On January 14, 2015 I began my post with these words:

There are a number of “problematic” passages in the Scriptures. Today I want to post one that has been difficult for me over the years – then wait a couple of days to hear from those of you who read this blog so I might know your interpretation – your questions – your concerns – then I will offer my current understanding – which implies that this single verse is still difficult for me.

The verse is John 14:6.

Obviously I have waited longer than “a couple of days” to “offer my current understanding” – and I am sure that a number of you have been expecting my interpretation of this verse. Here is the problem – when I started working to arrive at my answer I studied the answers of several others and today I find that I am yet very much where I started – “this single verse is still difficult for me” – because in the answers I have studied my list of questions has grown longer – the answers have led to new and other questions.

The answer I had when I posted the question was this: If we believe in an all powerful and all wise God as we claim to – God still creating with infinite love and complete justice – God still revealing the truths of life and love – THEN – God’s plan for solving this difficulty just has not been revealed yet – at least not to me – so I must trust and have faith that a God who created all that is from nothing is able to take care of this as well – and – the answer has not yet been revealed. SO – don’t worry be happy – God wins in the end!

And then when I read that I find that I must respond: “Oh, come on, you have to do a lot better than that!!” So – yet one more time I turn to trusted resources that speak to me. Some of them might speak to you and some of them might not – but – I feel that I need to share with you those things that have spoken to me or are speaking to me.

Following is a list of six resources that I have found to be helpful to me – YES – they provide some answers – and YES – they also generate even more questions – so I invite you to continue to join me on this journey.

http://www.brianmclaren.net/emc/archives/McLaren%20-%20John%2014.6.pdf

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-r-braxton/getting-in-front-of-jesus_b_649152.html

 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/carlgregg/2011/05/lectionary-commentary-%E2%80%9Ca-progressive-christian-reading-of-john-146%E2%80%9D-for-sunday-may-22-2011/

http://www.bellbrookpc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lMHMj241mr0=

http://www.joelrieves.com/tag/john-146/

http://www.bouldercityumc.com/2014/sermon-february-16-2014/

NEW TOPIC – IMPORTANT!

I am very excited about a series of worship services that we began at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas yesterday, February 1, 2015 titled The Seven Questions of Life – or – Spiritual But Not Religious (our original working title that generated the series). Each Sunday we will be looking for ways to build bridges that connect the past with the present and the future utilizing songs that have helped shape who we are/who we are becoming. This first week we asked the question: WHERE? and focused on the hymn Morning Has Broken and the great Crosby, Stills, and Nash song Teach Your Children. This coming Sunday, February 8, 2015 we will consider the question: WHEN? while focusing on I Just Want To Celebrate while also considering two of the great hymns of the church – O God Our Help In Ages Past and A Mighty Fortress Is Our God (using the highly rhythmic setting that we understand is closer to what Martin Luther composed rather than the sanitized squared-off version that is found in most modern hymnals – usually sung to slowly – and we wonder why church music is described by some as a dirge or funeral music — sorry – could not resist a bit of editorial comment).

If you are in the Austin area – or close enough to travel – I am confident that this series would be of interest to you and your faith journey. This series will take us to Holy Week and maybe through Easter. Our worship services are at 8:15 and 10:45, and St. Andrew’s is located in the northern part of the metro area just west of Interstate 35 – exit 246 or 248 – at the intersection of Wells Branch Parkway and Wells Port Drive. If you are able to join us, please make sure that we visit for a bit before or after the service. If you are not able to attend Jim Rigby’s sermons are available at http://www.staopen.org within a couple of days following the service.

The journey continues – let us move on together in love!!

Following is a post from my friend and colleague Jim Rigby, Pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church here in Austin, Texas:

10 RADICAL MLK QUOTES YOU MAY NOT HEAR AT THE MARCH

“It is an unhappy truth that racism is a way of life for the vast majority of white Americans, spoken and unspoken, acknowledged and denied, subtle and sometimes not so subtle — the disease of racism permeates and poisons a whole body politic.” – Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution

“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” – Inconvenient Hero

“Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles over racial supremacy.” – I May Not Get There With You

“America is engaged in a war that seeks to turn the clock of history back and perpetuate white colonialism.” – Inconvenient Hero

“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. … Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained.” – Letter from Birmingham Jail

“A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” – Beyond Vietnam Speech

“What more pathetically reveals the irrelevancy of the church in present-day world affairs than its witness regarding war? In a world gone mad with arms buildups, chauvinistic passions, and imperialistic exploitation, the church has either endorsed these activities or remained appallingly silent.” – Strength To Love

“Nonviolent protest must now mature to a new level…mass civil disobedience…There must be more than a statement to the larger society, there must be a force that interrupts its functioning at some key point.” – Inconvenient Hero

“I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.” – Letter from Birmingham Jail

“If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.” – Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr.

Jim’s sermon yesterday at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church utilized the text Matthew 7:1-5. It is a sermon that everyone needs to hear. It will be available on the St. Andrew’s website – http://www.staopen.org – in the next couple of days.

It seems to me that the primary issue dividing the church at this time centers around sexuality. Most people that I know feel strongly about marriage equality and the LGBTQ issues facing the church – one way or the other. My heart led the way for my decisions on these questions several years ago, but I have continued to read and study to learn more and more from the opinions of respected theologians, medical scholars, and many others. Some time ago I found that my heart and my mind fully agreed.

Today I want to introduce the readers of this blog to two significant books by highly respected theologians. The first, by Jack Rogers is Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009). The second, by Mark Achtemeier is The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An Evangelical’s Change of Heart (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014).

In this post I will let the two writers speak for themselves. First from Mark Achtemeier:

This book is the story of a change of heart. In the middle 1990s, I was a conservative church activist working hard to defend the “traditional” teaching of my own Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that was condemning homosexual practice. In the fall of 1996, I published an article supporting traditionalist efforts to keep openly gay and lesbian people from serving in positions of ordained church leadership. Those efforts proved successful, and the result was a constitutional ban on gay ordination in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), beginning in the summer of 1997.

The passage of fourteen years found me working to repeal the ban on gay ordination I had once helped put in place. My own efforts came to fruition, along with the work of a great many others, when on July 10, 2011, the PC(USA) officially repealed the constitutional language that had prevented faithful gay and lesbian Presbyterians from serving as ministers, elders, and deacons of the church. On October 8 of that year I was privileged to preach the sermon for the ordination of Scott Anderson, the first openly gay Presbyterian to be granted ministerial credentials under the new rules.

And now from Jack Rogers:

I have had a change of mind and heart. I had never really studied the issue of the status in the church of people who are homosexual. I opposed homosexuality reflexively – it was just what I though Christians were supposed to do. However, studying this issue in depth for the first time brought me to a new understanding of the biblical texts and of God’s will for our church. The process was both very serious and painful. I wasn’t swayed by the culture or pressured by academic colleagues. I changed my mind initially by going back to the Bible and taking seriously its central message for our lives.

Since then, my new conviction has been reinforced from many sources. I have studied how the church changed its mind on other moral issues. I worked through how the church, guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding the Scriptures, reversed our prohibitions against ordination to leadership for African Americans, women, and divorced and remarried people. I saw a clear picture of a shift from a literalistic method of biblical interpretation to one that looks at Scripture through the lens of the redeeming life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

The writings of these two theologians have aided my biblical study so that my mind supports what my heart felt first. While I was studying the medical literature on substance abuse recovery I was also studying the ways that the medical community was learning that homosexuality was not a matter of personal choice. Before that I knew what I knew by working with a number of LGBTQ people in the areas of church music and musical theatre. Many of these people had become dear friends – people that I trusted in every way – people I would trust with my life. My heart was convinced that many of my friends in the arts were far stronger people than many of the heterosexual people I knew and had worked with in the church. My heart knew where I needed to stand – now my mind has found agreement with my heart – and now – my life is dedicated to working for full human equality.

In the next post I will try to explain how my heritage with the Native American peoples had already taught me to love all of creation – not just the two-legged humans.

One thing that has been at the forefront of many discussions in many different types of churches  is the matter of human sexuality, relationships, etc. Sometimes it is more than Scripture that is debated – including translations of the various creeds of the church. Such is the case with the historic Heidelberg Catechism.

Today I offer an article written by Presbyterian theologian Dr. Jack Rogers in 2008:

The Importance of Restoring the Heidelberg Catechism to Its Original Text

Jack Rogers

June 17, 2008

There are seven overtures to the upcoming Presbyterian General Assembly that ask the church to restore the Heidelberg Catechism to its original text.  Why the interest in the Heidelberg Catechism?  Recent scholarship has shown that in 1963 two Reformed Church in America translators made several unauthorized and theologically unwarranted changes to the Heidelberg Catechism. They appear to have inserted their personal biases into an official church document. The erroneous version was unwittingly adopted by the Presbyterian Church in our Book of Confessions.  The overtures coming before this General Assembly present the opportunity to correct these unauthorized changes and restore the Heidelberg Catechism to its original wording. 

 Discovering unauthorized insertions

 The Heidelberg Catechism is the only confession in the Presbyterian Book of Confessions that mentions homosexuality.  Question and Answer 87 in the Heidelberg Catechism (italics mine):

Q87 –  Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?

A – Certainly not! Scripture says, “Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.”

But in 1996 in the midst of the debate over what later became G-6.0106b, Professor Johanna Bos, at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, pointed out that the version of the Heidelberg Catechism contained in our Book of Confessions is not an authentic translation of the original text.  A footnote in the Book of Confessions indicates that this translation of the Heidelberg Catechism had its origin in the early 1960s, when the Reformed Church in America and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches produced a 400^th anniversary edition of The Heidelberg Catechism.

Johanna Bos was born and raised in The Netherlands where she received rigorous training in the Heidelberg Catechism.  Bos said that despite all of her study of the Heidelberg Catechism, she had never heard any mention of homosexuality in the text.  Bos later worked with Louisville Seminary Professor Christopher Elwood to document the errors in the 1963 version of the Catechism.

I’ve spent most of my professional life teaching the Reformed Confessions.  In 2001 as I was teaching a class on the Reformed Confessions I decided to follow up on the research started by Bos and Elwood.

I do most of my research at the Huntington Library in San Marino, California.  There, I discovered a significant number of editions of the Heidelberg Catechism available only in the rare book room.  I read Question and Answer 87 in the Latin version of Zacharius Ursinus, in a work published in 1586. I followed that with a German version from 1795. (Caspar Olevianus is believed to have authored the German text.)  Then I read a Dutch version of the Catechism, published along with a Psalm book, from 1591. I found and consulted a 1645 English edition published in London during the meeting of the Westminster Assembly, and I concluded my catechism inquiry by studying a 1765 English translation of the Catechism prepared for the Dutch Reformed Church in New York.

Answer 87 was the same in the Latin original and all of these early translations.  The list of those impenitent sinners excluded from the kingdom of God was always, in the same order, “unchaste person, idolater, adulterer, thief, covetous man, drunkard, slanderer, robber, or any such like.”  In none of the texts was there even a word where the 1963 version inserted the phrase, “homosexual perversion.”  In every case the list went from adulterer to thief, with no intervening word or phrase which could have been rendered “homosexual perversion.”  My research confirmed the findings by Professors Bos and Elwood that in fact the 1963 translation had inserted a phrase that does not exist in the original text. 

Chair of the Special Committee acknowledges the error

Professor Edward Dowey was the chair of the Special Committee that prepared the Book of Confessions that contains the erroneous translation of the Heidelberg Catechism.  When the unauthorized insertions in the modern translation were later pointed out to him, Dowey contacted one of the translators, Eugene Osterhaven to find out what had happened.  Osterhaven told Dowey that Osterhaven and another translator, Allen Miller, made the unauthorized insertion because they believed it was needed to combat the sexual revolution of the 1960s — even though homosexuality was not mentioned in the original text.  Dowey later wrote, “Our committee, and I especially, as chair, are guilty of negligence.”  Dowey continued, “no one dreamed of such chicanery as this…”

Translator admits he added words not in the original text 

I was stunned that such an unauthorized change had been made to an official church document.  So I decided to contact Osterhaven myself. We had an exchange of letters and one phone call.  He sent me material he had published in response to the criticism of Bos and Elwood.  In a phone conversation with Osterhaven, when I asked why they chose to insert the phrase, “homosexual perversion,” even though there is no corresponding word or phrase in the original text he replied, “We just thought it would be a good idea.”

From a scholarly perspective, it is inexcusable to insert words that were not in the original text of the Catechism. Second, from a Christian perspective it is inexcusable to create a mid-twentieth century rendition of the Catechism that appears to condemn all same-sex relationships when that condemnation is not present in the 16^th century original. The fact that this unauthorized and theologically incorrect insertion  is used to condemn a whole class of church members makes it all the more egregious. 

Other errors in the 1963 translation

Since that time, scholars have discovered four other changes to the original catechism that again appear to reflect the theological bias of the 1963 translators rather than the original text.  The four additional mistranslations seem to evidence a bias for what is called “federal theology” which developed in the period following the death of John Calvin.

Federal Theology maintains that God first made a covenant of works with humankind in which salvation was offered on condition of keeping the law perfectly.  When people failed to fulfill the covenant of works, God made a covenant of grace with them in which salvation was achieved by faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ on their behalf.

By contrast, Calvin believed that there was only one covenant between God and God’s people, and it was based on God’s grace manifested in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Presbyterian theology is based on the one covenant as articulated by Calvin rather than the two covenants of Federal Theology.  Yet, scholars have discovered four instances in which the translators in 1963 removed the word “law” from the original 1563 text and replaced it with the word “covenant.”  By changing these key terms, the 1963 translation thus gives the impression that there is more than one covenant – which is contrary to traditional Presbyterian doctrine. 

It’s a simple question of honesty

This issue comes down to a simple question of honesty.  Do we want our confessions to honestly reflect the original text?  Or will we allow the biases of two translators in the early 1960s to continue to taint this official church document?  The overtures to restore the Heidelberg Catechism to its original text present a wonderful opportunity for the PC(U.S.A.) to restore honesty and integrity to our Book of Confessions. 

There are a number of “problematic” passages in the Scriptures. Today I want to post one that has been difficult for me over the years – then wait a couple of days to hear from those of you who read this blog so I might know your interpretation – your questions – your concerns – then I will offer my current understanding – which implies that this single verse is still difficult for me.

The verse is John 14:6. Following is the text from seven different translations:

King James Version

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

New International Version

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Revised Standard Version

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

New Revised Standard Version

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

New American Standard Bible

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

English Standard Version

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

The Inclusive Bible

Jesus told him, “I myself am the Way – I am the Truth, and I am Life. No one comes to Abba God but through me.

I look forward to reading your responses. In the meantime I will continue to write.

Grace and peace

Today’s post will focus on several things I have been taught during my life. I offer them without comment, and with no reference to when or where I was taught these ideas. I am sure that I am not the only person who has been taught most of these – partly, because I was never alone when I heard these things from a church leader, a professor, friends and colleagues at churches where I have worked, or where I attended from childhood through high school graduation. Hold on . . . and please offer your comments.

The Bible is the authoritative word of God.

Every word in the Bible is true.

Every word in the Bible is true – including historic times and factual events.

The Bible is a spiritual book – not a history book or a biography.

The Bible is inerrant.

The only authentic translation of the Bible is the original King James Version.

Both the first and second chapters of Genesis are historically accurate.

Joseph’s coat was made of many colors of fabric.

People’s eternal fate is decided by predestination.

All of the laws and rules found in the Hebrew Bible are still true and binding for people of faith.

The teachings of the New Testament are the only teachings that are still true today.

One of the Magi who followed the star to Bethlehem was black.

Just like in our Nativity sets, the shepherds, the magi, and all of the animals were at the manger at the same time.

The birthplace of Jesus was a cave.

Jesus was born in December during the reign of Caesar Augustus.

Jesus may have been born as many as four years before the beginning of the common era, or 3 or 4 years after the dating of the beginning of the common era.

The only parts of the Bible that are valid today are the Gospel of Luke, beginning with chapter 4, and the writings of Paul.

The God of the Hebrew Bible and the God of the New Testament are not the same God.

Your daughter is going to hell because of the friends that she has who are Buddhist, Jewish, and Hindu.

Biblical scholarship is a tool of liberals and progressives to teach false teachings about Jesus to distract from the plain and simple truth that is revealed when the Biblical text is read.

The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, and other non-canonical writings from the time of Jesus have been invented to pervert the message of the true Scriptures.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were prepared and planted by someone early during the early twentieth century and are not from early Hebrew times.

Each of the days of creation were actual 24 hour days.

There are credible sources that teach the same teachings of Jesus from times before Jesus was born.

People who are gay or lesbian or transgender are just morally weak and need to be saved by being taught to be straight.

The person who you hired to play French horn in the orchestra for the Brahms next Sunday has AIDS and must be replaced for the good and safety of all of the people.

Some of the laws from times before Jesus are still valid, but many of them are out of date and no longer valid.

If your wife is Christian she will be obedient to you.

There is Biblical justification for slavery.

You know that (person un-named) is gay and should not be allowed to be hired as our church organist.

Women should never be involved in the leadership of the church except as a teacher or a worker in the kitchen.

The Biblical account of the creation should only be taught as fiction.

God created all of creation in love.

Genesis clearly states that we are to have domination over the rest of creation.

If your faith was a little stronger and you prayed more often you would not have these problems.

This certainly is not an exhaustive list but one that is representative of things that I have actually been taught at various times in my life by people I knew to be very faithful, trusted, and authentic.

I am anxious to read you responses and comments.

A few years ago, I facilitated a discussion class which we called “Faithful Disagreement” – a title that we borrowed from Faithful Disagreement: Wrestling with Scripture in the Midst of Church Conflict by Frances Taylor Gench, the Herbert Worth and Annie H. Jackson Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education in Richmond, VA (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009). The class lasted ten weeks and we used Dr. Gench’s book to guide our study. The first week we read and discussed the book’s Introduction, and the final week we spent our time discussing our overall impressions from our community study. Each of the other weeks we studied one of the seven chapters in the book which included: 1) I John 2:18-25, I John 4, and II John; 2) Matthew 14:22-33; 3) Romans 14:1-15:13; 4)Jeremiah 28; 5) I Corinthians 12-14; 6) I Timothy 3:1-16 and 5:17-25; 7) John 13-17.

The remainder of this post will be the first three paragraphs from the book:

Church conflicts are always “family feuds,” for believers – like it or not – are bound to each other by baptism as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. And family feuds beget a particular pain and intensity. My hope for this book is that it might foster conversation in the midst of church conflict – conversations with both the Bible and fellow Christians with whom we disagree. While it grows out of my own engagement with ecclesial conflict in a particular denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Presbyterians are hardly the only Christians absorbed in family feuds at present. Thus I hope the studies presented here can be a resource for reflection in other conflicted churches as well. Conflict is a perennial reality in the life of the Christian community, and whatever focus or setting (congregational or denominational), the Bible can help us live more faithfully with our disagreements and more fully in the peace, unity, and purity that is God’s gift to us in Jesus Christ.

But there is a catch: this requires that we read it. The Bible, to be sure, features prominently in most ecclesial family feuds, give our reverence for it. All parties to a church conflict typically invoke it to justify their own positions. Indeed, many of us are quite accomplished at arguing about the Bible. But ironically, as theologian John Burgess* tellingly observes, “Presbyterians are better at asserting the authority of Scripture than at actually opening the Bible” – and I suspect the same holds true for more than a few Lutherans, Methodists, and Episcopalians (not to mention others). As Burgess notes, “The church’s appeal to biblical authority is more often rhetorical than real. Our arguments about Scripture frequently expose just how little we really know the Bible itself. We appeal to a select handful of passages to justify our positions but lack the capacity to order Scripture as a whole. We say that the Bible matters but spend remarkably little time actually reading it.” What is needed? Burgess insists that “the church desperately needs to recover practical disciplines of reading Scripture as a Word of God. We do not simply need a better method of interpretation; we need a piety, a different set of dispositions and attitudes toward Scripture. We need a reverent confidence that these words set forth a Word of God for us . . . We cannot simply wait for the church to get its act together; we must begin now to rediscover the power of Scripture to remold us as a community of faith.”

The point I wish to underscore is that we need not only to read the Bible, but to do so in the company of others – especially in the company of those with whom we disagree. What if we were to stop shaking it at each other, actually open it, and read it together? The challenge would be learning to listen – to both the Bible and each other. Learning to listen to the Bible is an ongoing challenge throughout our lives, for as Karl Barth** once warned, “the Bible does not always answer our questions, but sometimes calls our questions into question.” But listening to the Bible in the midst of church conflict presents its own difficulties. Raymond E. Brown*** wisely put his finger on the problem when he said, “I contend that in a divided Christianity, instead of reading the Bible to assure ourselves that we are right, we would do better to read it to discover where we have not been listening.” For this we need the company of others, especially our “adversaries”; but learning to listen to them – even sitting down with them! – is every bit as difficult, given our tendency to deny that those we disagree with have anything to teach us (ix-x).

* John P. Burgess,Why Scripture Matters: Reading the Bible in a Time of Church Conflict (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), xiv-xv.

** Quoted in Thomas G. Long, “No News Is Bad News,” in What’s the Matter with Preaching Today?, ed. Mike Graves (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 147.

*** Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), 150.

Today’s post includes a number of thoughts from the Sermon on the Mount book by Emmet Fox that was such an important part of A.A. in its early days – still a very appropriate resource for today.

My object is to present the reader with a practical manual of spiritual development (6).

Jesus Christ is easily the most important figure that has ever appeared in the history of [humanity]. It makes no difference how you may regard him, you will have to concede that. This is true whether you choose to call him God or man; and, if man, whether you choose to consider him as the world’s greatest Prophet and Teacher, or merely as a well-intentioned fanatic who came to grief and failure, and ruin, after a short and stormy public career (11-12).

What did Jesus really stand for? What did Jesus teach? What did he really wish us to believe and to do? What were the objects that he really had at heart? And how far did he actually succeed in accomplishing these objects in his life and in his death? How far has the religion or movement called Christianity, as it has existed for the last nineteen centuries, really expressed or represented his ideas? (14-15)

I propose to show that the message which Jesus brought has a unique value because it is the Truth, and the only perfect statement of the Truth of the nature of God and of [humanity], and of life, and of the world; and of the relationships which exist between them. And far more than this, we shall find that his teaching is not a mere abstract account of the universe, which would be of very little more than academic interest; but that it constitutes a practical method for he development of the soul and for the shaping of our lives and destinies into the things that we really wish them to be (16-17).

The plain fact is that Jesus taught no theology whatever. His teaching is entirely spiritual or metaphysical. Historical Christianity, unfortunately, has largely concerned itself with theological and doctrinal questions which, strange to say, have no part whatever in the Gospel teaching. It will startle many good people to learn that all of the doctrines and theologies of the churches are human inventions built up by their authors out of their own mentalities, an foisted upon the Bible from the outside; but such is the case. There is absolutely no system of theology of doctrine to be found in the Bible; it simply is not there (19-20).

The actual explanation of [human] life lies in just the fact that [the human] is essentially spiritual and eternal, and that this world, and the life that we know intellectually, is so to speak, but a cross section of the full truth concerning [the human] and a cross section of anything – from a machine to a horse – never can furnish even a partial explanation of the whole.

Glimpsing one tiny corner of the universe, and that with only half-opened eyes, and working from an exclusively anthropocentric and geocentric point of view, [humanity] built up absurd and very horrible fables about a limited and [human]-like God who conducted [the] universe very much as a rather ignorant and barbarous prince might conduct the affairs of a small Oriental kingdom. All sorts of human weaknesses, such as vanity, fickleness, and spite, were attributed to this being. Then a farfetched and very inconsistent legend was built up concerning original sin, vicarious blood atonement, infinite punishment for finite transgressions; and, in certain cases, an unutterably horrible doctrine of predestination to eternal torment, or eternal bliss, was added. Now, no such theory as this is taught in the Bible, to teach it, it would be clearly stated in a straightforward manner in some chapter; but it is not.

The “Plan of Salvation” which figured so prominently in the evangelical sermons and divinity books of a past generation is as completely unknown to the Bible as it is to the Koran. There never was any such arrangement in the universe, and the Bible does not teach it at all. What has happened is that certain obscure texts from Genesis, a few phrases taken here and there from Paul’s letters, and one or two isolated verses from other parts of the Scriptures, have been taken out and pieced together by divines, to produce the kind of teaching which it seemed to them ought to have been found in the Bible. Jesus knows nothing of all this. He is indeed anything but a Pollyanna, as they say, or cheap optimist. He warns us, not once but often, that obstinacy in sin can bring very, very severe punishment in its train, and that [person] who parts with the integrity of [the person’s own] soul – even though [that person] gain the whole world – is a tragic fool (21-24).

Jesus has been sadly misunderstood and misrepresented in other directions too. For instance, there is no warrant whatever in his teaching for the setting up of any form of Ecclesiasticism, of any hierarchy of officials or system or ritual. He did not authorize any such thing, and, in fact, the whole tone of his mentality is definitely antiecclesiastical (26-27).

It seems that human nature is very prone to believe what it wants to believe, rather than to incur the labor of really searching the Scriptures with an open mind (28).

Jesus . . . was careful to teach principles only, knowing that when the spirit is right, details will take care of themselves . . . yet, in spite of this, the history of orthodox Christianity is largely made up of attempts to enforce all sorts of external observances upon the people (30-31).

Tolstoy endeavored to put forward the Sermon on the Mount as a practical guide to life, taking its precepts literally, at their face value, and ignoring the spiritual interpretation of which he was unaware, and excluding the Plane of Spirit in which he did not believe (47).

The page references in this post are from the eBook version of Fox’s work – published in 1998 by HarperCollins e-books.

In the coming posts I will begin to look at some of the primary issues that haunt the organized church today and continue to cause much division and strife. And always, I encourage your comments and responses.

Grace and peace

It is not possible to understand the importance of spirituality to A.A. – particularly in the early days with the founders Bill W. and Dr. Bob – without knowing of Emmet Fox and his 1938 book The Sermon on the Mount: The Key to Success in Life and The Lord’s Prayer: An Interpretation (published by Grosset & Dunlap). A copy of the 1938 book is available online in PDF file format by visiting http://harrykatz.com/Sermon/Sermon_On_The_Mount_eBook.pdf – I own a later edition (1989) published as an eBook by Harper & Row (1989).

Following is a copy of an introductory article by Igor S. from Hartford, Conn., published in the February 1996 AA Grapevine –  http://www.barefootsworld.net/aaemmetfox.html :

One of the very early recovering alcoholics who worked with co-founder Bill W. was a man named Al, whose mother was secretary to Emmet Fox, a popular lecturer on New Thought philosophy. When the early groups were meeting in New York, members would frequently adjourn after a meeting and go to Steinway Hall to listen to Fox’s lecture. To this day there are AA groups that distribute Fox’s pamphlets along with Conference-approved AA literature.

An account sets forth in “Dr. Bob and the Good Oldtimers” tells of the influence of Emmet Fox and his classic work, “Sermon on the Mount.” An AA old-timer recollected: “The first thing he (Dr. Bob) did was to get Emmet Fox’s ‘Sermon on the Mount’….Once when I was working on a woman in Cleveland, I called and asked him what to do for someone who is going into DT’s. He told me to give her the medication and he said, ‘When she comes out of it and she decides she wants to be a different woman, get her Drummond’s ‘The Greatest Thing in the World.’ Tell her to read it through every day for thirty days and she’ll be a different woman.’ Those were the three main books at the time; that and ‘The Upper Room’ and ‘The Sermon on the Mount.’“

Perhaps the fundamental contribution of Emmet Fox to Alcoholics Anonymous was the simplicity and power of “The Sermon on the Mount.” This book sets forth the basic principles of the New Thought philosophy that “God is the only power, and that evil is insubstantial; that we form our own destiny by our thoughts and our beliefs; that conditions do not matter when we pray; that time and space and matter are human illusions; that there is a solution to every problem; that [the human] is the child of God, and God is perfect good.”

Central to New Thought philosophy was the perspective which saw that love and personal forgiveness were the keys to fundamental transformation: “Love is by far the most important thing of all. It is the Golden Gate of Paradise. Pray for the understanding of love, and meditate upon it daily. It casts out fear. It is the fulfilling of the Law. It covers a multitude of sins. Love is absolutely invincible.”

Fox went on to say that forgiveness was an integral part of the Pathway of Love, “which is open to everyone in all circumstances, and upon which you may step at any moment – at this moment if you like – requires no formal introduction, has no conditions whatever. It calls for no expensive laboratory in which to work, because your own daily life, and your ordinary daily surroundings are your laboratory. It needs no reference library, no professional training, no external apparatus of any kind. All it does need is that you should begin steadfastly to expel from your mentality every thought of personal condemnation (you must condemn a wrong action, but not the actor), of resentment for old injuries, and of everything which is contrary to the law of Love. You must not allow yourself to hate either person, or group, or nation, or anything whatever.

“You must build-up by faithful daily exercise the true Love-consciousness, and then all the rest of spiritual development will follow upon that. Love will heal you. Love will illumine you.”

One of the cornerstones of Fox’s philosophy was to live but one day at a time, to be responsible for one’s own thoughts and to clear up resentments, just as AA was to teach that “resentments are our number one cause of slips.” For Fox, one of the most important rules for growth was to live in the present: “Live in today, and do not allow yourself to live in the past under any pretense. Living the past means thinking about the past, rehearsing past events, especially if you do this with feeling…train yourself to be a man or woman who lives one day at a time. You’ll be surprised how rapidly conditions will change for the better when you approach this ideal.”

Emmet Fox emphasized the idea that thoughts are real things, and that one cannot have one kind of mind and another kind of life. According to Fox, if we want to change our lives, then we must change our thoughts first. Many of his simply stated profundities have contributed to an AA philosophy that has transformed the lives of literally millions of recovering alcoholics.

In the next post I will include some excerpts from the writing of Emmet Fox which provide an insight to his interpretation of the Sermon, and, in turn, the concepts and understandings that were taught to A.A. participants from the organization’s earliest days. That will be followed by a post that outlines the spiritual foundations of the early A.A.

Again, I encourage everyone to read along as we continue our journey together.

Before I begin – in the last post I encouraged readers to respond with comments. I am very grateful to those of you who did read and comment. I want to respond to all comments – and I will respond to those that were made just as soon as possible. I have been fighting with a bronchial infection, but am confident that it will be possible for me to return to my normal routine very soon. So – please please keep those comments coming.

Whenever a civilization or society perishes, these is always one condition present.

They forgot where they came from.

Dick B., in his book The Good Book and The Big Book: A.A.’s Roots in the Bible (Kihei, HI. Paradise Research Publications, Inc., 1997), includes these words early in his book (page 13). In a footnote he writes: A quote from historian Carl Sandburg, which is frequently used by A.A.’s current archivist, Frank M, in his talks about the origins of A.A.

Remembering our roots is important. For many it is the source for many of life’s most important decisions – sometimes remembering to follow a familiar path – sometimes intentionally making a different, and hopefully better, choice.

As I began my studies in the area of substance abuse recovery it was very important to me to learn the importance and the development of spirituality within Alcoholics Anonymous as well as all of the other “anonymous” organizations.

Almost immediately I found myself studying the Oxford Group – a protestant evangelical movement founded in the 1920’s by Frank Buchman, a Lutheran pastor of German-Swiss background. This was important, because contact with the Oxford Group, and Buchman’s way of talking about the issues, forced both Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith to rethink the New England evangelical tradition in which they had been brought up, and made them go back and look again at its original formative ideas. [This will become very important in posts that are written in the coming days.] Bill W. and Dr. Bob eventually ended up restating these ideas in even more modern language, and began proclaiming the evangelical message in a way which pushed it in an even newer and more radical direction (Chestnut, Glenn F. Changed by Grace: V. C. Kitchen, the Oxford Group, and A.A. New York: iUniverse, Inc., 2006, page 6). NOTE: This book offers superb insight into the development of spirituality in A.A. Prior to my studies in this area I had never even heard of the Oxford Group, nor did I know anything about it.

As I continued my studies the importance of the Sermon on the Mount (Gospel of Matthew, chapters 5, 6, and 7) for both A.A. and Christianity became more and more clear. In fact, my studies about A.A. also did a great deal to help me clarify most of my current understandings of what I mean when I self describe myself as Christian. My studies also made me more and more aware of the many layers of dogma and doctrine that have been overlaid on the Sermon to fortify a multitude of doctrinal statements of the organized church which I imagine would not be approved by Jesus. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that the current continuing decline of many organized churches is directly related, at least in part, to much of the excess baggage that has been hoisted upon the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

The coming posts on this blog will focus on this subject. I am going to try to add a post each day while we are in this discussion. I encourage each of us to read again these three very important chapters of Matthew’s Gospel.

I imagine that there will be numerous points where we disagree in the coming days – again, I desire your comments but I request that this discussion must remain polite and calm. We must not heap additional layers of non-relevance on the already existing areas of un-necessary disagreement, turmoil, name calling, and judgment that we see and experience so often today.

Grace and peace.