Forty-Day Fast Food

1st Helping (return to top)

"Our ancestors robbed and killed and pillaged and plundered. But, they kept the faith!"

—A Traditional European and American Christian Saying and Belief

2nd Helping (return to top)

The Will of God will never take you to where the grace of God will not protect you. Jesus' resurrection is proof-positive of this. But most Christians—regardless of denomination, status or ministry in the Church—are not satisfied with that kind of grace full protection. Christians, unlike Christ, want Peter with his sword drawn and ready to slice someone's head open for their protection. Better yet, they want Peter with his own army trained in homicide and ready to kill on command. They desire this not only because their understanding is that many swords are better protection than one sword, but also because having Peter with an army trained in homicide and ready to kill on command self-evidently justifies them having and/or supporting an army trained in homicide and ready to kill on command.

—ECM

3rd Helping (return to top)

"Christ knew, just as all reasonable human beings must know, that the employment of violence is incompatible with love."

—Leo Tolstoy's last letter to Mahatma Gandhi, 1910

4th Helping (return to top)

CHRISTIAN JUST WAR THEORY (CJWT)

A saw is a summarizing saying that can be easily accessed and remembered. The saws below are meant to be of assistance to Christians trying to clear the forest of obfuscations that conceals the intellectual charlatanism and spiritual booby-traps that lie behind Christian Just War Theories.

According to one's temperament, he or she may ponder them, laugh at them, cry at them, memorize them, act on them, teach them, discuss them or pray over them. All of them possess sharp two-edged teeth that expose the lie of CJWT—if thought about a bit. So, if possible, don't just surf through them once. Take the reflection-time needed to see what the saw is saying. Their purpose is to undermine Christian gullibility, because Christian gullibility in regard to so-called CJWT kills, has killed and will continue to kill on a large scale the bodies, souls and minds of Christians and non-Christians alike until this ethical fantasy is seen for what it is—an illusion used to cover-up, religiously validate and propagandize as Christian the mass murder of ordinary people by those inebriated with the lust for power and wealth.

SAWS:

1. Christian Just War Theory: Christianity's Trump Card Against Jesus' Teaching of Nonviolent Love
   
2. CJWT: A Theology of Smoke and Mirrors
3. CJWT: An Autoimmune Disease in the Mystical Body
4. CJWT: Moral Laxism as Moral Certainty
5. CJWT: The Bottomless Well of Loopholes
6. CJWT: How to Justify Any War
7. CJWT: Dodging Truth, Ennobling Infidelity
8. CJWT: Bishops Dissembling
9. CJWT: Christianity Without Jesus
10. CJWT: Have Theory, Will Travel
11. CJWT: The Teaching Jesus Forgot to Teach
12. CJWT: Tongue-in-Cheek Moral Theology
13. CJWT: Who Needs It? Who Uses It? Who Cares?
14. CJWT: Trying to Save the Institution, instead of Trying to Save Souls
15. CJWT: Manuring the Dark Side of Institutional Christianity
16. CJWT: Illusion Set to Logic, jesuitical Casuistry gone Mad in Reason's Mask
17. CJWT: A Smokescreen for Agnosticism and Atheism
18. CJWT: Jesus Reduced to Poster Boy for the Big Shots' Wars
19. CJWT: Bamboozling the Flock
20. CJWT: Wolf-Ethics in Ivory Tower Sheepskins
21. CJWT: The Churches' Alternative to Jesus' "Love your enemies."
22. CJWT: "Peter, get the other ear!"
23. CJWT: The "First Casualty of War" Made Visible
24. CJWT: Theology Without "Theo," Logic Without "Logos"
25. CJWT: A Sly Theology
26. CJWT: Gobblygook, Bunkum and Flapdoodle Canonized
27. CJWT: Moral Chameleonism
28. CJWT: Obeying Augustine Rather Than his Boss
29. CJWT: Reality Disdained
30. CJWT: Another "Donation of Constantine"
31. CJWT: Theology with a wink
32. CJWT: The Way to Eternal Life According to...
33. CJWT:
    

—ECM

5th Helping (return to top)

CHRISTIAN JUST WAR THEORY—A LETHAL HOAX

A theory is an idea supported by a wealth of observable facts that describes and predicts conditions, and which is then followed as the basis of action, e.g., the theory of relativity, theory of gravity, cell theory.

An hypothesis is a provisional idea whose de facto merit is to be evaluated for its acceptability as the basis of action.

A fantasy is an idea that is the work of the imagination. It has no verifiable basis of support in observation or experimentation outside the mind. It may be quite intricate and logically elaborate but when called to task by external reality, it shows itself to be whimsical, illusionary and incapable of providing an empirically possible basis of action.

The word "theory" is used in the popular, non-exact sense to mean opinion—mere conjectures.

Question: How much time has to pass, how many failures of a theory have to occur, before a theory, that says that the sun rises in the West, ceases to be regarded as a theory and becomes self-evidently a fantasy?

Is not "Christian Just War Fantasy" the accurate and truthful term that should be employed to designate what has been traditionally referred to as CJWT? Since no war ever fought has adhered to its norms, since no nation employs its standards to govern its military preparations or operations and since no Church teaches it thoroughly to its members—not even its members who are going into or are in the military—should not the facade of this being called a theory be dropped once and for all? Does not  truth, honesty and human integrity demand that a work of the imagination that has never been able to be implemented or validated in reality, external to a person's imagination, be called what it is—an illusion?  Is it not a grave evil to employ or foster the employment of a fantasy to evaluate whether the large scale destruction of human beings is justifiable in the eyes of Jesus, the Word (Logos) of God? Is this not what the Churches of Christianity and their leaders have been doing since Ambrose and Augustine—three hundred years after Jesus' resurrection—first opened the door, via a CJWT, for Christians to enter into the cognitive maze and a-empathic jungle of justified and normalized  mass homicide, war?

Tell your bishops, pastors, ministers and fellow communicants that CJWT is a lethal fantasy and a hoax, that does not have leg to stand on in the teachings of Jesus or in reality. If Christians, from here on out, want to go to war in good conscience, they will have to find something other than the intellectually debunked and disreputable CJWT to get them there.

—ECM

6th Helping (return to top)

It is thought that Constantine was a Christian, not because that what he believed was consistent with what Christ taught, but because what he believed came to be called Christian. This represents the "triumph of ideology" over Gospel truth. Constantine's imperial ideology infiltrated Christianity and displaced the Way of Jesus, thereby radically altering the value system of the Church. The absence of any mention of the Way of Jesus in the Creed of the Council of Nicaea, a Council that Constantine called and over which he presided [the Pope was not even present], and which most mainline Churches adhere to and recite as their Creed on Sunday, is telling in capital letters—if one desires to see. This Creed goes from the cradle of Jesus to the crucifixion of Jesus non-stop: "born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilot, was crucified, died and was buried." Nothing of Jesus' Way is mentioned, despite the fact that the Way is the original name of Christianity and refers explicitly to the Way of God unto eternal salvation as taught by Jesus. Indeed the verb "do" is the most employed verb by Jesus in the Gospels and refers directly to "doing" the Way Jesus teaches. Yet, again, the Way is completely ignored and formally left out of this Church Creed that Constantine shepherded into existence, and that most Churches use as there basic presentation of Christian faith to this day. Can any reasonable person believe that reference to Jesus' Way was omitted from this Creed by Constantine because of mistake or oversight?

It usually comes as a shock to Christians and non-Christians alike to discover that pointing to the very words of Jesus that explicitly contradict the values and practices of orthodox Constantinian Christianity does not bring about any change in the values or practices of the Churches. The orthodox Constantinian Christian tradition of imperial values has now so thoroughly displaced in the Churches the tradition that comes from Jesus and from Apostolic times, that even where it is shown to require breaking the principle of non-contradiction to retain a Constantinian position in direct contradiction of the teaching of Jesus, it can be done with utter tranquility of conscience by most Church leaders and most Christians. Of course, when Jesus says something which coincides with imperial values, then His words are reverently quoted and used to provide religious legitimization for those imperial values. An example of this would be the difficult words of Jesus on marriage and divorce: "What therefore God has joined together, let no person put asunder." Since this serves the purposes of social cohesion, simplifies questions of ownership of property, along with assisting the state and the aristocracy in controlling many other areas of life, this saying is given prominent status. Needless to say, Jesus teaching, "If anyone would be first, he or she must be last of all and servant of all," or His teaching, "Love your enemies," or His teaching "Put up your sword," all have been set aside, since they directly conflict with the imperial view of hierarchical authority, its values and its rights.

It is now a matter of hermeneutics, of the perspective from which interpretation takes place. It is not that the perspective of Jesus and the Apostolic Church provide the norm for critically assessing the life of the Church today. To the contrary, after Constantine, it is the Church under the sway of imperial Constantinian values which now provides the perspective for interpreting the Gospel. Constantine, unlike Roman emperors before him, did not claim to be God. All he asked was that the Church should legitimize everything he stood for and call it the "will of God," even when what he stood for was in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus. In this guise, imperial ideology conquered the Church and displaced Jesus and his Way as the Church's and the Christian's modus operandi—as the Church's and Christian's way.

According to the very questionable history attributed to Constantine's house-historian, Eusebius, Constantine's conversion to Christianity began following seeing a vision of something like a cross in the sky on the night before his battle at Milvian Bridge in October of 312. Along with the cross-like image (labarum) were the words "In this sign you shall conquer." If this story of Eusebius is a lie, then it is not of God and we are reaping the evil consequences of his evil to this hour in the Church. If it is the truth, then the critical question is this: "Who placed this sign before the consciousness of a man going out to slaughter other men in a few hours: Jesus or the Evil One?" Constantine has indeed conquered. He has conquered the Church by displacing the truth and the good and the love of the Father as revealed and made visible by Jesus, with his self-referential presentation of the truth, the good and the love that justified his lust for power, and which expressed itself by acts of patricide, fratricide and homicide directed toward those he perceived as enemies.

Needless to say, these Constantinian ideas regarding truth, goodness and love, which de facto justify the lust for dominative power and all the evil spirits that flow out of it, are the ideas and spirits that Jesus came to conquer, not the ideas and spirits that Jesus came to set up a Church to propagate and validate as spirits and ideas that proceed from the Father and the Son.

7th Helping(return to top)

Nonviolence requires renouncing the protection of violence. But if you give up the protection of violence, how will you protect yourself or others from death, suffering and evil?

8th Helping (return to top)

The love (agapé) of God which is proclaimed in the Gospel—and out of which the Gospel emanates—precedes the righteousness that makes it possible for us to love others as Christ loves us. It is because God loved all of us first—I am loved, therefore I am—that we can love all others, including our enemies. If we have to be secured by violence from our enemies—before we can truly live the "new commandment" of Jesus, "love one another as I have loved you," and before we can love our enemies as Jesus loved His enemies—then Christianity is a fair-weather religion, and its distinctive ethic cannot get started until it is no longer needed! If you only have to begin to follow Jesus' commandment to "Love your enemies," when there are none because you have been morally permitted to kill them under the auspices of some Christian Just War Theory, then the two central commandments of Jesus Christ mentioned above are rendered meaningless. And so once again, the relentlessly nurtured Constantinian ethos of "Jesus-justified violence, war, enmity, capital punishment, etc.," is the secure rock from which all interpretations of the Gospel are made, instead of the Gospel being the secure rock from which Constantinianism and its interpretation of God and God's will is judged as a Christian or as a non-Christian way of mind and life.

9th Helping (return to top)

The historical Constantine is covered in blood, but it is other people's blood. The historical Jesus is covered in blood, but it is His own blood. The crown is always covered in blood, but it is the blood of someone else. The cross is always covered in blood, but it is not other people's blood. Constantine and Christ, crown and cross, symbolize incompatible approaches to life in thought, word and deed, as well as, two quite contradictory revelations of God and God's will. When the Churches' leaders and the Churches' memberships make the choice to follow the way of the historical Constantine, they ipso facto simultaneously make the choice not to follow the Way of the historical Jesus. I am not sure the words exist to make it any clearer than that.

The seemingly unending attempts at meshing and deliberately interlacing the crown of Constantine and the cross of Christ, so they are accepted as morally compatible options for the Baptized Christian, are patent frauds in the economy of salvation. No uniting of Christ's cross and Constantine's crown is operationally possible, because they teach as God's will contradictory moral truths as operational in the same moral moment, that is, the rejection of violence and the giving of Christlike love to the enemy, and the use of violence and the destruction of the enemy. But, as Pope Benedict XVI says on September 12, 2006 in his highly reported lecture at the University of Regensburg, "Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God."

The crown of the ruler, even if the ruler wears a business suit instead of an expensive costume of power and prestige, cannot logically be interpreted as morally consistent with or as a logical extension of the cross of the naked nonviolent Christ. The crown of dominative violent power, even if it is dipped in an ambrosial fragrance created by the teamwork of Yves Saint Laurent and Padre Pio, is never a valid symbol of God and of God's will as revealed by Jesus, because the crown defends itself by killing its enemies. The cross of nonviolent love of friends or enemies, even though perfumed only by the sweat and tears of Jesus, is the authentic symbol of God and God's will because it represents God, the Logos (Word) incarnate, loving even His lethal enemies into Eternal Life. The Christ cross of nonviolent love of all is the true icon of God because it reveals, indeed glorifies God, who is nonviolent agapéic love of all per se. It magnifies the Father who loved us even when we were at enmity with Him (Rm 5:6-10), and who "causes His sun to shine on the wicked as well as the righteous, and lets his rain fall on the good and the bad" (Mt 5:43-46).

To choose the crown is to abdicate the cross. To choose the cross is to part company with the crown. Is it not Constantine in his bejeweled crown—who lusts after control over the organized, violent, coercive power of the state in order to coerce others, and who fosters and defends his interests by killing people—who reveals the true God, His Will and Way. It is the wretched cross of the nonviolent Suffering Servant of Isaiah (42:1ff) as embodied by Jesus, who in the words of the oldest passage in the New Testament "emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave…humbling Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (Ph 2:7-8). "Obedient" to whom; to what? Obedient to the Nonviolent God who is love and to His Way of Nonviolent Love of all in all circumstances. Faithfully obedient to Nonviolent Divine Love of all to the point that He explicitly rejects, as hostile to His mission the violent power of the totally perishable earthly crown (Mt 4:8-10; Lk 4:6-8), the temptation to do "good" in a way that is not the Way of the "only One who is good, your Father in heaven" (Mk 10:18). The cross of Jesus is the true image of God, God's Will and God's saving and protecting Power, Wisdom and Way. The crown of Constantine is a logically, morally, behaviorally and operationally contradictory image to the cross of the "Word (logos) made flesh" (Jn 1:1 ff). "Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God," say Benedict XVII. He continues, "[T]he truly Divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Ephesians 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, even Christian worship is "logic latreía"—worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason.

Now consider THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION which is rooted in the logos: In logic, the law of non-contradiction states, in the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that "it is" and that "it is not" in the same respect and at the same time." Stated another way, "Between two meaningful propositions "X" and "not X" there is no middle ground. If one is true the other is false. According to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, this is a fundamental principle of thought, which is so basic that it can be successfully argued for merely by showing that any opponents of the principle must be using it (and thus be committed to it) themselves. Thus, Aristotle considers the case of someone who denies the principle—holding that every proposition is both true and false—and asks why such a person goes on the Megara road to get to Megara from Athens, since in such a person's view it is just as true that any other road would get him to Megara. Or as one of the greatest minds ever to be found in a body, the Persian philosopher, Avicenna (c.980-1037 AD) wrote, "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." Perhaps the same pedagogy could be employed to bring back to reality those who proclaim the gospel of "Cross and Crown"—or "Crown and Cross."

The option is the Cross of Christ or the Crown of Constantine, but never the Cross of Christ and the Crown of Constantine. The Logos closes off forever, in thought, word and deed, the possibility of such an option ever coming into existence—and exposes with a light from eternity that no such "reality" has ever existed.

—ECM

10th Helping (return to top)

Part Two

Original Christianity, Apostolic Christianity, incarnationally transvalued the symbol of the crown via the person of the first martyr for the truth of Jesus and His Way of Nonviolent Love of friends and enemies, St. Stephen. As he was being murdered by the religious disciples of a God they believed was supportive and endorsing of homicidal violence, cruelty and enmity, Stephen prayed and loved exactly as the Nonviolent Jesus did on the cross: “As they were stoning Stephen, he called out, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ Then he fell to his knees and cried out in a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them;’ and when he said this, he fell asleep” (Ac 7:59-60). Stephen in Greek is stephanos, which etymologically means “crown.” Nonviolent martyrdom—laying down one’s life for others, in the Holy Spirit of Nonviolent Christic Love—is from then on seen as the crowning moment and deed of the individual Christian life and of the Church.

The acquiring, maintaining and defending of Constantinian crowns of whatever ilk has nothing to do with the reason a person is given the gift of faith in Jesus as his or her Lord, God and Savior. Martyrdom (Greek: martys, witness) is the Christian’s crown, a crown that can only be acquired and defended by laying down one’s life in acts of Christlike love of friends and enemies. It makes no difference whether this martyrdom-witness takes place on the grand stage of public awareness or in the little theatre of one’s kitchen invisible to all but its recipient and God. Deeds of Christlike love done for others and God at a cost of dying to self—which by the standards of this world’s philosophies—a person would be neither required nor expected to pay, are deeds for which the stephanos of martyrdom is given.

Jesus Himself is the prototype of all Christian martyrs-witnesses, of all those who choose the crown of martyrdom. He is this because He faithfully and unreservedly, in small matters and in large, before small groups and before large, gives up His life in testimony to the true God, who is love (agapé), the “Father of all.” He willingly makes whatever sacrifices are necessary to testify with authority and credibility to the “unviolent, unconditional, unending parental love of all” that is at the heart of the true God. He even refuses to turn away from what He knows is a true witness about God, His Will and His Way, even when it logically demands making the supreme sacrifice of agapéic love—loving His murderers by returning good for evil throughout His Passion, up to His last suffocating breath on the cross.
With a logic that most Christian leaders and most Christians have been unwilling to face over the last 1700 years of Constantinian crownings of Christians, Jesus knows that to fail to love as He knows the Father loves, when such a love means dying to earthly life, would be colossal false witness and even anti-witness to the true God and to His Way and to His Will. It would also utterly undermine the authority and credibility of Him and His teachings. He knows that failure to stand firm when the cost of being a faithful witness to God and His Way would be an act of cleverly justified “enlightened” self-interest. It would not be a witness to that divinely-based nonviolent suffering love on behalf of all those God created in His image and likeness in order that they could be at heart what He is at heart—conscious, volitional beings loving and being loved forever with that life-giving love that is one with the Eternal Life at the heart of God.

If witnessing 24/7/365 to the God of “unviolent, unconditional and unending, parental love of all” as Jesus did, if witnessing to Jesus who taught that “I and the Father are one,” and who “came only to do the Will of the Father” and who is “the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” and “the Word (Logos) made flesh,” if witnessing to this greatest of all realities via a moment to moment imitating of Jesus (“Love one another as I have loved you.”), is not enough of a crown in life for any Christian to be ambitiously pursue, then he or she is in the wrong religion or else has been mis-catechized. Christ calls no one to a part-time Christian life, to a 1/1/52 witness, to an “on the clock/off the clock” discipleship. Of course the crown of Christic martyrdom cannot be worn unless a person is willing to daily pick it up, to daily pick up his or her cross of martyrdom-witness and commit to try to follow the Nonviolent Jesus and His Way of Nonviolent Love in his or her relations with every person encountered that day. And, repent when a failure to do so occurs.

Again, the English word baptism is derived from the Greek word baptizein, meaning“total immersion.” In the Christian life there is no time, no energy, no money, and should be no desire to be a martyr for or a witness to the truth of any crown supported by violence against others and covered in the blood of others. Taking a day off or an hour off from witnessing to Jesus by “loving as He loves” in order to spend time on behalf of some kingly or queenly crown, rather than the one worn by St. Stephen, is as irrational. It is as spiritually and morally irrational and incommensurate with the life for which the Baptized Christian was given the gift of faith as calling time-out from following Jesus and loving others as He loves us, in order to spend time in a brothel. Time spent lusting for dominative power—regardless of whether one is doing his or her lusting for power as a big frog in a little pond, as a little frog in a big pond, as big frog in a big pond or as a little frog in a little pond, or as a supporter of any one of the aforesaid frogs—is as much a waste of the time and of the other gifts Christ has bestowed on those whom He has chosen for a life of faithful discipleship, as is lusting around fleshpots.

So, in original Christianity, Apostolic Christianity, the Cross and the Crown are not only not radically contradictory symbols concerning the kind of God God is and what God expects from of those He created in the Divine image and likeness, but are utterly compatible symbols for communicating the kind of God God is and what God logically expects from this revelation—which is an infinitely benign revelation bestowed on an evil-obsessed and God-terrorized humanity at a great cost to Jesus. Martyrdom is seen here as part of the very nature of the Church. It manifests the Christian’s and the Church’s unconstrained faith and hope in the God of “unviolent, unconditional, unending, parental love of all” as revealed in the witness-martyr Jesus of Nazareth. But like so much else, Constantinian Christianity has polluted this communicative symbolism so totally that the combination of words “cross and crown,” as normally understood, are now poison to the individual Christian’s soul, and to humanity’s efforts to know its Creator and to live the purpose for which the Creator created it, unto participation in Eternal Life in all its fullness.

—ECM

11th Helping (return to top)

Part Three

In his life and in his writings Mahatma Gandhi is consistently clear: “The spiritual battlefield is the mind.” As the mind goes, so goes the person. As many minds go, so goes the community. The critical difference between the open hand of hospitality and the closed fist of hostility is not determined by the five fingers. It is determined in the mind. To use a reference that I’ve used in other contexts, a machine gun without the will to kill operating in the mind is no more lethal than a broomstick, but a broomstick can be lethal when the will to kill is occupying the mind. To use Gandhi’s phraseology again: “Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny…A man is but the product of his thoughts. What he thinks, he becomes.”

Multi-national capitalist corporations whose agenda by structure and by law is to maximize profits, that is, to take as much as one can while giving back as little as one has to, do not pay two million dollars a minute for Super Bowl advertising time unless they anticipate so affecting enough minds that far more than two million dollars will wind-up in their pockets because this effort. Most of the hundreds of millions of dollars that politicians spend every four years goes to media access that will permit them access to hundreds of millions of minds in order to put in these minds whatever is thought will move the person to vote for them. The universal saturation of network and cabal media outlets with military propaganda and recruiting advertisements must run into the billions yearly but the purpose is the same: to access the human mind in order to affect it. Changing people’s mind, consciousness altering, by fact, fable, fear, fraud or even truth, is one of the largest and most profitable operation on the planet today. Everyone knows, as the mind goes so goes the body.

“Everyone” includes Jesus. The first word He speaks in His public ministry is “metanoia” (Mt 4:17; Mk 1:15), which we translate into English as “repent” or “convert,” but which in Greek means “change of mind.” [“Change of heart” is also a correct translation of “metanoia” providing it is realized that in Biblical times psychic activity is associated with various organs of the body. “In the Biblical idiom ‘heart’ is considered the seat of intelligence, thought, decision making, desires and deeds. Heart is used in the Bible where in English we should use mind.” Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie] Jesus is acutely aware that as the mind goes so goes the body—and the body politic. Therefore, He says with His very last words, in what is called His Great Commission, “Go and make disciple of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, even until the consummation of the world” (Mt 28:20). [emphasis added]

A human being cannot act on thoughts he or she does not have in his or her mind. A human being cannot logically deduce from thoughts he or she does not have in his or her mind. A human being cannot create from thoughts he or she does not have in his or her mind. Therefore the first step in any metanoic process is to get thoughts into a person’s mind that were not there, e.g., “There is such a thing as a Big Mac hamburger.” There is no by-passing this initial pedagogical step if change is to occur. “Metanoia” is the sine qua non for change, which is why “the spiritual battlefield is the mind.”

Control the content of the mind and you control the person(s). Lose control over the content of the mind and to that degree control is lost over the person. The idea, that was never thought before, is indeed power. It is the power to produce change in one’s behavior, in one’s self-image, in one’s God-image, in one’s image of nature, in one’s hopes, dreams, aspirations, motivations, sense of what is worthwhile (values), understanding of what is possible, in one’s employment of logic, one’s interpretation of reality, of destiny, of purpose, in one’s sense of meaning, one’s perception and understanding of good and of evil and of their sources, in how one thinks he or she should employ their life’s time. However, induced, nurtured, cultivated maintained ignorance is also power. The intentionally perpetuated absence of an idea in the mind is the power to limit, prevent, and/or control change in behavior, in self-image, in God-image, in hopes, dreams, aspirations, senses of good and evil and their sources. Ignorance is the power that makes it possible to uphold and justify a status quo and those who profit from it, regardless of how destructive it may be to others. It is the power that inhibit even the possibility of employing logic in a new direction, of ever having new aspirations, hopes, values, truths, ambitions, destinies, etc.

Rulers of institutions—whether economic, political, religious or corporate—know and know well the truth embodied in Victor Hugo’s statement that “Nothing is more powerful than the idea that has come of age.” By all means and by what ever means necessary, they know not to permit people, in so far as it is within their ability, to get access to an idea(s) that, while true, has a serious potential to undermine the truth and goodness of the status quo. Rulers—whether economic, political, religious or corporate—are what they are, partly because they are masters at cultivating the particular ignorance needed to maintain their bailiwick as is.

All of which brings us back to Jesus and His first public word, metanoia, as well as, His God and His Gospel, His Way and His Truth. In particular it brings us back to His God, Gospel, Way and Truth of Nonviolent Love of friends and enemies, which He commanded His Apostle to teach and to obey in His last public words. Hopefully it brings us back to Him with a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the profundity and depth of realism residing in His first and last words to the Church and to humanity. Hopefully also, once the quality of truth, insight and practicality of His first and last words is grasped, a more new discernment might be considered appropriate on the part of Churches and Church leaders, Church scholars and Church benefactors, Church membership, active and fallen away, and humanity in general. Hopefully, this discernment would focus on the possibility that all the other ideas that Jesus communicates between His first and His last words might be equally insightful, profound and practical. Equally insightful, profound and practical as a modus operandi for changing this furnace of agony called human existence in which humanity is trapped into what God intended it to be. At a bare minimum, hopefully what you just read will be a help in convincing you that maybe Jesus is not the unrealistic, utopian, impractical Galilean peasant, whose village teachings are untranslatable, impractical and inapplicable in the “ modern world of the day,” whatever day that might be. For the last 1700 years the rulers of the institutions of Western Civilization—Church, State, Financial— have made Jesus to be a light-weight country hayseed who really didn’t understand “the real world.” They vigorously nurtured those in their respective bailiwicks to think and believe this to be Gospel truth. Jesus was to be adored but not imitated, except by the occasional fanatic. Jesus was to be believed in but not necessarily be believed. But on a practical level—practical here meaning reaching Eternal Life in all its fullness and re-newing the face of the earth—is it possible(?), probable(?), certain(?) that Jesus in what He says between those first and last words may be able to tell the Churches and all human beings more about how to correct the hellish situation humanity has created on this planet than can the entire gaggle of rulers of state, religious, political and economic institutions, who have dominated Western Civilization over the last 1700 years?

However you respond to the ideas presented above, do stay aware: “The spiritual battlefield is the mind.” Jesus knows it. Gandhi knows it. MacDonald’s knows it. Rulers of governmental. political, religious, military and economic institutions know it. But, as Gandhi warns, “The only devils in this world are those running around in our own hearts, and that is where all our battles should be fought.” Stay aware and stay vigilant, because “The devil who is the Father of lies and a murder from the beginning” (Jn 8:44) knows it, and he means to achieve total victory on that battlefield. Total victory for him means reducing the person to saying that WHAT IS, IS NOT, AND THAT WHAT IS NOT, IS—AND KILLING FOR IT.

—ECM

12th Helping (return to top)

Part Four

In the world-renowned novel QUO VADIS, DOMINE? by the Nobel Prize Laureate in Literature, Henryk Sienkiewicz, St. Peter visits Christians who are soon to be martyred. A Roman soldier, Vinicius, in love with a Christian woman, clandestinely places himself among the Christians in order to locate her. At that moment Peter begins to speak:

[I]t’s not enough to love just one’s own kind; God died a man’s death on the cross, he spilled his blood for all mankind, and even the pagans are turning toward him now…And it’s not enough to love only those who love and treat you well. Christ forgave his executioners. He removed all blame from the Jews who turned him over to Roman justice to be crucified and from the Roman soldiers who nailed him to the cross…Only love is more powerful than hatred,” the teacher said simply. Only love can clean the world of evil.

By the time Peter finishes Vinicius is perplexed and disoriented:

[T]hese ideas were a completely new way of looking at the world and totally rearranged everything known before. He sensed that if he were to follow the teaching, he would, for example, have to make a burnt offering of everything that had made him; he would have to destroy his thinking, crush all his perceptions, excise every habit, custom and tradition, erase his whole acquired character and the driving force of his current nature—burn it all to ashes, consign it to the winds, and fill the void with an entirely different soul and a life on a wholly different plane. A philosophy that taught love for Parthians, Syrians, Greeks, Egyptians, Gauls and Britons seemed like lunacy; love and forgiveness to an enemy and kindness in the place of vengeance were simply sheer madness…What he heard seemed totally divorced from reality as he understood it, and yet it made his reality so insignificant, it was hardly worth a passing thought.

Thomas Merton in a very special little book of his, GANDHI ON NONVIOLENCE, writes,

Gandhi does not envisage a tactical non-violence confined to one area of life or to an isolated moment. His non-violence is a creed which embraces all of life in a consistent and logical network of obligations. One cannot be violent, for example, in interpersonal or family relations, and non-violent with regard to conscription and war. [emphasis added]

What Merton states about Gandhi’s nonviolence could be said in exactly the same words about Jesus’ nonviolence. There are austere implications to a way of life and death that has as a tenet the Nonviolent Love of friends and enemies. But, then there are austere implications that logically and consistently flow from any creed, truth, premise or belief, if one is to be faithful to it. Indeed, the more intensely one commits to a foundational creed or truth the more serious he or she is in searching for, finding and adhering to those thoughts, words and deeds that are logically required to live his or her creed or truth. Also, the more committed a person is to his or her foundational truth, the more willing he or she is to accept the consequences that are the result of fidelity to their creed or truth.

Yet, I have personally observed for over forty years in all the Churches of Christianity, that at the mere mention that the Jesus of the Gospel is nonviolent and that the Way He teaches is a Way that includes the Nonviolent Love of friends and enemies, Christians of all ranks and status become instantaneously defensive and hostile. Now, since it is the accepted truth of all these Churches and their memberships, that Jesus is their Lord, God and Savior, the Word (Logos) made flesh, the Truth, the Way, the Second Person of the Trinity, so why the immediate across-the-board hostility and defensiveness from bishops to wealthy Christians to poor Christians, to Democratic, Republican, Socialist and Communist Christians, from Christian monks who spend most of every-day in prayer and silence to Christian scholars, from priests to ministers to deacons to lay street-preachers, to almost every Christian, everywhere and at all times?

My present answer to this most serious and near universal Christian spiritual and truth problem is “intuition.” Intuition is the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. It is the mind taking dozens or hundreds of logical step in accordance with the law of non-contradiction almost instantaneously, and arriving at an awareness. It is a process of the mind whereby the mind perceives in a flash the agreement or disagreement between two ideas. So, for most Christians who have been thoroughly and ceaselessly nurtured, by every truth-teaching and truth-validating person and institution in their lives, it would be the norm to believe that violence-justifying Constantinian Christianity is Gospel truth. Yet they have also heard or read the exact words of Jesus in the Gospel for their entire lives. Hence they possess the necessary ingredient to quickly intuit the internal contradiction between what is Gospel truth and what has been purported to them to be Gospel truth. But because of the totality of the unrelenting conditioning in favor of the later, another intuitive alarm goes off that says, “Don’t go there. Don’t even take a step in that direction. There is serious discomfort or worse for you, your family, your parish, your diocese, your Church, your fund raising and your relationship with God and Jesus, if you start down this path of the Nonviolent Way of the Nonviolent Jesus even if it is only to refute it as being the Way of the Jesus of the Gospel.”

This I think largely accounts for the instantly defensive, hostile, dismissive, demeaning or ad hominem stance that all mainline and evangelical Christians and Churches take promptly when the door—to the simple literary and Gospel fact that Jesus is nonviolent and the Way He presents for His disciples to follow is a Way of Nonviolent Love of friends and enemies—is opened even slightly.

This mind-style, life-style and community-style of running at breakneck speed from new truth that incontestably contradicts the old “truth” in which the person or the community was nurtured in, and is still being nurtured in, is over and over again made clear to Christians and their Churches in the Gospel.

For, example, ponder this stunning story of the healing of the Gadarene Demoniacs in the Gospel of Matthew (8:28). When Jesus arrived by boat in the territory of the Gadarenes, he was met by two fearsome, savage demoniacs, who spent their lives in the tombs. Because of their mad viciousness no one traveled by the road near these tombs. Jesus mercifully heals them by a stupendous miracle. He also sends the demons who were tormenting them into a nearby herd of swine who then run into the sea and drown. The swine herder rushes into town, tells the story of what just occurred. “Thereupon the whole town came out to see Jesus, and when they saw him they begged him to leave their district.”

Huh! Told Him, begged Him, to go away! Why? Not invite Him into the town to cure other Gadarenes! Why not? They have access to the power and the wisdom of God who is in their presence and shown Himself to be a most empathic and merciful person and they say, “We don’t want you here! We don’t want any part of your power and wisdom or mercy. Please, please get out of our lives. Leave us alone. Please!” This is not logical, reasonable, rational or sane—unless they intuited something about Jesus that they feared far, far more then they desired all the good that he could do for them, if they welcomed Him. What could make people so fearful of letting Jesus into their lives that they would banish him from their conscious presence?

The following is a little poem on Matthew 8:28 by Richard Wilber, who was formally Poet Laureate of the United States:

Rabbi, we Gadarenes
Are not ascetics; we are fond of wealth
      and possessions.

Love, as you call it, we obviate by means
Of the planned release of aggressions.

We have deep faith in prosperity.
Soon, it is hoped, we will reach our full potential.
In the light of our gross product,
      the practice of charity
Is palpably inessential.

It is true that we go insane;
That for no good reason we are possessed
      by devils;
That we suffer, despite the amenities which obtain
At all but the lowest levels.

We shall not, however, resign
Our trust in the high-heaped table
      and the full trough.
If you cannot cure us without destroying our swine,
We had rather you shoved off.

The Gadarenes’ intuition was correct. Jesus, on the basis of the power and the wisdom of the type of love He proclaimed, lived and demonstrated, was a threat to their status quo. A threat not just to the status quo of their social and economic structure, but also the status quo of their minds—to their nurtured understandings of self, others, God, God’s Will and God’s Way. Luxury wealth—that is, having more than one needs to live while others do not have even enough to live—requires violence to accumulate it, maintain it, protect it and increase it—and they liked what they had regardless of the cost to others of Gods family. Luxury wealth produces enmity toward both those who have it, and those who need some or all of it, in order that they and their loved ones can survive. Jesus, His ideas about, God, God’s Will, God’s Way and God’s Love must shove-off because He and His ideas are not supportive of what they desire and have. He must shove-off because His presence might bring His teaching to mind. Out of sight, hopefully means out of mind—hopefully means that nothing of what He wants to communicate that is inconsistent with what they have and desire even get communicated.

The Gadarenes’ thought process behind the entire community pleading with Jesus to get out of their territory and, again, hopefully out their minds is that if they all stand tall together and support each other by ignoring, mocking, demeaning, dismissing or never speaking about all He teaches that interferes with their status quo, they will be able to ignore, without guilt or repercussion teaching and living His Truth and His Way.

Their intuition is, of course, correct, about the incompatibility of their nurtured and lived truth about God and God’s Way that Jesus teaches. There choice to tell the Messenger to shove-off rather than go the Way of metanoia and repentance, change their mind-style, life-style and community-style is irrational, when it is remembered Who is in their presence and speaking to them. Yet again, their intuition is correct when they intuit the logical network of implications, obligations, prohibitions and applications they would have to make if their young men and women are called to “love as Jesus loves,” e.g., it would amount to the height of irrationality to send them off to military training to learn how to kill enemies to protect the trough that runneth-over while other people starve to death.

And so, the Gadarenes, Vinicius and Constantinian Christians and Churches intuit immediately, if not sooner, when presented with the Nonviolent Jesus Christ of the Gospel and His Way of Nonviolent Love of friends and enemies what the threat and what the options are here: either repent, change your mind and put on the mind of Christ—in which case a Christian crown of thorns around his or her mind would be a restatement of what Vinicius sensed after listening to Peter speak to Christians soon to be martyred:

[They] would, for example, have to make a burnt offering of everything that had made [them]; [They] would have to destroy [their] thinking, crush all [their] perceptions, excise every habit, custom and tradition, erase [their] whole acquired character and the driving force of [their] current nature—burn it all to ashes, consign it to the winds, and fill the void with an entirely different soul and a life on a wholly different plane;

or else personal and communal denial making sure on the negative side that His teaching were never, if possible, given a microphone so they could be reasonably presented and understood, and on the positive side His teaching of Nonviolent Love of friends and enemies did on occasion get access to a microphone to be sure that they would be interpreted as the unrealistic, idealistic, utopian moral fantasies of a person who, although God incarnate, did not understand the real world. In which case His or her crown of thorns would be all the mental pain that ensues from spiritual schizophrenia of lying to one’s self about what one knows is not the truth—with all the other human ordeals that proceed from such a fraudulent life.

—ECM

13th Helping (return to top)

Our Lady of Mount Carmel
(Feast Day, July 16)

Part Five

“To see reality in our time is to see the world as crucifixion. Our age is defined by the kind of events, from Auschwitz to Vietnam [Iraq], whose depth of evil imposes night on the eyes of countless victims at the same time that the executioners, removed yet responsible, comfort themselves with blindness or the self-righteousness of an ideology. To see reality is to cut through the blindness of self, whether that self be one of the individual alone or, more commonly, the extended self of family, race, or nation. To see reality is to cut through every self of our time so as to go out from the blindness of a few into the beauty and darkness of the world of man, given over to agony and despair by absent executioners. To see reality is to be wholly present at the crucifixion of the world; to live reality is to enter into that crucifixion, but to do so, in the phrase of Albert Camus, as neither victim nor executioner. The life of the living is a suffering with the world, yet not as a passive victim but suffering in resistance and in love, experiencing the darkness of crucifixion without surrendering the hope and strength and revolution of resurrection.”

—James Douglass
The Nonviolent Cross
(opening paragraph, 1969)

The specific "blindness of self" that Christians must "cut through" in order "to go out from the blindness of a few" is the blindness of self nurtured by, promoted by, reinforced by and sustained by the violence justifying, enmity-endorsing Churches of Constantinian Christianity. Cutting is painful. Once a self is nurtured in a Constantinian Church and simultaneously in a violence and enmity justifying culture—that said Church mirrors and endorses for the most part—there is no way to be and to act in thought, word and deed in relation to violence and enmity as Jesus taught that His followers should be and act without choosing to lay aside the Constantinian ideology that crowns one’s consciousness and put on a crown of metanoic thorns. Metanoia vis á vis violence and enmity under the circumstances that the Churches of Constantinian Christianity have manufactured is almost always very painful.

The New Testament phrase “dying to self” is admittedly a metaphor, but it does not represent change merely at the cosmetic level. It represents a metanoic change that is a radical as death, but is as fruitful as resurrection. Read William Miller masterful biography of Dorothy Day, read Robert Ellsberg’s publication of the diaries of Dorothy Day, read Nikos Katzanakis’s Saint Francis, read Mother Teresa’s letters, read Guy Gaucher’s two volumes on St. Therese of Lisieux, The Story of a Life and The Passion of Saint Thérèse, read and see the “harsh and dreadful” Christic crown of metanoic thorns each had to pick-up and put on daily to be the Dorothy Day, the St. Francis, the Mother Teresa or the St. Thérèse we all so admire and love. What we admire and love are the visible consequences of a resolute commitment to vigorously engage in spiritual warfare on the battlefield of the mind, against all that is contrary to Jesus new commandment “to love one another as I have loved you.”

What we admire in these women and men is the outcome of a long, drawn-out life-and-death commitment to an invisible spiritual struggle on the battlefield of the mind. What we admire and love is what we see. However what we see is the visible aftermath of the invisible daily decision to crown one’s consciousness that day with the Christic crown of metanoic thorns in order “to love one another as I have loved you,” rather than with the bejeweled crown of violence and enmity in the service of something other than Chrislike love. What we love and admire is the seen results of the unseen battle in the mind to pick up daily, in all matters great and small, Jesus’ Nonviolent Cross of love of friends and enemies rather than Satan’s sword of violence and enmity.

All this can, perhaps, be summarized thusly: Christlike Nonviolent Love, in service to a humanity being crucified daily by the very same spirits and powers and masters of deceit and murder that crucified Jesus, must always include on the daily ascetic practice putting on and in one’s head the Christic crown that is made of the metanoic thorns which must pierce the nurtured mind, cut through the self, that is made in the image and likeness of Constatinian Christianity rather than of Jesus. The Christian, who is serious about resisting with the power and the wisdom, the love and the word of God those forces that crucified Jesus and that are still operative “big time” today, must make a burnt offering of everything that has made him or her a follower of Constantine rather than Jesus. He or she must erase his or her whole acquired character and the driving force of their current nature—burn it all to ashes, consign it to the winds, and fill the void with an entirely different soul and a life on a wholly different plane. Why?

The straightforward answer is because a Christianity committed entirely to Jesus’ Way, which includes, the Nonviolent Love of friends and enemies, is the only Way to conquer evil and death. And, while Constantinian reality may be the only reality through which a Christian or group of persons is permitted to see the rest of reality it is an effete reality in the world as crucifixion. If truth be completely told, it is a fanciful reality in light of the Thomistic insight that a means that cannot accomplish its end is an illusion. Indeed, the Constantinian myth and mythology is so insignificant it is hardly worth a passing thought—except for the fact that it propagates falsehoods whose effect is to justify, and therefore to promote, personal and systemic homicide, enmity, greed, lust for power and deceit in the name of Jesus, the incarnation of the true God who is unviolent, unconditional, unlimited parental love for and toward all.

Choose the crown you will invisibly wear and visibly support.
Choose the crown you will visibly support with your mind, time, talent and treasure.
Serving the contradictory “truths” of contradictory masters is logically, theologically,
morally and practically impossible in monotheism, where the option is between either
violence or nonviolence as the will of God, between a violent God and a nonviolent God.
So, metanoia or “more of the same old, same old”
with the nanosecond of life on earth
you have remaining?

—ECM

14th Helping (return to top)

The Mind and Metanoia

Part 1

Over the past few days the word “mind” has been used in several contexts, “the spiritual battlefield is the mind,” “as the mind goes, so the person goes,” “metanoic thorns must pierce the nurtured mind.” These instances were used to show the intimate connection between the mind and behavior. Metanoia was introduced to emphasize that the mind is greatly influenced by nurturing and thus change in behavior necessitates a corresponding “change of mind.” In fact, it has been shown that nurturing has the capacity to alter brain structure and brain chemistry. So profound is the influence of experience—both positive and negative—that structurally and functionally the human brain is considered to be an internal expression of the external environment. Thus, in the early stages of development, based on the behavior of the parent toward a child, genes may or may not be turned on, emotional regulation may of may not begin on a healthy path, and cognitive development may or may not move in the direction of maximum growth.

What is the relationship of the mind to the brain and what specifically is involved in the process of transformation that is characterized by metanoia?

The mind emerges from the activity of the brain, whose structure and function are directly shaped by interpersonal experience. Recent findings from neuroscience point to the exciting idea that the brain continues to develop both new connections and new neurons (nerve cells) throughout a person's life. The connections among neurons determine how mental processes are created. Experience shapes neural connections in the brain. Therefore, experience shapes the mind.

There are many views from science on how the mind functions, providing in-depth but distinct perspectives on human experience. For example, neuroscience can inform us about how the brain gives rise to mental processes such as memory and perception. Developmental psychology offers us a view of how children's minds grow within families across time. Psychiatry gives us a clinical view of how individuals may suffer from emotional and behavioral disturbances that profoundly alter the course of their lives. Often these disciplines function in isolation from one another. Yet, when one attempts to synthesize their recent findings, an incredible convergence of many of these independent fields of study is revealed. These findings shed light on how the mind emerges from the substance of the brain as it is shaped by interpersonal relationships. The integration of some of these scientific perspectives has been taking place in order to build a foundation for a neurobiology of interpersonal experience.

The ideas of this framework are organized around three fundamental principles:

1. The human mind emerges from patterns in the flow of energy and information within the brain and between brains.
2. The mind is created within the interaction of internal neurophysiological processes and interpersonal experiences.
3. The structure and function of the developing brain are determined by how experiences, especially within interpersonal relationships, shape the genetically programmed maturation of the nervous system.

In other words, human connections shape the neural connections from which the mind emerges. The human brain has, as part of its genetic inheritance, innate capacities for care and compassion. These capacities are either expressed or inhibited depending on the way we respond to one another (human connections)—caring, compassionate behavior fosters the development of neural connections that make possible a state of mind that is intrinsically inclined toward the expression of empathy, kindness, reconciliation and care—and disinclined to eliciting violence, revenge and aggression.

…to be continued tomorrow: neurobiology of metanoia.

SCIENCE is not about control. It is about cultivating a perpetual condition of wonder in the face of something that forever grows one step richer and subtler than our latest theory about it.

It is about REVERENCE!

—JJC

15th Helping (return to top)

Neurobiology of Metanoia

In the “Fourteenth Helping,” it was stated that the mind emerges from the activity of the brain, whose structure and function are directly shaped by interpersonal experience. It is intriguing and challenging to realize that what may be referred to as the “state of mind” is ultimately contingent on brain development, which in turn has been shaped by our relationships with others. Intriguing in the sense that the brain is the most complex structure in the universe and challenging because the nurturing the expression of care and compassion in ourselves and others is the most important determinant in the manifestation of these innate capacities by this most complex structure.

The need for metanoia, it seems, is directly proportional to the degree that these capacities have not been adequately and effectively nurtured. Because the mind arises from brain structure and function, change of mind necessitates transformation of both structural and functional component of the brain—it is primarily about re-sculpting the brain.

Almost all cultures have practices that help people develop awareness of the moment. Each of the major religions of the world utilizes some method to enable individuals to focus their attention, from meditation to prayer, yoga to tai’chi. Each of these traditions may have its own particular approach, but they share a common desire to intentionally focus awareness in a way that transforms people’s lives—that engenders metanoia.

Mindful awareness harnesses the social circuitry of the brain to enable us to develop an attuned relationship within our own minds. The term mindful brain is used in this approach to embrace the notion that our awareness, our mindful “paying attention or caring,” is intimately related to the dance between our mind and our brain.

The way we pay attention activates the brain in certain very specific ways and that activation of the brain creates state of mind (mindful awareness). When that state—the brain activation that is created by the focus of the mind—is recreated during the practice of mindfulness, that state will ultimately become a trait of the individual. So, the notion is that in mindfulness awareness practice you actually create a state of mind that is very unique. When that state is created it involves the activation of the brain. When the brain is activated in certain ways, it is known that that activation of brain firing actually leads to structural changes. When those structural changes have been made, a temporary intentionally-created state can become an automatic long-term trait because the structure of the brain has developed and grown in the direction of a mindful trait. This is why it is said that mindful practice is more than just feeling the experience of that mindful practice, it is actually setting oneself up to change the structure of the brain toward cognitive and emotional health.

…to be continued tomorrow: putting on the “Mind of Christ.”

—JJC

16th Helping (return to top)

Putting on the “Mind of Christ”

In the “Fifteenth Helping,” we explored the contingent relationship that exists between metanoic transformation and the ability to create a specific state of mind, that when recreated by the practice of mindful awareness (e.g., meditation), will ultimately become a trait of the individual. This complex process by which a temporary, intentionally-created state can become an automatic long-term trait is dependent on structural changes in the hard-wiring of the brain, which account for the development and growth in the direction of a mindful trait. It is a marvelous example of brain plasticity—the lifelong capacity of the brain to change—by creating, rearranging, terminating, strengthening or weakening connections between neurons (nerve cells).

Since the lifelong goal of the Christian is immersion in or “putting on” the mind of Christ (repentance, English; metanoia, Greek), it is understandable and desirable that the Christian should perpetually seek ways to achieve this goal. There is perhaps no substitute immediately available for seriously entering into this process than the discipline of prayer and fasting. At this moment, some of us are in the midst of the Annual Forty-Day for the Truth of Gospel Nonviolence and during the first sixteen days have discovered that there has been ample opportunity to ponder whether we should give up, walk away or change direction as far as our continuing to fast is concerned. This equivocating may be due to the temporary, intentionally-created state of mind which initially evoked our willingness to participate in the Fast. One of the features of this state is that it is temporary and will weaken or dissipate without our mindful “paying attention or caring.” With the practice of mindful awareness, that temporary state can ultimately become a trait in an individual because the structure of the brain has been nurtured to develop and grown in the direction of that mindful trait.

The mindful “paying attention or caring” component of fasting is prayer. Fasting is a way of mirroring the consciousness of temptation in order to learn how to gently walk away from it. And to where do we walk away? We walk to prayer.

Serious fasting requires simultaneously taking on serious prayer—unceasing prayer—because fasting is a process, which artificially gets us intensely focused on ourselves. If coupled with unceasing prayer, the mind is constantly presented with the choice to stay attentive to the God of mercy and love by simply saying “Abba” or some other name of the Divine. As we mindfully say the name we begin to put on the mind of Christ, the mind of mercy, the mind of agapé.

What the fasting does at a bare minimum is to teach us how to gently dissolve that narrow consciousness that is the consciousness of hunger but also the consciousness of temptation and to return to the presence of the Divine. By following this spiritual path, we have transformed our temporary, intentionally-created state (fasting) into an enduring trait that will serve us long after the fast has ended as a means of overcoming temptation and as a way of remaining aware of the presence of the Divine.

In Christian spirituality: prayer, fasting, and repentance are all part of one dynamic, which is supposed to be calling us back to live in the mind and heart of Christ and, therefore, to be the body of Christ in the time and space that we occupy.

—JJC

17th Helping (return to top)

Grace Works Through Nature

There Is More to Gospel Nonviolence than Meets the Eye

A Thomistic Theological Truth: Grace works through nature.

Grace is the gift of God himself to humanity
Said another way—grace is the gift of the self-communication of God to humanity.

Every level of existence is impregnated with cause and effect. If this process is random and accidental that is one thing—but if order is discovered in it—does not predesigned cause and effect issue in what is the communication of one thing to another. So, everything starts with a communication from God and that establishes the universe:
the universe of utterly interdependent communication.

In the gift, the giver has to reveal some aspect or dimension of self. If nature is working as the giver has created it, it truly reveals a dimension of the giver. However, if nature is distorted, and is not functioning in a way consonant with the purpose of the gift, then the giver himself is veiled. Veiled to the degree that nature is disconsonant
with the gift as originally given, thereby undermining, to that degree, nature’s capacity to be an agent of grace.

Everything that Jesus does is agapé and agapé is God. Jesus and God are one. The fact that Jesus knows this in the human situation, must be the result of his nature being properly aligned—as the giver so designed—in order for him to be able to receive the agapéic self-communication as intended by the giver, Abba—from all eternity.

—JJC

18th Helping (return to top)

Fear as an Impediment to Metanoia

Part 1

In the note that accompanied the Seventeenth Helping, “Grace Works through Nature,” I mentioned that it was something to ponder before we moved on to the Eighteenth Helping, “Fear as an Impediment to Metanoia.”

In that reflection, it was stated that “Grace is the Gift of God Himself to Humanity,” and also, said another way, that “Grace is the Gift of the Self-Communication of God to Humanity.” That Gift is the Word (Logos), the Son of God, Jesus and the communication is to “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.” It is this Christlike love—the irreducible dimensions of which include the willingness to suffer without the desire for retaliation, the willingness to serve without the desire for reciprocation and the willingness to reconcile without the desire for domination—that our lives are to become a manifestation of. If that is the love we are to incarnate, then this is precisely what it means to “put on the mind of Christ.”

So here we are, back to the mind and if we are back to the mind, we are back to the brain and if we are back to the brain we are, hopefully, back to being mindful. In the Fourteenth Helping we mentioned that the structure and function of the developing brain are determined by how experiences, especially within interpersonal relationships, shape the genetically programmed maturation of the nervous system. Mindfulness is at the heart of nurturing relationships.

Mindfulness in its most general sense is about waking up from a life on automatic, and being sensitive to novelty in our everyday experiences. With mindful awareness the flow of energy and information that is our mind enters our conscious attention and we can both appreciate its contents and also come to regulate its flow in a new way. Mindful awareness, as we will see, actually involves more than just simply being aware: It involves being aware of aspects of the mind itself. Instead of being on automatic and mindless, mindfulness helps us awaken, and by reflecting on the mind we are enabled to make choices and thus change (metanoia) becomes possible.

Neural Integration—Middle Prefrontal Cortex

Reflecting on the mind encompasses reflecting on the substance of the brain—because the connections among neurons are what determine how mental processes are created. Neural integrations play a crucial role in mindful states. Neural integration is the linkage of anatomically or functionally differentiated neural regions into an interconnection of widely distributed areas of the brain and body proper. These interconnections take the form of synaptic linkages structurally, and create a form of coordination and balance functionally. Neural integration likely creates optimal functioning by way of this coordination and balance of neural activation. Coordination means that we monitor and then influence the firing patterns of various disparate regions into a well-functioning whole. Balance implies the activation, deactivation, and reactivation of coupled areas.

The “middle prefrontal” regions are profoundly integrative, linking widely spread areas to each other. Literally, this means that these circuits by themselves are not “special,” but rather function in the larger system to create a wide spectrum of mental and physiological outcomes because they are able to bring the extended nervous system, even those firing patterns of the neural systems of other individuals, into a functional whole. Here we see that the interaction among these important regions creates a highly complex state that enables us to have the potential for everything from bodily regulation and emotional balance to empathy and moral behavior. Below is a short overview of two medial prefrontal functions, fear modulation and morality, both of which will be discussed in detail in the Nineteen and Twentieth Helpings.

Fear Modulation (shown below)

Fear modulation may be carried out via the release of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA onto the lower limbic areas mediating fear, such as the extended nuclei of the amygdala. In this way, fear may be learned limbically, but its “unlearning” may be carried out via growth of these middle prefrontal fibers (orbital medial prefrontal cortex) that can modulate that fear.

Morality

Studies reveal the participation of the middle prefrontal cortex in the mediation of morality. Taking into consideration the larger picture, to imagine what is best for the whole not just oneself, even when alone, is what morality can be seen as entailing. The middle prefrontal region when damaged is associated with impairments in moral thinking leading to a form of amorality.

—JJC

19th Helping (return to top)

Fear as an Impediment to Metanoia

Part 2

In the Eighteenth Helping, we saw that the profound integrative power of the middle prefrontal cortex had the capacity to create a highly complex state that enables us to have the potential for everything from bodily regulation and emotional balance to empathy and moral behavior. Today, we will take a more in-depth look at how one of the middle prefrontal functions—fear modulation—can provide a way to attenuate or even remove fear as an impediment to metanoia.

When we’ve had a traumatic experience that arouses fear, we’ve registered that experience in areas of the brain distributed in the cortex, the limbic area and the brain stem. We’ve seen with neuroplasticity that an experience changes connections in the brain. If an experience was frightening we know that fear is embedded in the firing patterns of an area of the limbic region called the amygdala. It is known, from practices in psychotherapy, that it is possible to have people overcome a traumatic event and to deal with their fears. What we’ve come understand is that when there is a traumatic event, the amygdala embeds the firing pattern that comes from the experience of the traumatic event and continues to generate fear when a similar stimulus is provided.

Now you are going to unlearn that. The question is how does it happen? What we now know is that the unlearning of fear—fear modulation—comes from the growth of fibers from the orbital medial prefrontal cortex (a part of the middle prefrontal area) down to the amygdala. These fibers contain a soothing transmitter called GABA (gamma amino butyric acid). GABA is synthesized in the middle prefrontal area and transported by fibers projecting from that area to the amygdala. When GABA is released in the amygdala, it calms down the fear system. The amazing thing about mindfulness practice (reflection) is when you can see the fear as just an activity of your mind, soon—instead of it just enveloping you, and taking you over—you can now see it as just an activity of the mind. And so, what reflection does is to allow an impulse of fear from the amygdala to just be experienced as “my amygdala firing.” In the case of patients, they can actually use this in picturing this response, as all of us can, as the growth of prefrontal fibers downward to soothe the amygdala. In fact, there are studies of the ways our relationships help each other. People who have agreed to do this kind of study and who are about to get a shock with brain area response measured by a scanner actually have reduced firing in the parts of the brain that register pain when the loved one is there holding their hand.

With respect to metanoia, could this unique function of the middle prefrontal area be a glimpse into an answer to the question “does not predesigned cause and effect issue in what is a communication of one thing to the other” (see seventeenth helping—grace works through nature). The communication in this instance is to “fear not” specifically when fear is an impediment to “loving as I have loved,” because you have been gifted the inherited capacity to do precisely that.

It's supposed to be a professional secret, but I'll tell you anyway. We doctors do nothing. We only help and encourage the doctor within. 
—Albert Schweitzer

—JJC

20th Helping (return to top)

The Moral Brain

In the Nineteenth Helping, we saw that with conscious reflection (meditation, centering prayer, mindful awareness) we are able to cultivate the circuitry in the brain (middle prefrontal cortex) that can help us regulate our fears. Part of that comes from the process of discernment, of being able to sense experiences as just activities of the mind and correspondingly as activities of the brain. This allows us to use the focus of our mind to actually alter the circuits in the brain.

It is not surprising, because of its profound role in neural integration, that the middle prefrontal cortex is also involved in a capacities that influences morality. It’s amazing to think that one region of the brain can be so important from everything from regulating bodily systems to morality. Morality can be defined in a number of different ways but for the sake of this discussion, morality can be thought of as the way an individual considers the larger social good and not only has moral imagination where they can picture what is best for the whole but actually enact moral behavior even when alone. Many people can figure out what they are supposed to do to look like a good person. Morality is actually living that out—being a good person. Why would that have anything to do with reflection?

What is suggested by research on morality and the brain is embedded in much of what we have discussed in the previous six helpings. In reflection (mindfulness) there is a way in which an individual begins to suspend judgment. In that process of getting beneath the usual ways we evaluate and expect things to be, one of the mechanisms of transformation that occurs is these top down processes that are defined as old habitual patterns of behavior begin to dissolve. As that dissolution of basic ways we used to be is initiated, what occurs is something that ultimately has to do with getting beneath our adaptive way of being, these habitual patterns we’ve acquired—either from direct experience or adjusting to what we were experiencing—called adaptations. As you get beneath them we gain access to a sense of self that is beneath our previously adaptive personal identity. It can be called, a core self, which is fine. But whatever term is used, it doesn’t really matter. The point is that beneath adaptive personal identity there is a core self, a way of being that is full of openness and connection to one’s own experience and ultimately with mindful practice (a component of contemplative practices of all traditions) as we get beneath adaptive personal identity, we gain access to this core self and the realization that we are all a part of the same whole. This is a reality that becomes very clear with mindful practice and rather than just a vision of something, it’s a kind of insight that can be referred to as shift in perspective. And that once, with mindful practice, people come to realize this inner self beneath adaptive identity and fully feel that in fact we are all part of an interconnected whole, then morality—defined as thinking of the larger social good and acting it even when alone—becomes as natural as breathing because, in fact, the other person in front of you—is you. This metanoia-like awareness of “the other as self” is at the very heart of empathy and compassion.

Albert Einstein referred to an “optical delusion” of our separate nature, a delusion we needed to struggle with to help “widen our circle of compassion.” Here is what Einstein said in a letter to a rabbi who requested help on what to say to his daughter who was coping with the accidental death of his other daughter, her sister:

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.

That perspective, needing to “widen our circle of compassion,” is exactly the promise of mindfulness/reflection. We’ve seen in discussing the mindful brain how our neurocircuitry can create this optical delusion of consciousness, that, in fact, we are separate from one another. There is something about the nervous system when it is on automatic pilot that seems to separate us from one another and in this separation it is as if we are autonomous cells, where a cell of the heart might say to an adjacent heart cell, I’m not a part of you, I’m not going to participate with you—I’m separate. This separateness would result in a failure of heart cells to contract in unison resulting in death of the body. We are part of one global community and this optical delusion of our separateness is killing us on the planet. And so while reflection and mindful practice are useful for improving our health and our bodies, improving our well-being and our minds, enhancing the connection we have with other people in our relationships—those are all true, scientifically established benefits of mindful awareness.

There is, however, yet another form of health that mindfulness can promote and that is the health of our species. If we help reflection become part of how our children are raised, if mindfulness becomes part of their everyday lives—part of the outcome will be awareness of our interconnections. Because mindfulness helps us dissolve the optical delusion of our separateness, because it gets beneath adaptive personal identity and realizes the truth of our interconnected whole, then we have infinite potential to bring kindness into this world. And with that kind of compassionate and empathic approach we cannot only survive as a human community but we can encourage the entire planet to thrive as we move forward—being forever mindful of our innate capacity for care at all levels of existence.

—JJC

21st Helping (return to top)

Siamese Twins

The Siamese twins, army and state, have never been separated since they were born some eight or nine thousand years ago—and most of the time the state is the stronger of the twins. Armies exist to serve the interests of the state that owns them and their legitimacy comes solely from the fact that they belong to states; similar groups of armed men, if self-employed, are generally known as rebels or bandits. This is the context in which warfare, as opposed to casual and illegitimate violence, must be seen: it is something states do, and have always done, because they believe it serves their interest.

—Gwynne Dyer, War: The New Edition, 2005

22nd Helping (return to top)

Mindless or Mindful Education?

Worldwide, schools remain focused on how students can accumulate facts and skills while little time is focused on the mind itself. For children being raised in this type of educational environment, the absence of a focus on the mind ensures the circuits of the brain that are focused on factual information or the external world will be developed—whereas those that are about insight and empathy will not be developed. What will be developed instead is a view of the world that is very much materially based. The problem with that is that there is an interconnected reality to all of our lives and when a child is growing up with a view that objects are the basis of reality then we have a world in which people treat each other as just that – objects, rather than as beings connected to each other in a larger whole. So to begin with, we can say that in the school setting it is extremely important to offer children the opportunity to develop a process of reflection where they become sensitive to the internal world of themselves and others.

In modern times, the separation of religion from government and public education from religious training makes it likely that certain terms that we use that are associated with religion become controversial—if not outright banned. Because the term mindfulness has been associated with Buddhism in particular and religion in general, some schools refuse to allow mindfulness to be taught and so the term mindful awareness or mindful practice for those schools would be seen as an automatic exclusion from the curriculum. A way around that has been to eliminate the term mindfulness but continue to teach a deep form of social and emotional intelligence.

When we really look at the secular view of mindfulness as a way of developing the regulatory circuits in the brain we can see, in fact, that social and emotional intelligence and mindful awareness go hand-in-hand. So from the actual practice in schools, anything we can do to allow children to learn these social and emotional skills that develop mindsight thereby enabling one to see one’s own mind and able to see and care about the mind of others will enhance their reflective ability. Thus, the term reflection can be used to move away from associations that may exclude mindfulness in the school curriculum.

Reflection is the deep aspect of a practice that develops the prefrontal cortex – the primary locus of regulatory circuitry. In many ways reflection that can be taught in school and at home, the reflection that has been practiced across generations in cultures from West and East is a reflective ability that develops the mind, promotes well-being and, in particular, promotes compassion among people. There is a superb opportunity for making reflection the fourth “R” of basic education along with “Reading,” “Riting,” and “Rithmetic” the three fundamental “Rs” of education. In the past those were not available to everyone but now we say that every child should be given the opportunity to develop these three “Rs.” Why not make a fourth “R” a basic part of education where reflection becomes the primary way the prefrontal cortex is developed. No other part of education is focused on developing this important social and self-regulatory part of the brain. If that could be done, perhaps it would produce a whole new generation of children who are tuned-in not only to their own internal world but—because the social circuits of the brain are being harnessed—such reflective practice would promote empathy. As a bonus, it has been proven that teaching such social and emotional skills actually promotes academic success.

—JJC

23rd Helping (return to top)

Nature vs. Nurture

“In 1211, Ferdinand II, Emperor of Germany, in order to discover the natural “language” of God,”
raised dozens of children in silence. God’s preferred language never appeared;
the children never spoke any language and all ultimately died in childhood.”

—van Cleve, (1972) in Bruce Perry, M.D., Ph.D. (2002),
Childhood Experience and the Expression of Genetic Potential

“The active ingredient in the environment that’s having an influence on development is the quality of the
relationships that children have with the important people in their lives. That’s what it’s all about.”

—Jack P. Shonkoff, M.D.
Development and Founding Director of the
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University

Genes and Experiences

• The many functions of the human brain result from a complex interplay between genetic potential and appropriately timed experiences
• The neural systems responsible for mediating our behavioral, cognitive, emotional, social and physiological functioning develop in childhood
• Therefore, childhood experiences play a major role in shaping the functional capacity of these systems
• When the necessary experiences are not provided at the optimal times, these neural systems do not develop in optimal ways

24th Helping (return to top)

We have all heard, and understand almost instantly, the truth, meaning and tragedy contained in the sentence,

          “A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE.”

But, what about the truth, meaning and tragedy communicated in the sentence,

          “A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO DIABOLICALIZE.”

“The spiritual battlefield is the mind,” as Gandhi so often mentions. In this world all that is good or evil starts there. Jesus comes to combat and conquer all that diabolicalizes the human mind, and to put in its place, the mind of the true God, Who is Holy Love (agapé) and in Whose image and likeness human beings are created. He comes to offer us a mind that is in full communion with His. This is the gift, content and challenge that is the metanoia, “change of mind,” to which Jesus, the Word (Logos) of God, calls those whom He calls. If the Church is what Augustine says it is, namely, the extension of Christ in time and space, then it is under a Divine moral mandate to do everything possible in conformity with the Way of Jesus—up to and including its own nonviolent, self-sacrificing martyrdom in the Spirit of Christlike suffering love—to prevent and to eradicate the diabolicalizing of the minds of human beings, as well as, to nurture and to help all of the Father’s sons and daughters and all of Jesus’ brothers and sisters to “put on the mind of the Christ.”

If Jesus is truly God and truly a human being, then what is contrary to the mind of the Christ—as Christ’s mind is ultimately and definitively revealed by His words and deeds in the Gospels—is diabolical, unholy, unloving and ichabodian. Therefore, if a Christian(s) enters into a mind-altering process that is unequivocally contrary to the mind and heart, the words and deeds of Jesus, he or she is entering into a process that is diabolical. To the extent that he or she enters into it, he or she will to that extent diabolicalize his or her mind. If thereafter, this Christian(s) glorifies what he or she has done, justifies it, promotes it, honors it and thereby spiritually and morally validates it, as being in conformity with the will of God as revealed by Jesus, he or she or they thereby become agents and participants in diabolicalizing the minds of others.

          Diabolicalizing one’s own mind and/or the minds of others is a terrible thing for a Christian or a Church to do or to justify.

—ECM

25th Helping (return to top)

I went through a crisis of faith (regarding Jesus’ teaching of nonviolence and love of enemies in 1974). I am a practical man and those words of Jesus—“Love your enemies…Do good to those who hate you…Turn the other cheek when someone strikes you…” were completely impractical and unworkable. I couldn’t understand it. In many ways I still don’t. Yet Jesus took this course of suffering and nonviolence. His words were so clear, and there is the example of His life and death. For me, the issue is very simple. Either Jesus was God or not. If not, then his words could be dismissed as idealism. But if Jesus is God, then what he said he meant. He wasn’t kidding. He could not be dismissed as an idealist who didn’t understand human reality. So, either I accept what he says as coming from God or else I forget about the whole business. Forget about Christianity! My crisis was a practical one. My choice was made on the basis of Faith.

—Rev. George Zabelka,
Catholic Chaplain for the 509th Composite Group,
Hiroshima-Nagasaki Bomb Crews
Quote from the television documentary on his life,
The Reluctant Prophet (DVD)

If the Church—via an Ecumenical Council or via the Pope speaking infallibly—taught what Jesus in the Gospels taught about violence and enmity, namely, that they are to be rejected completely, that they are never the will of the Father, that one cannot be following Jesus faithfully and employ them for any reason, that they are intrinsically evil under all circumstances, and utterly contradictory to Jesus’ new commandment to “love one another as I have loved you,” would you leave the Church? Would you part company with Jesus—as the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Word (Logos) of God Incarnate, the Lord, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God?

Suppose it was not an Ecumenical Council or the Pope speaking infallibly who told you this, suppose it was Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, individually and collectively, who told you this? Would you then part company with them and with Jesus—as the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Word of God Incarnate, the Lord, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God?

Ask your bishop, pastor, priest, minister, pew mate, Christian neighbor what they would do?

Change their minds and behavior, metanoia?

Change their belief in Jesus as the Lord, the Way and the Truth, and leave the Church?

Change the Gospel by interpreting it to mean the opposite of what it self-evidently means?

—ECM

26th Helping (return to top)

Taking the military for granted, members of mainline Churches join the Armed Forces the same way non-Christians do. Because they are taught no alternative, God’s nonviolent Messiah and His peaceable kingdom are almost a non-thought in mainstream Christianity. What is not thought cannot be taught. What is not thought or taught cannot be practiced. What is not thought, taught, or practiced, is a nonentity.

The mistake of Catholic theology a la Augustine, from which the “just war” doctrine comes, stems from a peculiar brand of optimism. This non-biblical optimism is in untainted human reason’s ability to define a common good realized by the political process and defended by the military power of the state. In a fallen world of sin, reason is always tainted by pride and self-interest. Saint Paul questioned such optimism in human wisdom and the ability of human reason to provide the solution to human problems. In his first Letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote, “…For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25).

…Separated from God, decisions based on reason are always tilted in favor of the decision-maker. In the Second World War, the Germans used human reason to define their “common good” as their right to have access to basic human needs such as food, clothing, and shelter, and the right of human dignity, which the church and state in Germany insisted had been denied them by the injustices of the Versailles Treaty. The German nation and the German church allowed Hitler to take them into what they called a “just war” to correct the injustice of Versailles. Although they were right about the injustices of the Versailles Treaty, they were wrong in their devotion to Hitler and use of violence to achieve what their sin-corrupted reason defined as Germany’s common good. Blinded by self-concern, Germany, the home of Luther, accepted whatever Hitler said was their common good.

At the same time, Italy’s disordered economy and general unrest moved the Italian state, with the support of the Catholic Church, to accept the Fascist dictator, Mussolini. He led them into a “just war” as partners with the Nazis to defend their “common good,” which their human reason defined as an orderly and properly disciplined society.
The architect of Communism, Karl Marx, used reason not only to define Russia’s “common good,” but the “common good” of the whole world. This world would reflect a classless “just” society in which all human beings would have equal access to food, clothing, and shelter, with equal opportunity to work with dignity. Guided by reason, the “just” society defined by Karl Marx looked so promising that it convinced half of the world’s people that it was worth fighting in order to achieve it. Communism is a reasonable solution in theory, but diabolical when practiced by a self-addicted world separated from God.
Likewise, democratic capitalism is a reasonable political and economic system based on a free flow of trade and ideas, but the reasoning of every trading nation and its various groups of workers and entrepreneurs is corrupted by the same sin of self-interest. “Hot money” speculators quickly move their capital in and out of developing countries for only one reason: to make a profit. Wall Street reflects the same reasoning tainted by sin.

John Steinbeck wrote about a fallen world’s reason, which is never pure and untainted from sin’s self-interest. In his novel, The Grapes of Wrath, the ‘owner men’ confess to the tenant farmers that they don’t like money’s banking system. They confess that this system lives by peasant’s labor and sweat, the foreclosing of mortgages of poor families, putting them out on the streets with nothing, as they did during the Great Depression. “We’re sorry,” says one of the owner-men. “It’s not us. It’s the monster. The bank isn’t like a man.” “Yes, but the bank is only made of men,” a squatting tenant farmer replies. “No, you’re wrong there—quite wrong there,” says the owner-man. “The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It’s the monster. Men made it, but they can’t control it”

Steinbeck’s novel is about a world created for a common good in God, but in our self-will we redefine the world, which God has already defined in his self-giving way. The result of sin’s redefinition is a monster of violence which the world cannot control.

Who is the monster? It is Steinbeck’s banker who hates what the bank does but does it anyway; the Wall Street broker who knows he is gambling with other people’s life savings but does it anyway; the politician twisting words to make him and his party look good, but does it anyway; the salesman giving his prospective buyers a line with no connection to the truth but does it anyway; the scientist producing a nuclear monster with enough power to destroy life on the planet but does it anyway; people toying with sex outside the God-intended family structure based on married love, but doing it anyway. It’s the Beast mentioned thirty-eight times in John’s Revelation. The Bible calls it sin and identifies it with this world’s “powers and principalities” (Ephesians 6:12) which are not fallen angels flapping their wings somewhere in the heavens. These are the self-willing “elemental spirits of the universe” (Galatians 4:3); hostile to God’s Spirit of agapé, righteousness, and peace; never letting up on the human race; deceiving the world “that self-will is God’s will, that national glory is God’s glory,” that, under certain circumstances, slaughtering our neighbors in war is necessary to preserve “our way” of life.

—Rev. Howard Goeringer
Haunts of Violence in the Church: A Look at the Answer that Overcomes Violence

27th Helping (return to top)

Aldous Huxley, when confronted with the argument against pacifism, that if you let the Nazis kill everyone you allow civilization to be destroyed, would respond: “Civilization dies anyhow of blood poisoning the moment it takes up its enemies’ weapons and exchanges crime for crime.”

The Nazis brought front and center the normalized place of brutality in government and its various public and private sub-institutions. Little effort was made by them to disguise their brutal treatment of anyone whom they felt it was in their political or economic interest to treat brutally. Brutality was employed as a punishment and as a warning. The infliction of severe pain on people in order to get done what the state, or more precisely those controlling the state, want to get done, was the accepted norm of consciousness and conscience. This infliction of pain was carried out with a sense of moral rectitude, from the highest levels of