|
Passion or
Compassion?
By Jon Mundy
There has been so
much hoopla about the movie The Passion that it
behooves us to talk about the crucifixion from the
standpoint of the Course. I’m wondering if we are not
already overloaded with “images” of pain, blood, nails,
thorns, torment, anguish and torture?
The Atonement
I have a book of illustrations for use by Christian
ministers. It has twelve illustrations of what the atonement
is. Each illustration describes the agony of a suffering,
bleeding, dying Jesus on the cross, a sacrifice he
makes because of our sins. Being washed in sacrificial blood
always sounded like a messy affair to me, not exactly the
kind of thing a God of Love would come up with.
According to
traditional Christian theology an all-wise and loving God
“killed” his only Son, who was “innocent,” because I am
“innately sinful.” According to this theology, we get to be
saved because God killed or sacrificed Jesus. Or did “we”
kill Jesus? Or maybe “my brother” killed Jesus? How could
Love (God) devise such a horrible system?
I once
attended a Lenten retreat for ministers, where the leader
handed out spike nails and asked us to meditate on the
anguish and suffering of Jesus on the cross. This was not
exactly what you might think of as a quieting of the mind.
Christianity uses a cross as its symbol, an instrument of
torture and death; the Catholic church puts a bleeding body
on the cross. What we have is vicarious salvation. According
to traditional Christian theology, we are saved not because
we are able to see what Jesus saw or do what he asked us to
do – like forgive. We are saved because we believe
Jesus “paid a price” for our innate sinfulness by suffering
on the cross. Are we to supposed to feel obligated to God
because Jesus suffered? Are we to be angry with those who
killed him?
I have a
master’s in theology, a doctorate in philosophy and I’ve
taught university and seminary courses in philosophy and
religion for the past thirty-eight years. Although I
understand, historically, “how” this convoluted concept
became Christian theology I don’t understand “why”.
From the
standpoint of the Course, as Jesus knew who he was, he also
knew that he could not be hurt or killed. He went to the
cross to demonstrate the power of defenselessness and
invulnerability, thus showing us how we should also be
defenseless and invulnerable in much less dramatic
instances.
Shortly
before he died in 1961, the BBC did an interview with depth
psychologist Dr. Carl Jung. The interviewer asked Dr. Jung
if he believed in God. Jung hesitated for a moment then
said, "Believe in God? No – I know!" Is it not better to
know God than to believe in God? Is it not better
to see what Jesus saw and do what he asked us to do than to
believe he has vicariously atoned for our innate
sinfulness?
How is his
suffering supposed to be to our benefit? Is it because we
are innately sinful that he suffered on the cross? The
Chinese philosopher Confucius believed in what he called
Jen, meaning human heartedness. He taught that at
the heart, at the truth of all things, all people are good.
It’s just that we have our bad moments – sometimes minutes
and sometimes decades. If Confucius is right and we are
innately good instead of innately bad, which I would much
prefer to believe, it changes everything. Let’s not go about
looking for the bad in others let’s go about looking for the
good.
I watched a
TV show entitled Rome: The Power and the Glory, where
they pointed out ancient Rome's strong belief in sacrificial
blood. Is this where the idea of sacrificial blood comes
from? According to The Encyclopedia of Religion, the
theme of all Christian doctrines of the atonement can be
expressed in the sentence, "Christ died for our
sins.'' In Judaism as well, Yom Kippur, the Day of
Atonement, the most solemn holiday of the Jewish year, is a
day of fasting and repenting of sins. The way the atonement
process is understood in traditional Christian theology
makes sin very real – thus justifying our judgment and our
anger.
Who is to Blame
for the Crucifixion?
No one is to blame
for the crucifixion of Jesus -- not the Jews, the Romans or
even Judas!
If the
Apostles had not felt guilty,
they never could have quoted me as saying,
I come not to bring peace but a sword.
This is clearly the opposite of everything I taught.
Nor could they have described my reactions to Judas as they
did
if they had really understood me.
I could not have said,
"Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?"
unless I believed in betrayal.
The whole message of the crucifixion was simply that I did
not.
The "punishment" I was said
to have called forth upon Judas was a similar
mistake.
Judas was my brother and a Son of God,
as much a part of the Sonship as myself.
Was it likely that I would condemn him when I was ready
to demonstrate that condemnation is
impossible?
-- ACIM, T. 6, 15:2-9
Judas was a brother
to Jesus. Jesus tells him, “Go and do what you have to
do.” Judas is indispensable to the Jesus story. Maybe
Judas understood Jesus’ mission better than some of the
other disciples. If the script was written, he was simply
playing his part – he was not betraying Jesus – was he
helping Jesus fulfill his mission?
If anybody is
responsible for the crucifixion you might say it is Jesus.
Or maybe we could say that God was behind the whole thing.
Yes, why don’t we blame the whole thing on God? We can
always blame it on God. Jesus clearly knew what he was doing
when he went back to Jerusalem. He told the disciples
several times about what was to be. He knew he would be
arrested and crucified.
I do not believe that
Jesus was a morose, irritable, gloomy character. He was not
into projecting guilt and fear. That’s ego thinking. Jesus
said, “I and the Father are one.” If he knew he was God,
could he then suffer? The whole point of the resurrection is
that nothing was sacrificed. A body was lost, but a body
cannot contain Spirit, which by definition “is” Life. The
idea of sacrifice arises from fear and frightened people can
be vicious.
Sacrificing in any way is a
violation of my injunction
that you should be merciful even as your Father
in Heaven is merciful.
-- ACIM, T-3. 4:1-3
We are so “fixed” on
the body. Everything we do is done for the sake of the body.
We are fascinated with bodies, other peoples and our own. I
plan on keeping this body as long as I can; I also do not
for a single second think that the truth of the reality of
who I am is a body. The body is, the Course says, a “tiny
fence” around a grand and glorious idea. Jesus sacrificed
nothing -- nothing was lost, everything was gained. After
all, what do you lose when you lose an illusion, except an
illusion?
Anger Keeps the Ego Alive.
Anger feeds the ego. The Course says there are two kinds of
laws, the Laws of the Ego or the Laws of Chaos and the Laws
of God or the Laws of Love. A typical Law of Chaos is: “An
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” You hit me. I hit
you. There was an item in the news recently about a hockey
player that hit another hockey player in the head knocking
him over, face first onto the ice, breaking his neck. Why
did he do it? Because earlier in the game, the player he
hit, hit one of his teammates with his hockey stick – so he
was just getting even. Such are the ways of the world. Maybe
we need another way – maybe we need compassion instead of
passion.
Synonym for “passion”
includes ardor, fervor, obsession, excitement, zeal,
and craze. The dictionary defines passion as
intense or overpowering enthusiasm such as hatred or anger.
Terrorists have lots of “passion” for what they do. Has this
world not had enough of hatred, attack, anger and blame?
Perhaps what we need is less passion and more compassion.
Synonyms for “compassion” include sympathy, empathy,
kindness and gentleness.
Laws of chaos are
regressive laws. They lead deeper and deeper into
trouble. You do not get free. You get more immersed, you may
get more passion but you do not get compassion. No one
“really” feels better when attacking another. There may be
some temporary relief, but you will also inevitably feel
guilty because of the irrational, destructive, unloving and
unforgiving nature of anger and attack. Any act of
“destruction” is always a regression and a demonstration of
hate not love.
As the Jesuit
Catholic scholar Anthony de Mello said,
Religion as practiced today
deals in punishment and rewards.
In other words, it breeds fear and greed – the two
things most destructive to spirituality.
It is like tackling a flood with water or a burning barn
with fire.
God’s Laws of Love
are progressive laws. They bring more benefit both to the
giver and the receiver. As we give our love away so is love
strengthened in us. There is an English proverb which says,
“Kindness, like grain, increases by sowing.” It takes
skill to be a parent or a teacher. Good parents, good
teachers, never terrorize their students.
(T-3.I.4:5).
The might of God’s teachers
lies in their gentleness,
for they have understood their evil thoughts
came neither from God’s Son nor his Creator.
-- ACIM M-4. IV. 2:8
When you notice the
way we deal with each other, it becomes obvious that there
are a number of tactics that are helpful in promoting peace
and goodwill. There are also a number of tactics that
repeatedly produce negative results and ultimately prove
debilitating rather than helpful.
I believe the message
of the crucifixion is that through forgiveness we can
overcome all hatred, anger and attack. Until we forgive we
will continue to crucify ourselves while seeking to crucify
each other.
The journey to the cross should
be the last
"useless journey."
Do not dwell upon it, but dismiss it as accomplished.
If you can accept it as your own last useless journey, you
are also free
to join my resurrection.
Do not make the pathetic error of "clinging to the old
rugged cross."
The only message of the crucifixion is that you can overcome
the cross.
Until then you are free to crucify yourself as often as you
choose.
-- ACIM, T-4. in. 3:1-2 &7-9
Love and
Peace Now and Forever,
| 
The
Institute for Personal Religion
