Form a clear picture of your desire with the understanding that, by so doing, you impress your desire upon the Creative Life Force. This understanding takes this first step out of the region of fantasy.
Last week I gave an overview of five step of the manifestation process originally given by Thomas Troward in his book, The Edinburgh Lectures. There is value in further exploration of each of these steps so we may clearly understand their importance in bringing desired change to our own life.
This first step is agreed upon by nearly all who advocate visualization techniques associated with goal setting. In truth, we all carry a picture of the life we believe we deserve, and we are living out that life on a daily basis. The problem with this picture is that it may not be the one we really want. It may be driven by circumstances, talk of hard times, short-sighted opinions of others or the ratings-hungry media.
We need to put forth the effort to define our desire so clearly that we are aware when we drift away from it. A good way to do this is to write it down. Start with a general overview of the thing you would like to see manifest and then rework it until you feel you have a clear statement of the good you desire. Once you have this, ask yourself this question: How would I feel if this desire were manifested now? Spend time considering your feelings and then rewrite your statement in a way that includes them.
A vision consists of an image and a feeling. See yourself free and happy that your desired good has come about. Never see yourself struggling to make it happen. As the step points out, you are impressing your desire upon the Creative Life Force, infinite wisdom and intelligence that knows no restrictions and is never hindered by appearances. You are working in cooperation with God by forming and holding steady to this picture. Read your statement with conviction at least twice a day, once in the morning and once at bedtime, and then throughout your day when possible. Do not struggle to make it true. Know that it is true.
Overview: adapted from The Edinburgh Lectures on Mental Science
By Thomas Troward
Edited by J Douglas Bottorff
These are the steps of the manifestation process according to Thomas Troward. I have taken the liberty of editing them because, reflecting the common writing style of his day, Troward was quite verbose and sometimes difficult to understand. These steps can be useful to anyone interested in setting their life in order based on spiritual principle. 5 part series follows.
Form a clear picture of your desire with the understanding that, by so doing, you impress your desire upon the Creative Life Force. This understanding takes this first step out of the region of fantasy.
Know that you are working with law. With calm expectation of a corresponding result, you know that all necessary conditions will come about in proper order.
Enter your daily routine with the calm assurance that conditions are either present already or will soon present themselves. If you do not see evidence at once, know that the spiritual prototype (your desire) is already in existence.
Wait until some circumstance pointing in the desired direction begins to show itself. It may be small, but it is the type and not the magnitude of the circumstance that is important. This is the first sprouting of the seed.
Do calmly, without excitement, whatever the circumstance seems to require. This will lead to the further unfolding of other circumstances in the same direction. By addressing each one as it appears, you are moving step by step toward the accomplishment of your desire.
Though Mark is placed second in the lineup of gospels, most modern scholars recognize it as the earliest that was written. In composing his gospel, Mark probably drew from a collection of sayings and stories that, for forty years, circulated orally among the early church community. At some point, the decision was made to consolidate and preserve this material in narrative form. The work we now know as the Gospel of Mark was completed just after the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in 70 AD. Matthew and Luke-Acts later used Mark as the basis for their gospels. John was developed from different sources. Since the earliest versions of all the gospels claimed no authorship, we do not know who actually wrote them.
A written account of the teachings and meaning of Jesus would solidify and imbue the orally transmitted story with the stamp of authority. Rather than speculate on what someone had heard, the sect of Judaism known as the followers of the Way (Acts 9:1-2) could now point to an actual document that not only set the record straight, it was the record. But it was intended to be more than just an official accounting. Among scholars, it is widely accepted that the authors of the gospels were neither historians nor biographers. They were evangelists. As such, they took great liberties with historical facts, sayings attributed to Jesus, and essentially invented the narrative itself. Addressing the pressing current issues of their day, they used the figure of Jesus and the power of storytelling to advance the popular understanding of what he had come to represent to a devastated people who had lost their leader, and now the Temple, the very heart of the Jewish universe.
Those who believed Jesus was the expected Messiah had many questions that demanded answers. Things had gone from bad to worse. If he was truly the Messiah, why did he not put the enemies of Israel beneath their feet? Why were these Roman heathens allowed to continue killing disciples and prominent leaders such as Peter, James, and Paul? Where was this kingdom the Messiah was supposed to usher in? With Jerusalem and the Temple now laying in smoldering ruins by Roman hands, the time was ripe for some clear cut answers.
For these reasons, the original meanings of Jesus’ sayings are often distorted or obscured by the evangelist’s storytelling. Under the circumstances, it was not their intention to convey the message Jesus actually presented. To do so, they would be looking to the past. They needed his help now. They needed the hope that only he, with the guidance of the struggling leadership, could inspire. Mark was the one to consolidate and deliver the basic narrative that would become the synoptic template for the good news. John would draw from other sources thirty years later.
Jesus with Clueless Nicodemus
An important issue to consider is whether the gospel writers grasped the mystical aspect of Jesus’ message. The validity of posing this question is justified on the basis that enough of the mystical thread survives to assume it was an important aspect, if not the entire thrust of Jesus’ original message. Here is another example found in the Gospel of Thomas:
Jesus said, “If your leaders say to you, ‘Look, the (Father’s) kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.”
Thomas 3
Today’s mainstream Christian looks to the return of Jesus and the literal establishment of God’s kingdom. Though the notion of an inner kingdom that cannot be observed with the eye runs counter to this view, it is a cornerstone of all mystical traditions. The point of contact with this kingdom of God, the spiritual source of every person, is found at the core of the individual. The above passage is well aligned with this foundational principle. To come to know the truth of one’s spiritual source is the key to liberation from the false perceptual restrictions that bind so many of us.
Jerusalem Sacked, 70 A.D.
It is vital to understand that over the four decades since Jesus’ execution, there were dramatic developments in circumstances. Mark is not writing to the world Jesus lived in. The relative peace of Jesus’ day would have been much more conducive to an inner-directed teaching. It is possible that the evangelists understood the mystical aspects of the original teachings, but for reasons already mentioned, made the decision to not give it the attention Jesus intended. Why would they do this? If he spoke of the kingdom in terms of an inner dimension, as I believe he did, such a message, under the dire circumstances of their day, would seem impotent, an impractical abstraction that would do little to defeat the very real enemy. Mark, after all, made its debut in the midst of a very bloody revolution. Would the idea of an inner kingdom of God seem practical when an overthrow of Roman power was the obvious solution? Both Christians and Jews were under savage attack by the Romans. Church leaders were being put to death. To ensure the survival of the Jesus movement, the message the leadership knew their audience needed and wanted to hear was that the Messiah, Jesus, had indeed been here and he would soon return. And when he returned, he would defeat the tyranny and horror of oppression and destroy these enemies of God. This business about an inner kingdom simply would not carry the weight or inspire the hope that the promise of an imminent overthrow would provide.
We can deduce with relative certainty the various audiences and political climates of the four evangelist. However, we can never really know what was in the minds and hearts of those responsible for producing the gospels. What we do know is, like a scattering of jewels, fragments of the mystical element survive, not necessarily by design, but because any one of these collected sayings were likely considered too precious to discard. In creating their accounts, the authors did their best to incorporate all material at their disposal, tweaking the context to align with their own narrative. Luke’s use of the passage on the kingdom within (Luke 17:20-21) is a case in point. He seems to have simply copied and pasted it into a spot where it could fit. Remove it and there is no interruption to the flow of the narrative. This suggests to scholars that this was an independent saying that Luke utilized. Again, the gospel writer’s primary purpose was not to present an accurate historical or biographical account of the life and teaching of Jesus. Their purpose was to advance the story that would inspire the most hope within their own Christian community.
Mark, a Collaborative Effort?
Let us return to Mark, the first gospel to appear. There is general agreement among scholars that Mark was written in Rome, though Galilee, Antioch, and southern Syria have also been suggested. Regardless of where it was written, considering the evangelical nature of the work, I believe the case can be made that Mark was not written by a cloistered scribe working alone in the dim light of an oil lamp. Rather, Mark is the product of a collaborative effort. The image of Jesus that emerges in this gospel is not random. In addition to matching the common Jesus lore of the day, it also aligns with Old Testament prophecy. Its creation would have required considerable research, substantial knowledge of the scriptures, and, in all likelihood, a consensus of agreement among the leadership. Like Paul, the leaders of the Jewish-Christian community in Rome may have employed a scribe to commit their narrative to written form, but it would be they, not the scribe, who would oversee its final draft. The input of multiple contributors may also factor into Mark’s anonymity.
Why this collected material was converted into narrative form and appeared at the time that it did suggests how this conversion may have occurred. As we have seen, the story of Jesus had been circulating orally for forty years. The fluid nature of oral transmission raises the possibility that even before Mark reached its earliest publishable form, the story of Jesus had drifted in meaning to a condition that Jesus himself would not recognize. In addition, multiple versions of an orally transmitted message were being told. The early church leaders probably felt an urgency to resolve this dilemma via published text.
Luke would later address this problem in the preface of his two-volume account, Luke-Acts. He is writing to Theophilus, a character unknown to us, but possibly a wealthy patron who sponsored Luke’s work.
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
Luke 1:1-3
Luke is referring to written narratives, undoubtedly including the Gospel of Mark, which, as we have seen, he used as the basis of his gospel. This was long before intellectual property became a consideration and plagiarism was an accepted practice. The creators of Mark would have been concerned with the variations of stories being told. In Mark’s day, an officially sanctioned guiding document, the first of its kind, would have established a solid, powerful, authorized account.
From a psychological standpoint, I can see Matthew and Luke having advantages that make it easier to attribute a single author to their works. Both are more skilled in the craft of writing, bringing finer detail to their scenes and transitions. Luke-Acts reads like a novel of the period. Mark’s lack of detail and its rapid-fire presentation in general – fifteen scene changes in the first chapter alone – gives it the feel of collective authorship not wanting to get lost in the weeds of detail. Unlike Mark, Matthew and Luke were not burdened by the more difficult task of invention. That they used Mark as their prototype is a clear indication that, whether or not Mark agreed with Jesus, this gospel was sanctioned by the leadership of the Christian community. This was the official direction for Jesus they had decided to take. Yes, there would have been plenty of editorial hurdles for Matthew and Luke to clear, but building their narratives from scratch was not one of them.
4 Source Theory
Matthew and Luke also had the benefit of scrutinizing Mark for flaws and omissions, like a birth story and post-resurrection appearances. Armed with this information, and additional material not available to the creators of Mark (Q Source, and material specific to Matthew (M) and Luke (L)), these two authors could provide fuller accounts that further clarified the narrative as a whole. Because Matthew, Mark and Luke draw from common sources and represent a similar point of view, they are referred to as the synoptic Gospels. John, which surfaced some years after Matthew and Luke, presents a unique picture of Jesus derived from different sources. Despite their many differences, however, all four gospels reflect a similar meaning of the life and death of Jesus, a meaning that had circulated widely and has since served as the distinguishing basis of the mainstream Christian faith. That said, it should be understood that these separate accounts were never intended to be placed side-by-side as the scriptural basis for a developing religion. Each author had their specific purpose and audience in mind.
In the case of Mark, is it reasonable to think the collection of parables, stories, and possibly written snippets of the oral tradition had fallen into the control of a single writer? It would seem that any collection of such valuable material, well-known within the Christian community, would be held for safekeeping by designated and trusted members of the leadership. If they did pass it to a scribe, I am inclined to think it was by design. In its piecemeal form, this material would leave too much to the interpretive imagination. What was needed was a clear guiding document, developed and approved by those who were in the best position to help forge it. And what document could be better than an authorized, fleshed-out account of the good news, the life and teachings of the Son of God?
Image of 12 Disciples From the Didache
As a final point to my hypothesis of collective authorship, we assume that documents like The Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed were also anonymous but likely written by a group of men. Another document, the Didache, appeared about the same time as Mark, though not related. Regarded by some scholars as an early form of catechism, the Didache provided guidelines to Christian ethics, rituals, and church organization. Reading through it (you can find the full text online), it is difficult to imagine a single author creating such a guiding document. While the Didache focuses on ritual and proper Christian behavior, Mark’s focus is on the correct way to think of Jesus. Considering the importance of the early church establishing a unified front, it stands to reason that the notable players in leadership would be closely involved in the creation of all defining documents, if not as actual authors, in the very least as key members of the ancient equivalent to the editorial board.
Why would this matter? It would explain how and why the original message of Jesus could be transformed from a mystical, inner-directed teaching to the hope of a futuristic kingdom announced by the anticipated second coming of Jesus. It would also give a plausible explanation of why Matthew and Luke had the confidence to use Mark as their basis, and why John considered its characterization of the life and death of Jesus as worthy of his own adoption. To me, critical scholarship is liberating, but it does not give us license to be irresponsible. This is why I am presenting this idea as a reasonable explanation of how we could have a dual message – one from the church, the other from Jesus – in a single body we know as the canonical gospels and the New Testament as a whole.
“Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are now ready for harvest.”
John 4:35
Our body-based self-image routinely operates in the fields of time and space. If we have planted a garden, we understand that a certain amount of time passes before we begin harvesting produce. In another place, Jesus acknowledges this process when he points out that the earth produces of itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear.
While the opening passage may seem to contradict our normal understanding of the planting, growing process, we can see it as two levels of operation. We are, after all, spiritual beings having a human experience. Material and spiritual law is as different as Newtonian and quantum physics.
Did you not envision the harvest even before you planted your garden? You likely went beyond that and imagined serving the vegetables at your table. The eyes that see this are the eyes of which Jesus is speaking: the mind’s eye, the imagination.
Jesus points out that we are to believe we have received that which we pray for. We set aside all materially based logic and we envision as complete, a desire we have. We hold the thought that all the universe is working to bring forth this condition, or something better. To say we set aside materially based logic does not mean we are abandoning logic, per se. We are turning to spiritual logic. Material law follows the blueprint created by our vision. What we mentally see and hold as true is the seed that becomes the blade, the ear, and the full grain in the ear.
Write a brief statement of your prayer request, consider it fulfilled, then set it aside in a place you will not forget. Every time you think of your prayer, give thanks that it is now complete. This, or something better. Know that God, as the creative life force, is working through all people, places, and things to bring about your desired good. The imagination is not for dreaming only; it is for setting direction for your earthly experience.
The kingdom of God is central to the gospels, and to the teachings of Jesus. It becomes clear to the discerning eye that each held differing views about the meaning of the term. These views are based on varying assumptions concerning the state of humankind. The gospel writers assume that human beings are in a state of sin and in need of redemption. Jesus will return, usher in the kingdom as a new world order, and “… he will save his people from their sins” ( Matthew 1:21).
In contrast, the evidence strongly suggests that Jesus understood the kingdom of God as a spiritual dimension that was present but unseen by most. “Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” ( John 3:3). We can also deduce that Jesus did not see the individual as inherently sinful but only as spiritually asleep. He demonstrated this each time he informed someone that their sins had been forgiven. His flagship parable of the lost son featured a father that did not even acknowledge the obvious sins of his wayward son. Jesus spoke of the new birth, an awakening sparked by an intuitive glimpse into one’s spiritual core. His purpose as a teacher, and key to his success as a healer, was his ability to help awaken people to their spiritual nature.
We see evidence of this difference between the gospel writer’s view of the kingdom and that of Jesus in these two similar passages. The first is from Luke, the second from the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas:
“Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.’”
Luke 17:20-21
“His disciples said to him, ‘When will the kingdom come?’ ‘It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, ‘Look, here!’ or ‘Look, there!’ Rather, the Father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don’t see it.’”
Thomas 113 (1st edition estimated at 60 A.D.)
The Pharisees and the disciples want to know when the kingdom is coming. The question itself indicates that they consider it a future event. Jesus is saying the kingdom is not a coming event but a present reality. The kingdom of God is within each person and it is spread out upon the earth. As we study his kingdom-related sayings, he understands the kingdom as an underlying, omnipresent reality, a spiritual dimension, the creative life force expressing in, as, and through all things.
Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest.
John 4:35
This kingdom can be experienced, but not through intellectual or visual means. It is a subjective or intuitive experience. Famed psychologist William James, described the mystical experience in this way:
“The mystical experience, defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words. Its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. Mystical states are more like states of feeling than like states of intellect. No one can make clear to another who has never had a certain feeling, in what the quality or worth of it consists.”
William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience
This explains why Jesus so often spoke in parables. Intellectual knowledge consists of information gleaned through the five senses and through logical conclusions that we draw from this information. Intuitive knowledge consists of information apprehended through the spiritual sense that I refer to as the intuitive portal (The Complete Soul). The intellect is indispensable when navigating through our earthly experience. The intuitive function opens to our spiritual source. This is the realm of the soul, the kingdom of our true identity. It cannot be accessed through intellectual means, though the intellect is influenced by it. Paul mentions feeling after God,
“…that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being.’”
Acts 17:27-28
While intuitive knowledge is more closely related to feeling rather than to the intellectual nature, we do not want to confuse intuitive knowing with emotion.
In John, Jesus says to Nicodemus, “… unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” ( John 3:5). To be born of water is a reference to baptism by immersion. The ritual symbolizes a new birth, an intellectual cleansing of preconceived ideas. Prior to immersion, the person is one thing. They are submerged and brought up out of the water as something else. This ritual can inspire temporary elation, an emotional reaction that has no power to change a person at depth. To be born of Spirit is the deeper process symbolized by water baptism. This is referred to as the baptism of the holy spirit. Only an authentic exposure to the realm of the soul leaves one permanently impacted. The mind must be open to a new way of perceiving the presence of God before this new birth can occur. ” … unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3).
We can learn to detect the differences between Jesus’ and the evangelist’s understanding of the kingdom. Jesus’ idea of the kingdom is better aligned with the mystical tradition that teaches God is centered in and as the spiritual core of every person, but is also spread out upon the earth, as Thomas states. Jesus, I’m sure, would have been very much in agreement with the Psalmist’s poetic description of the omnipresence of God:
Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.
Psalms 139:7-12
I refer to passages that emphasize some aspect of the individual’s oneness with God as the mystical thread. The notion of man’s oneness with God lies at the very heart of mysticism. [Note: Those who are uncomfortable with the term mysticism may simply substitute it for the word spiritual.] I like the term because it represents an ancient and rather universal system of understanding that embraces three important principles. 1) It holds the omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience of God, 2) the divine nature of the individual soul, and 3) the relationship of oneness between God and the individual. The mystical thread consists of those passages that refer to one or more of these three elements.
People wondered how Jesus acquired his knowledge. “Where did this man get all of this? What is the wisdom given to him?” (Mark 6:2). In terms of external teachings, I think a good candidate could have been a local Kabbalist. These excerpts from the Jewish Encyclopedia provide some intriguing possibilities:
Jewish Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between the unchanging, eternal God—the mysterious Ein Sof (The Infinite)—and the mortal, finite universe. It forms the foundation of mystical religious interpretations within Judaism.
Jewish Kabbalists … often use classical Jewish scriptures to explain and demonstrate its mystical teachings. These teachings are held by followers in Judaism to define the inner meaning of both the Hebrew Bible and traditional rabbinic literature and their formerly concealed transmitted dimension, as well as to explain the significance of Jewish religious observances.
For a few centuries the esoteric knowledge was referred to by its aspect practice—meditation, translated as “being alone” or “isolating oneself“.
Wikipedia: Kabbala
This last point from the above article echoes Jesus’ instruction on prayer:
“But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
Matthew 6:6
We also learn that he often retired to lonely or solitary places to pray.
“Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed.”
Mark 1:35
The sayings of Jesus often carry the elements of mysticism, enough to at least suggest some formal exposure to the discipline. It is not unreasonable to assume there were Jewish Kabbalists in or near his village.
Some suggest that Jesus may have studied with the Essenes, as John the Baptist, who baptized Jesus at the beginning of his ministerial career, exemplified the Essene mindset. The Essenes were an apocalyptic sect of Judaism that looked for the day when the Children of Light (the Essene community) would overthrow the Children of Darkness and restore Judaism to its pristine form. They, in fact, waged a military campaign against the Romans and were totally annihilated. While the gospel writers gave Jesus a definite apocalyptic tone, I consider any message related to the end times as theirs, not his.
To this notion of possible external influences, I would add that spiritual wisdom is not imparted through instructors or through formal exposure to any spiritual discipline. The mystical experience is an awakening, a direct exposure to one’s inner fountain of living water. The relationship between the unchanging, eternal God, the Infinite, and the human being is oneness. By turning our awareness within, we begin to detect the expansive activity of God as the creative life force. It reveals its nature, not through verbal or written instruction, but by direct exposure.
“I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord.”
Jeremiah 31:33-34
To his listeners, we can imagine the insights that Jesus offered inspired new levels of self-perception and a different way to think of God. It caused people to rethink the deeper principles of Judaism and bring into question some of the more burdensome aspects imposed by the priesthood. But rather than engage in speculation that is not provable, our best course is to simply examine the sayings of Jesus that bear the characteristics of mysticism, and let them stand on their own.
Jesus spoke of a comforter, an advocate that will teach us all things ( John 14:26). What kinds of things? The birds of the air and the lilies of the field are naturally endowed and guided by this comforting advocate. What the biologist refers to as instinct is a pure form of knowing that instructs every species of plant and animal to interface successfully with its specific worldly niche. How does the young spider know to spin a web that will catch the flying insect it has never seen?
His message to the common people is that they too are imbued with this same guiding intelligence and more. They have an even greater ability to expand on it. The animals do not build barns to store for the future, but people can. And yet, unlike the animals, we worry over the future. His message was one of teaching how to let the life, love, power, and intelligence of God inspire a creative approach to a healthier, more peaceful and prosperous life.
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you [help you find] rest. Take my yoke upon you [Follow the discipline I teach] and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke [the truth I adhere to] is easy and my burden is light.”
Matthew 11:28-30
Perhaps he was simply saying, “Those of you who are weary and burdened, listen to what I’m telling you. This way that I teach will bring rest to your soul. I am at peace, unburdened by care.” Had I been alive in his day, I would have been a follower. I am a follower today, but to be this requires a willingness to ask, seek, and knock until the truth he taught is placed squarely on the lampstand to give its wonderous light.
For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.
Luke 8:17
In the next post I will address the possible reasons that the message of Jesus was transformed from an inner-directed to a Jesus-directed presentation.
Like most Americans, my spiritual quest began within the context of a sect of mainstream Christianity. My earliest recollection is Sunday school in Christian churches (Disciples of Christ) in St. Joseph and the small community of Gower, both located in northwest Missouri. In my teen years, I attended the Baptist church in Gower, where Beth and I were later married (1977) by a Unity minister. I have to confess that I regarded most of this church exposure merely as the result of parental expectations. Saturday was a day free from school. Sunday was a partially free day interrupted by dressing up to attend an event very low on my scale of interests. As a teenager, however, my interest increased and I began asking my minister questions about different aspects of the teachings.
I absorbed the fundamentals. I learned that I was a sinner in need of salvation, that Jesus died for my sins, and if I wanted to go to heaven when I died, I needed to accept him as my personal savior. I was baptized by full immersion in the Christian church. That rite of passage instilled some sense of immunity against known and unknown sins committed. Later, my parents moved us to the Baptist church. Each Sunday, the minister would issue an altar call, which felt as if he was addressing me personally. In private, I asked him if I should come up again. He explained that my baptism most likely did its intended job.
In those early years I accepted that I was, by default, a Christian. I was taught what it meant to be a Christian, and the duties and expectations involved. We were never exposed to the type of critical scholarship that explored the origins of the Christian doctrine. For me, that would come much later. Though my preference would have been to spend my Sunday mornings on the bank of a pond fishing, my Christian education served me in ways unexpected in my own ministry. I understood and could relate to the questions others had concerning religious issues.
What I learned in later years is that the entire Christian doctrine is not based on the teachings of Jesus, but rather on the letters of Paul and the evolving doctrines of the early church. While those who have not researched the historical development of scripture (and the Gospels specifically), will find this to be a shocking statement, I am quite comfortable making it. Why? Because mainstream Christianity teaches that the kingdom of God is coming some day in the future. I believe the evidence shows that Jesus regarded the kingdom of God as a present reality that could not be observed with the eye, but could be experienced intuitively by the common people who followed him. “Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, ‘The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you’” (Luke 17:20-21).
Paul and the early church pressed the figure of Jesus into a type of religious service that I do not believe he would have endorsed. I base this statement on what I call the presence of a mystical thread that runs through the parables and sayings attributed to Jesus. This thread is often obscured by the voices of the evangelists who produced the New Testament writings. Paul’s letters, written in the mid-50’s A.D. came first, followed by the Gospel of Mark, written sometime after 70 A.D. Matthew and Luke used Mark and other sources (Q, M, L) as the basis of their work. John (100 A.D.) drew from entirely different sources (The Gospel of Signs). By the time these people began to write, the oral tradition around Jesus had developed into the larger-than-life image of him that we have today. As a minister who has taught spiritual principles for over four decades, it has become very important for me to understand who Jesus was and why and how he was transformed from a healer and teacher of spiritual principles to the messianic figure, the only begotten son of God we know today.
The reason, I find, is very simple. Jesus, the historical figure, did not fulfill the expectations that should have accompanied the advent of the Jewish messiah. Nothing changed after his death. If anything, life for the Jews became much worse. Jerusalem and the Temple were completely destroyed by the Romans some forty years after his death (70 A.D.). His followers, all Jewish, needed to know why, if he was the messiah, did he not put this enemy of Israel, the Roman occupier, under their feet. Turning to their scriptures for answers, they found meanings that they believed shed new light on his death. His sacrifice for the sins of the world, resurrection, and the promise of a second coming emerged as the result. In other words, the doctrines that lay at the heart of the Christian faith are the answer to why Jesus did not usher in the kingdom of God during his first visit. He would return to complete the mission. In the meantime, followers must remain watchful.
It is important to understand that we do not have a formal gospel according to Jesus. My belief, which I’ll address in another post, is that the parable of the lost son (prodigal) best represents his gospel. We have Paul’s letters and we have gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all of which were written anonymously. I cannot imagine that Jesus’ immediate followers would have considered the good news a futuristic promise of the coming kingdom – now at two-thousand years and counting. The problems of daily life were the issues that needed a solution. The principles he taught were geared toward helping people open their mind to their divine source that would intuitively guide them, as with the birds and wild flowers, to the acquisition of their daily bread. Such a practical message, stripped of the doctrinal constraints often used to control, would, in my opinion, account for his appeal. “They [teachers of the law and Pharisees] tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them” (Matthew 23:4).
The church has made Jesus the only way to God. Jesus himself taught that the way to God is found in quiet moments, with doors closed to the distractions of the world (Matthew 6:6). This simple and very accessible approach is a narrow gate pursued by few, as the masses clamor for fulfillment through the wide gate of an easily distracted mind. The transforming value of the mystical thread is neither seen nor understood by those who are looking to the heavens, or to people, places, and things, for their savior to appear. The mystical thread, I believe, is the stone rejected by the builders of church doctrine, but which served as the cornerstone of the ministry of Jesus.
The feeling of being stuck in life is probably one of the most common expressions of frustration, and the likely reason Henry David Thoreau wrote this famous line: “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”
We like action. We like to initiate changes, see results, and go on to the next thing with the feeling that our life is progressing. Sometimes we initiate changes and nothing happens, or everything seems to go wrong. Such times can certainly contribute to feelings of quiet desperation.
A line attributed to Jesus contains a spiritual gem that can help us reset and begin again. “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Jesus would not be calling attention to himself, but to the spiritual core of his listener. If you think of these words arising from your own spiritual center, your central I, you will get an idea of why these words can help in times of confusion and uncertainty.
Think of your own I AM as the axle that holds the spinning wheel of your external life. At your center you are always at rest regardless of how fast or how slow things seem to be moving. It is important to reconnect with this stable, unmoving part of yourself, to withdraw for a time from all your efforts to spin the wheel, and surrender to the healing, balancing action of your guiding Source.
It is easy to get caught up in the ways and means to a desired end, forgetting that you desire the greater good because you are responding to that still small voice emanating from your central core. God as your source has urged you this far. Will God not also guide you through each step of the way? Perhaps it is time to rekindle your faith in your indwelling guidance, to experience the assurance that “I am with you always.”
Surrender in trust to the all-knowing, all-loving presence of God within you. Right where you are, initiate your spiritual reset. Open yourself to knowing that every step you take is the right step, that you are now being guided and protected in ways that will soon become perfectly clear.
“But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.” (Luke 15:20)
In this parable of the lost son, we find a good example of Luke creating a context that gives it a different meaning than Jesus likely intended. When treated as a stand-alone story, as Luke had it originally, Jesus was depicting the unconditional love of God. Luke prefaces this story, along with the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin, with scribes and Pharisees murmuring over the fact that sinners and tax collectors are drawing near to Jesus. In this context, Jesus becomes the soul-saving, all-forgiving father, the seeker of the lost sheep, and the woman looking for the lost coin.
The parable as Jesus intended addresses the issue of sin and salvation, but in a very different manner than Christian orthodoxy. To quote from a website on the requirements of salvation, we read this: “Someone has to pay the price and punishment for our sins, and if someone does not help us, we will have to pay the terrible price for our sins against God.” In contrast, the wayward son, being the reckless sinner, is welcomed with the open arms and unconditional love of the father, no price paid.
The son does indeed suffer, but not because he is being punished by the father. His suffering is the consequence of foolish choices. The moment came when he had an awakening. In his return home, there were no toll gates, no conditions that had to be met, no interrogation.
The church has used sin for leverage. It has adopted Paul’s notion that all have sinned and are in need of salvation. It has created the remedy that we are required to accept if we are to be saved. Jesus blows this logic, which is why Luke had to cast it differently.
Can we not see why the “tax collectors and sinners” were drawn to the good news of Jesus? The scribes and Pharisees had undoubtedly condemned them to hell. Jesus informed them that the unconditional love of God embraced even the worst sinner with open arms.
“Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” (Matthew 6:25-26)
Last week, I pointed out that central to the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament is the kingdom of God. It is clear to me that Jesus’ use of this phrase carried a different meaning from that of the New Testament writers. He saw it as a spiritual dimension that was fully present and working on behalf of all life forms, human specifically. The writers saw it as a coming phenomenon, a new world order.
The biblical use of this term can have a restricting effect on how we think of it. We may envision it as a universe run by a bearded, very powerful old man who can experience severe mood swings. I have come to think of the kingdom of God as the Creative Life Force that permeates every aspect of the universe but is centered in each of us. Its characteristics are life, love, power, and intelligence.
Science credits instinct for the bird’s ability to prosper. Instinct is a manifestation of underlying intelligence. We see it everywhere in nature. In humans, we see a level of stress, struggle, and worry over the future that, by comparison, is unnatural. Jesus is instructing his listeners on the truth that they are endowed with the same guiding wisdom, and more, that enables the bird to successfully find its way.
Love dissolves that which is not for our highest good and attracts that which is. Intelligence enables us to know the difference. The Creative Life Force is seeking unlimited expression through us right now. Its single purpose is expansion. You and I choose the direction of expansion. Jesus is saying that we need to open our mind to the larger context of this expansive process that knows how to guide us successfully through every aspect of our life. We are not necessarily more valuable than the birds. We are more capable. We have an imagination that is designed to receive ideas and inspiration to creative solutions for every problem life presents. This very practical message, I believe, is what Jesus is passing on to his listeners, and to us.
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20-21, 85 C.E.)
His disciples said to him, “When will the kingdom come?” “It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, ‘Look, here!’ or ‘Look, there!’ Rather, the Father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don’t see it.” (Thomas: 113, 50-60 C.E.)
Scholars believe the earliest version of the non-biblical Gospel of Thomas appeared around 50-60 C.E. Luke-Acts was written around 85 C.E., around 30 years later. Though these passages are similar, scholars do not believe Luke used Thomas as one of his sources. The long-standing hypothesis is that Luke used Mark, Q, and another source unique to Luke to compose his story.
These two passages, separated by time and space, depict a kingdom of God that cannot be observed. Mainstream Christianity, and the Gospel writers in general, adopted the notion of an observable kingdom. Jesus was speaking of the kingdom as a spiritual dimension that cannot be seen with the physical eye. Nor is there adequate language to describe it, which is no doubt why he employed parables.
In his book, The Varieties of Religious Experience, psychologist William James makes this observation concerning the mystical experience:
The mystical experience, defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words. Its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. Mystical states are more like states of feeling than like states of intellect. No one can make clear to another who has never had a certain feeling, in what the quality or worth of it consists.
Over 2000 years have passed since the death of Jesus, and still he has not returned to usher in the expected kingdom. Why? Because this is not the nature of the kingdom of which he spoke. His kingdom of God is intuitively experienced in moments of quiet receptivity. As we become aware of God as an inner presence, we then begin to see that this kingdom is also spread out upon the earth. Like the Psalmist, we realize that wherever we are, God is:
Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. (Psalms 139:7)
I speak of the mystical thread that I believe was the heart of Jesus’ teachings. Understanding what he meant by the kingdom of God, and how this understanding differs from that of the Gospel writers, is the key to detecting this thread.
J Douglas Bottorff 