personal aspiration flows from a natural wellspring that comes from our recognition and acceptance of an ongoing, flowing, unceasing relationship with God and with the good of God that exists in all other beings. This reality is the unique stamp of our human existence- that we are essentially, at our core, moral beings. Some theories, of course, call this relationship by its more traditional name, the soul or the higher self. Others such as Frankl claim this “unconscious god” within is the pure human conscience that can guide our decision-making and align it with an eternal Truth that release and resolves the questions that had trapped or imprisoned us.

When we realize that there is another source to our human nature than what most of psychology provides, we can begin to seek a deeper meaning and purpose for our lives. Once we get beyond the idea that drives, emotions, and needs are the only motives for human behavior, then we can begin to dignify our existence rather than denigrate it. When we realized that there is a spiritual core , we can become more fully human and can know real freedom and accept real responsibility for our lives. In this recognition, there is liberty from alienation, boredom or despair. Another way of saying this is, that we learn to edify our lives rather that Id-fy them!

This realization that there is another source for our human behavior can assist us in rectifying the mistakes learned in our religious upbringing. In and through most of the span of religious history, people have purposed a “morals and conduct” form of conscience that we need to endure. One’s conscience is then comprised largely of all the rules one had to follow to avoid guilt, worry or punishment. Fear was the motivating factor and “the loss of heaven and the pangs of hell” was what kept us rigidly in line. Our conscience, however, is still a personal concern and the unconscious God still confronts and beckons us.

In the process of purging ourselves from the false beliefs about heaven and hell, conscience and guilt, we have all had to take courageous steps. The challenge, however, is not in the actual purging of false beliefs and dogmas, but in the replacing and affirming new ways of thinking and feeling after we are through rejecting those previous toxic ideas and emotions. We cannot be complete or content to just reject those old and crippling experiences and doctrines- we have to do the work! not just talk about it! (Parable of sweeping our the room (the heart) Matt. 12:43)

We are compelled by our unconscious God to actively seek what is vital and responsive to our needs. We seek then to discern and to ascertain just what is worthy of our belief and our trust. This is the domain of true conscience! To seek out the truth that frees us and grants us a whole new perspective on the meaning and purpose of our lives. In that quest, we can develop a personal theology that grasps distinctions and that promotes clarity in and through our thoughts and actions.

Frankl talks about this motivating factor of conscience in this context: He states that just like you cannot demand that

someone laugh or cry or love, we cannot demand that someone becomes religious or develops faith. His system of Logotherapy offers anyone who wills or desires it assistance with one’s personal struggles to achieve a lasting sense of purpose and meaning for their lives. It assist us in our search by educating us to the responsibility we have for delving into, venturing inward to find our own answers.

Frankl presents evidence that helps us to counter the claim of human inadequacy to understand the meaning of our lives. Logo therapy supports the intimate, the innate, and the ultimate goodness of each individual, while recognizing that much of the dis-ease and the evil we find in our world comes from the frustration and inability to find these answers and behold a more compassionate self. Frankl uses the analogy that when the angel inside you is repressed or goes along unacknowledged, it becomes frustrated and inverted. This reversal process crates many little demons that will then taunt or plague us. These devils of anxiety, worry and fear are created and we are so occupied by them that we only have time to be superficial, empty, surface people and we lose the recognition of our own inner depth, riches, and true worth. According to Viktor Frankl, our spiritual core needs to be acknowledged regularly, even daily, and be seen as vital, essential, and alive within us.

In our readings (Acts 17; Matthew 12) we encounter the stirrings of our inner voice, religiously and poetically expressed. This conscience is the source of our truest humanity. it calls to us to venture in, and then step forward, to serve those inspirations and altruistic goals. Conscience is not a system of rewards and elaborate rules. Obedience to its moral impulse cannot be demanded, for the goodness contains its our release and rewards, its own freedom and dignity. Frankl calls this realization, the ability that we all have to listen to the wisdom of our hearts….

It is our “unconscious God” that urges and asks us from within to do what is best for our own freedom and growth, our own well-being. Instead of allowing oneself to be susceptible to the whims of ego and culture that spawns the feelings of negativity or locks us up into habits, we can listen to our inner voice that will take us up to our higher self.

The responsibility of making our unconscious God in us more alert and responsive would refine the human character and clarify our purpose and meaning. That self-derived conscience instills a new vitality and allows a person to recognize and affirm their own depth and dominions. In the development of a personal faith or theology that one can truly utilize we have to learn to heed this unconscious God that Frankl’s ideas and that his life attests to, and to regard its reality and inspiration more wholeheartedly, more lovingly. Our quest lies within us…. it awaits our discovery so that it can be more graciously revealed… . All it takes is a willingness to venture in, explore, outgrow and to know! AMEN

Bishop Spong and The Church;

A Question about The Prophetic/Justice Imperative contrasted to the Motives of the Institutional Church;

Dr. Wallace from Pennsylvania writes:

“Our diocese has a linked relationship with one of the dioceses in southern Sudan. Terrible conditions. Our bishop and his wife visited the area (Kajo Keji) for three weeks several months ago. Our diocese has responded generously to pleas for food and other assistance. As it often happens, once caring people become personally exposed to conditions of millions upon millions in the developing world and have an opportunity to compare and contrast, the result – certainly by most Christians I have known – is a strong motivation to respond. In Swaziland in January, I guided our rector through a nine-day tour of conditions and the AIDS situation in Swaziland – same response. My bias as a Christian has been for many years that many faith groups place a significant emphasis and focus on the importance of belief as compared with the importance of behavior.

I recall a number of passages in the New Testament that cite Christ’s focus on loving God and our neighbors. From my personal perspective, love of a neighbor and all of its critical interpretations receives much less focus and emphasis in the Church than love of God. What usually occurs after a meaningful experience with poverty, loss of hope and inequity, there is a brief flash of sympathy, often action of some sort – some of which is indeed useful. But sooner or later there seems to be a return for our church leaders to fall back on what appears to me to be some fuzzy interpretations that occurred many centuries ago and would never stand active interpretation.

So, as I challenge church leaders, clergy and congregations, my question relates to how I can encourage them to review one of the essential mandates from Christ – his clear and emphatic emphasis on our responsibilities toward our fellow human beings.”

Dear Dr. Wallace,

You touch the ultimate question that always hampers the Christian Church. I am not sure Christianity would have survived for 2000 years had it not been institutionalized. I am not sure if it will survive the next 100 years because it is institutionalized.

Every institution places its ultimate weight on preserving its own life. That is why the Church emphasizes loving God over loving one’s neighbor. Loving God can be expressed through worship and liturgy, building stone monuments and in filling them with music as well as mystery. These are the emotions that build great cathedrals, vest clergy elaborately, decorate the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, create chorales and oratorios, all of which shroud God in mystery and wonder and draw people, who are always seeking relationship with the holy, into the Church’s orbit engaging them in worship. This serves the Church’s need for power that has always been its highest priority.

The push for justice on the other hand might be at the center of the Gospel but it also attacks the balance of power in the society. Since the rich always exploit the poor, to give the poor power, dignity and humanity makes them less pliable, less cooperative. Prejudices also cover human insecurities and so they always receive religious sanctions. The Bible portrays God justifying the hatred of the Hebrews for their overlords, the Egyptians. Otherwise, the story of the divine plagues aimed at the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus makes no sense.

White people cover their fear and insecurity against people of color by subjugating them as either slaves (later segregation and dehumanizing prejudice) or as vassal states to a colonial empire. Males cover their masculine sense of inadequacy by treating women as second-class citizens. Heterosexuals reveal their sexual insecurity by oppressing homosexual persons. It is interesting to me to see how throughout history we blessed our prejudices with sanctified quotations from Holy Scriptures as if to say God shares our prejudices with us.

The great biblical tradition says that loving God and loving one’s neighbor are not two separate actions but two sides of the same action. It was the prophet Amos who bore witness to the fact that divine worship is nothing but human justice being offered to God and human justice is nothing but divine worship being lived out. It was the First Epistle of John that warned us that one cannot love God without loving one’s neighbor and to suggest otherwise is to be “a liar.” It was Jesus himself to whom the words are attributed that his purpose is to bring life and to bring it abundantly. To be a disciple of Jesus means a dedication to being a life giver, a life enhancer to all people at all times and under all circumstances. Finally, in the parable of the Judgment in Matthew 25, the entire basis of salvation is said to be not the way one believes, that is to creeds, doctrines and dogma but whether or not one serves the Christ who is to be seen in the faces of the poor, the hungry, the naked, the imprisoned and the sick.

The task of people like you, Ned, is to call institutional Christianity daily to accept its vocation to follow its Lord by giving its life in the service of others. But lest you be disillusioned, you need always to be aware that the people who will hear the call of Christ and the call that you have so often heard and to which you have given yourself so courageously will always be a minority,

a saving remnant within the body of believers. However, that witness is essential to the life and health of the whole body. It is a fact that the great reformers of Christian history were generally regarded as troublemakers in their own generation. Only history applauds the prophet. The vast majority of those who share your generation, Ned, will be forgotten in a generation or two. But your work will be enshrined in the memory of the people you have served so deeply that it will finally enter the mythology of their culture. That is no insignificant contribution.

Bishop Spong and The Church

A Question about The Prophetic/Justice Imperative contrasted to the Motives of the Institutional Church; The Love of God vs. Love of the Neighbor

Dr. Wallace from Pennsylvania writes:

“Our diocese has a linked relationship with one of the dioceses in southern Sudan. Terrible conditions. Our bishop and his wife visited the area (Kajo Keji) for three weeks several months ago. Our diocese has responded generously to pleas for food and other assistance. As it often happens, once caring people become personally exposed to conditions of millions upon millions in the developing world and have an opportunity to compare and contrast, the result – certainly by most Christians I have known – is a strong motivation to respond. In Swaziland in January, I guided our rector through a nine-day tour of conditions and the AIDS situation in Swaziland – same response. My bias as a Christian has been for many years that many faith groups place a significant emphasis and focus on the importance of belief as compared with the importance of behavior.

I recall a number of passages in the New Testament that cite Christ’s focus on loving God and our neighbors. From my personal perspective, love of a neighbor and all of its critical interpretations receives much less focus and emphasis in the Church than love of God. What usually occurs after a meaningful experience with poverty, loss of hope and inequity, there is a brief flash of sympathy, often action of some sort – some of which is indeed useful. But sooner or later there seems to be a return for our church leaders to fall back on what appears to me to be some fuzzy interpretations that occurred many centuries ago and would never stand active interpretation.

So, as I challenge church leaders, clergy and congregations, my question relates to how I can encourage them to review one of the essential mandates from Christ – his clear and emphatic emphasis on our responsibilities toward our fellow human beings.”

Dear Dr. Wallace,

You touch the ultimate question that always hampers the Christian Church. I am not sure Christianity would have survived for 2000 years had it not been institutionalized. I am not sure if it will survive the next 100 years because it is institutionalized.

Every institution places its ultimate weight on preserving its own life. That is why the Church emphasizes loving God over loving one’s neighbor. Loving God can be expressed through worship and liturgy, building stone monuments and in filling them with music as well as mystery. These are the emotions that build great cathedrals, vest clergy elaborately, decorate the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, create chorales and oratorios, all of which shroud God in mystery and wonder and draw people, who are always seeking relationship with the holy, into the Church’s orbit engaging them in worship. This serves the Church’s need for power that has always been its highest priority.

The push for justice on the other hand might be at the center of the Gospel but it also attacks the balance of power in the society. Since the rich always exploit the poor, to give the poor power, dignity and humanity makes them less pliable, less cooperative. Prejudices also cover human insecurities and so they always receive religious sanctions. The Bible portrays God justifying the hatred of the Hebrews for their overlords, the Egyptians. Otherwise, the story of the divine plagues aimed at the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus makes no sense.

White people cover their fear and insecurity against people of color by subjugating them as either slaves (later segregation and dehumanizing prejudice) or as vassal states to a colonial empire. Males cover their masculine sense of inadequacy by treating women as second-class citizens. Heterosexuals reveal their sexual insecurity by oppressing homosexual persons. It is interesting to me to see how throughout history we blessed our prejudices with sanctified quotations from Holy Scriptures as if to say God shares our prejudices with us.

The great biblical tradition says that loving God and loving one’s neighbor are not two separate actions but two sides of the same action. It was the prophet Amos who bore witness to the fact that divine worship is nothing but human justice being offered to God and human justice is nothing but divine worship being lived out. It was the First Epistle of John that warned us that one cannot love God without loving one’s neighbor and to suggest otherwise is to be “a liar.” It was Jesus himself to whom the words are attributed that his purpose is to bring life and to bring it abundantly. To be a disciple of Jesus means a dedication to being a life giver, a life enhancer to all people at all times and under all circumstances. Finally, in the parable of the Judgment in Matthew 25, the entire basis of salvation is said to be not the way one believes, that is to creeds, doctrines and dogma but whether or not one serves the Christ who is to be seen in the faces of the poor, the hungry, the naked, the imprisoned and the sick.

The task of people like you, Ned, is to call institutional Christianity daily to accept its vocation to follow its Lord by giving its life in the service of others. But lest you be disillusioned, you need always to be aware that the people who will hear the call of Christ and the call that you have so often heard and to which you have given yourself so courageously will always be a minority,

a saving remnant within the body of believers. However, that witness is essential to the life and health of the whole body. It is a fact that the great reformers of Christian history were generally regarded as troublemakers in their own generation. Only history applauds the prophet. The vast majority of those who share your generation, Ned, will be forgotten in a generation or two. But your work will be enshrined in the memory of the people you have served so deeply that it will finally enter the mythology of their culture. That is no insignificant contribution.