Reflections on Firm Foundations, Syncretism, and My Own Journey

     When I was going to school with New Tribes Missions, one of the things they taught us about was their teaching curriculum called "Firm Foundations." They developed this curriculum for missions work in remote tribal settings because they had found that attempting to teach the people the biblical stories and narratives and getting them to understand them in the way they were trying to teach wasn't going as planned. What was happening was they were filtering the Biblical stories through their own tribal worldviews, which could be radically different from tribe to tribe as much as it was from our own western, Christianized worldview, and coming up with very different perspectives and conclusions in a process called “syncretism.” They realized that if they were going to get the tribal people to understand what they were teaching the way they wanted them to understand it they were going to have to start from the very beginning and rebuild their entire worldview and cosmology so that when it came to the Gospel narrative, the tribal people would be on the same page.
     While I don't necessarily agree with all of NTM's theology anymore, what this did teach me was that attempting to introduce a new spiritual teaching or understanding requires either that you work within the worldview of the listener, or you do the exceptionally hard work of relaying the foundations and structure of the listener's world view, and this is difficult, tricky, and you have to be careful with it or else you could totally pull the rug out from under that person's foundational beliefs and assumptions of the world. This kind of disillusionment can totally destroy a person psychologically.
      People have three potential responses to challenges to their worldviews. The first is to just reject and dismiss the new information outright as fabricated or false, regardless of the evidence. This is a fear response. The second is to do the opposite, and accept the new information out of hand whether the evidence supports it or not. This is also a fear response. The third is to do the hard work of examining the evidence, whether it is genuine or not, and if necessary changing one’s worldview to fit the evidence at hand.
     In the Scriptures, part of why we see what we see is because God chooses not to attempt to re-lay the foundations of the people’s cultural worldviews. Instead, He frequently works within them without passing judgment to interact with and teach the people, only revealing new information to their worldview gradually over time, even centuries. He always works with people where they are at psychologically. And so He does not correct the idea that the Earth has corners or that it sits on pillars. He does not correct, at first, the idea that there are other gods, He only demands that they not be worshiped or followed, and is addressed as the “God of gods.” He does not initiate the idea of blood sacrifice, He only works with the already established understanding of it to alleviate guilt and offer some kind of assurance of forgiveness to the deranged human mind, later saying clearly that He didn’t want the sacrifices to begin with. He does not forbid slavery, but establishes clear laws for their humane treatment. He does not demand equality for women at first, but again establishes laws within the cultural context so they are not mistreated. God understood that syncretism was a thing, but rather than immediately try to correct everyone’s misunderstanding He used it and worked with it to accomplish His purposes.
     As I think about these things, they become immediately pertinent because I tend to write about things which challenge many people’s worldviews. I do this because, after the things I’ve studied, I think it necessary to challenge them to re-establish an authentic, first century Christian faith and practice. Just that idea alone is potentially a rug pulling challenge to a person’s belief system, that what they’ve been taught is not what was first taught and held, and is the product of two thousand years of “drift.” Looking back, I know I can come off as more heavy handed and combative than I mean to. The truth is, when I do, I am arguing more with who I used to be and what I used to adhere to, the demons of my past, than I am with anyone else. It is sometimes hard to remember that not everyone had taken the journey I have, studied the evidence I have, and that this kind of a journey terrifies many just to think about. I know, looking back, it terrified me at times, and sometimes still does, necessary though it may be. My own foundational beliefs were laid bare, changed, and frequently replaced as genuine evidence presented itself along this journey, and I do remember the very real difficulties I encountered with incorporating the new data. In truth, I couldn’t be just given the new information all at once either, or else I would have just rejected it all outright too. It had to be done slowly as I was ready for each step.
     But sometimes it is frustrating. Sometimes I think, “If you only knew what I know,” or “if you’d only seen what I’ve seen,” or “if you’d only experienced what I’ve experienced.” 

Was Christianity an Invention of the Fourth Century?

     There is a pernicious idea out there now, that has gained traction far beyond what it is worth, that Christianity and even the Holy Scriptures were originally invented by Constantine and the Ecumenical Councils in the fourth century. The truth, like with most things of ancient origin, is far more complex than this. Was Christianity a product of the machinations of a fourth century Roman emperor?
     The answer is both a definitive "no"... and a qualified "yes."
     I will address the qualified "yes" first. What we know as Christianity today, that is, "modern" Christianity very much has its origins in Constantine and the Church Councils. It was those Councils  that gave us the codified doctrines of the hypostatic union of Christ, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the one among many lists of books and documents accepted as Holy Scripture, the Nicene Creed which forms the standard of orthodox belief, and so on. All of these things form the bedrock of all modern Christian churches and denominations to one extant or another as well as the inherited bias and need to eliminate any teaching or doctrine that deviates from that which was canonized at the Councils for one reason or another. One can either assume that the Councils and Constantine could do no wrong and were each one a Saint, or one can demonize them up one side and down the other. However, the fact remains that virtually all Christian churches from Eastern Orthodox to Roman Catholic, from Baptist to Evangelical, and from Presbyterian to Pentecostal to Anglican trace their lineage back to Constantine's desire to unite the seemingly fragmented Christians into a cohesive whole, and the seven Ecumenical Councils starting with Nicea.
      But the answer is also a definitive "NO." What Constantine shaped into the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" was originally something that looked very different from the grand spectacles of the organized Church, but it very much existed prior to the fourth century. We know this because of all of the writings which those early Christians left behind, both as what became the New Testament, written in the first century, but also what are known as the writings of the "ante-Nicene Fathers," that is, those Christian leaders and thinkers that lived between the first and fourth centuries.
     How do we know that these writings were written when they were supposed to be written? And by whom? We know this from the dialects of the languages in which they were written, both Koine Greek (the majority) and pre-Ecclesiastical Latin. We know that each of these documents clearly had their own author with their own use of syntax, vocabulary, and style which is like a fingerprint to an author (It is frequently how authors today can be identified even if they're writing under a pseudonym). And we know that the language used fits the time period in which they were purported to have been written. What do I mean by this? Eighteenth century British English is worded differently from twenty-first century American English. One only has to peruse Jane Austin or Charlotte Bronte to understand that we do not speak like they did almost three hundred years ago. The differences grow greater the farther the distance in time, as anyone who compares Shakespeare and Beowulf to modern English will attest. Fourth century Byzantine Greek cannot be mistaken for first century or even second century Koine. And had someone attempted to do so, it would have come off as "wonky," anachronistic, and just "not right," compare the King James Version of the Bible (1611) with the Book of Mormon (1830-40) and you'll see what I mean. Those who make such claims about the late or even pseudo-authorship of the Holy Scriptures or the Early Church Fathers do so from a position of ignorance about the language of the original texts, not being able to read and compare them, or not bothering to.
     The earliest Christians only wrote and taught what they had seen and heard happen. The documents of the New Testament, all of which demonstrate socio-linguistic authenticity to the period, attest to this. When they wrote about Jesus rising from the dead, it was because that was what happened, and every one of them went to their executions (except John, but not for lack of trying) refusing to recant what they had personally seen. They taught what Jesus Himself had taught them, and those after them attempted to do the same. No more, and no less. Yes, they wrote about the miracles Jesus did, as well as being able to perform similar things to Him. What's really interesting about this in the later writings, those of the second and third centuries, is that they write about them to non-Christians under the assumption that, not only did these non-Christians know what they were talking about, but could verify what they said through their own experiences. They also talk plainly about these demonstrations beginning to grow rarer towards the end of the third century and into the fourth.
     The earliest Christians focused heavily, not on theological doctrines of what someone had to believe about things they couldn't verify or see, but on how a Christian was to live their lives. For them, a Christian was only a Christian if their behavior matched that of Jesus Christ. If they "walked as He walked." And this was true regardless of what theological speculation they spouted. There were a great many speculations and disagreements about the nature of God, Christ, their relationship, and so on in these writings, but they nearly always agreed on this central point, that in order for a Christian to be a Christian, he had to demonstrate it by acting like Jesus.
     This was something Constantine, being a pagan Roman, didn't understand. He only saw the chaos of speculations, and not the common unified understanding. Unfortunately, too many bishops and pastors of the churches were too caught up in these disagreements as well by this point, and they jumped at the chance to have official, if managed, recognition within the empire. Yet, prior to and even afterwards, both heretics and "orthodox" were tortured, executed, and martyred because of their adherence to Jesus Christ and what He taught. Unfortunately Constantine's reasonably understandable, even commendable efforts to bring order to his empire by bringing order to the "chaos" of Christianity, something he didn't really understand, missed the point entirely.

The Individual Personhood of Animals

 In my observations and interactions with animals throughout my life, I have learned that the best way to approach and interact with an animal is to respect their "personhood." That is, to treat each animal as an individual person with their own individual personality, mind, will, emotions, desires, and so on. 

     Animals are not human beings. You cannot "anthropomorphize" animals and project onto them the emotions, intentions, or pathos of a human being. This being said, animals are however "people." But they are a different kind of "people" from human beings. Each species of animal has its own kind of emotions and feelings which are similar to, but also alien to a human beings. They have their own kinds of intentions, their own kinds of thoughts that might be akin to a human's, but are nevertheless alien in that they are not identical to a human's. They are their own, and this fact must be respected.

     Right now, I live on a farm with over two hundred animals: Goats, Chickens, Ducks, Guinea Fowl, Dogs, Cats, a Rabbit, Gerbils, and Parakeets. No two chickens have the same personality. Some are homebodies and prefer to stay close to the coop. Some are more adventurous and venture outside the fence. Some don't like to be touched. Others walk right up to you expecting to be picked up, and at least one rooster will launch himself up to your shoulder and expect to be carried around. 

     There was one Buff Brahma hen the other evening as I was heading out to close the barn coops and put the chickens out there to bed. All the other chickens had gone to the coop. But as I entered the pasture on the way to the barn, this one hen comes running up to me looking for all the world like she was lost and confused because she couldn't find her flock. I talked to her and asked her, "Are you lost? Do you want me to take you back to the coop?" She came closer as if to confirm it. I tell her, "Okay, sweetie, let's go. I'll lead you back." And as I start for the coop again, the hen saddles up right next to me and doesn't leave my side until she sees her coop with her flock, and only then does she head straight for it.

     In the mornings, we've been training our LGD Great Pyrenees with our barn flock. Getting a dog to watch out for chickens and not try to play with them or eat them is a challenge depending on the breed, but they've been doing well just watching and doing their own thing in the mornings while the chickens are being fed. A little while ago, we introduced a new rooster that was having trouble adjusting to the flock. It kept getting into fights with the other roosters, especially Aero. One morning, we had the dogs out and the new rooster was also out. The dogs were doing their own thing just watching and wanting to be petted. Lexie I think was eating some pecans that had fallen on the ground from a nearby tree. All of a sudden a knock down drag out fight began between the new rooster, Jake, and the other roosters. Lexie calm but alert, observed the new goings on and discerned that the fight wasn't what we wanted and it was causing problems among the flock. She calmly walks over and tries to help us by gently taking Jake by his tail and starting to pull him away from the fight, knowing he was the new element and was the one causing problems. She didn't try to actually harm him, she was just trying to separate him from the other roosters. It's not the first time she's tried to help us with the other animals, especially getting the goats back into their own pens.

     There are numerous accounts and even videos of animals displaying their own individuality and personality. I remember watching one of a squirrel on a hot day who came up and asked in his own way for some water from a guest at the park he was at. When the human understood what was happening, he bent down with his water bottle to where the squirrel could reach the water, and it drank long and deep before making a gesture that almost appeared to be gratitude and then scampering off. Other animals, wild animals no less, remember the humans who helped them and even return with their families to visit, appearing to show gratitude. The Grear Apes are well understood to be able to learn to communicate their wants, needs, and even "thoughts" using sign language with human beings. I remember watching a documentary about an Orangutan who literally asked and received advice on how to court a female Orangutan from the woman who raised him using sign language because he didn't know, having been raised in captivity. Elephants are also well known for their intelligence and empathy, as are dolphins. I remember even a story about two male lions who, when a little girl had been attacked and kidnappes, came to this girl's rescue, drove off her attackers, and waited with her, protecting her, until the authorities arrived. Then they wandered off into the forest peacefully, leaving the girl to the police. 

     There is so much observational and anecdotal evidence about the individual personhood of other species of animal that it is overwhelming, and it is what I see every day here on the farm in Kentucky too from the goat kids that just arrived to our six housecats, four dogs, and every animal in between. Even our "gimpy" rooster Penguin went into depression and his own kind of mourning after the guinea that he had bonded with and protected passed away.

      But their thoughts and emotions are not human, they are alien to us even as much as they can be similar or familiar. Not the least reason for this is the fact that every other species of animal is innocent, from the most dangerous predators to the least dangerous herbivore. They simpliy have no concept of moral "good" or "bad" like human beings do. They can feel when someone is angry or upset with them, they will take action when something appears to be a threat to them or theirs, but an action being "good" or "bad" morally speaking is as alien to them as innocence really is to us. But their innocence does not negate their personhood.

     The Native Americans, some tribes at least, in their traditional cultures referred to the animals around them as "brother" or "sister." They understood and respected that personhood of these other creatures, even when they had to hunt them for food, clothing, and materials. It was never done for sport, or just for fun. They understood the life, the personhood, they were ending was sacred and they meant to honor that.

     It is then my opinion that the best way to interact with an animal is to recognize that individuality, that personhood, in the other species around us, and to treat them also as I myself would want to be treated, with respect, compassion, and understanding.

Forgiveness, Salvation, and the Prodigal Son

      Our salvation through Jesus Christ isn't about forgiveness, but this does not preclude forgiveness. If God isn't willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, then that is exactly what is going to happen. Salvation isn't about forgiveness, because God isn't worried about the offenses. He's the Father who runs to the prodigal son, not the pagan god that demands blood and then might "consider" forgiving.

      God's main objective for all human beings is that they come to their senses and come home, and this will happen for all human beings sooner or later because this is His will. It is His objective to bring them out of the darkness, and into the light, but He will not force it. It must be voluntary or it destroys the person He is intent on rescuing. And so yes, He allows them to be tossed into the outer darkness within Eternity, but eternity and forever are two different things in the Greek language in which the New Testament is written. He allows them to be subject to servitude and starve while pigs get more food than they do. Why? So that the person, the consciousness, will come to their senses and come home, and God is patient. Time has no meaning for Him except for what passes through Him, but He Himself is not subject to. 

     What is easier to say, "Your sins are forgiven you," or "get up and walk?" Jesus was clear that the miracle was not the forgiveness of sins, that's easy for God. The miracle was getting the lame man to walk, and so this is the miracle of salvation, getting us human beings to "walk in the Spirit" of Christ. To submit to and cooperate with the Spirit of Christ just as Jesus Christ submitted to and cooperated with the Father so that, "if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father." The son who never left home and to whom everything the Father has belongs is this one who has gotten up and walked. Everything the Father has belongs to the one who is in submission to and cooperation with the Spirit of Christ.

     The parable of the prodigal son is the message that He's not holding any of our offenses against us, and it's only our persistence in the darkness of our own minds that is keeping us from Him. All He wants is for us to come to our senses and come home. And once we have done this, our salvation in this life is Him making it possible for us to "get up and walk."

Christian Nationalism is Antithetical to the Kingdom of God

      The problem with Christian nationalism is that it fundamentally misunderstands what the Kingdom of God is. The Kingdom of God is not a place, it is not a political entity with laws, borders, and institutional structures. The Kingdom of God is all those in submission to and cooperation with the Spirit of Christ. The Kingdom of God are all those connected to and receiving instructions from the Head as the parts of the body are connected to and receive instructions from the brain. The Kingdom of God is all those through whom Jesus Christ acts and speaks, and through Him the Father. 

     This is the reason why all attempts at "establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth" or "ushering in the Kingdom" are faulty and will fail, because the Kingdom is already here. This is also why the belief that Jesus Christ returning to set everything right, or at least according to the "right" belief system, is itself faulty. As long as His people through whom He acts and speaks are here, He is already here manifested through the people of His kingdom. In this sense, He has never left but has been with us the entire time. 

      The thinking that one can hasten or force His return through bringing about apocalyptic conditions is itself also faulty, misguided, and in opposition to what He taught. If He has to return bodily to impose order on Earth, it means there is no other hope left, and it means His body is no longer here. It is the work of His kingdom to forestall that day by manifesting Him and teaching others to manifest and connect to Him. As long as we are here, He is here.

     The idea behind Christian nationalism that all laws must be brought into alignment with the Kingdom of God is fundamentally flawed, because the Kingdom of God needs no laws for its people, because its one law of love is written on their hearts and minds through union with the Spirit of Christ. Forcing others to obey religious laws isn't the spread of the Kingdom of God, but an admission that you are not acting as a part of it but acting according to your own malfunctioning survival responses of fear, aggression, and bodily cravings.

      The Kingdom of God passes no laws for its citizens because there is no need. Laws are made, not for those in submission to and cooperation with the Spirit of Christ, but for those under the control of their own malfunctioning survival responses. Those through whom Jesus Christ acts and speaks do no harm, but instead manifest love, joy, peace, patience, trust, kindness, courtesy, and self-control. Would Jesus Christ commit murder through someone? Would He steal? Commit adultery? Or do anything to harm another? Thus the drive to impose “Biblical Law” on national governments is antithetical to the Kingdom of God.

Random Thoughts About Non-Linear Reincarnation and "Seeing" the Future

      I was thinking again a few days ago about non-linear reincarnation. This is something I hypothesized about a little while ago under the assumption that once a soul or consciousness is separated from the body it enters eternity. Eternity itself is non-linear, all times, all moments along the common "time-stream" we experience are happening simultaneously. Therefore, were reincarnation to be a genuine possibility, there is no reason why a soul should need to continuously reincarnate along progressive points of that common time-stream. That soul's personal or "local" time-stream would be independent from the common or "global" shared time-stream, and thus could re-enter the global time-stream at any point along it, not just the successive one from the previous. 

     Thus, one person's "past life" in their own soul's local time-stream might actually be a future event from the perspective of the global time-stream which everyone experiences. This can be made all the more possible due to the observed total or partial amnesia of one's previous lifetime which occurs at birth and solidifies around the age of five or six. A total amnesia of a past life lived in a future time would not risk the global time-line, as there would be nothing from the future past-life which could be shared and disrupt those future events.

     My thought this morning regarding the non-linearality of reincarnation has to do with those who might only have a partial rather than total amnesia upon re-entry into time, and can seemingly predict the future, though inconsistently. My though was that, rather than actually "predicting" a future event or "seeing" the future, they are remembering an event from their previous lifetime. Because this memory is necessarily vague due to the aforementioned amnesia, the details on the future event are also frequently necessarily vague, because it relies more on feelings, impressions, and difficult to access sensory details which the "seer" in question may not understand the context in which they are set. It would also explain why not all such "prophecies" from such "seers" come to pass, either because of a misinterpretation of the information, or because the seer, not understanding the source of the correct information, believed they could really tell the future regardless of event and then proved they couldn't. 

     Just some random thoughts again a few days ago.