rmreynoldsblog

This paper is notes from an aduly Sundy School class that I taught many years ago. 

From time to time, I wonder why so many people younger than us don’t bother to attend church anymore. Several reasons come to mind, but the three that jump out at me are (1) the numerous well-publicized scandals involving church leaders – mainly televangelists and Catholic priests, (2) so many other forms of entertainment, and (3) our shrinking world. 

As you know, it used to be that the only religion we heard much about was our own (or at least the Christian religion if not our own denomination). Then, the world started to shrink. As you may know, Toronto is the most religiously diverse city in the world. For the most part, that is due to immigration. 

A quick internet search yielded the following approximate numbers for some of the world’s religions (in millions of adherents): 

Christianity 2000  

Islam 1250

Hinduism 800

Buddhism 370

Vodun (Voodoo) 60

Sikhism 24

Judaism 12

Bahai 7.5

Jainism 4

Taoism 3

The Community of Christ 0.25

No religious affiliation 784

…and it is estimated that, in another 15 years, the majority of Canadians will no longer be listing Christianity as their religion. 

In this changing religious climate, we want to maintain some continuity in our beliefs. At the same time, we have to recognize that a person’s religious beliefs and the certainty with which one holds them is an unreliable measure of their truth because they are largely determined by that person’s culture and the faith of his or her parents both largely accidents of birth. Furthermore: 

1. Assumptions prevalent in a person’s culture also influence their religious views to a degree that is not often recognized. (A good example of this is found in the policies and beliefs regarding homosexuality. Although all of the provinces of the Anglican church, for example, share the same Anglican tradition, cardinal beliefs, the Bible, etc., they are heavily influenced by their local culture, and their cultures lead them to positions on homosexual rights that are totally at variance with each other.) 

2. Other belief-defining factors include specific biblical references, particularly in statements attributed to Jesus, Paul, or other early Jewish and Christian leaders. Of course, these are often in conflict, and people tend to focus on those passages that support their prejudices. For example, Paul wrote in many passages about women who were his co workers. Yet, he made several statements in 1 Corinthians which restricted women’s allowable behaviors and appearance in religious meetings. These were further developed in other New Testament books which are purported to have been written by Paul, but which many theologians consider to be have been written by anonymous authors (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians). 

3. General biblical statements and themes: For example, faith groups usually take into account the Bible’s fundamental teachings about God, humanity, and the rest of the universe, evaluated to determine if they remain valid today, or were applicable only for other eras, other cultures, and other situations. 

4. Actions of biblical leaders: In gender related issues, for example, the way in which Jesus and Paul treated men and women is usually considered to be important. 

5. Church traditions: Church tradition is contained in writings of Christian leaders, church councils, and meetings from the time of Christ down to the present time. Foremost among those Christian denominations that base their policies on both the content of the Bible and church tradition is the Roman Catholic church. The writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other great theologians of the Christian Church are considered important sources of information for today’s church policy. Papal bulls, encyclicals, and letters are also valuable resources. 

When I was a child, I was taught that our Church’s motto was “All Truth.” Of course, one person’s perception of truth is not the same as another person’s perception of truth – which is why we have some 35-50 thousand or so Christian groups, for example, and even some 150+ groups that have been derived from the church that Joseph Smith founded. But we do have a tradition of continuing to search for truth, even when it makes us question our other traditions, which brings us to… 

Continual revelation: Some denominations, such as ourselves, believe that no scriptures can give the final word on all matters. God is seen as revealing new truths over time. In 1890, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, the Mormons, believed that they received a revelation from God to abandon polygyny (plural marriages). In 1978, they received a second revelation to (officially) eliminate racism in their denomination. Lots of luck in that! 

Personal experience: Everyone brings their own lifetime of experiences to their religious faith: things they have learned in their family of origin, at school, with friends, at work, etc., and these experiences often influence their religious beliefs. 

You might also consider under this heading personal preferences for religious practices. For example, I love the ritual to be found in Roman Catholicism, the praise worship of the evangelicals, the meditative quiet of Buddhism, and so on; and I think this personal preference for religious practices at least supports people in the belief systems that they espouse. 

Then there are scientific findings by geologists, biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, social scientists, researchers into human sexuality, etc. One example of this is the theory of evolution. Triggered by Charles Darwin’s book “Origin of Species,” the theory of evolution has contributed greatly to many of the physical sciences, from astronomy to zoology. Some liberal and a few mainline denominations have accepted evolution and have relegated the creation stories in Genesis to the level of religious myth. Roman Catholic schools have been teaching evolution as reality for many years. The Pope recently acknowledged its accuracy on all matters up to but not including the development of the human soul.  

Another important example is a result of human sexuality research. During the second half of the 20th century, human sexuality researchers and mental health professionals, as a result of their research, changed their concepts of human sexuality. Most now regard homosexuality as a natural, normal, and unchangeable sexual orientation. Most liberal and some mainline denominations have altered their beliefs about homosexuality and have changed at least some of their policies concerning sexual orientation. 

In early 2007, The Rev’d Elizabeth Kaeton of the Episcopal Church of St. Paul’s in Chatham, NJ, motivated by the gradually unfolding schism within the worldwide Anglican Communion over whether to include or exclude persons with a homosexual orientation as members with full privileges, wrote an open letter to her fellow Anglicans. Part of her letter notes the progress that the Christian church has made in the past in many areas. She chose three examples: 

“For centuries, the church’s teaching about the shape of the world was that it was flat, in accordance with what was written in scripture, despite scientific evidence that it was not. People were excommunicated – not to mention tortured and tried and sent to jail and murdered – for disagreeing with the official church ‘standard’ of teaching.” 

“For centuries, the church’s teaching about seizure disorder was that it was demon possession, in accordance with what was written in scripture, despite scientific evidence that it was not. People were excommunicated – not to mention tortured and locked in asylums – because the outward manifestation of their lives were contrary to the official church ‘standard’ of teaching.” 

“For centuries, the church’s teaching about left handedness was that it was a sign of evil, in accordance with what was written in scripture, despite scientific evidence that it was not. People were excommunicated – not to mention tortured and shunned and exiled – because the outward manifestation of their lives was contrary to the official church ‘standard’ of teaching.” 

We can look at these three conflicts and be somewhat amused at how church leaders were so out of touch from reality in the distant past; we might not choose to look at just how harmful this gap between reality and church teaching was to the churches’ victims at the time; and it is even more difficult for us to see where present day gaps are creating and injuring victims today. 

  The three main controversies that have engaged the Christian churches during the past couple of centuries are related to human slavery, the status of women, and the rights of homosexuals and bisexuals. The first is largely settled (although the negative effects of slavery will be with us for generations); the second is partly settled; and the third is in full swing. 

Regarding slavery: At the close of the 20th century, only Christian Reconstructionists and some of the more radical of the Christian groups still favor the legalization of human slavery. All other Christian groups have taken a solid abolitionist position. In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a sincere apology for its past policies on race, slavery, and segregation. They vowed to eliminate any current residual racism in the denomination. Unfortunately, Sunday morning – and in some denominations, Saturday morning – continues to be the most highly segregated time in America, due to the country’s large number of nearly all white and nearly all black congregations. 

Regarding the status of women: Starting in the late 19th century, the major ethical topics of the day were related to the status of women: 

Are they really “persons”? 

Do they actually have souls?

Should they be able to vote?

Should they be allowed to receive anesthesia during childbirth?

Should they be allowed to join various professions?

Eventually, should they be considered for positions of power within churches, including being eligible for ordination as clergy and consecration as bishops (in those denominations that have bishops.)?

Until 1930, few denominations were willing to ordain women. Fifty years later, female clergy were allowed in all liberal and most mainline churches, including the United Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran, and even in a minority of conservative denominations. By the late 1990’s women had risen to the highest levels in some denominations, and even some conservative churches began to address the question of sexual bias and rigid sexual roles in their denomination. Others, like the Southern Baptist Convention have reinforced the submissive role for women and the leadership role for men in church and at home. 

I find it interesting that, when our own church admitted women to the priesthood, we came close to losing half of our membership; and it is my impression that, among those who chose to cling to the old ways, women were as adamant as men that we had gone into apostasy. 

Regarding the status of gays and lesbians: The movement to accept celibate and non celibate gays and lesbians as church members, and as clergy, started only in the 1970s, after the Stonewall riots, the emergence of the Gay Liberation movement, and the decision by the American Psychiatric Association that homosexuality is not a mental illness. A few very progressive religious groups have married same sex couples where legal, have authorized “services of union” for gay and lesbian couples, have ordained sexually active gay clergy, and have gone on record as supporting same sex marriages. A number of other liberal and some mainline denominations (notably the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian, and United Methodists) have begun to change in this area, at great threat to their church harmony. Conservative faith groups have generally retained their traditional rejection of non celibate gays and lesbians. 

As a rule, people resist change; change is stressful, and one of the reasons people seek out faith groups is for the constancy that they provide for one’s life, a fixed anchor that they can count on. Change often involves great agony, internal conflict, and (within churches) even schism and violence. 

In contrast to faith – “the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen” – all scientific beliefs are open to falsification. Scientists know that their beliefs only approximate reality. Their beliefs are grounded in observations. New data is continually becoming available. Scientists expect change, and fame (and research grants) comes to those scientists who are on the cutting edge of new discoveries. Even here, however, change does not always come rapidly. Nevertheless, even in churches, change does come, as people continue to search for the truth about what to believe. 

In the January 2008 issue of the Herald, in an article entitled “The Case for Continuance,” i.e., steadfastness, Harry Dennis lists some of the many changes that have occurred within the (Community of Christ) church during his more than seven decades of church membership. He writes: 

During my years of college teaching, I was influenced by scholars who raised basic questions about the “Old Jerusalem” type gospel that seemed deeply entrenched among many in the church. In addition, a number of scholars and theologians in our church during the last half of the twentieth century challenged aspects of our history and beliefs. Also, we decided to become a world church, and this added to a theological unrest in the church leadership that trickled down to many of the rest of us. As several church leaders and academicians attended seminaries, they began to more critically examine their faith. As a result, their thinking crept into church literature, which began the metamorphosis that affected many of us, including me. 

In the final analysis of why I stay with the church, I must admit that being “born in the church” is a factor, even though it’s not the same church of my childhood in many respects. I still find the fellowship in the church of great importance. 

But what really keeps me in the faith is that I believe the church has escaped from a kind of parochialism and backward-looking mentality. A church that adopted a principle stated by Winston Churchill that “change is the price of survival” is a church that will live on. A church that is pluralistic in nature, that has invited others to its table, that overcame the second-class treatment of women, that respects other faiths and even changed its name to better reflect its mission is a church that still captures my allegiance. 

In David Schaal’s introduction to that same issue, he suggests that we pray for one another. In the meantime – until we learn to do that – I find it enheartening that this Community of Christ does seem to be striving to create a climate in which some difference of belief (as well as diversity of cultures) is not only tolerated but prized. 

This paper consists of notes from an adult Sunday School class that I taught many hears ago. 

“Teach us how to pray,” his disciples said to Jesus. (Luke 11, 1) and He answered by teaching them the prayer we call The Lord’s Prayer. In this prayer, Jesus invites us to draw near to God, who dwells in mystery, who is beyond human understanding, but whom we can call “our Father”.

The Lord’s Prayer is a prayer that Christians treasure. As a model of prayer, every Christian learns it by heart. It appears everywhere in the church’s life: in its liturgy and sacraments, in public and private prayer. 

Though we memorize it as a set formula, the Lord’s Prayer shouldn’t be repeated mechanically or without thought. Its purpose is to awaken and stimulate our faith. Through this prayer Jesus invites us to approach God as Father. Indeed, the Lord’s Prayer has been called a summary of the gospel. 

Our Father 

God – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” “All things exist and have their being in God.” 

Calling God “Father” does not mean that God is masculine. God is beyond the categories of gender, of masculine or feminine. None of our descriptions of God is adequate. God, who is “in heaven”, whose name is holy, cannot be fully known by us. 

By calling God “Father,” we are more rightly describing ourselves and our relationship with God. Jesus teaches that we have a filial relationship with God; God sees us as if we were a daughter or a son. And we, on our part, can approach God in the familiar confident way a child approaches a loving parent.  

God, You choose to reveal Yourself to us, and we understand You to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal and unchangeable, the Creator and Preserver of the world, a morally perfect Being, righteous and loving. Your Son, Jesus, who lived in a very patriarchal society, spoke of You as Abba – Father. Moses, spoke to You face-to-face: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face.” Others have found You in nature, (as illustrated by the poem, Vestigia, by Bliss Carman), and some, hermits, withdrawing from the world, claimed to have found You within their inmost souls. 

The Muslim mystic, Rumi, wrote: “A seeker knocked at the door of the beloved – God – and a voice from inside asked: ‘Who is it?’ The seeker answered ‘It is I’; and the voice said: ‘In this house there is no You and I.’ The door remained locked. Then the seeker went into solitude, fasted and prayed and, later, returned and again knocked at the door. Again the voice asked: ‘Who is it?’ Now the believer answered: ‘It is You.’ Then the door opened.” 

Buddhists don’t teach a personal God but, rather, a love that permeates the universe, and we remember that You are that love – our heavenly Father, Mother, Parent. 

who art in heaven 

And where is heaven? Metaphorically, it is above us, as in the old saying, “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” But in another sense, it is around us and within us, just as God is omnipresent, around us and within us. 

Rom 14:17 (NIV) For the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 

Hallowed be Thy name. 

Hallowed: meaning “holy.” “May your name be kept holy.” By implication, “You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.” Don’t blunt your spiritual experience with a casual attitude toward your Heavenly Father. 

Thy kingdom come. 

And then there is the metaphor of “kingdom.” It is not a metaphor with which I am comfortable; although I suppose that might just be pride talking; but I feel an awe within the presence of God which does not require any kingship metaphor. On the contrary, I feel that it is anthropomorphic and somewhat demeaning to think of God as king. For me, my God has always been so much more than that. 

Thy will be done on Earth 

In the third chapter of Genesis (“Inspired Version” which, although not generally accepted as scripture, has many things from which we can learn), we read: 

[Gen 3:1] And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying, That Satan whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning. 

[Gen 3:2] And he came before me, saying, Behold I, send me, I will be thy Son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore, give me thine honor.

[Gen 3:3] But behold, my beloved Son, which was my beloved and chosen from the beginning, said unto me: Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

[Gen 3:4] Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him; and also that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten I caused that he should be cast down; and he became Satan.

[Gen 3:5] Yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive, and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

And from the Book of Mormon: 

[2 Ne 1:111] And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed, he would not have fallen; but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. 

[2 Ne 1:112] And all things which were created, must have remained in the same state which they were, after they were created; and they must have remained for ever, and had no end.

[2 Ne 1:113] And they would have had no children; wherefore, they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

[2 Ne 1:114] But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

[2 Ne 1:115] Adam fell, that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

[2 Ne 1:116] And the Messiah cometh in the fullness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall.

  as it is in heaven. 

And we look forward to that time, as we sing, “And as we hope for heaven, make earth a heaven below.” 

Give us this day our daily bread 

John 6:32-35 (NAS) Jesus therefore said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” They said therefore to Him, “Lord, evermore give us this bread.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” 

and forgive us our trespasses 

Do you remember The Fool’s Prayer? 

The royal feast was done. The king 

Sought some new sport to banish care

And, to his jester, cried, “Sir, Fool,

Kneel now and make for us a prayer.”

The jester doft his cap-and-bells, 

And stood, the mocking court before.

They did not see the bitter smile

Behind the painted grin he wore.

He bowed his head and bent his knee 

Upon the monarch’s silken stool.

His pleading voice arose, “Oh, Lord,

Be merciful to me, a fool.

These clumsy feet, still in the mire, 

Go crushing blossoms without end;

These hard, well-meaning hands we thrust

Among the heartstrings of a friend.”

The unkind word we might have kept, 

Who knows how sharp it pierced and stung?

The word we had not sense to say,

Who knows how grandly it had rung.

Our faults no tenderness should ask. 

The chastening stripes must cleanse them all.

But for our follies, oh, in shame

Before the eyes of heaven we fall.”

The room was hushed. In silence 

Rose the king, and sought his gardens cool.

His pleading voice arose, “Oh, Lord,

Be merciful to me, a fool.”

as we forgive those who trespass against us. 

This petition of the Lord’s Prayer is a demanding one. Not only do we ask God’s forgiveness for our daily offenses, but we link God’s forgiveness of us with our forgiveness of others. Forgiving others is not always easy to do. We need God’s help to do it. But it must be done or we ourselves cannot receive God’s mercy. 

[Mat 18:21] Then came Peter to him and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? 

[Mat 18:22] Jesus said unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times; but, until seventy times seven.

And lead us not into temptation 

or, as the Pope is said to have recently re-phrased it, “Suffer us not to be led into temptation.”  

In that marvelous story known as the Book of Job, chosen by some early churchmen for inclusion in the bible because of its majestic teachings about God, it is pointed out that His purposes are beyond our understanding:  

But deliver us from evil 

Life is not easy. It is a daily battle. Trials like sickness and failure can crush our spirits. False values and easy promises can entice us and even destroy our souls. And so we ask God to keep us from failing when we are tested, to help us to know the right thing to do, to deliver us from the evil which awaits us in life. 

“And I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year, ‘Give me a light, that I may tread safely into the unknown.’ And he replied: ‘Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the Hand of God. That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way.” 

So, I went forth, and finding the Hand of God, trod gladly into the night. And He led me towards the hills and the breaking of the day in the lone East. 

So, heart, be still: What need our little life, our human life, to know, if God hath comprehension? 

Looked at from another perspective, it is we who must be the deliverers. One of my favorite hymns is #12 in Sing a New Song: 

I, the Lord of sea and sky, I have heard my people cry. 

All who dwell in deepest sin my hand will save.

I who made the stars of night, I will make their darkness bright.

Who will bear my light to them? Whom shall I send?

I, the Lord of snow and rain, I have borne my people’s pain. 

I have wept for love of them, they turn away.

I will break their hearts of stone, give them hearts for love alone.

I will speak my word to them. Whom shall I send?

I, the Lord of wind and flame, I will tend the poor and lame. 

I will set a feast for them, my hand will save.

Finest bread I will provide till their hearts are satisfied.

I will give my life to them. Whom shall I send?

And the answer in each case is: 

Here I am, Lord. Is it I, Lord? I have heard You calling in the night. 

I will go, Lord, if You lead me. I will hold your people in my heart.

And in the process of delivering, of course, it is we who are delivered. 

For thine is the kingdom 

We are yours, Lord, the children of your hand as well as your hands here on earth. May we indeed make earth a heaven below. Let your kingdom come, first of all in our own souls, that we may begin to realize it in our communities, and then throughout the world. 

And the power 

“O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder, 

Consider all the works Thy hands have made,

I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,

Thy power throughout the world displayed.

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God to Thee, 

How great Thou art, How great Thou art.

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God to Thee,

How great Thou art, How great Thou art.”

I like to think of Jesus as God’s love and power incarnate: “Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He worked in a carpenter shop until he was thirty, and then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never owned a home. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place where he was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself. He had nothing to do with this world except the naked power of His divine manhood. 

While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against Him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth while He was dying -– and that was His coat. When He was dead, He was taken down and laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend. 

Nineteen wide centuries have come and gone, and today He is the centerpiece of the human race and the leader in the column of progress. I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that One solitary life.” Here was a man or, as my Jewish friends would say, a true mensch. 

And the glory 

“The heavens herald your glory, O God, and the skies display your handiwork. 

Day after day they tell their story, and night after night they reveal the depth of their understanding.

Without speech, without words, without even an audible voice,

Their cries echo through all the world, and their message reaches the ends of the earth.

Your law, Adonai, is perfect; it refreshes the soul.

Your rule is to be trusted; it gives wisdom to the naive.

Your purposes, God, are right; they gladden the heart.

Your command is clear; it gives light to the eyes.

Holding you in awe, Adonai, is purifying; it endures.

Your decrees are steadfast, and all of them are just.”

Forever, 

Yes, forever; time without end. 

Amen. 

Yes, so be it. 

This paper consists of notes from an adult Sunday School class that I taught many hears ago. 

As some of you know, this adult class has not been following any particular course of study but is more likely to have its lessons based on whatever the designated teacher has found interesting in the weeks leading up to his or her scheduled teaching assignment, most often something that he or she has recently read. Recently, I have purchased a couple of books, one by Tom Harper (The Pagan Christ) and one by Karen Armstrong (The Bible: A Biography). Harper introduces his book with a quotation from John Dominic Crossan: 

“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.” 

We will come back to that point later. But first, I want to talk about good books. In Section 85 of the Doctrine and Covenants, known as “The Olive Leaf,” the church is admonished: 

[Sec 85:36a] …Call your solemn assembly, as I have commanded you; and as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning even by study, and also by faith. 

As a church, although we espouse three books of scripture, we do not limit the truth of God to either (1) previous revelation, or (2) future revelation given only through the prophet of the church; neither do we limit the truth of God to past understandings. See, for example, Section 149 of the D & C: Revelation given through W. Wallace Smith, prophet and seer to the church, April 1, 1968. 

[Sec 149:4] Some of you have sought security in the words and phrases by which the faithful of earlier days have expressed their knowledge of me. My ways are still the ways of my Son. My servants of the holy priesthood will need to be alert as ne er before to see that my work is not vitiated by the designs of the adversary. They must also bring to their searching for truth and their service to my people all the treasures of understanding I have opened for them elsewhere. It is necessary for all to promote unity so that my blessings can be yours as you willingly bend your strength to kingdom-building enterprises.

[Sec 149:5] My servants of the leading quorums are commended for their diligence in seeking more light and truth from all available sources. For have I not told you that my glory is intelligence and he that seeketh learning by study and by faith will be rewarded in this life and the life to come? 

In fact, to the extent that we believe our own scriptures, we believe that God has spoken to people throughout the ages, and not only to the Jews and the early Christian church. In fact, our own church teaches that God has revealed Himself to people throughout the world throughout the ages, in ways appropriate to their cultural development and understanding, and that He is the “one God” of love that is responsible for the diverse manifestations of the Golden Rule. Consider, for example, this passage from the Book of Mormon: 

[2 Ne 12:53] Thou fool, that shall say, A bible, we have got a bible, and we need no more bible. 

[2 Ne 12:54] Have ye obtained a bible save it were by the Jews?

[2 Ne 12:55] Know ye not that there are more nations than one?

[2 Ne 12:56] Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath;

[2 Ne 12:57] And I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

…

[2 Ne 12:63] And because that I have spoken one word, ye need not suppose that I can not speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be, until the end of man; neither from that time hence forth and for ever.

[2 Ne 12:64] Wherefore, because that ye have a bible, ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written:

[2 Ne 12:65] For I command all men, both in the east, and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them:

[2 Ne 12:66] For out of the books which shall be written, I will judge the world, every man according to his works, according to that which is written.

[2 Ne 12:67] For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews, and they shall write it:

[2 Ne 12:68] And I shall also speak unto the Nephites, and they shall write it;

[2 Ne 12:69] And I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it;

[2 Ne 12:70] And I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth, and they shall write it.

For this lesson, I want to begin by reviewing a bit about the Hindu scriptures. Unlike other major religions, Hinduism has no historical founder, and it has many holy books, not just one. The earliest of these scriptures date from some time after 1500 B.C.E., after the invading Aryans had settled into northern India and were being assimilated into its population, although they weren’t written down until about 500 B.C.E. These include the four Vedas, or collections of hymns – the gods were invoked by singing hymns inviting them to attend sacrifices, and they were assumed to be present during them. 

There are 33 principal deities praised in the Vedas. Each of these 33 deities has its own personal responsibility. For example, Agni is the God of Fire; Prithivi, the Earth Goddess; Rudya, Chief of the Storm Deities; Vishnu, the all-pervader; and so on. However, although the hymns of the Vedas praise all of these different deities, the Vedic sages had already formed the idea that the various deities were all aspects of One Supreme Power. 

The next set of Hindu scriptures to be developed were the Upanishads, so named (“Upa-ni-shada” meaning “sitting near”) because they were originally tutorials given to select pupils who sat near their teachers to hear the sacred teachings. Important because of their philosophical teachings, they have survived in their present form since about 200 B.C.E. They contain the idea that there is a one-ness of all things throughout the created universe, that the individual soul (atman) and the universal soul (Brahman), the “One God” of Hinduism, are the same; that the visible world is an illusion (maya) but that Brahman is eternal, limitless, omnipresent( and may be male or female); that the individual soul is without beginning or end but exists through a cycle of successive births and deaths (samsara); that the total effect of actions (karma) decides the next existence of the soul; and that the soul is capable of achieving freedom from its cycle of successive births and deaths and becoming (or becoming one with) Brahman through selfless action (“When all attachment arising from desires is destroyed, man’s mortality ends, and only then does atman reach Brahman”). 

Brahman is without form, but Hindus are free to imagine this Supreme Spirit in any way that is meaningful to them, and they have done so in terms of its various aspects. The first major aspect of Brahman is Brahma, who created and continues to create the world. One of the Vedic gods of light, Vishnu (who looks after the world) becomes a second prominent aspect of Brahman, and Rudra (Chief of the Storm Deities) is combined with the male deity of the pre-Aryan Indus people to become Shiva, who continually destroys part of the world so that Brahma can continue his work of creation. 

The earliest Hindu scriptures, the Vedas, are called shruti (or heard) texts, and are considered to be not of human origin, for they are believed to have been revealed by Brahman to certain inspired wise men of old. The next set of Hindu scriptures, which were composed from 500 B.C.E. onwards, are called smriti (or remembered) texts. Based on tradition, this smriti literature is considered to be valid for all devout Hindus insofar as it does not contradict the shruti texts which, as a direct revelation from God, retain supreme authority. 

There are a number of smriti texts containing codes of conduct for various classes of people at different stages of life, and old myths and legends dealing with the worship of the later deities, particularly Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, and representing the practical aspects of popular Hinduism. Shiva is the destroyer of the world, following Brahma the creator and Vishnu the preserver, after which Brahma again creates the world and so on. Shiva is responsible for change both in the form of death and destruction and in the positive sense of the shedding of old habits. 

Prominent among the smriti texts are the great Hindu epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. The Mahabharata, which was composed over a period of many hundreds of years, probably beginning about four hundred B.C.E., contains 100,000 verses in eighteen books, around the central narrative of which are woven many stories with a moral message. The central story of the Mahabharata is a story of the battle between good and evil, as represented by a war between the Kuru princes and their cousins, the five sons of King Pandu, over right of succession to the throne. 

The Bhagavad-Gita (or Song of the Lord) is a philosophical text of seven hundred verses which occurs in the sixth book of the Mahabharata. It tells the story of Arjuna, the third son of King Pandu, and his brother-in-law, Krishna, who was the king of a neighbouring country but who had volunteered to act as Arjuna’s charioteer during the great war. On the eve of battle, Arjuna, seeing his kinsman ready to fight him, is filled with remorse at the thought of killing his relatives to gain a kingdom, and he turns to his charioteer for advice. It is Lord Krishna’s advice concerning moral and religious values and man’s relation to God that forms the text of the Bhagavad-Gita. 

The Ramayana, the other prominent smriti text, developed from a popular folk ballad about Prince Rama, an obedient son, devoted husband, dutiful king, affectionate brother, brave warrior and magnanimous conqueror. At one point in his adventures, Prince Rama is aided by the monkey-headed general, Hanuman, in searching for his kidnapped wife, Sita; and Hanuman, along with the elephant-headed god, Ganesha, has become a minor but important deity in the Hindu religion. 

If you ask the Hindu people you meet which ones are their favourite Hindu gods and goddesses, you will get very diverse answers, with Ganesha, Shiva, Hanuman, Durga, Lakshmi and many other Hindu gods and Goddesses named. From the point of view of most other mono-theistic religions, this smacks of polytheism. However, if then you ask the same people how their favourite Hindu gods and goddesses relate to other Hindu gods and goddesses, you will usually get the same answer : “Well, of course, all Hindu gods and goddesses are the same god or divine energy, nameless and without form, but this is the form (or these are the forms) in which I like to worship my Hindu gods and goddesses best.” 

Hinduism provides several other important religious paths through which Hindus may approach God, in addition to this path of worship (Bhakti or devotion) described above. Included among these are: 

1. The path of Karma (or action): Through selfless activity one may approach God. 

2. The path of Jnana or Gyana (or knowledge): Through a clear understanding of the scriptures, it is felt that people can free themselves from their attachments to the material world and reach a higher spiritual plain.

3. The path of Yoga, of which there are several different kinds:

– Dhyana Yoga emphasizes meditation.

– Raja Yoga stresses the spiritual discipline of deep contemplation of Brahman.

– Hatha Yoga, the path of physical self-discipline.

– Mudra Yoga, the path of channeling life force

– etc.

In each case, when success is achieved, the mind is liberated from anger, fear, sadness, lust, greed, envy, and so on, and finds a one-ness with God. 

As you can hear, the stories in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are quite fanciful – imagine, for example, Hanuman, the monkey-headed general and the elephant-headed god Ganesha. But then you might remember the story of Balaam’s ass, from the 22nd chapter of Numbers: 

[Num 22:21] And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. 

[Num 22:22] And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

[Num 22:23] And the ass saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.

[Num 22:24] But the angel of the Lord stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side.

[Num 22:25] And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall: and he smote her again.

[Num 22:26] And the angel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left.

[Num 22:27] And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.

[Num 22:28] And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

[Num 22:29] And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

[Num 22:30] And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

[Num 22:31] Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

Then there are the stories that form the major part of our scriptures, stories of the Virgin Birth, Christ’s miracles, the resurrection, and so on. Spong and Pagels are the names that come to mind as having argued that these and many of our other favourite Bible stories are literally beyond belief. I would argue, in contrast, that they are only beyond belief if taken literally; and beliefs such as this don’t have to be taken literally. In fact, not all of the church’s teaching, either through scripture or tradition, were even intended to be either taken as either literally or historically correct. Most Bible stories were intended to illustrate a principle. Probably the best example of this is Jesus’ parables, as discussed in the 13th chapter of Matthew:

[Mat 13:10] And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 

[Mat 13:11] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

[Mat 13:12] ….

[Mat 13:13] Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

…

[Mat 13:34] All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

[Mat 13:35] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

The first five books of the Bible are known as the Torah, or the “Law,” since it is within this set of books that we find Leviticus, the law of the priests of the tribe of Levi, and Deuteronomy, the so-called second law. They are marvelous documents, containing much of the instruction that, if you believe in the Bible, God has given to His people. However, they contain hundreds of laws that, nowadays, only the most traditional of Jews even attempt to observe. Why is that? And why is it that, for the most part, Christians are content to rely on Jesus’ observation that: 

  [Mat 22:37] Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  

[Mat 22:38] This is the first and great commandment.

[Mat 22:39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

[Mat 22:40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Well, to understand that, you have to understand something about Abraham’s covenant with God, as recorded in chapters 16, 17 and 21 of the book of Genesis (KJV): 

  [Gen 16:1] Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.  

[Gen 16:2] And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

[Gen 16:3] And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

[Gen 16:4] And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.

[Gen 16:5] And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the Lord judge between me and thee.

[Gen 16:6] But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

[Gen 16:7] And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

[Gen 16:8] And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

[Gen 16:9] And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

[Gen 16:10] And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

[Gen 16:11] And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

[Gen 16:15] And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

[Gen 16:16] And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.

[Gen 17:1] And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

[Gen 17:2] And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

[Gen 17:3] And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,

[Gen 17:4] As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

[Gen 17:5] Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

[Gen 17:6] And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

[Gen 17:7] And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

[Gen 17:8] And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

[Gen 17:9] And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

[Gen 17:10] This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

[Gen 17:11] …and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you….

[Gen 17:15] And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.

[Gen 17:16] And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

[Gen 17:17] Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

[Gen 17:18] And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

[Gen 17:19] And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son, indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

[Gen 17:20] And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

[Gen 17:21] But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

[Gen 21:1] And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken.

[Gen 21:2] For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.

[Gen 21:3] And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.

[Gen 21:4] And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

[Gen 21:8] And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned.

[Gen 21:9] And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.

[Gen 21:10] Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

[Gen 21:11] And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son.

[Gen 21:12] And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

[Gen 21:13] And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.

[Gen 21:14] And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.

[Gen 21:15] And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.

[Gen 21:16] And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept.

[Gen 21:17] And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.

[Gen 21:18] Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.

[Gen 21:19] And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.

[Gen 21:20] And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.

[Gen 21:21] And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.

The remainder of the book of Genesis tells the story of God’s test of Abraham in the land of Moriah; Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah and the conflict between their sons Esau and Jacob; and the story of Jacob’s son, Joseph, and his adventures in Egypt. Exodus tells the story of Moses and the Israelites’ departure from Egypt, the ten commandments that form the core of the Mosaic law, and a variety of other moral and religious laws. Leviticus contains the ritual of sacrifice and rules governing the investiture of priests, distinctions between the clean and the unclean, and laws of holiness or purity; while Numbers describes Moses’ and Aaron’s census of the Israelites by clan and family, the consecration of the Levites, the Israelites’ rebellion against Moses, and a wide variety of laws ranging from the requirement that the Israelites put tassels on the hems of their clothing to the sacrifices to be offered on the various feast days. Finally, Deuteronomy chronicles Moses’ review of the Israelites’ history, his admonishment to love God “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength,” and the blessings to follow those who keep the commandments and curses to fall on those who don’t.  

Now, the Law of Moses, particularly as contained in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, was both elaborate and strict; and it was that Law that the Pharisees and Sadducees were trying to get the Jewish people to observe when Jesus was born and when he preached in Galilee. And it was rigid adherence to the letter of that Law that he had to overcome in order to spread his message of love to the world.  

It is in this regard that St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians is instructive: 

[Gal 4:1] Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;  

[Gal 4:2] But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

[Gal 4:3] Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world;

[Gal 4:4] But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law,

[Gal 4:5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

[Gal 4:6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

[Gal 4:7] Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

[Gal 4:8] Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

[Gal 4:9] But now, after that ye have known God, …how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

[Gal 4:21] Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

[Gal 4:22] For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman.

[Gal 4:23] But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise.

[Gal 4:24] Which things are an allegory [i.e., a story with a deeper meaning]; [and from the New Jerusalem Bible]: these two women stand for the two covenants. The one given on Mount Sinai — that is Hagar, whose children are born into slavery; now Sinai …represents Jerusalem in its present state, for she is in slavery together with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and that is the one that is our mother….

[Gal 4:28] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

[Gal 4:29] But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

[Gal 4:30] Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.

[Gal 4:31] So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

[Gal 5:1] Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

[Gal 5:3,4] For I testify again to every man that …whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

[Gal 5:5] For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

[Gal 5:6] For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

[Gal 5:14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The question of “And who is my neighbour?” is, of course, amply answered by the story of the Good Samaritan. The question of “And what is love?” is a little more difficult. However, one simple rule is to be found in St. Paul’s letter to the Romans:  

[Rom 13:10] Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.  

This paper was a Sunday School class that I taught many years ago. 

Jewish religious practice is characterized by the worship of God and by a calendar that celebrates particular encounters between Him and their ancestors: the Holy Sabbath (when God rested); Pesah (or Passover, which commemorates the Exodus from Egypt and, more specifically, when the “angel of death” passed over the houses of the Israelites while he struck down the first-born children of Egypt, the last plague visited upon the Egyptians just prior to the Exodus); Sukkot (recalling God’s protection when Israel dwelt in the wilderness); Shabuot or Shavuot – I have seen both spellings – (which is associated with the Revelation on Mount Sinai, the giving of the Ten Commandments); and so on. 

Muhammad is credited with naming the Jews “the People of the Book” because of their reverence for the Torah – from a Christian perspective, the first five books of the Bible – which tradition dates from the time of Moses. In a book entitled Yosl Rakover Talks To God, Zvi Kolitz’s fictional Holocaust character, Yosl Rakover, observes that “To be a Jew is to be … an external swimmer against the roiling, evil current of humanity….” He says that “I am happy to belong to the unhappiest of all peoples in the world, whose Torah embodies the highest law and the most beautiful morality” and, writing of God and the Torah, “I love Him. But I love His Torah more. Even if I were disappointed in Him, I would still cherish His Torah.” It is this reverence for the Torah and its place in Jewish history and identity, as well as the fact that the printing press wasn’t invented until the Middle Ages, that has caused countless generations of Jews to learn the Torah by heart. 

Now, Jesus was a Jew and, like other Jewish boys his age, he was expected to learn the Torah, probably from about the age of six onwards. According to Rob Bell, author of Velvet Elvis, this began with a period of instruction known as Bet Sefer, most likely by the local rabbi, which lasted until about the age of ten. At that time, students who had distinguished themselves would proceed on to a second period of instruction known as Bet Talmud, in which they would memorize the rest of the Hebrew scriptures as well as learn to question what they were taught and the oral tradition surrounding the text.  

About the age of fourteen or fifteen, only the best of the best were still studying, and those remaining would apply to a well-known rabbi to become one of his disciples. If accepted, the student would “take on that rabbi’s yoke,” i.e., accept his understanding of God and the scriptures, and try to learn to emulate him. This final period of study, known as Bet Midrash, during which the rabbi’s disciples would follow him wherever he went, might last until about the age of thirty, when the student himself might become a rabbi – a teacher in his own right – and able to accept disciples of his own. 

As you know, during the part of his life referred to in the Gospels, Jesus was a rabbi or teacher with a message of love and justice. He taught us to think of God as a loving father; to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” and to love our neighbours as ourselves; and to love our enemies. He authorized his disciples to continue to spread his message after his death, which they did – with most of them suffering the same fate that befell Jesus. If I remember correctly, almost all of them were put to death for their beliefs, just as Jesus was. 

So how did this Jewish rabbi become the centerpiece of the Christian religion, with all the attributes that were to become attached to him during the development of the Christian church? How did he become divine, “the only begotten son of God”? How did he come to be a miracle worker, to have a virgin birth, to be without sin, to be the only name through which salvation is possible? Well, a lot of it has to do with the emperor Constantine. You see, Jesus’ disciples had their own experience of Him, but by the time that the Church was thrashing out what was to be believed about Him, some three or four hundred years later, that thrashing out was done by an entirely different set of people under an entirely different set of circumstances.  

Probably the major factor in the Church’s ensuing set of beliefs about Jesus came about because of the emperor’s conversion to Christianity. That resulted in many of his subjects becoming more-or-less instant Christians, bringing with them the pagan beliefs they had held up until that time.  

The main rival to Christianity during the preceding centuries had been Mithraism, and Mithras was a sun god. He was often pictured with the sun behind his head, and that sun was eventually to become the halo around representations of the heads of the major figures in Christian art. He was said to have been born of a virgin, and his birth was witnessed by shepherds and by Magi who brought gifts to his birth-cave. The birthday of the physical form of this deity was celebrated on the twenty-fifth of December (a date that was adopted by Christians in the fourth century C.E. as the birthday of Christ). The Mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of the Magi at Mithras’ birthplace, was taken over by Christianity as late as 813 C.E 

[Now, by this time, you should be asking yourselves, “According to who?” Of course, I wasn’t there, so I can’t answer for the accuracy of any of this information about Mithras based on my own experience, but this is what the historians say.] 

Mithras was also a dying-and-being-reborn deity, and his rebirth occurred during the Easter season. Before returning to heaven, he celebrated a last supper with his twelve disciples, representing the twelve signs of the zodiac, in memory of which his followers partook of a sacred meal of bread marked with a cross. This was one of seven Mithraic sacraments, which became models for the seven Christian sacraments. It was called mizd, the English translation of which is “mass.” Like early Christianity, its priesthood consisted only of celibate men, and women were forbidden to enter Mithraic temples. 

Mithras was said to have performed the usual assortment of miracles: raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see and the lame walk, casting out devils. His devotees insisted on moral conduct and emphasized abstinence and self-control. They believed in revelation, atoning sacrifice, immortality of the soul, the last judgement, the resurrection of the body, and the fiery destruction of the universe. They believed in baptism, confirmation, salvation through good works, and life after death. Believers in Mithras dipped their hands in a basin of holy-water and made the sign of the cross when they entered his temple. 

So why didn’t all these new converts to Christianity just abandon their pagan beliefs and be satisfied with Jesus’ simple teachings when they decided to espouse Christianity? Well, let me tell you the story of the Grand Inquisitor: 

  The story of the Grand Inquisitor recounts how Jesus, revisiting the world, appearing in Spain during the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Naturally, he was arrested and condemned by the Grand Inquisitor because He had been offered the three things by which men may be controlled – bread, authority and mystery – and he had turned them down. Men, it is said, will follow one who gives them bread, obey one who rewards the obedient and punishes the disobedient, and believe in one who is wrapped in mystery; but He would not use these things. Men were to follow Him, obey Him, and believe in Him, out of love and devotion or not at all. That attitude the Inquisition had had to set aside, or there would have been very few to accept the Christ that was being portrayed by the Church. And now He had come to repeat His great mistake and spoil their work, and He was to be burnt at the stake the next day. When the Grand Inquisitor had finished speaking, the Prisoner simply crossed the prison-cell and kissed the old man on his bloodless lips. The Inquisitor opened the door and bade Him go. He went out into the night and was never seen again. It is reported that that kiss burned in the old man’s heart, but that he did not alter either his opinion or his practice. 

In fact, there has been a great deal of advantage to the Church (as a business) to incorporating into its belief system a variety of pagan beliefs represented, in this case, by Mithraism – since there seems to be something appealing to people about these kinds of stories. John Spong and Elaine Pagels are the names that come to mind as having argued that these and many of our other favourite Bible stories are literally beyond belief. However, I would argue that, beyond belief or not, (1) not only do they serve a purpose for the organized church and its believers but that (2) they are not beyond belief if taken figuratively rather than literally. You, of course, will have to decide for yourself which if any Christ you wish to follow, the rabbi with a message of love and justice or the Jesus Christ created by the Church. 

This paper was a Sunday School class that I taught many years ago. 

There are many ways in which people differ. Some people are extroverted, and some introverted. Some are intuitive, while others are more comfortable being grounded in the here-and-now of sensory experience. Some feel a need to make judgements about their world, while others are content to just take things as they come. Some live in a cognitive world, and some in an affective world (and you might remember what Walpole said about that: “This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.”). And some approach God as ultimately mystery, while others approach Him as revealed and knowable. 

Recently, there have been a couple of books which seek to define different manifestations of spirituality based on these kinds of distinctions. I find that interesting because I notice that people tend to go about being spiritual in different ways, and that sometimes becomes a source of conflict for us. So I thought that, if I could describe some of these differences and emphasize their common goal of approach to God, it might help us to avoid some of the conflicts that we might otherwise experience. 

Four Spiritualities: 

In a book called Four Spiritualities, Peter Richardson uses the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) to define four ways of being spiritual. 

The MBTI is a psychological measure of four dimensions within one’s approach to life. These four dimensions are as follows: 

E or Extraversion 

I or Introversion

Extraverts tend to be sociable, outgoing people who like action and tend to have many friends 

Introverts tend to prefer the world of ideas. They are more likely to have a few good friends

About 75% of the population are extraverts, while 25 % are introverts. 

S or Sensing 

N or Intuition

S or Sensing people are realistic, practical people who base their perceptions on what is present in the here and now. They are “common sense” people. 

N or Intuiting people prefer to base their perceptions on the possibilities present in situations, reading between the lines with expectations for the future.

About 75% of the population are Sensing types, while 25% are Intuitives. 

T or Thinking 

F or Feeling

T or Thinking people base their decisions on objective, impersonal, analytical knowledge aiming for clarity and truth. 

F or Feeling people base their decisions on subjective, people-centered values aiming for harmony, trust, and so on.

Humanity seems to be split about fifty-fifty between Thinking and Feeling types, but 61% of men prefer the Thinking function while 68% of women prefer the Feeling function. 

J or Judging P or Perceiving 

J or Judging people prefer to live their lives in a planned, orderly way. They tend to be organized and decisive and to want to achieve closure on problems. 

P or Perceiving people prefer to live their lives in spontaneous, flexible ways. They seek to understand life rather than to control it, and they like to keep their options open.

Again, humanity seems to be about equally split between Judging and Perceiving types. 

Myers-Briggs types, then, are defined by the individual’s preferences from among each of these dimensions. Since there are four dimensions, this equates to sixteen types, as follows: 

The Sixteen MBTI Personality Types 

• ISTJ – The Inspector: Reserved and practical, they tend to be loyal, orderly, and traditional.

• ISTP – The Crafter: Highly independent, they enjoy new experiences that provide first-hand learning.

• ISFJ – The Protector: Warm-hearted and dedicated, they are always ready to protect the people they care about.

• ISFP – The Artist: Easy-going and flexible, they tend to be reserved and artistic.

• INFJ – The Advocate: Creative and analytical, they are considered one of the rarest Myers-Briggs types.3

• INFP – The Mediator: Idealistic with high values, they strive to make the world a better place.

• INTJ – The Architect: High logical, they are both very creative and analytical.4

• INTP – The Thinker: Quiet and introverted, they are known for having a rich inner world.

• ESTP – The Persuader: Out-going and dramatic, they enjoy spending time with others and focusing on the here-and-now.

• ESTJ – The Director: Assertive and rule-oriented, they have high principles and a tendency to take charge.

• ESFP – The Performer: Outgoing and spontaneous, they enjoy taking center stage.

• ESFJ – The Caregiver: Soft-hearted and outgoing, they tend to believe the best about other people.

• ENFP – The Champion: Charismatic and energetic, they enjoy situations where they can put their creativity to work.

• ENFJ – The Giver: Loyal and sensitive, they are known for being understanding and generous.

• ENTP – The Debater: Highly inventive, they love being surrounded by ideas and tend to start many projects (but may struggle to finish them).

• ENTJ – The Commander: Outspoken and confident, they are great at making plans and organizing projects.

Now, according to Richardson, Extraversion or Introversion and Judging or Perceiving affect spirituality in specific ways but, for the sake of simplification, he asks us to just accept that they are primarily important for how they modify what he calls the four “cognitive functions,” Sensing or Intuiting and Thinking or Feeling (so-called because they have to do with how the mind works). That, then, gives us only four positions to consider which, when you come to think about it, is complicated enough as it is.

When you consider only the cognitive functions, you get four possible combinations, as follows (and I have shown the percentage of each of these four types within the general population): Sensing-Thinking or ST 38%, Sensing-Feeling or SF 38%, Intuiting-Feeling or NF 12%, and Intuiting-Thinking or NT 12%. If we now think of these preferences as also reflecting four different approaches to spirituality, we can begin to appreciate that not all people are going to be “spiritual” in the same way. 

Richardson describes these four different approaches to spirituality as follows: 

1. Sensing-Feeling is what he calls “the Journey of Devotion.” 

2. Sensing-Thinking is what he calls “the Journey of Works.”

3. Intuiting-Feeling is what he calls “the Journey of Harmony.”

4. Intuiting-Thinking is what he calls “the Journey of Unity.”

The Journey of Devotion is the spiritual journey of the Sensing-Feeling person (and Sensing-Feeling types make up about 38% of the population). Of all the approaches to spirituality, this is the most tangible and specific. These are sensitive, friendly, sociable, loyal and caring people with a focus on the present. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is their motto. They tend to work within traditional, structured settings and values in practical, concrete, co-operative ways and, from within that institutional setting, reaching out to others, expressing tangible love in empathic ways. However, they also need to be nurtured, and rituals (such as pilgrimages, candles, incense, the old hymns and the traditional dances) are important to them, whether institutional or personal, a source of nurture for their souls. In the story of Mary and Martha, Mary was probably an ST while Martha was an SF. 

The Journey of Works is the spiritual journey of the Sensing-Thinking person (and, again, Sensing-Thinking types make up about 38% of the population). It is a practical, reasonable approach to being spiritual, most often in association with some organized religion. ST people are responsible, efficient, fair administrators and good devoted stewards. They tend to be realistic, prudent, balanced, impartial, down-to-earth people who live in the present and are always ready to pitch in to get the job done. Because they tend to make their judgements on the basis of their own experiences, they are not easily swayed by abstract ideas, with the result that they are sometimes seen as rigid and old-fashioned. There is also often an element of tragedy in their religious journey, brought about by their tendency to feel justified by their works, much like the story of Job. 

The Journey of Harmony is the spiritual journey of the Intuiting-Feeling person (and Intuiting-Feeling types make up about 12% of the population). In this path, “Your mind soars with the many possibilities for good, and your heart appreciates the many responses you and others are making to evolving ideals.” NF people are idealists, combining a future orientation with deep feeling for others and the world. Filled with visions of Zion, they keep the hope alive, inspiring others to follow the dream of kingdom-building, social harmony and mutual respect. By nature, they are the peacemakers; however, they are also progression-oriented and sometimes a trial to those of a more cautious and conservative bent. While they account for only 12% of the population, 44% of clergy and a majority of canonized saints are Intuiting-Feeling types. It has been suggested that Jesus was probably an NF kind of person. 

The Journey of Unity is the spiritual journey of the Intuiting-Thinking person (and, again, Intuiting-Thinking types make up about 12% of the population). NT’s are problem-solvers and planners. They love to exchange ideas, seeking the intellectual clarity that they assume is there to be found if they can just manage to achieve the big picture. Their search is, first of all, for the truth-and-beauty in God’s plan for the universe, not as separate things but as one integrated whole, such as you find in modern theoretical physics. Although they make up only 12% of the population, the spiritual literature is over-represented by NT authors and NT subjects, such as social justice, which is important to NT’s.  

In the best of all possible worlds, these four spiritual types will both work and worship together. In building a temple, for example, you need someone to envision it (a prophet, most likely an NF person), someone to design it (most likely a NT person), someone to manage it (most likely an ST person) and someone to celebrate it or in it (most likely an SF person). Each, in turn, has to be nurtured within that organization; the conditions have to exist for all to have their spiritual needs met, if each of these subsets of the population is to thrive. 

Discover Your Spiritual Type: 

Corinne Ware takes another look at spiritual types, this time basing her examination on a spiritual typology developed by Urban Holmes. This typology retains the Thinking-Feeling dimension used by Richardson but substitutes the Kataphatic-Apophatic dimension for the Sensing-Intuiting one. Strange terms, but I will attempt to define them. Kataphatic refers to “God as revealed” and, hence, knowable; while Apophatic refers to “God as mystery” and, hence, unknowable in (His/Her) entirety. The dimension is somewhat similar to the Sensing-Intuiting dimension, but not entirely the same. In any event, this schema also results in four spiritual types, as follows: 

Speculative (or Thinking)-Kataphatic: a “head-type” spirituality (Works) 

Affective (or Feeling)-Kataphatic: a “heart-type” spirituality (Devotion)

Affective-Apophatic: a “mystic-type” spirituality (Harmony)

Speculative-Apophatic: a “kingdom-type” spirituality (Unity)

A “head-type” (Speculative-Kataphatic) spirituality favours a concrete image of God, e.g., as father or as mother, Christ as God incarnate, the centrality of scriptures. To enhance their spiritual life, Speculative-Kataphatic types might opt for better sermons, more study groups, and some sort of theological renewal within the worshipping community. However, they also need to be encouraged to learn how to just “be” in God’s presence, human beings rather than human doings. 

A “heart-type” (Affective-Kataphatic) spirituality is a more charismatic type of spirituality. Their theology still emphasizes the anthropomorphic representation of God – man’s tendency to create God in his own image – and the centrality of scriptures, but this is accompanied by a more heart-felt quest for holiness. Where the “head-type” person may say, “My doctrine is purer than yours,” the “heart-type” person will counter with “My walk with the Lord is closer than yours.” To enhance their spiritual life, they might opt for more prayer and testimony services, the old hymns (The Old Rugged Cross) or the new Contemporary Christian praise songs. Because they are likely to experience both highs and lows of feeling, they may need to be reminded that God has not departed just because this moment may not be as high as the last. 

A “mystic-type” (Affective-Apophatic) spirituality is characterized more by listening to God than by talking to Him, with an aspiration to union with God, the ultimate mystery. People attracted to this type of spirituality are often introspective people for whom their inner world is more real and more attractive than the external one. They are attracted to the writings of the Christian mystics such as St. Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Thomas Merton. They tend to see God as creative force and may be attracted to a creation-type theology. They often find themselves uncomfortable and not fitting in, especially with congregations that are primarily social or cultural assemblies. To enhance their spiritual life, they need solitude and silence and may benefit from encouragement to develop a contemplative or centering kind of meditation, or to take part in religious retreats. However, they should also be reminded that their brothers and sisters will miss out on the spiritual contribution that they can make to the life of the congregation if, in seeking only their own spiritual goals, they fail to be emotionally present to others. 

“Kingdom-type” (Speculative-Apophatic) spirituality is visionary and crusading. People with this orientation tend to equate theology with action. Speculative-Apophatic types passionately want to transform society and can be very assertive, even aggressive, in trying to implement their vision of the kingdom of God here on earth. They are likely to be exasperated with authority figures and constantly challenging them because these authorities are perceived as falling short of their own vision of the Kingdom; and they are prone to withdraw from any congregation that doesn’t buy into their vision as enthusiastically as they think it should. According to Ware, they should be encouraged to get involved with others in some worthwhile cause or project, as well as to exercise tolerance for those whose spirituality doesn’t match their own. 

Like Richardson, Ware believes that spiritual wholeness requires an element of each of these different approaches to spirituality; and that each of us should begin to develop our spiritual wholeness: 

1. by identifying our own spiritual tendencies,  

and

2. by attempting to add to them, not only by developing an appreciation for each of the other approaches, but by developing each of those aspects of spirituality in our own lives as well.

This (edited) talk/paper was delivered to a Sunday School class that I taught many years ago. 

My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines “parable” as “Fictional narrative used to typify moral or spiritual relations.” Jesus used many of these little stories-with-a-moral. In fact, in the 13th chapter of the gospel according to St. Matthew, we read: 

[Mat 13:31] Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: 

[Mat 13:32] Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

[Mat 13:33] Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

[Mat 13:34] All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them.

If Jesus spoke in parables, can it be so wrong to do so? Which brings us back to “How shall we view the scriptures,” these sacred writings – writings that are made sacred by their association with or acceptance by some religion – that are regarded as authoritative and, according to some people, not to be questioned. [Allow time for responses] 

Many Christians believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God – that it was, in fact, dictated by God word for word. I have even heard it said, in favour of the King James version of the Bible, that “If Medieval English was good enough for Jesus and his disciples, it’s good enough for me.” But what do you believe about scripture, and what does our own church teach about it? [Allow time for responses] 

The great Hindu epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are regarded as scripture even though their stories, containing as they do references to Hanuman, the monkey-headed general, and Ganesha, the elephant-headed god, are even more fanciful than the story of Balaam’s ass, which is found in the 22nd chapter of Numbers. You remember that story, don’t you: 

[Num 22:21] And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. 

[Num 22:22] And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.

[Num 22:23] And the ass saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.

[Num 22:24] But the angel of the Lord stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side.

[Num 22:25] And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall: and he smote her again.

[Num 22:26] And the angel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left.

[Num 22:27] And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.

[Num 22:28] And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

[Num 22:29] And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

[Num 22:30] And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

[Num 22:31] Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

As a church, we tend to think of scripture as writings which teach about God and His relationship with His creation; and we teach that the scriptures provide divine guidance and inspired insight for life when responsibly interpreted and faithfully applied. Our church, however, also believes in continuing revelation and, while the Bible is the central book of scripture for the church, there is a procedure through which continuing revelations may be added to our scriptures (collected in a book known as the Doctrine and Covenants). 

Although, like the Hindus, we espouse more than one book of scripture, we do not limit the truth of God to either (1) previous revelation, or (2) future revelation given only to the church; neither do we limit the truth of God to past understandings. As we read in Section 147 of Doctrine and Covenants: “Instruction which has been given in former years is applicable in principle to the needs of today and should be so regarded by those who are seeking ways to accomplish the will of their heavenly Father. But the demands of a growing church require that these principles shall be evaluated and subjected to further interpretation. This requisite has always been present. In meeting it under the guidance of my spirit, my servants have learned the intent of these principles more truly.”  

Furthermore, to the extent that we accept the instruction given to the church and recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, we believe in finding wisdom wherever it can be found (and, I might add, in my opinion much of it can be found in scriptures of faiths other than our own). In Section 85 (known as “The Olive Leaf”), for example, the church is admonished: 

[Sec 85:36a] …Call your solemn assembly, as I have commanded you; and as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning even by study, and also by faith. 

In fact, to the extent that we believe our own scriptures, we believe that God has spoken not only to the Jews and the early Christian church, but to people throughout the world throughout the ages, in ways appropriate to their cultural development and understanding, and that He is the “one God” of love that is responsible for the diverse manifestations of the Golden Rule. The Book of Mormon, for example, admonishes: “Thou fool, that shall say, A bible, we have got a bible, and we need no more bible. …because that I have spoken one word, ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be, until the end of man…. Wherefore, because that ye have a bible, ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written: For I command all men, both in the east, and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them: …For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews, and they shall write it: And I shall also speak unto the Nephites, and they shall write it; And I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; And I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth, and they shall write it.” 

It is said that the meaning of a communication lies in the response that it evokes. Personally, I think that was and continues to be the purpose of the Bible and its many fanciful stories: The Bible was constructed to instruct, and it is our job to determine just what we can learn from it. 

There are many ways in which people differ. Some people are extroverted, and some introverted. Some are intuitive, while others are more comfortable being grounded in the here-and-now of sensory experience. Some feel a need to make judgements about their world, while others are content to just take things as they come. Some live in a cognitive world, and some in an affective world (and you might remember what Walpole said about that: “This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.”). And some approach God as ultimately mystery, while others approach Him as revealed and knowable. 

Recently, there have been a couple of books which seek to define different manifestations of spirituality based on these kinds of distinctions. I find that interesting because I notice that people tend to go about being spiritual in different ways, and that sometimes becomes a source of conflict for us. So I thought that, if I could describe some of these differences and emphasize their common goal of approach to God, it might help us to avoid some of the conflicts that we might otherwise experience. 

Four Spiritualities: 

In a book called Four Spiritualities, Peter Richardson uses the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) to define four ways of being spiritual. 

The MBTI is a psychological measure of four dimensions within one’s approach to life. These four dimensions are as follows: 

E or Extraversion

I or Introversion 

Extraverts tend to be sociable, outgoing people who like action and tend to have many friends 

Introverts tend to prefer the world of ideas. They are more likely to have a few good friends 

About 75% of the population are extraverts, while 25 % are introverts. 

S or Sensing 

N or Intuition

S or Sensing people are realistic, practical people who base their perceptions on what is present in the here and now. They are “common sense” people. N or Intuiting people prefer to base their perceptions on the possibilities present in situations, reading between the lines with expectations for the future. 

About 75% of the population are Sensing types, while 25% are Intuitives. 

T or Thinking 

F or Feeling

T or Thinking people base their decisions on objective, impersonal, analytical knowledge aiming for clarity and truth. 

F or Feeling people base their decisions on subjective, people-centered values aiming for harmony, trust, and so on.

Humanity seems to be split about fifty-fifty between Thinking and Feeling types, but 61% of men prefer the Thinking function while 68% of women prefer the Feeling function. 

J or Judging 

P or Perceiving

J or Judging people prefer to live their lives in a planned, orderly way. They tend to be organized and decisive and to want to achieve closure on problems. 

P or Perceiving people prefer to live their lives in spontaneous, flexible ways. They seek to understand life rather than to control it, and they like to keep their options open. 

Again, humanity seems to be about equally split between Judging and Perceiving types. 

Myers-Briggs types, then, are defined by the individual’s preferences from among each of these dimensions. Since there are four dimensions, this equates to sixteen types, as follows: 

The Sixteen MBTI Personality Types 

• ISTJ – The Inspector: Reserved and practical, they tend to be loyal, orderly, and traditional.

• ISTP – The Crafter: Highly independent, they enjoy new experiences that provide first-hand learning.

• ISFJ – The Protector: Warm-hearted and dedicated, they are always ready to protect the people they care about.

• ISFP – The Artist: Easy-going and flexible, they tend to be reserved and artistic.

• INFJ – The Advocate: Creative and analytical, they are considered one of the rarest Myers-Briggs types.3

• INFP – The Mediator: Idealistic with high values, they strive to make the world a better place.

• INTJ – The Architect: High logical, they are both very creative and analytical.4

• INTP – The Thinker: Quiet and introverted, they are known for having a rich inner world.

• ESTP – The Persuader: Out-going and dramatic, they enjoy spending time with others and focusing on the here-and-now.

• ESTJ – The Director: Assertive and rule-oriented, they have high principles and a tendency to take charge.

• ESFP – The Performer: Outgoing and spontaneous, they enjoy taking center stage.

• ESFJ – The Caregiver: Soft-hearted and outgoing, they tend to believe the best about other people.

• ENFP – The Champion: Charismatic and energetic, they enjoy situations where they can put their creativity to work.

• ENFJ – The Giver: Loyal and sensitive, they are known for being understanding and generous.

• ENTP – The Debater: Highly inventive, they love being surrounded by ideas and tend to start many projects (but may struggle to finish them).

• ENTJ – The Commander: Outspoken and confident, they are great at making plans and organizing projects.

Now, according to Richardson, Extraversion or Introversion and Judging or Perceiving affect spirituality in specific ways but, for the sake of simplification, he asks us to just accept that they are primarily important for how they modify what he calls the four “cognitive functions,” Sensing or Intuiting and Thinking or Feeling (so-called because they have to do with how the mind works). That, then, gives us only four positions to consider which, when you come to think about it, is complicated enough as it is.

When you consider only the cognitive functions, you get four possible combinations, as follows (and I have shown the percentage of each of these four types within the general population): Sensing-Thinking or ST 38%, Sensing-Feeling or SF 38%, Intuiting-Feeling or NF 12%, and Intuiting-Thinking or NT 12%. If we now think of these preferences as also reflecting four different approaches to spirituality, we can begin to appreciate that not all people are going to be “spiritual” in the same way. 

Richardson describes these four different approaches to spirituality as follows: 

1. Sensing-Feeling is what he calls “the Journey of Devotion.” 

2. Sensing-Thinking is what he calls “the Journey of Works.”

3. Intuiting-Feeling is what he calls “the Journey of Harmony.”

4. Intuiting-Thinking is what he calls “the Journey of Unity.”

The Journey of Devotion is the spiritual journey of the Sensing-Feeling person (and Sensing-Feeling types make up about 38% of the population). Of all the approaches to spirituality, this is the most tangible and specific. These are sensitive, friendly, sociable, loyal and caring people with a focus on the present. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is their motto. They tend to work within traditional, structured settings and values in practical, concrete, co-operative ways and, from within that institutional setting, reaching out to others, expressing tangible love in empathic ways. However, they also need to be nurtured, and rituals (such as pilgrimages, candles, incense, the old hymns and the traditional dances) are important to them, whether institutional or personal, a source of nurture for their souls. In the story of Mary and Martha, Mary was probably an ST while Martha was an SF. 

The Journey of Works is the spiritual journey of the Sensing-Thinking person (and, again, Sensing-Thinking types make up about 38% of the population). It is a practical, reasonable approach to being spiritual, most often in association with some organized religion. ST people are responsible, efficient, fair administrators and good devoted stewards. They tend to be realistic, prudent, balanced, impartial, down-to-earth people who live in the present and are always ready to pitch in to get the job done. Because they tend to make their judgements on the basis of their own experiences, they are not easily swayed by abstract ideas, with the result that they are sometimes seen as rigid and old-fashioned. There is also often an element of tragedy in their religious journey, brought about by their tendency to feel justified by their works, much like the story of Job. 

The Journey of Harmony is the spiritual journey of the Intuiting-Feeling person (and Intuiting-Feeling types make up about 12% of the population). In this path, “Your mind soars with the many possibilities for good, and your heart appreciates the many responses you and others are making to evolving ideals.” NF people are idealists, combining a future orientation with deep feeling for others and the world. Filled with visions of Zion, they keep the hope alive, inspiring others to follow the dream of kingdom-building, social harmony and mutual respect. By nature, they are the peacemakers; however, they are also progression-oriented and sometimes a trial to those of a more cautious and conservative bent. While they account for only 12% of the population, 44% of clergy and a majority of canonized saints are Intuiting-Feeling types. It has been suggested that Jesus was probably an NF kind of person. 

The Journey of Unity is the spiritual journey of the Intuiting-Thinking person (and, again, Intuiting-Thinking types make up about 12% of the population). NT’s are problem-solvers and planners. They love to exchange ideas, seeking the intellectual clarity that they assume is there to be found if they can just manage to achieve the big picture. Their search is, first of all, for the truth-and-beauty in God’s plan for the universe, not as separate things but as one integrated whole, such as you find in modern theoretical physics. Although they make up only 12% of the population, the spiritual literature is over-represented by NT authors and NT subjects, such as social justice, which is important to NT’s.  

In the best of all possible worlds, these four spiritual types will both work and worship together. In building a temple, for example, you need someone to envision it (a prophet, most likely an NF person), someone to design it (most likely a NT person), someone to manage it (most likely an ST person) and someone to celebrate it or in it (most likely an SF person). Each, in turn, has to be nurtured within that organization; the conditions have to exist for all to have their spiritual needs met, if each of these subsets of the population is to thrive. 

Discover Your Spiritual Type: 

Corinne Ware takes another look at spiritual types, this time basing her examination on a spiritual typology developed by Urban Holmes. This typology retains the Thinking-Feeling dimension used by Richardson but substitutes the Kataphatic-Apophatic dimension for the Sensing-Intuiting one. Strange terms, but I will attempt to define them. Kataphatic refers to “God as revealed” and, hence, knowable; while Apophatic refers to “God as mystery” and, hence, unknowable in (His/Her) entirety. The dimension is somewhat similar to the Sensing-Intuiting dimension, but not entirely the same. In any event, this schema also results in four spiritual types, as follows: 

Speculative (or Thinking)-Kataphatic: a “head-type” spirituality (Works) 

Affective (or Feeling)-Kataphatic: a “heart-type” spirituality (Devotion)

Affective-Apophatic: a “mystic-type” spirituality (Harmony)

Speculative-Apophatic: a “kingdom-type” spirituality (Unity)

A “head-type” (Speculative-Kataphatic) spirituality favours a concrete image of God, e.g., as father or as mother, Christ as God incarnate, the centrality of scriptures. To enhance their spiritual life, Speculative-Kataphatic types might opt for better sermons, more study groups, and some sort of theological renewal within the worshipping community. However, they also need to be encouraged to learn how to just “be” in God’s presence, human beings rather than human doings. 

A “heart-type” (Affective-Kataphatic) spirituality is a more charismatic type of spirituality. Their theology still emphasizes the anthropomorphic representation of God – man’s tendency to create God in his own image – and the centrality of scriptures, but this is accompanied by a more heart-felt quest for holiness. Where the “head-type” person may say, “My doctrine is purer than yours,” the “heart-type” person will counter with “My walk with the Lord is closer than yours.” To enhance their spiritual life, they might opt for more prayer and testimony services, the old hymns (The Old Rugged Cross) or the new Contemporary Christian praise songs. Because they are likely to experience both highs and lows of feeling, they may need to be reminded that God has not departed just because this moment may not be as high as the last.

A “mystic-type” (Affective-Apophatic) spirituality is characterized more by listening to God than by talking to Him, with an aspiration to union with God, the ultimate mystery. People attracted to this type of spirituality are often introspective people for whom their inner world is more real and more attractive than the external one. They are attracted to the writings of the Christian mystics such as St. Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Thomas Merton. They tend to see God as creative force and may be attracted to a creation-type theology. They often find themselves uncomfortable and not fitting in, especially with congregations that are primarily social or cultural assemblies. To enhance their spiritual life, they need solitude and silence and may benefit from encouragement to develop a contemplative or centering kind of meditation, or to take part in religious retreats. However, they should also be reminded that their brothers and sisters will miss out on the spiritual contribution that they can make to the life of the congregation if, in seeking only their own spiritual goals, they fail to be emotionally present to others. 

“Kingdom-type” (Speculative-Apophatic) spirituality is visionary and crusading. People with this orientation tend to equate theology with action. Speculative-Apophatic types passionately want to transform society and can be very assertive, even aggressive, in trying to implement their vision of the kingdom of God here on earth. They are likely to be exasperated with authority figures and constantly challenging them because these authorities are perceived as falling short of their own vision of the Kingdom; and they are prone to withdraw from any congregation that doesn’t buy into their vision as enthusiastically as they think it should. According to Ware, they should be encouraged to get involved with others in some worthwhile cause or project, as well as to exercise tolerance for those whose spirituality doesn’t match their own. 

Like Richardson, Ware believes that spiritual wholeness requires an element of each of these different approaches to spirituality; and that each of us should begin to develop our spiritual wholeness: 

1. by identifying our own spiritual tendencies,  

and

2. by attempting to add to them, not only by developing an appreciation for each of the other approaches, but by developing each of those aspects of spirituality in our own lives as well.

This paper was a Sunday School lesson that I taught many years ago. 

Preamble

As you may know, I tend to be rather serious, a rather dry old stick, so I was searching for some way to lighten things up a little, and I ran across an interesting note on tithing. It was an announcement in a church newsletter that read:

The Associate Minister unveiled the church’s new tithing campaign slogan last Sunday: “I Upped My Pledge – Up Yours.” 

That didn’t seem very appropriate as a preamble to this morning’s lesson, so I went searching for another opening and ran across this, which is actually a bit more relevant (and that relevance will eventually become apparent): 

In the hospital the relatives gathered in the waiting room, where their family member lay gravely ill. Finally, the doctor came in looking tired and somber. “I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news,” he said as he surveyed the worried family. “The only hope for your loved one at this time is a brain transplant. It’s an experimental procedure, very risky but it is the only hope. Insurance will cover the surgery, but you will have to pay for the brain yourselves. The family members sat silent as they absorbed the news. 

After a great length of time, someone asked, “Well, how much does a brain cost?” The doctor quickly responded, “$5000 for a male brain and $200 for a female brain.” The moment turned awkward. Men in the room tried not to smile, avoiding eye contact with the women, but some actually smirked. Finally, a man, unable to control his curiosity, blurted out the question everyone wanted to ask, “Why is the male brain so much more expensive?” The doctor smiled at the childish innocence and explained to the group, “It’s just standard pricing procedure. We have to mark down the price of the female brains because they’ve been used.”

Part A

It is my personal belief that everyone always does what he or she believes to be the right thing to do. This morning, I would like to share with you what has led me to that conclusion, beginning with some research conducted by the well-known Swiss psychologist, Jean Piaget (1896-1980).

Piaget is best known for his studies of children, and his view of how children’s minds work has been enormously influential, particularly in educational theory. In his study of children, he observed that their thinking develops through a series of stages, that they exhibit certain distinctive common patterns of thinking in each of these developmental stages, and that no matter how bright children may be, they are not capable of understanding things beyond their cognitive developmental level. In addition, he observed that thinking does not develop entirely smoothly; transitions between developmental stages tend to be rapid and radical, and the bulk of the time spent in a new stage consists of refining that new understanding. Piaget saw these transitions as taking place at about 18-24 months, 7 years, and 11 or 12 years, resulting in four stages in the development of thinking. 

The first of these stages, from birth to about 1 to 2 years was known as the Sensorimotor stage. At this stage of their development, children are beginning to experience the world through movement and their senses. They are extremely egocentric in that, in terms of their thinking, they are not yet able to perceive the world from any viewpoint other than their own. 

Then comes what is called the Preoperational stage, from about ages 2 to 7 years, a time in which egocentrism begins to weaken. At this stage of their development, children have not yet acquired the ability to think logically, and they tend to indulge in a lot of magical thinking. 

Next comes what is called the Concrete Operational stage: from about ages 7 to 12. Although they are beginning to think logically, abstraction is still more-or-less beyond them. So, while they can now think logically, it is only with assistance. 

Finally comes the Formal Operational stage, from about age 12 onwards. During this stage, children develop the capacity for abstract reasoning and are finally fully capable of thinking logically. 

Piaget next turned his attention to the study of moral reasoning. In 1932, he published a book entitled The Moral Judgment of the Child, in which he proposed several ideas which, at the time, seemed rather radical: 

(1) that growth needs to progress through these developmental stages in the order given, since the acquisition of each stage depends on mastery of the preceding stages, 

(2) that “the child is someone who constructs his own moral world view, who forms ideas about right and wrong, and fair and unfair, that are not the direct product of adult teaching and that are often maintained in the face of adult wishes to the contrary” (Gallagher, 1978, p. 26), mainly through interaction with his or her peers,

(3) that the development of moral reasoning, like reasoning in general, proceeds on a stage-by-stage basis,

(4) that children cannot reason morally beyond the level at which they can reason in general. That is, judgements about right and wrong –judgements concerning what ought to be done, and why – are limited by cognitive development in general, and

(5) that morality is not so much a function of what one does but of the reasoning that underlies the choice. That is, the morality of any behaviour is not determined by what the child does but by why it does what it does, by the reasoning behind the behaviour.

Building on Piaget’s work, Lawrence Kohlberg, a psychology professor at Yale University and later at Harvard, postulated a series of six stages in the development of moral reasoning, grouped into three moral levels, as follows: 

Level 1: Pre-Moral Level 

Stage 1: Punishment and obedience

 (Action is motivated by fear of punishment)

Stage 2: Naive instrumental hedonism

 (Action is motivated by hoped-for reward: the morality of the marketplace)

Level 2: Conventional Morality 

Stage 3: Good-Boy/Good-Girl morality

 (Action is motivated by desire for approval, avoidance of disapproval)

Stage 4: Law and Order morality

 (Action is motivated by loyalty to authority, anticipation of honour/dishonour)

Level 3: Principled Morality 

Stage 5: Morality of contract and democratically accepted law

 (Action is motivated by concern for community acceptance; values are relative)

Stage 6: Morality of individual moral principles

 (Action is motivated by personal integrity, self-respect, universal values)

Part B 

Adam was walking around the Garden of Eden feeling very lonely, so God asked Adam, “What is wrong with you?” Adam said he didn’t have anyone to talk to. God said he was going to give him a companion and it would be called a woman. 

He said this person will cook for you and wash your clothes; she will always agree with every decision you make. She will bear your children and never ask you to get up in the middle of the night to take care of them. She will not nag you and will always be the first to admit she was wrong when you’ve had a disagreement. She will never have a headache and will freely give you love and compassion whenever needed. 

Adam asked, “What would a woman like this cost me?” God said an “arm and a leg.” Adam said, “What can I get for a just a rib?” and the rest is history. 

Part of that history concerns how a little glitch in research methodology has turned out to be most useful for our understanding of moral judgement. It so happens that all of the moral development research of both Piaget and Kohlberg reported above was carried out with males; and when Kohlberg’s scale is applied to females, they seem, on the average, not to progress much beyond Level 3 on Kohlberg’s six level scale of moral development. 

All of which prompted a Harvard professor by the name of Carol Gilligan to attempt to tease out the meaning of such apparently stunted moral development on the part of women; and Gilligan’s subsequent research showed that there is indeed a fundamental difference in the way in which boys and girls, men and women, approach the problem of attempting to resolve life’s inevitable moral dilemmas. According to Gilligan, however, the fact that women score lower on Kohlberg’s scale of moral development reflects not a lower level of moral development (per se) but, rather, a greater awareness of and emphasis on the inter-relatedness of all people. 

What appears to be happening is that this difference between men and women stems from the different developmental paths followed by males and females: In order to be male, the young boy must separate from his mother in a way that the young girl does not. Thus, males develop within the context of separateness (from their mothers), while females develop within the context of continuing attachment. As a result, males, on average, appear to be operating out of a “developing-understanding-of-justice-among-separate-entities” model of moral reasoning; whereas females, on average, appear to be operating out of a world-view characterized by “caring for and about those to whom one is inseparably related” – and in this case, “inseparably related” is used in the same sense as the neighbourliness illustrated by the story of the Good Samaritan, or in our terms, the intended inclusiveness of our Christian community. 

In effect, when knowledge about human development is based only on the study of males, the contribution that could be made by the study of female development is lost; and in the process, our understanding of both morality and religion comes to be dominated by justice-oriented, eye-for-an-eye, “logical” conceptual schemes; and what we might think of as the more “human” side of humanity tends to be devalued and ignored. 

The practical value of this particular difference between men and women is that the inclusion of women’s voices and values in human affairs, including in the priesthood – the oriental idea of the inseparability of yin and yang – adds a new empathic emphasis to decision-making that is not present in the values that Kohlberg wrote about. The distinction is not dissimilar to the one drawn by Jesus in his continual attacks on the righteousness of the Pharisees, who tended to observe the letter of the law, but often at the expense of its spirit. This is not to disparage the Mosaic Law – those who obey the Law have their reward – but just to point out that strict adherence to the Mosaic Law isn’t a particularly Christian way to salvation.  

Ray Broadfoot, for example, said it well when he drafted a short list of Christian fundamentals in a series of articles that he wrote for the Saints Herald some forty or so years ago,  

“God is love. 

He wants all men to be free.

He provides an example, Christ.

His Spirit works with all men.”

— to which he added, “We must be prepared to give spiritually directed aid to people who: 

* believe in God but not churches

* believe in some directive force in the universe

* believe that God’s spirit works with all men

* agree that all men should live to their highest capabilities

* do not see any sense or purpose in life

* do not know our God but worship their own gods.”

  Part C 

Which leads me to another issue: If, as suggested above, we were to supplement patriarchal morality by its feminine counterpart, it would not only require us to rethink our ideas of right and wrong; it would also require a change in our understanding of God. By admitting that the stories that we have been telling ourselves about God could, in fact, be limited by a masculine perspective, we could easily find our religion in a position very similar to that already faced by science:

(1) where ideas are recognized to be nothing more than ideas, i.e., concepts are recognized to be (no more than) constructs, 

(2) where we embrace the post-modern idea that there can be no truth independent of the person who constructed it (a very Buddhist idea, by the way),

(3) where everything that we tell ourselves needs to be treated as a hypothesis, and the telling of it a story, and

(4) where such stories are never either true or false, but only more or less useful.

Does that mean that nothing that we have been telling ourselves about God has any validity. No, of course not. In fact, the closer our understanding of reality (as reflected in the stories that we tell ourselves about how things are) approximates the real thing, the better our understanding of God will be, and the better our God-related stories will be as a guide to life.  

And personally, I believe that, when we get right down to it, the Christ story doesn’t do all that bad a job of putting us in touch with God.  

Part D 

In any event, suppose we were to go even deeper and acknowledge that our only contact with the reality of God, or of anything else for that matter, is determined by the way in which our brains structure the limited range of energy to which our sense organs are sensitive, and that the reality that we live in, on a day-to-day basis, is the reality that we construct in our own minds from the sights and sounds and tastes and smells and feelings that are formed within us from the sensory information that we receive through our various senses, plus the thought that we use to structure those sensory experiences, knowing all the while that those thoughts are structured by our upbringing, our culture, and the particular language in which they are formed. Suppose we were to acknowledge that we exist, for all time, in a subjective reality – which we can only hope approximates an objective reality out there somewhere in space-time – and that our understanding of God is limited accordingly. Or as the apostle Paul phrased it, “…we see through a glass, darkly.”

With that knowledge and admission as a foundation, humanity could begin to tear down or “deconstruct” the patriarchal logic which has supported the Christian church’s historical suppression of women and its antagonism towards peoples of other cultures, races, faiths, and so on – perhaps to the point where there can begin to be a wider ecumenism, one in which the quest for peace among people is not quite so hampered by an inherent hostility based on differences. 

When I joined this church more than seventy years ago, we were very proud of being different. I knew that this church was the right one, that all the others were wrong, and that the Catholic church, in particular, was evil. At the time, the members of those other churches knew essentially the same thing, of course, except that they knew that they were the ones who were right while we were among those other groups that were wrong. All of this was in keeping with a very fundamental law of human nature, well known in Social Psychology, which has to do with the “In Group” and the “Out Group. “Essentially, my group is right, and everyone else is wrong (or as one mother observed while watching a group of soldiers on parade, “Everyone is out of step but my Johnny.”) 

Life was relatively easy in those good old days, because we knew very little about anyone else; and it is always easy to be critical of others when you don’t know very much about them. But then the world began to shrink, and groups with whom we would have had no contact in the past began to become our neighbours in our “global village.” In the future, as we begin to learn more and more about these new neighbours of ours, it will become less and less easy to maintain holier-than-thou attitudes towards them. People will continue to be valued for their similarity to us, of course, but they will be valued for their diversity as well. And tolerance for and acceptance of all people will continue to increase, regardless of their differences from us. 

Not so long ago, when one of the leaders of the church retired, he spoke of the prejudice that he experienced within the church because of his Buddhist background and beliefs – many of you didn’t know that we had a church leader who was Buddhist as well as Christian, did you? In the future, prejudice against those who are different from ourselves is going to be more and more difficult to maintain, as we learn to value, rather than disparage, the differences that we find in these other groups to which we are inseparably related. Then, as we move towards a more inclusive view of humanity, we are all going to be neighbours, not only in our global village, but in the Good Samaritan sense of the term as well. Then, perhaps, we can get on with the task of sharing our various stories, and perhaps even listening to the theological stories told by others.  

With those treatment approaches as background, we may then approach the energy therapies. Quoting from a book by James Durlacher (Freedom From Fear Forever, 1994):

“Some five thousand years ago the Chinese began observing a phenomenon of energy in the body that they eventually called CHI (pronounced chee), which means ‘life force.’ They found this energy flowed through the body…. They found that there were no anatomical channels (tube-like conduits) as there are with arteries. However, the energy seemed to flow along particular lines or pathways [which they] called meridians. 

They found there were points along these energy meridians that, when stimulated, could balance or transfer energies to make them flow freely and evenly, restoring normal function to various parts of the body.” 

 In 1966, a chiropractor by the name of George Goodheart reported that:  

“…another way of stimulating the various points of the energy meridians was to percuss (tap) the point with the finger tip. He described the procedure as a way to relieve pain and presented his results in 1979 at the annual summer meeting of the newly formed (1974) International College of Applied Kinesiology.” (p. 41) 

Shortly afterwards, a psychologist by the name of Roger Callahan contacted George Goodheart, took the applied kinesiology training, and began to adapt applied kinesiology to psychological problems. In 1981, he published a paper called “A Rapid Treatment for Phobias,” and Thought Field Therapy was born. 

Now, as was previously mentioned, the Chinese found that specific meridians were associated with specific emotions. Thought Field Therapy is based on the premise that the cause of all negative emotions is a disruption in the body’s energy system, and that these negative emotions can be eliminated by tapping on various (acupressure) points on the energy meridians to restore the energy balance while thinking of the disturbance, just as proposed in Chinese medicine so many years ago. That in itself was hardly original; however, Callahan does seem to have added one important piece to the puzzle of emotional disturbance and its treatment, and that is the idea of Psychological Reversal. It was his experience that tapping at certain places on the energy meridians was successful in rapidly eliminating emotional disturbances in approximately 60% of cases. In trying to understand why the success rate wasn’t higher, he came to a couple of conclusions: first, that progress was being blocked by a kind of low-self-esteem-related self-sabotage and, second, that this self-sabotage – which he called “psychological reversal” – could be eliminated, at least temporarily, by having the patient say “I accept myself even though I have this problem” (stating the specific problem that the client consciously wants to eliminate) while tapping or rubbing on certain energy-system-related points on the body. 

Callahan began offering training in this new method, which he called Thought Field Therapy (on the grounds that “the trauma is encoded in the Thought Field”), and an engineer by the name of Gary Craig was one of the first people to invest in that training. However, Craig disagreed with Callahan on a few basic points and is now promoting a variation of Callahan=s Thought Field Therapy which he calls Emotional Freedom Technique (www.emofree.com). The main differences are as follows: Callahan (TFT) says that disturbances (perturbations) in the thought field function as triggers for the physiological, neurological, hormonal, chemical and cognitive events which result in the experience of specific negative emotions; and that a perturbation and the negative emotion that it controls can be eliminated by tapping at particular points on the energy meridian(s) while attuned to the thought field associated with that particular negative emotion. Callahan (TFT) determines the location and the tapping sequence by various diagnostic procedures or uses algorithms that are likely to work for specific problems. Craig (EFT) says that the above may be true but that, if you routinely correct for any potential psychological reversal and then tap on enough meridians in any order, you will eliminate the disturbance regardless of the kind of emotional problem. The standard EFT procedure simply uses the more common tapping points starting at the top and working your way down the body (upper body only), and repeats the process until the problem is eliminated. This method is not universally effective but it does tend to work in about eighty-five to ninety percent of cases; and when it does work, the effects are very dramatic.  

Callahan Tapping Procedures Instructions 

1. Recall the most emotionally-charged example of the situation. If there is more than one emotion associated with that situation, you should: 

a. deal with one emotion at a time, and

b. finish with that emotion before going on with the next one.

As a general rule, you might focus on shock/fear, then pain/hurt, then anger/rage, and so on.

  2. Muscle test while asking, “Do you want to get rid of the distress associated with this situation?” and “Is it all right to get rid of it now?” If the answer is, “No,” the person is “psychologically reversed” (usually there is a limiting belief of some kind). You can temporarily disconnect the reversal by doing “reverse tapping” (Reverse tapping involves tapping the outer edge of the hand between the little finger and the wrist — about where you would do a karate chop — while saying, “I accept myself even though I have this problem,” three times).

  3. Associate into the memory, or focus on the pain itself. Then step back out and rate the distress (You can substitute any emotion) on the Distress Scale (Anyone at the 10+ level can expect to feel worse before they feel better).

THE DISTURBANCE SCALE 

  10. The disturbance is as bad as it could be. It is more than I can stand. 

    9. The disturbance is almost intolerable.

    8. The disturbance is very severe.

    7. The disturbance is severe.

    6. The disturbance is very uncomfortable.

    5. The disturbance is uncomfortable, but I can tolerate it.

   4. The disturbance is noticeable and bothersome, but I can deal with it.

   3. The disturbance is slight, and I have it under control.

   2. I am rather calm and quite relaxed, and feel no particular disturbance.

   1. I am perfectly calm and relaxed.

4. If the distress is severe, begin tapping before associating into the memory again.

5. The Setup: “Even though I have this ________, I deeply and completely accept myself.”

6. The Sequence: Associate into the memory again and concentrate on being in it, just as if it were happening right now, while carrying out the tapping procedure. Replay it over and over again — from the initial shock until you are okay again. If the energy keeps moving around (e.g., the submodalities of the experience shift), keep tapping until it stabilizes. If you do a tapping point and there is no negative energy on it (e.g., nothing happens), then skip that point the next time around on that emotion.

6. Reduce the emotional charge to a rated one, two or three, for each emotion separately for each memory. It doesn’t all have to be done in one fell swoop. Cycle through the procedure until you have dealt with each of the negative emotions associated with the distressing memory.

The Tapping Points 

    1. Eyebrow: Where it meets the nose.

    2. Beside the eye: About one-half inch back from the orbit.

    3. Under the eye: On the top edge, just beneath the eyes, close to the nose.

    4 Under the nose: Between the nose and the upper lip.

    5. Chin: Half way between the lower lip and the point of the chin.

    6. Collarbone: The K27 point, the indentation just under the two bony ridges near the midline of the body, on the right side of the body.

   7. Armpit: On the tips of the ribs opposite the nipples (or, for women, about the middle of the bra strap).

   8. Thumb: On the outside edge of the thumb, by the base of the nail. 

  9. Index finger: On the thumb side of the index finger, by the base of the nail.

  10. Middle finger: On the thumb side of the middle finger, by the base of the nail.

  11. Little finger: On the inside edge of the right little finger, by the base of the nail.

  12. Karate Chop: The side of the hand that would perform a karate chop.

  13. The Gamet Point (so-called because there are a gamut of things to do while tapping there): The indentation just proximal to the knuckles of the pinky and ring fingers. You can switch hands on this one during the tapping, if necessary.

– tap with the eyes open.

– tap with the eyes closed.

– tap with the eyes looking down to the right (Note: Just the eyes; not the entire head).

– tap with the eyes looking down to the left.

– tap with the eyes circling smoothly clockwise.

– tap with the eyes circling smoothly counter-clockwise.

– tap while humming a tune out loud.

– tap while counting to forty by twos.

– tap while humming a tune out loud.

If the emotion on the memory does not reduce as expected, it means either of two things: 

(1) the client keeps slipping into “psychological reversal.” In this case, have the client rub the upper left chest about midway between the sternum (breast bone) and the armpit, to suppress the reversal until the procedure can be completed. An alternative is to tap on the Karate Chop point.

(2) the client has switched from focusing on one problem to focusing on another. For example, she may have been working on some phobia and has switched to thinking about how angry she feels about the limitations that her fear has placed on her.