What
would Jesus say about
Christian fundamentalism?
Question for Jesus:
I have personally had a few discussions with fundamentalist Christians
and I found it difficult to talk to them. I would like to know what
you would say to such people.
Jesus: I would
start by asking them if they consider it a tragedy that Jesus Christ
was crucified. Most of them would say yes. I would then ask them to
consider who crucified me. They would say the Jews. I would then ask
them to take a closer look. I would ask them to consider what kind of
Jews crucified me. I would ask them to consider the state of consciousness
of the people who crucified me.
If you read the scriptures, you will see that I was crucified by people
who had a very specific attitude towards religion. These people were
not only orthodox Jews; they were fundamentalist Jews. They were concerned
about the letter of the law, and they wanted to interpret the law literally.
I was crucified because of a specific state of consciousness. I was
crucified by Jews who embodied that state of consciousness. Today, many
Christians embody that same state of consciousness. My statement, “Woe
unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered
not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”
was meant to rebuke the fundamentalist or literal approach to religion.
These people had not entered into the Christ consciousness. They were
attempting to prevent others from entering because when no one attains
Christ consciousness, it seems like these people do not have to change
their approach to religion.
A religious teaching is always given to people in a certain state of
consciousness, and the teaching will to some degree reflect that state
of consciousness. In ancient times, people were, as I described earlier,
in a magical or mythical state of consciousness. They were given religious
teachings that appealed to that state of consciousness. When you are
trying to formulate a spiritual teaching that is directed at people
in a mythical state of consciousness, your primary concern is not to
give forth a teaching based on fact. Your primary concern is to use
myth to tell a story that will help these people understand spiritual
concepts.
Why did I teach the multitudes in parables? Because 2,000 years ago
the multitudes were in a mythical state of consciousness. The most effective
way to teach these people about the spiritual reality was not to give
them a factual or rational teaching. Such a teaching would have had
no chance of appealing to them in that state of consciousness. Therefore,
I told them stories; I taught them in parables. A parable is not meant
to be taken literally. It is not a factual account of actual events.
It is a myth, a story that illustrates a point. It was never meant to
be interpreted literally.
As I explained earlier, what has happened over the past 2,000 years
is that most people have been raised out of the mythical state of consciousness
and into a rational state of consciousness. The problem here is that
most people are not aware of this development. They fail to understand
that the teachings I gave 2,000 years ago were not formulated for people
in a rational state of consciousness. Because so many people are attached
to Christianity, they attempt to interpret my teachings from a rational
state of consciousness.
When people attempt to interpret a myth from a rational state of consciousness,
they inevitably run into contradictions or things that don’t make
sense. Because of the relativity of the carnal mind, most people attempt
to resolve these contradictions by taking things to the extreme. They
take a black and white perspective, and this causes people to go in
one of two directions.
One direction causes people to reason that my teachings simply do not
make sense. They are not rational, they are not factual and they cannot
be reconciled with scientific facts. Therefore, my teachings must be
rejected in their entirety. Such people look at certain teachings, compare
them to current scientific knowledge and use the discrepancies to reject
my entire message. Obviously, I consider this an unbalanced approach.
The other extreme is represented by people who refuse to see any incompleteness
in my teachings. They have fallen into the trap of thinking that if
my teachings were proven incomplete, my entire message would be invalidated.
Because they don’t want to realize the need for progressive revelation,
they have to make it seem like my teachings are as relevant today as
they were 2,000 years ago. Their only option is to say that my teachings
should be taken literally. They reason that my teachings must be interpreted
from a rational perspective, meaning that my parables, my stories, must
be interpreted as factual events or literal accounts. This is the other
extreme of using a rational state of consciousness to look at a teaching
that was given to people in a mythical state of consciousness. I also
consider this reaction to be unbalanced.
I think common sense should make it clear that you cannot take my teachings
and interpret them literally. If people would use a little bit of logic
to evaluate fundamentalist interpretations, they would quickly see that
this approach to religion simply does not make sense. If you want to
take my teachings literally, you must reason that my parable about the
laborers in the vineyard applies only to people who work in a vineyard.
And since most people no longer work in a vineyard, that parable is
basically obsolete.
As another obvious example, take my statement, “The kingdom of
Heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force.” A
literal interpretation would lead you to believe that it is possible
for the violent to enter the kingdom of Heaven by force. The logical
consequence is that the kingdom of Heaven has been overrun by Satan
and his fallen angels because they are the most violent beings one could
imagine. Obviously, that is not the case. My statement was meant to
illustrate that violent people attempt to take Heaven by force. They
attempt to force the process of spiritual growth; they attempt to use
the carnal mind to achieve spiritual growth. In reality, these attempts
can never work. The kingdom of Heaven is permanently sealed from all
beings in a lower state of consciousness. This is clearly demonstrated
in my parable about the man who entered the wedding feast without a
wedding garment and was cast into outer darkness.
Let us step back from the issue. The relativity of the lower mind causes
people to polarize into the extremes and in so doing, they fail to see
the middle way, the balanced perspective of the Christ mind. Some people
reject my teachings because they seemingly cannot be reconciled with
scientific findings. Others interpret them literally and cling to the
infallibility of my teachings. It is my hope that some people will be
able so see the futility of both these approaches. Both approaches are
based on a misunderstanding of the true purpose of religion. As stated
several times, religion is given to people in a certain state of consciousness,
and it aims to raise them to a higher level. Once at that level, people
need and will receive a higher teaching.
When you acknowledge this fact, you see the middle way. My teachings
were given to people in a mythical state of consciousness, and they
should not be taken literally. You don’t have to go into the extremes
of either rejecting my entire message or taking it literally. Instead,
you can open your mind to a higher understanding of my message. My basic
message is as relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago. My basic message
is the existence of a path that leads to a higher state of consciousness.
Back then, I clothed my message in myth and parable. Today, the same
message can be expressed in more rational terms. So instead of throwing
the Christ child out with the bath water, why not look for a more rational
teaching that describes my message in a contemporary language?
Back
to top
Copyright
© Kim Michaels, 2003 |
