It has been said that Kabbalah teaches that we each choose our own difficulties and particular circumstances of life before we exist as ourselves here on earth. Kabbalah says that we do this in order to help ourselves evolve spiritually, but that this memory is wiped out before we are born. We come into this life without any consciousness of having chosen our situation(s). As we move into our lives and into adulthood and begin to have struggles that we can not easily surmount, we come face to face with the opportunity to grow. Kabbalah says that we have the exact troubles we need (since we have chosen them in advance with a conscious knowledge of our spiritual evolution) in order to move up to a higher level of consciousness. We are the ones who "get to"--indeed, who have to--rescue ourselves. This sits in direct contrast to Christianity which sees us as inherently unable to perform such a feat. It is part and parcel of the faith to believe that, were we able to rescue ourselves, Jesus would not have needed to come at all. However, there are some nuances of theology, or perhaps psychology and/or philosophy hidden here. Perhaps there are other reasons Jesus can be vitally important to us today, without it having to do with a necessary blood sacrifice to placate Almighty God. But first, it is important to think about this. The unknown author of the book of Hebrews in the New Testament proclaims that Moses's law tells us that, "There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood." (Hebrews 9:22) The book of Hebrews is important because it explains how Jesus is the Sacrifice and the High Priest at the same time, the innocent lamb to be slain and the one who presents the offering to God.
Blood sacrifice is a foundation of many religions. In historical Judaism, the shed blood of an unblemished animal was poured over the altar to symbolically cover the people's sin in the sight of a Holy God. In other cultures, animals (and people) were sacrificed as a way to placate the Gods. Many people want to draw a distinction between these two rituals, claiming one to be barbaric and pagan but the Jewish ritual to be merely a religious rite, nothing to do with placating God--it was just that "God required the shedding of blood." This sounds an awful lot like "placating the Gods" when you strip away the words and look at what you are hoping to avoid: punishment and ill effects in life. As time has marched forward, however, and our thinking has evolved, some of us are uncomfortable with the thought of a god who requires His (Her/Its) creation to pay a penalty for merely being human, for acting in accordance with our nature. The very thought that anyone or anything would have to die because of my (or your) inherent sinfulness is something that keeps people away from religions that require any sacrifice at all. It is much more attractive to believe in something nebulous and benevolent, even impotent, than to believe in an old-fashioned god.
Today human sacrifice is no longer something we believe God requires, but many of us believe that God did require it at one time. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the shedding of innocent blood was laudable, as long as it was done for The Right God. Whether that was Abraham taking Isaac to the mountain to slay him for God in order to prove that he (Abraham) could be trusted to obey, or Jephthah offering his only daughter up to that same God because of a vow he felt compelled to keep (again, to prove his trustworthiness to God), or the people bringing their little lamb to the temple so that the priest could cut its throat, we read these stories and are supposed to approve of those fathers for their obedience--and, as an afterthought, approve of their children for acquiescing to their own murders. Yet, when we read about the Aztecs sacrificing thousands annually to please their sun god and get the results in life they wanted, or the Mayans holding a person down while another person cut into the chest of the "lucky" sacrificial victim in order to extract his or her beating heart, we consider them heathen, foolish, misled, even though in all cases an innocent human being loses his or her life at another person's hand. Irrespective of the origin of the human sacrifice, human beings today far and away denounce human sacrifice.
But, still, humans often think in terms of a chasm between man (and woman) and God. Historically, we, collectively and individually, have attempted to bridge that gap by doing certain things (or not doing others). Legalistic religions dictate how humans are supposed to act in order to prevent judgement and damnation and find divine favor and, in some religions, a happy afterlife. Then along comes this guy Jesus and threatens the status quo. Jesus called the religious leaders of his day "whitewashed tombs" that look pristine on the outside but are full of dead bodies and decay. (Matthew 23:27) No wonder the Powers-That-Were didn't like him; no wonder they wanted him dead. Just because you serve God in the priesthood does not mean you want to be set free by His Son. Change is scary, even when it promises freedom. Jesus was not considered a sacrifice by the Levites or anyone else in Israel; a sacrifice was supposed to be pleasing to God and they looked upon Jesus as a blasphemer and heretic. Jesus was just a troublemaker and crucifixion was a method of execution at that time.
In today's age, in the wrong culture, someone like Jesus might still be killed, but another method would be used to rid the earth of him. Of course, for the person who believes that Jesus's death is The Final Atonement for Sin, this thought is anathema. They say that Jesus was killed on the surface only because the Jewish leaders were jealous and threatened; the real reason Jesus was killed was to make a way for man to be reconciled to God, once and for all, end of story. They say it was men--Jews, his own people, in fact--who put Jesus on the cross, but it never would have happened if God had not already planned this exact event. And, of course, these same people say, it is imperative to believe that Jesus rose from the dead three days later, in bodily form. To believe otherwise, to accept Jesus as a road to God without accepting the physical resurrection and blood sacrifice, his death is in danger of being reduced to nothing more--nothing less--than one more unjust execution of a visionary pointing the better way to God, one more brother who was horribly tortured and ridiculed and finally killed in a violent manner, because of his message of love. In this regard, according to the latter explanation Jesus only showed us that to walk in Real Love will get you in trouble with most people every time, so think about it long and hard before you decide if you really want to follow this guy. But perhaps there is another option; perhaps for those who did--who do--decide they want to have Jesus be their model, their "teacher," who are we to say that they must believe in the resurrection? That they must accept that the shedding of blood is required for them to have a relationship with God? Why does anyone else have ultimate authority to discredit another person's faith because it looks so different from ours? Who are we to deny that there can still be a transformation without "salvation" as so many understand salvation, which is so often salvation from hell, rather than salvation into love.
In today's age, in the wrong culture, someone like Jesus might still be killed, but another method would be used to rid the earth of him. Of course, for the person who believes that Jesus's death is The Final Atonement for Sin, this thought is anathema. They say that Jesus was killed on the surface only because the Jewish leaders were jealous and threatened; the real reason Jesus was killed was to make a way for man to be reconciled to God, once and for all, end of story. They say it was men--Jews, his own people, in fact--who put Jesus on the cross, but it never would have happened if God had not already planned this exact event. And, of course, these same people say, it is imperative to believe that Jesus rose from the dead three days later, in bodily form. To believe otherwise, to accept Jesus as a road to God without accepting the physical resurrection and blood sacrifice, his death is in danger of being reduced to nothing more--nothing less--than one more unjust execution of a visionary pointing the better way to God, one more brother who was horribly tortured and ridiculed and finally killed in a violent manner, because of his message of love. In this regard, according to the latter explanation Jesus only showed us that to walk in Real Love will get you in trouble with most people every time, so think about it long and hard before you decide if you really want to follow this guy. But perhaps there is another option; perhaps for those who did--who do--decide they want to have Jesus be their model, their "teacher," who are we to say that they must believe in the resurrection? That they must accept that the shedding of blood is required for them to have a relationship with God? Why does anyone else have ultimate authority to discredit another person's faith because it looks so different from ours? Who are we to deny that there can still be a transformation without "salvation" as so many understand salvation, which is so often salvation from hell, rather than salvation into love.
This freedom Jesus proclaimed took enlightenment from the realm of the priests and brought it right down to the individual. No longer did people need to listen to the religious leaders of the community; now they could go directly to the Source. No longer did people have to squabble over hundreds of picayune laws. Jesus condensed "all the law and the prophets" down to these two commandments: "Love the Lord with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind...love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37, 39) Shortly after Jesus's death, though, we find the apostle Peter encouraging new followers of Jesus to practice Jewish ceremonial laws along with their faith in Christ. When the apostle Paul hears about this, he chastises Peter for such behavior, asking him why he would put burdens on others that neither they nor their forefathers could bear. (Acts 15:10) Peter capitulates, and Paul goes on to take this liberation message, this gospel, to the world. It is a limited liberation, of course, because Paul neither encouraged men to embrace women as their equals nor did he encourage women to self actualize. He neither chastised slave owners for the keeping of slaves, nor did he encourage slaves to imagine their own freedom. The only chains Paul seemed to want broken were the ones that held heaven's gates shut. Who needs earthly freedom when you have heaven awaiting?
Here we are today, some two thousand years later, though, and if we look around, we see that we are in as much bondage as ever to ideological constraints. In churches everywhere, there are codes of conduct for "real Christians." Depending on the strictness of Biblical interpretation, you will have certain expectations of your external behavior, even though the all-atoning sacrifice of Christ is proclaimed from the pulpit. It is an unspoken but understood concept of Jesus plus. Jesus plus tithing. Jesus plus not swearing. Jesus plus church membership. Jesus plus voting a certain way. Jesus plus acting the way you are supposed to act. We have exchanged Judaism plus Jesus for Christianity plus Legalism. Somehow we are not able to be transformed without another person's direction--someone with authority, someone with an "in" to God, someone who knows better, someone who can tell us whether or not we are on the right path. Jesus is still not enough, nor are we. Spiritual mentors can encourage us on our path, but so many of us still want to be excused from navigating our own way. So many of us still want someone else to mediate the way to the mediator.
We say we have been rescued, but what are we rescued from and what are we rescued to? This is a question we might decide to think about for ourselves. Until the student is ready to learn, the teacher does not appear--the teacher may be right there all along but the wise teacher knows to wait to be seen before trying to instruct. Whether or not we believe in God, whether or not we believe in heaven (and/or hell), whether or not we believe in reincarnation, whether or not any of this exists, the truth remains: We have this present life to live. We have to answer to ourselves, at the very least. For those of us who have an internal call to keep asking questions, there is a point where we break out into an area of deepest water. It happens when we assume we may be entirely wrong about all we have believed. This takes us from a safe environment with comforting answers into the dangerous land of uncharted self. We are the rare ones who decide that facing monsters is less costly than continuing to run from them, even if we lose ourselves through the battle.
We say we have been rescued, but what are we rescued from and what are we rescued to? This is a question we might decide to think about for ourselves. Until the student is ready to learn, the teacher does not appear--the teacher may be right there all along but the wise teacher knows to wait to be seen before trying to instruct. Whether or not we believe in God, whether or not we believe in heaven (and/or hell), whether or not we believe in reincarnation, whether or not any of this exists, the truth remains: We have this present life to live. We have to answer to ourselves, at the very least. For those of us who have an internal call to keep asking questions, there is a point where we break out into an area of deepest water. It happens when we assume we may be entirely wrong about all we have believed. This takes us from a safe environment with comforting answers into the dangerous land of uncharted self. We are the rare ones who decide that facing monsters is less costly than continuing to run from them, even if we lose ourselves through the battle.
No comments:
Post a Comment