There Is No Point In Judging The Flesh

 It is pointless to try and tame the flesh and bend it to your will. That is, your brain will always see everything in terms of threats and needs, fear and desire. Nothing will really change this because that is what it does. It assesses the threat or need and reacts with fear that either it's going to happen or fear that the need isn't going to be met. It then becomes aggressive (or runs as the case may be). I was reflecting on this thought this morning after watching myself get frustrated with the animals and the extreme heat and reacting badly. I then started feeling really badly and getting upset that I wasn't a better person. Animals are going to be animals. They're not going to act in any other way than they are. I know this. Getting frustrated or angry isn't going to change that, but I still did. It went against my own self perception of a kind person, also generated by the brain. As a result, I then became the threat, and then the cognitive dissonance, the "fatal error," really went into overdrive with guilt, shame, and wondering whether I had really learned or practiced anything at all.
     And then I remembered, that's the point. Like the animals, the flesh, the dysfunctional survival system in the brain and the thoughts which it generates and reacts to, is going to do what it's going to do. That's not going to change until the flesh dies. Being upset that "I'm not a better person" is pointless. I'm not my brain, my thoughts, or even my body. It's my choice whether or not to confuse myself with the flesh. It's my choice whether or not to be aware of this and to let go of obeying its responses and taking the bait it drops. It's my choice to operate according to the Spirit, the Logos, or not.
      This "real me" is quiet. It's patient. It loves, taking no thought for itself because it doesn't need to. It's at peace. This "real me" doesn't react to anything as either a threat or a need because nothing can threaten it and it has no needs. Those things belong to the flesh, the brain, the body. The "real me" functions connected to the Head, the "seminal Logos," who is Jesus Christ. 
      There is no point in judging the flesh. It's going to react how it's going to react. It's going to do what it's going to do. It is neither good nor evil. It just is. It is the flesh judging the flesh in a downward spiral whether it agrees with its own reactions or not. Just be aware of it and do not engage with it. Just be aware of your thoughts, but do not let them dictate to you. Engage with the Spirit. Ask Him to act and speak through you with intention and He will. But getting upset because your flesh does not change is pointless. 

Guilt Is Not From God

      Guilt is not from God. We do not feel guilty because God is making us feel guilty. Guilt is a product of our common human malfunction. It is the result of something we’ve done or said conflicting with our own self-image as a morally good person. In psychology, this is called “cognitive dissonance.” The same can be said for shame, which is linked to guilt. This is why guilt and shame can linger over mistakes made far in the past even after we learn that we are forgiven by God. It is not God who needs to forgive because He was never holding those things which caused guilt and shame against us to begin with. It is not God who needs to forgive, it is we ourselves who need to accept that these things happened, drop them, and let them go. He does not hold our mistakes against us, and He is not the one who incites guilt within ourselves. That is caused by our own brains, our own amygdalae specifically, the cognitive dissonance when we have done something contrary to what we believe to be the "good" or "right" thing and it conflicts with our self-image as a "good" person.
     This is why there were sacrifices for unintentional wrongdoing in the Mosaic Law, but no sacrifices for intentional wrongdoing. There were sacrifices meant to assuage or propitiate the internal guilt felt for mistakes and wrongs committed unintentionally. By performing a symbolic action to “atone” for that unintentional wrong, that mistake, the internal guilt and shame can be appeased. These were for our psychological health, not for any need of “justice” on His part. But when someone did something wrong intentionally, they were meant to suffer the consequences of their actions as a means of correction. This is also why the Sanctuary cities existed for people who committed unintentional homicide. It was a mistake, and so He meant to shield them from avengers. This is why David was made to suffer for Uriah’s death and for adultery with his wife. It was a corrective action because David’s wrongdoing was intentional. God’s purpose was not to destroy David, but to correct and teach him. This is His purpose with every soul that He would bring that soul to completion. 
     God's justice is not our justice. God doesn't punish us for our mistakes, especially those we never intended to make. He corrects us for when we intentionally do wrong, but the intention of the correction is to set us on the right path like any good Father would do. It is not retribution for retribution’s sake. God does not hold our wrongs against us, and especially not to torture us forever for them. His goal is reconciliation and restoration, maturity, and union with Himself for all of us, not losing any of us to be tortured forever. He is the one who will leave the ninety nine to seek and save the one. He is the Father who takes no thought for the past wrongs of his son but runs to embrace him when he comes to his senses and comes home.

What "Sin" or the "Sin Nature" Actually Is

 Around 2014-15, I started trying to understand what "sin" actually is from two things. First, the actual meanings of the words "khata'," in the Old Testament, and "hamartia," in the New Testament, in the original languages. The former is an archery term and the latter a javelin throwing term and both meaning the same thing, "to miss the target". What I came to discover the more I looked into "hamartia" in particular, being in the language of the New Testament, was that there was an implied unintentionality to this word. This comes out actually very strongly in the Greek Septuagint translation of Leviticus, for example, where there were sacrifices made available for "hamartia" but no sacrifices made available for intentional wrongdoing. In other words, if someone made a mistake, a sacrifice could be brought. If someone deliberately did something, no sacrifice was available for propitiation but that person had to suffer the penalty which the Torah prescribed. In ancient Greek, this word came to mean error, mistake, or the "fatal flaw" by which a hero perished in Greek Tragedy. In other words, it's most basic meaning is that something happened which wasn't intended to or supposed to happen. As such, I have also come to render it at times as "malfunction," or when it is in the plural, "malfunctioning behaviors."

The second thing I started from was two things Paul said about hamartia in Romans which I think have been overlooked too much. The first thing he says in Romans 5 is that it is inherited in that our first ancestor "sinned" so too all human beings descended from him are afflicted with it. The second thing he says is in Romans 7, and this is really interesting to me because he says that it is located "in the flesh." As you probably know, the word here is "sarx" and it literally means the flesh of an animal or human being, that is, the meat, skin, organs, etc. I know the NIV and maybe a few others render it "sin nature" but this is an interpretive translation and not a literal one. It's based on the translator's own theological biases. Paul located hamartia within the physical, biological flesh of a human being. So, according to Paul, Hamartia is inherited from our first ancestor and it is physically or biologically based. It should be noted that, contrary to popular theological teaching, nowhere in Scripture is "sin" ever called "spiritual" or implied to be of a "spiritual" nature.

Once I came to this conclusion, I asked two questions, "What if Paul meant what he literally said?" and "Is there any way to locate where 'in the flesh' it might be?" This led to my taking a psychology major at Orange Coast College. I reasoned that if hamartia is located "in the flesh" then it has to be in the brain because it deals with human behavior, and the source of human behavior is in the brain. Paul described it as an "error" or a "malfunction" or "fatal flaw" when he used the word hamartia. This suggested that there was a flaw or an error in the human brain. As I went through my coursework, one particular part of the brain stood out: the limbic system and specifically the hypothalamus and the amygdala. These are the parts of the brain responsible for our survival responses of fear, aggression, feeding, and sex, and in women, childbirth (this last one caught my attention because of Genesis 3). The hypothalamus is what controls these responses, but the amygdala is kind of like the gateway to the hypothalamus. It essentially tells the hypothalamus when to engage and when not to.

One of the things I did next was I went back and looked at everything Paul described as the "works of the flesh," now understanding this in a far more literal sense. In particular in Galatians, what I saw now was that every single thing Paul lists, every single behavior, can be attributed to one or more of these survival responses in some way. People commit murder out of fear. They steal out of fear. They commit adultery out of the drive for sex. They overeat or overindulge out of the drive to eat. All of these are neurologically based, biologically based responses to different situations and stimuli. Any behavior born from the fear, aggression, feeding, or sex response is a "work of the flesh" as contrasted with the "fruit of the Spirit" which is not born from "the flesh," that is, anything biologically based.

One of the things about the brain's survival response system is that, in virtually all other animals, it is meant to deal with physical threats or needs. That is, if an animal is threatened, it responds by either running from the threat or attempting to fight or destroy the threat. Once the threat is averted, the system is meant to shut down. Again, if an animal needs food, it directs the animal to eat. It also controls the sexual drive meant for reproduction in order for the animal to propagate. But once these needs are met, it is meant to go back into standby.

It does not fully do this in human beings, and it does not just do this with perceived physical threats and needs. Instead, it does it with things remembered or imagined. It does it with perceived likes or dislikes. It does it when one's "self-identity" is threatened, or it feels the need to propagate the things with which the self identifies. In short, it does it with perceived physical, psychological, emotional, and even spiritual needs or threats. In other words, it does it with "everything." It is my contention that this is also the source of what we call "good" and "bad" or "evil." Those things we like are treated as needs and therefore "good". Those things we dislike for any reason are treated as "threats" and are dealt with accordingly. We tend to crave and hoard those things we like, and we tend to push away, run from, or attempt to destroy those things we dislike. In short, our survival response system as human beings is stuck in overdrive, or is at least way too sensitive and far more sensitive then it was ever intended to be.

Another thing I ran into in my studies of this is that the human amygdala is disproportionately larger than in any other primate. It is four times larger than our closest genetic animal cousins the chimpanzee and the bonobo. Recently, I read an article where a correlation was made between a larger left amygdala and a higher intolerance for differences. So, the size of the amygdala directly impacts the scope of its function. My conclusion to all of this is that, because of an abnormal enlargement, relatively speaking, our amygdala as human beings is reacting and responding to things as threats or needs that it was never originally designed to react to. Now, this does not make it "evil," nor what it is trying to do "evil." It means though that it is not functioning in the way it was supposed to or intended to. In short, it is attempting to fulfill its original program by protecting us from threats and fulfilling physical needs but, I believe the evidence points to, its physical parameters have changed and now it's "malfunctioning." I had some experience with a similar problem with a machine in a job I once worked as a Laser Drill Technician where the machine was still following its program, but a slight flaw with the power output produced circuit boards that were entirely useless (I lost my job over that). Even the smallest change in the hardware parameters produced catastrophic results, and it is a similar thing with our amygdala.

So, our Hamartia is an enlarged amygdala processing "everything" as either a survival threat or a survival need and attempting to respond accordingly and mostly with fear of some degree. This is why I liken us to a child with a neurodevelopmental or behavioral disorder, because in a way, that is exactly what is happening. Now as to how it happened, my hypothesis is that it had something to do with a reaction to something found in the fruit which our ancestors ate. We know compounds can alter human genetics both immediately and in pregnancy, and some compounds can alter genes and pass down mutations. I think something in it caused our amygdalas to enlarge more than they were supposed to producing the aberrant, "sinful" behaviors as it attempted to protect us from things it really didn't need to.

Jesus Taught Detachment

 What most Christians don't realize is that one of the core principles Jesus taught is detachment. That is, a letting go. When you look carefully, it undergirds everything He teaches in the Gospels right there along with loving kindness and compassion.
     Think about the conditions of discipleship laid out expressly in Luke. If you're too attached to your family relationships, you can't be His disciple. If you're too attached to your possessions, you can't be His disciple. If you're too attached to your own soul or self-identity, you can't be His disciple. 
     Jesus taught, "Don't judge and you won't be judged." Judgment is a kind of attachment to beliefs about right and wrong. Jesus taught "forgive and you will be forgiven." The word translated as forgive literally means "to drop from the hand," that is, to let go or to detach. 
     Think about the conditions He laid out for both the twelve and the seventy He sent out to prepare the towns and cities for His visits. Take nothing with you. Or the condition he laid on the "rich young ruler" when asked what he needed to do to inherit eternal life, "go, sell everything you own, give it to the poor, then come and follow Me."
     Being a disciple of Jesus Christ, learning how to live as Jesus taught and walk as He walked, requires that we let go of... "everything" that would keep us from it. Why? Because He did. Jesus had let go of family that would have held Him back. He let go of any possessions or sense of a stable job or income. He let go of everything that did not contribute to His one goal of doing what His Father wanted. His disciples were required to live the same way. Jesus practiced detachment.
      We don't like this word because we associate caring with attachment. We associate love with attachment. How can you love if you have no attachment to a thing? But that's the dysfunctional human brain talking. Attachment is not love. It's not kindness. Attachment is about what someone or something means to you. What they can do for you. Love is about what you can do for the other person. Love and attachment are two very different things. Genuine love lets the other person go for them to be who they were meant to be. It does not cling, and it does not push away. It wants the best for the other person. Genuine love understands that things, people, ideas, and identities change, grow, and move on and it lets them. It is not unseated because someone or something is no longer a part of its life for a time. It does not cling to them.
     The human brain doesn't like this. It clings to things and people it thinks it needs to survive, and it equates "happiness" with survival. It will enslave itself to the service or care of a thing or a person if it means it gets to be happy, if it gets to receive dopamine or serotonin from it. We call this addiction. Jesus required His disciples to break their addictions because they weren't going to be able to live as He taught and walk as He walked if they didn't. 

What Does It Mean To Worship?

 What does it mean to worship?
In the Greek text of the New Testament, there are two words usually used, "latreuo" and "proskuneo". The first one means in ancient Greek something like "to serve as a priest in religious rites" while the second means "to prostrate oneself before someone". Think about those two pictures which these words give. The primary concept of worship in the language and culture of the New Testament is to serve and obey the object of that worship. What does "to serve" mean? It means to do whatever that person tells you to do. Again, it means to obey and attend to the object of that service in question.
        Now, in John 4, Jesus tells the woman at the well that God is Spirit, and those prostrating themselves before (worshiping) Him must do so with Spirit and with Truth. It's not optional. So, if someone is to actually "worship" God, it must be done with Spirit and with Truth. That is, that person must serve and obey Him honestly and not with the flesh, but with the Spirit. Anything else is not actually worship. And this holds up when we look at the Old Testament prophets who were very clear that God despised the "worship" of those who kept His festivals but trampled on the poor, the outcast, the widow, and the orphan. They were going through the motions, but they were neither serving nor obeying what He actually wanted which was mercy, compassion, fairness, and love.
     There are many in churches today who sing the songs, get emotional, recite the liturgies, perform the sacraments, and hit all the right performative notes, but through their words and actions outside, or often even inside, disregard, disobey, and make light of what He actually wants. They explain it away as common sense or being practical. These people are not worshiping Him at all.
     Genuine worship of the God and Father of Jesus Christ is, first and foremost to love the person next to you like yourself. It is to treat others as you want to be treated. It is to forgive, and to not pass judgment. It is to care for the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner and to defend them. These are the acts of worship which He has repeatedly asked for. Not songs. Not liturgy. Not sacrifices. Not performative shows and theater. Love. Compassion. Mercy.
     Until you engage with these, until you do these things, you are not worshiping Him and it's best to keep your songs, liturgies, and religious rites to yourself. They disgust Him.

The Divinity of Jesus Christ

 People will argue about Jesus' divinity. Christians have been somewhat debating what it means since the first century. Jesus Himself never denied His own divinity, but in the passage where He quotes the psalm which says, "I said you are gods" and speaking to human beings, He also affirmed a divinity for other human beings as well. That it was John who recorded this is no accident.
     The key to understanding what this means is when John calls Jesus the "Logos". This was not a new concept to the first century reader. This was an old idea first really conceptualized among the Stoic philosophers. Just about everything Paul says about "the Christ" the first and second century Stoics said about the Logos. The Logos was the "firstborn of all creation" by "the God". Every human being carried a piece, shred, or part of the Logos while the "seminal Logos" was the point of origin and "head" over all. John records that the Logos existed "next to" the God, and that the Logos was Deity, that is, the Logos was of the same "substance" as the God yet distinct from the God. A Stoic would have 100% agreed with this statement. But what this also means is that every human being carries a shred or piece of the divine within themselves and are themselves a part of the greater whole of the Logos.
     The implication of John's statement that "the Logos became flesh and camped out among us" is that this is the “seminal” Logos, the Logos from which all others come, who took on flesh, as obviously a piece of the Logos takes on flesh every time a human being is born. And He took on flesh without the error which afflicts the rest of us which meant that He was in full possession or communion with the divine from His birth. The Logos was calling the God His Father, again a statement no Stoic would argue with, and Stoicism was as ubiquitous a worldview in the first century Roman empire as Christian evangelicalism is today.
     The key here is that Jesus never limited the God's fatherhood to just Himself. Even in "the Lord's Prayer" it begins with "Our Father..." not "My Father". And then there's the prayer in John 17 where Jesus prays, "that they may all be one, just as you Father are in Me, and I in them, so that they might be one in us." Interesting thing about the Greek of "one" in this passage. It's neuter. It literally means, "one thing." And of course there's Paul's description of the "Body of Christ" where Christ is the Head and the rest of us are body parts of the same body. Again, swap out the word "Christ" for "Logos" and it becomes instantly agreeable to a Stoic mind. So the thing, if anything, the Church has missed in the last 2,000 years, and not all of it, is that the divinity which Jesus owned He didn't limit to Himself. Instead, He was trying to teach His disciples how to access and live in it for themselves by connecting to and staying put within Himself, that is, the Logos.

"Wherever you are, I Am"

 "Wherever you are, I Am."
This is the message I got this morning.
It's funny, a while ago I started reading many of the books I was warned against by my initial Christian faith tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Gospel of Buddha, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, and many others. And instead of leading me away from Jesus Christ, they all led me straight back to Him, complimenting His teachings and making me see them in different ways. I started asking questions, started learning psychology and the workings of the brain in order to answer those questions, and it still led me straight back to Him. Not to the interpretations or theology about Him, but to Him. Now, I've been watching the series "Lucifer" of all things, where the actual devil is the main protagonist "anti-hero", and still, it leads me back to Him and His Father who is love who isn't willing that any should be destroyed but that all should come to redemption.
     In Evangelical Protestantism, really, you're taught to be afraid of a lot of things, depending on the church in question. You're taught to stay away from anything which might disagree. You're taught to not question. You're taught the devil is this huge monster waiting for you to put a toe out of line. Fear is what laces everything. Somehow God is omnipresent, but not in those dark spaces where they don't want you to look. God is everywhere, but apparently not in hell. God is infinite except for these boundaries here.
      God is everywhere, even in the darkness. The true darkness is only you shutting your eyes and plugging your ears to Him. He hasn't gone anywhere. God reveals Himself in everything if you've eyes to see and ears to hear. 
     The other day I got acquainted with a song I had only heard a couple of times before, and then only parts of it in passing, "One of Us," by Joan Osborne. It asks the question, "What if God was one of us?" As I learned, upon its release, many within evangelical protestantism condemned it as blasphemous. Many protested at her concerts.
     But isn't this question answered by the incarnation? You know, when God actually became one of us? When divinity was born as a human being who had to eat, sleep, and poop like the rest of us? Who sweated, got tired, got thirsty, had to deal with a plugged nose every once in a while, and so on?
     It was Mother St. Theresa of Calcutta who said that she saw the face of Christ in the poor and dying she served, and when she washed them, stayed with them as they were dying, and took care of them, she was doing so to Christ.
      What if God was one of us?
     It was Jesus Himself who said whoever feeds the hungry, gives water to the thirsty, visits the sick or the imprisoned, clothes the naked, welcomes the foreigner, that they do it to Him. Jesus was directly saying that how we treat others is how we treat Him. He was also asking the question, "What if God was one of us?" and answering it with, "Treat every human being as if it was Him."
     Sometimes I think the god that many churches want is Zeus, or Ba'al, or Marduk, or one of the pagan warrior gods who, if you propitiate them enough they'll fight for you and give you what you ask. But that's not the God and Father of our Owner Jesus Christ. The God who has already revealed Himself through His Son, and continues to reveal Himself within and through each one of us as He works to reconcile each and every one of us to Himself and will not stop or give up until He has accomplished His goal. He doesn't need to conquer. He already owns everything and only loans it to us for a few moments. He's already given us everything we could ever need. We're the ones who hoard it and keep it from each other. He's always present and willing to work with us and bring us into union with Himself. We're the ones who choose blindness to Him.
     "Wherever you are, I Am." That's the message He gives this morning. He'll meet us right where we're at, and will gently guide us with our cooperation like a guide to a stubborn blind man to where we need to go.