When a Buddhist is Better at Following Jesus Than Most Christians

 I've been reading "The Art of Living" by Thich Nhat Hanh in the mornings lately. Thich Nhat Hanh is a Vietnamese Buddhist teacher, master, and the Abbot of Plum Village in France. He also founded the Order of Interbeing which is a Buddhist religious order focused on a practical Buddhism that echoes Mother Theresa's own Order in some respects. He was also a personal friend of Martin Luther King Jr. and Thomas Merton. "The Art of Living" is the last book published in his name before he went into hospice (he has since passed away in his home country of Vietnam), and is edited from a number of his "dharma talks." I've read a number of his books, as well as "The Dharma of Star Wars" (an absolute must read for any serious fan of the Jedi) written by one of his students from the Plum Village community as I understand it, Matthew Bortolin. I can safely say, he ranks among my favorite authors, if not the favorite author.

     One of the things which has always struck me about his writings is how much he talks about Jesus Christ, for being a Buddhist Abbot and teacher that is. Certainly he understands Jesus from a Buddhist perspective and not a Christian one, but he clearly knows what Jesus taught, and has a good working knowledge of the text of the New Testament being able to recite stories and parables which are contained therein. In one of his books, I think it was "Living Buddha, Living Christ," he describes having not just an image of the Buddha upon his meditation altar, but also an image of Jesus, saying, "I bow to Lord Buddha and I bow to Lord Jesus." Given what I've read and seen of him, his work, his philosophy, and his practice, I would go so far as to say his words and his actions would mark him as a better follower of what Jesus taught than most Christians, and yet his belief system, his worldview. had virtually nothing to do with traditional Christianity at all.

     When I was younger and attending a Bible Church, and later an Evangelical Missionary Bible School, it was repeatedly impressed upon me how much the world and non-Christians hated and rejected Jesus Christ. How much Christians would be persecuted because they believed in Jesus. And what we needed to do was to teach them about Jesus and the Gospel, giving them as much of the  written word of God as possible. But as I have gotten older and experienced things outside of that bubble, I have found something very, very different to be the truth. What I have found is that most people outside of that church background already know at least the basics of what Jesus taught. Most people, whether they are Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, or even humanist atheists, at the very least have a respect for Jesus Christ Himself and what He actually taught in the Gospels. And most of those who are educated in any way have a decent grasp on what He said even if they've never set foot in a Sunday School, a church, or a Bible Study. What Jesus Christ taught, and He Himself, has been spread so far and so wide, and so much a part of our international cultural heritage, that it is truly difficult to escape some understanding of it and Him within the civilized world. And the irony is, this is why many who know what Jesus taught do not choose to become Christians.

     Mahatma Ghandi comes to my mind as well. He was a Jainist, and a devout man within his religion. But there was a time when, after reading what Jesus taught, and the Gospels, he had considered becoming a Christian. What stopped him? He got to know some Christians, and after seeing how they actually lived in contradiction to what Jesus taught, he decided to stick with Jainism feeling that was a more honest and sincere path.

     Watching the news, reading what is being taught and promulgated in Jesus' name... sometimes I feel dumbstruck at the audacity. I feel even more shame that I was a part of it once upon a time. There is a bumper sticker which reads, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." And this is the philosophical excuse many use for outright disobeying and even contradicting what Jesus taught. They do not seek to walk as He walked, or live as He taught, because "it's too hard." They do not seek to love their neighbors much less their enemies. They judge, they keep account of perceived wrongs, they do not forgive, they condemn without mercy all while singing songs which praise His Name and performing ceremony, liturgy, ordinance, or sacrament. They do all of this and more, verbally and sometimes even physically attacking the vulnerable and defenseless, the poor, the outcast, the foreigner, orphans, and so on because it is politically acceptable to do so. They totally ignore what Jesus said in that "inasmuch as you did this to the least of these my brothers, you did this to Me," and expect total absolution for such things because they "believe in Jesus."

     Such things were not the case among the Khristianoi of the first and second century. They were explicit in that someone who was found not living as He taught was not recognized as one of them, no matter what doctrine they professed to teach. John too in his first epistle was explicit when he wrote that someone who claimed to make their home in Him was obligated to walk as He walked. They would have been horrified at the idea that someone could have the gall to call themselves by His Name and then belittle His teachings as "too weak." They would have put that person outside of their group of Christians until they came to their senses.

      There is another irony at work with Thich Nhat Hanh and other Buddhist authors like him. While they may in no wise claim to be Christians, much of their writing is composed of practical instructions on how to actually do what He taught. How to love and have compassion on every single being. How to forgive without limit. How to not judge even those who hurt you. Their writings are frequently filled, not with theological discourse or doctrinal dogmas, but how to be at peace, how to love, how to experience joy, and so on. And they put many if not most "Christian" authors to shame for their unabashed and authentic discipleship. If you really want to learn how to follow Jesus Christ in His commands to love, I can think of few better manuals than Lama Zopa Rinpoche's "Bodhichitta" published by Wisdom Press.

     There are some very vocal non-Christian critics of Jesus Christ to be sure. Some who have been hell bent on disproving Him and His resurrection (though anyone who has actually taken the time and done the research has ended up believing in Him and it). But if you look deeply at them and their background, almost every single one of them has had some kind of hurtful or painful experience with "Christians" which is driving their vitriol. They wish to disprove God or Jesus because those who claimed to speak for Him hurt them in some way.

     Most of the non-Christian world doesn't have a problem with Jesus Himself like I was taught. They have a real problem with those who claim to speak in His Name not following Him themselves and claiming to get away with it. Any genuine, careful reading of the New Testament will show that He has a real problem with it too.

Another Ramble About Belief and Bank Accounts

 I have written about this before, but it has come up again for me over the last couple of days. In order to make use of something, you have to believe it exists. In order to achieve something, you have to believe it can happen. Someone might have a bank account worth billions, but if they don't believe it exists, then it doesn't exist for them. Even worse, if they know it exists but then refuse to use it out of pride.

     Our deliverance (not our "forgiveness," just to clarify in case there is a misunderstanding between the two) requires the belief that leads to action, not just mere mental assent. One cannot merely believe the bank account exists for it to benefit them, One must do something about it. One must go to the bank and receive a checkbook, a debit card, or withdraw cash from the teller. Belief without use is knowing rejection of that bank account. But the bank account exists in reality regardless of whether one believes it does or not, and regardless of whether one uses it or not.

      As in Adam, "all" have died, so also in Jesus Christ, "all" will be made alive. He is the satisfaction, the appeasement for the malfunctioning behaviors of the entire world, not just a select few. Every single human being is already joined to Him and has the capacity to function from the Spirit of Christ instead of their own flesh right here and right now. They only need to let go and, in some way implicitly or explicitly, ask Him to operate through them. Every single human being on the planet already has this bank account whether they know it or not, whether they use it or not, regardless of what they believe. They might stumble into it by accident. They might only use the ATM able to withdraw $500 a day from it, not realizing they can go inside and buy the bank itself with their account. They might walk right past the bank totally oblivious too. But this account already belongs to every single human being.

      There is a song by Lonestar which has become one of my favorites, "I'm Already There." The God who is love is already here. All of creation uses Him as its foundation and building blocks. He is the energy which forms the base of all matter. He is not the forms, He is the substance. He is not the wave, He is the water of which the wave is made. He is not the sound, He is the air through which the sound must travel and without which it cannot exist. One has only to stop, to pause, and to recognize this Being without Whom no other being could exist. And one only has to recognize that this Being is love, and to love is to know Him. To love others is to love Him and to love Him is to love others. One only has to reflect that Love Himself is the foundational substance of which we are formed and shaped, and within which we have our own existence. From Love we came, within Love we already are, and to Love we return.

     The only thing stopping us is disbelief, or even the refusal to believe what already exists. And really the real thing which stops us, fundamentally, is fear. Where love exists, fear cannot. Where fear exists, love cannot be experienced because the fear stops it from being seen and felt in favor of dealing with whatever perceived threat which triggered the fear. It is this fear which keeps us from making use of our bank account.

Neurodivergence and God's Calling to Ministry

 “For you see your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, and not many noble; but God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame those who are wise. God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong; and God chose the lowly things of the world, and the things that are despised, and the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are: that no flesh should boast before God.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-29, WEB)

     There is a great misunderstanding within the churches today as to who is qualified to be a teacher, a pastor, a missionary, or who has a legitimate calling from God on their lives. More often than not, churches look to those who are good communicators, those with a natural charisma and energy about them, and those of course who can relate to those within the congregation on a personal level. Someone must be able to socialize, they must be able to inspire, and they must above all else be relational. Churches look for all of these natural qualities in their leadership, and disregard those who do not display them. God forbid someone who is neurodivergent should begin talking about being “called” towards ministry. The prevailing thinking within churches, denominations, and para-church organizations is that God would not, or even cannot call someone with a social or a psychological disability, someone who is neurologically atypical to pastoral or clerical ministry. How could someone, for example, with Autism Spectrum Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder even being to fulfill such a role?

      This is a gross misunderstanding and misconception, both of what it actually means to be a Christian and a disciple, and of how God works. God most certainly can and does do so. As Paul wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians, God explicitly doesn’t call those who have natural advantages where their flesh is concerned. He explicitly calls those who are disadvantaged, those who are weak, and those who have disabilities.  

      Why does He do this? Because the disability offers both a disadvantage and an advantage. It is a disadvantage in that the person cannot function "normally" in such situations, becomes overwhelmed all too easily, is awkward, and has trouble relating to those to whom he is ministering. So, where the flesh is concerned, and for what most congregations are looking because they misunderstand what discipleship is about, it is a disadvantage. For them, church is about listening to sermons and socializing and being relational with like minded friends. While they talk about the Spirit, their practice and thinking are rooted and grounded in the flesh and the physical. For most congregations, they “set their minds on earthly things,” as Paul wrote.

     But for the same reasons it is a disadvantage for the flesh, it is an advantage where the Spirit of Christ is concerned, because when the Spirit is in control, there can be no doubt. This person becomes a living, breathing example of the difference between functioning from the flesh and functioning from the Spirit, because when he is functioning from the Spirit of Christ, he all of the sudden appears "normal," functional, social, capable of teaching and preaching, and capable of mirroring others emotions and feelings when, by all rights, such things should be impossible. This person functionally disabled according to the flesh yet called by God becomes the lesson himself just by being who he is and submitting to and cooperating with the Spirit of Christ.

     And many congregations and church-goers do not understand the lesson, or even its possibility, because they do not understand what being a disciple of Jesus Christ, a “Christian,” actually means. They make a great pretense about being imputed with the “righteousness” of Christ for salvation, but don’t understand that it is not a pretend “righteousness” or right state of being, but His actual right state of being which assumes control of the behavior of the person who submits to and cooperates with the Spirit of Christ. It is not a mere facade that fools God into letting them into heaven, but it is the power and presence of Jesus Christ Himself that manifests within this person who voluntarily cedes control of his words and actions to Him.

     With this understanding, the person with ASD, ADHD, or any other neurodivergence who learns and disciplines himself to disengage from his own malfunctioning behavioral responses and engage with the Spirit of Christ so that He becomes the source of behavior becomes God’s living, explicit, and undeniable object lesson of what it means to be a disciple, a “Christian” in the original, most genuine sense. That is, a person who manifests Jesus Christ.

     Some time ago, I watched a movie about a man with Tourette Syndrome who became an elementary school teacher. He had the passion and the calling for it, but was told again and again how he just couldn’t do it because of his disability. He was discriminated against at the university because of it. School after school wouldn’t hire him until one decided to give him a try, feeling as though they would be hypocrites if they didn’t. He became the best teacher in the school, and would later win an award as the best teacher in his state.

      Never assume that God can’t use or isn’t calling someone because they are neurodivergent, or have a disorder or disability in some way. These are the people God DOES call precisely because of their obvious weaknesses. It’s in their weaknesses that His power and presence are seen more clearly.

Who Really Needs the Blood? Man or God?

      As I’ve started re-reading “The Normal Christian Life,” one line has stood out to me in the opening chapter with which I now take issue. In the book, he states, “the Blood is for God,” and takes a very Reformationist stance towards total depravity, condemnation, and the need for Christ’s blood sacrifice, or any blood sacrifice for that matter, in order for God to be able to forgive us. The problem is that God Himself has said otherwise in several places in, not the New Testament, but the Old Testament itself.

      In the Psalms, David writes, “For You do not desire sacrifice or I would give it; a burnt offering you would not accept. My sacrifice, O God, is a contrite spirit; a contrite, humbled heart, O God, You will not scorn.” (51:18-19, NABRE) And in the preceding psalm he writes, “Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of he-goats? Offer praise as your sacrifice to God; fulfill your vows to the Most High.” 

     And in Isaiah 1:11-17, God says explicitly, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” (KJV) 

     Furthermore, in Ezekiel 18 He also says explicitly, “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” (21-24, KJV) 

     Here the example of the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-24 should also be brought up. The father, who is meant to represent God in the parable, didn’t require restitution or a blood sacrifice in order to forgive his son. He was just waiting for his son to come to his senses and come home.

     So then, why did God commission the sacrifices in the first place? Simply put, He didn’t. People were already sacrificing in 1500 B.C.E. and for millennia prior to that. Sacrifices had a number of meanings in ancient cultures, and in ancient Middle Eastern cultures in particular. One of the more relevant meanings is that sacrificing an animal was the way one might sign a contract. That is, it signified that what happened to the animal would also happen to the person who broke his side of the agreement. Sacrifices were like slavery or polygamy in that God did not commission or initiate them in the Mosaic Law, He regulated already existing cultural practices with specific limitations and purposes with a keen eye towards protecting the vulnerable.

     In the case of animal sacrifices, God regulated them towards specific purposes, in specific ways, and in specific places. Much is made of the sacrifices for sins with regards to blood being necessary to forgive, but a careful reading of Leviticus, and the actual instructions for these sacrifices reveal two things. The first is that the “sin sacrifices” were for unintentional violations and mistakes which, when discovered, would make the person feel guilty. In other words, these sacrifices were commissioned to alleviate the guilt the person might feel for making their mistake. The second thing Leviticus is clear on is that there is no sacrifice available for intentional wrongdoing. Instead, if someone intentionally committed murder, the consequence was death. If someone intentionally committed adultery, the consequence was death. The same is true of disrespecting one’s parents. Theft was to be dealt with by repayment with 300% interest. But the point is that it was never written into the Mosaic sacrificial system that if someone intentionally violated someone else that they could offer a blood sacrifice and it would be forgiven. There was always a consequence, and this is the context of the forgiveness which God talks about in Ezekiel 18, where He says that it is the soul that sins that will die, literally speaking of the consequence of intentional wrongdoing. As the author of Hebrews also notes, when someone sins intentionally, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.

     Why did He then commission the sin sacrifices? He did this not for His own sake, but for the sake of our faulty human consciences. As far as anyone knows, and as far as any studies on the issue have confirmed, human beings are the only animal on the planet that feels guilt. This is because we are also the only animal on the planet that differentiates between “right” actions and behaviors and “wrong” actions and behaviors. In short, we feel guilty when we do something that we believe to be wrong in some way. We experience what psychologists call “cognitive dissonance” where a person’s behavior does not align with their belief system. Guilt is painful, and it can drive a person into further self-destructive behaviors as that person seeks to cope with it leading to genuine mental and psychological disorders as the mind tries to defend itself against what it perceives as a fatal error or contradiction (in the programming sense). Guilt can frequently only be alleviated by forgiveness, both from the person violated and the person who did the violating themselves. This being said, the faulty human conscience, depending on the presumed severity of the violation, tends to question that forgiveness even when verbally given and restitution has been made.

      The sacrifices for unintentional wrongdoing were commissioned in order to deal with that psychological guilt. As a sacrifice, culturally speaking, it was a contract literally written in blood that forgiveness would be granted by God who accepted the slaughtered animal as restitution. Did God actually need the slaughtered animal to forgive? Of course not. He understands human beings are malfunctioning and make mistakes, and He doesn’t actually hold it against them. But this was about restoring the human being’s offended conscience and preventing psychological decline, not about God’s need for blood. The sacrifices provided the same psychological benefit that Confession and absolution with a priest, and being told verbally that one is forgiven and absolved, does in modern religious practice.

     To say that God needed Jesus Christ to be tortured, crucified, and die on the cross in order to be able to forgive human beings of their violations and wrongdoing actually runs contrary to what God Himself says in the Old Testament about what He requires in order for forgiveness to be granted, and that is a change of mind, a turning away from one’s harmful behavior, and coming to one’s senses about it. In reality, like the father in the parable, he’s just waiting for his child to “wake up” and come home. This being said, if someone does actually believes Jesus and seeks to follow His Way, is this not a change of mind about his errors and wrongdoing? Is this not a turning away from one’s harmful behaviors? Is this not coming to one’s senses about it? Choosing to become His disciple and learning to imitate Him and follow His Way is all of these things, so of course someone who actually puts their trust in Jesus Christ to operate within them and through them is going to experience that forgiveness. The disciples of Jesus Christ would have experienced that forgiveness long before His death, burial, and resurrection, and would have experienced it without it, because choosing to follow the Way is all of these things. 

      God did not and does not need blood to forgive. He doesn’t need guarantees to hold Him to it. His “yes” means “yes,” and if He says He will do something, then He will do it. Period. It is only our malfunctioning minds as human beings that need these things in order to believe something which He says He will do. And so God obliges out of His mercy, and His compassion for our state of psychological error.

The RPG of Life and the Player Character

     The most dangerous mistake anyone playing a role playing game can make is confusing themselves with their characters or avatars. Fortunately, it's fairly rare that it happens, but, as I understand it, it can and does happen. When it does, the person can spiral into self-destruction.

      Role playing games involve making choices and decisions as your character would, and speaking and acting within that world as your character would. Some RPG gamers take on whole other personalities with elaborate backstories which adds depth and richness to the player's experience. This can be true for tabletop RPGs, or sometimes for Online RPGs depending on the server and the players in question. The chance to escape and experience something new, exotic, and adventurous while still remaining completely safe and isolated from the dangers within that world can be both fun and rewarding. It can bring out qualities in a person which they might not have even known were there as your character, or your "avatar" ventures forth.

     Something which has been emphasized and reinforced with me recently is that the bodies we inhabit, and the lives we live here and now are much like this as well. The real person, the "player," could be called one's "consciousness" or one's "soul," while our physical bodies and the lives we live are our avatars or player characters. The soul, the actual "person," remains completely safe no matter what happens to the body in this life. It doesn't matter if the body is harmed, tortured, or killed. The soul remains safe the same way the player remains safe and unharmed if one's avatar is killed in, say, World of Warcraft.

     Part of our biggest problem as human beings is that we tend to confuse who we are with the character we're playing at the moment, and this leads to most of our misery and fear with what happens within this RPG we call "life." The natural state of the soul apart from the body, as can be evidenced by many out of body NDE experiences, is peace, patience, calmness, love, joy, and so on. It is only as we confuse ourselves with our bodies and the roles we play that we become afraid and allow our characters or avatars, our bodies, to dictate to the soul who it is supposed to be.

     In order to play the game in a healthy way, we always have to keep in mind that we ourselves are neither our characters nor our avatars, and eventually, the game has to end and we have to return to the real world.

When the Self Dies, It Dies Hard

 "When the self dies, it dies hard." - Watchman Nee

     I remember reading these words from Watchman Nee's book "The Normal Christian Life" thirty years ago now. For those who don't know, this book is Watchman Nee's commentary on Romans 1-8, with a special focus on chapters 6-8, but it was much more than that. It was my first real "manual" to understanding what dying with Christ and walking in the Spirit meant. Looking back at it now, I know I didn't understand most of what he was talking about then, but it set me on a path to try and discover just what Paul meant, and one that's been going on since that point in time.

     One might equate the "ego" with the "self" which Watchman Nee wrote about, and I don't think they'd be wrong. If this is the case, then I can attest to the truth of this statement, because I've been wrestling with my ego for a very long time. What's almost ironic about this is that it's my ego continuously trying to prove itself, and continuously botching it. Why do I take certain things so personally? My ego. I become fearful, angry, and defensive if I feel like the things with which I most self-identify come under attack. And really, not I per se, but any threat to the ego triggers this malfunctioning survival response about which I have written so much. It constantly gets in the way of my discipleship to the Way because it is the thing to which I am most attached either positively or negatively.

      God knows this very well. I have often thought that it is because of my ego that He has not permitted me to get the Master's, and has not permitted me to remain in a traditional pastorate, or a teaching position, or anything for which I was trained, educated, and am actually capable. To do so would have been far more harmful for me spiritually, and possibly far more harmful for those around me.

      In one of my favorite quotes, the Buddha said, "Where self is, truth is not. Where truth is, self is not." The ego, the self, is the result of the malfunctioning brain trying to cope with not being able to maintain a constant connection with God the Father, which would be our natural state. It is entirely born of this malfunctioning survival response, deriving an identity from what pleases and what displeases, and is really a product of this perpetual panic mode which cuts us off. Fear, or panic, and Love cannot coexist in the same place. If love is truth, and self is the result of fear, than just as the Buddha said, "Where fear is, love is not. Where love is, fear is not." And also John who wrote, "Love brought to completion tosses fear [panic] outside."

     For me, I think I cling to the things which comprise my ego, my self-identity, because without them I feel worthless. I tell myself, unconsciously, that I have no value without what I know, what I can do, and who I think myself to be. I have no meaning. And so this triggers this malfunctioning survival response. But all of these things are in fact lies. Because meaning has nothing to do with who I think myself to be, but meaning has to do with how I treat others. Meaning has to do with how I empathize, how I see myself in others, and them in me. 

     When this body finally dies, and the malfunctioning brain dies with it, there will be nothing left of the self-identity I cling so fiercely to, being a product of a malfunctioning physical brain. And when I stand and experience that life review or judgment seat, it won't be based on what I knew, what I could do, or how great I was. It will be based on how loving, how compassionate, and how kind I was to those around me.

How are We Judged?

 "Inasmuch as you did this to the least of these My brothers, you did it also to Me."

     Let's talk about judgment for a moment. This is the thing which virtually all modern Christian argument and theology centers around, the central idea being that judgment is based on what particular doctrine or theology about God, Jesus, and, in some churches, a host of other bullet points one might hold. The greatest driver of fear is that we will be condemned if we don't believe the right thing.

     But this isn't what Jesus said. Jesus said people would be separated based on how they treated other people when He talked about judging the "sheep" and the "goats," and in particular, how they treated the most vulnerable. It wasn't a matter of how well one could keep the rules, but whether one is compassionate, kind, and loving towards others. In other words, this judgment is boiled down to two concepts or commandments, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "love your neighbor as yourself."

     But someone might say, "The commandment to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, all of your soul, all of your strength, and all of your mind is the most important. Jesus said that too." Absolutely! But as John wrote, how can you love God whom you haven't laid eyes on, and hate your brother whom you have laid eyes on? You can't. When we love God, we love those around us, our neighbors, our brothers, and our enemies. When we love those around us, we love God. We we treat others as we want to be treated, we are treating God the same way. As Jesus said, "Inasmuch as you did this to the least of these My brothers, you did it also to Me." Therefore, you cannot love God without keeping this primary and core concept upon which this judgment which Jesus talked about is based, that is, loving your neighbor as yourself, and treating others as you want to be treated. There is no work around, no "religious exemption," and no real excuse. As Jesus also said, quoting the prophet, "I want mercy and not sacrifice." He wants compassion and empathy for other people, not religious belief or observance.

     What's really interesting is that this is exactly what is reported in Near Death Experiences. When a life review is reported, there are always the same features. They see the scenes of their lives replayed with perfect clarity and accuracy, but they don't just see it. They experience it from the viewpoint of the people on the receiving end of their words and actions. If the person was cruel, they feel that cruelty themselves, if they were kind, they feel that kindness themselves. And what is really interesting, is that they become their own judges based on how they experience it, and frequently, while Jesus Himself stands next to them. Nothing is forgotten, even if everything is ultimately forgiven.

      What is also really interesting, is that hellish NDEs don't start there. They start in torment without the life review. Unless I'm mistaken, the people most likely to experience a hellish NDE are the self-righteous, religious or not, and regardless of what they profess to believe about Jesus. I remember reading one account about a "devout Christian church lady" who had a hellish experience. Her response to it was, "What was I doing all of this for if this is what's going to happen to me?"

     God is not mocked. He can't be fooled by appearances or by professions of faith. And whatever you plant, you harvest. Period.

     You believe in Jesus? Awesome. So do the fallen angels. If you really believe in Jesus, you'll do what He taught and walk as He walked.

On NDEs, Past Life Memories, and Being an Honest and Unhypocritical Theologian

     I started reading Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences by Jeffrey Long, M.D. and Paul Perry the other day. This is in addition to another book I've read on the subject, Proof of Heaven written by a neuroscientist named Eben Alexander, M.D. about his own near death experience while he was brain dead for a week. What strikes me most about all of these accounts that I have read, and watched on YouTube, is the remarkable consistency between them, and the sheer number of them which are consistent. But the thing which makes me sit up and pay attention to them is that they are eyewitness accounts of what awaits after death, something which Christian theologians, let's face it, really can only speculate and theorize on based on what previous theologians have theorized and speculated on for the last 2000 years. It's like the paleontologist trying to piece together what an ancient animal looked and acted like as compared to actually being able to observe living animals in their own natural habitat like in the Jurassic World movies. You can theorize all you want and come up with dogmatic beliefs about something, but once you have eyewitness observations of that subject of study all of those theories and dogmas about it become pretty worthless.

     The same is true of the accounts of children reporting memories of previous lives as documented by the University of Virginia, and recounted in the book Before: Children's Memories of Previous Lives by Jim B. Tucker, M.D. His department at the university has been recording, documenting, and investigating these accounts since the 1960s or so, and come up with documented cases that genuinely throw any theological arguments against reincarnation or past lives into the trash heap. They have 2500 such documented cases on record. Again, you can cite creeds, councils, and theologians until you are blue in the face, but once you have documented, verifiable eyewitnesses and evidence, all such doctrines and dogmas against it are pretty worthless.

     And these things are threatening to those established theological and religious structures. I know they were certainly threatening to my own worldview when I first heard of them and started taking an honest look at the evidence. I used to think they were just scattered delusionals seeking attention. But the truth is far, far different from what I was led to believe. If I was going to be an honest theologian, and an honest "Christian," I couldn't just ignore it or dismiss it any more regardless of how much it would require a complete overhaul of my "religious worldview." If I accept the testimony of twelve eyewitnesses from two thousand years ago that a Man rose from the dead, I can't ignore the testimony from hundreds of eyewitnesses on these subjects without being a hypocrite.

     As an honest theologian, I don't think the testimony from NDEs and very young children reporting memories from past lives can be ignored or just dismissed. There's just too much consistency with the NDEs and too many reports, 1300 on the NDERF website alone, to ignore. The same is true with the very young children reporting memories from past lives, 2500 documented cases. There are too many verified cases where the past life has been genuinely identified to ignore. 

     I accept Prima Scriptura, where the Scriptures are the first authority, but not the only authority. As a theologian who considers all the data and information available, ignoring, dismissing, or outright attacking these documented cases of eyewitnesses to things that fall squarely within a theologian's field of study strikes me a lot like the Catholic Church ignoring and even excommunicating Galileo's observations and calculations when, of course, he was proven right. 

     Can they be threatening to one's belief structure or worldview? Of course they can be. But any new information which touches on the afterlife is going to be threatening to one's belief system whether it's genuine or not. It's our job to do the hard work of learning the new evidence, vetting it, and if necessary, change our worldview to bring it into line with the new information. It's our job to also do the hard work of changing our interpretation of the Scriptures in the light of the new information, and between the two try to understand what the authors were actually talking about. Theology used to be considered the "Queen of Sciences." It's time we started treating it as a science again with observation of a phenomenon, hypothesis, experimentation or vetting of the evidence, and checking the results against our observations of reality.

Where the New Testament is Concerned, You Have to Unlearn What You Have Learned

 The best way to interpret the New Testament is to ignore the two thousand years of Christian theological writings, Councils, splits, and Reformations that have followed it. The best way to approach it is on its own terms as a product of the first century Hellenistic society of the eastern Mediterranean Roman Empire, and in its own language. The way to understand it is to ignore the anachronisms which modern Christianity frequently thrusts upon it and get into the heads of its authors as much as possible. Frequently, this is called the "literal-historical-grammatical" approach of interpreting the New Testament within the context of itself, and the linguo-cultural context in which it was written.

     Many purport to do just that, but then get tripped up over the Reformation theology of the 1500s, or modern Roman Catholic theology, and still attempt to understand it based on theological interpretations that didn't exist until hundreds of years later.

     Another key to understanding the New Testament is that it is composed basically of letters written to people who already knew what the author was talking about. Even the Gospels themselves were writing about things which nearly everyone in Judea and Galilee at least knew something about first or second hand. When Paul wrote his epistles, he wasn't telling his immediate audience anything they didn't already know. He was reminding them of what he had already said before. In the case of the letter to the Romans, he was writing to an already established church and while he hadn't been there himself, he knew or knew of several people who were already there, and took the time to explain the basics of what he taught. There were a lot of things they assumed their reader or readers would already know because everyone at the time knew.

     In this respect, when we approach the writings of the New Testament, we are approaching them not only with the disadvantage of foreign linguistic, cultural, and societal understandings, we are approaching them with the disadvantage of someone who hasn't been privy to the full ongoing conversations between the authors and the audiences.

     When you come to read what Paul wrote, what John wrote, or what Peter wrote, you are playing catch up. Paul wasn't a Protestant or a Catholic. Neither was Matthew or Luke or John. By the time they wrote, they might have been ethnically Jewish, but just for safety's sake, they had figuratively and literally distanced themselves from Judea and the Judeans. And the Judaism with which they were familiar had more in common with the Sunni or Shiites of the Middle East today than with modern American Zionist Judaism, either reformed or conservative.

     You can't interpret the New Testament with the modern understanding of an American Christian, either Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, and have it actually mean what the original authors intended. As Yoda told his new trainee once upon a time, you have to unlearn what you have learned in order to actually get what these first disciples were actually saying and teaching.