2006 - August 5-9, Jesus and Paul

After consulting other sources about the Gospels, I continued my study of the New Testament. These were long days of reading and writing, and I am going to try to cut the comments by about half . . .



August 5
I’ve decided I’m just going to read Freeman, and not try to capture every interesting thing he says. A lot of it is stuff I already know, but there are some interesting tidbits. I like his attitude, which is that of attempting to find a historical Jesus who would have made sense to first century Jews. To understand the cultural context so that his actions make sense – but more, that the individual motives/positions of the gospel writers makes sense. He doesn’t at all say, “there are contradictions, so it must not be true.” He instead says, “There are contradictions, so there must be reasons why different people saw him in different ways.” This is the same attitude I have, the same motivation.

After building the argument that Jesus was most comfortable and successful with the “little’ people of rural, provincial Galilee, and had little success in the towns, Foster is able to make the strong point that Jesus was an outsider in Jerusalem. Barabas was, or might have been, an insider with a lot of support for his insurrection. It goes a long way to explain why the people (and Caiaphus) would use Jesus as a way to save one of their own.

He points out how difficult it was to make a charge that would stick, why Pilate would have acquicsed (fear of revolt, or being called disloyal to Caesar), and how odd it is that they didn’t go after his followers. They can’t have been considered a threat, and it supports the idea that Jesus’ actions in the temple were the catalyst.

He talks about the devastation the disciples must have felt, says Christians avoided depictions of the crucifixion for 400 years. A footnote says the 1st was an anti-Christian Roman graffito of a donkey, hanging from a cross. Their Santa Sabina in Rome had Jesus with outstretched arms and nail holes, but no cross, in the 5th century (p.359).

Paul spent 15 days with Peter in Rome, so he would have heard about the resurrection first hand. He writes about it in the 50s, at least 20 years before the Gospels. He says Peter, then 12 disciples, then 500 people, then James and the Apostles, and finally Paul. What about Mary? Is that a later fabrication, or did Peter supplant her, given the tension some (Gnostics) report between them? Haven’t yet dissected Acts, or Corinthians, but Freeman says Paul clearly thought Jesus wasn’t corporeal, but a spirit; the gospels are unclear and confused as to what sort of being he was.

The apostles are still focused on the immanent return of Jesus and the Kingdom of God. I’ll be reading Acts next, but Freeman says Peter says that Jesus ‘was a man commended to you by God” – the idea that he might have been divine was completely alien to Jewish thought, and just would not have occurred to them (p.104). Since Jesus died, the apostles cannot use the scriptures that refer to the Messiah coming in triumph and establishing the kingdom – not without serious re-interpretation. So they must turn to other scriptures which refer to one being “torn from the land . . . for our faults struck down.” Isaiah 53:8-10. From here they develop the notion of a Messiah who gives his life for our sins. That’s not as attractive as one who conquers, but it is enough for them to be able to call him Christ, even though he apparently failed. A footnote says Jews reject this and point out that in the original context, the person described is not a messianic figure. So they were really reaching, as I think is clear in Matthew’s attempts to bend and torture scripture and the life of Jesus to fit. First use of the term “Christians” comes from Antioch.

That’s all of Freeman I want to read right now. May read parts of Armstrong and Pagels that deal with the gospels.

Armstrong p.8: “The Psalms sometimes refer to David as the ‘Son of God,’ but that was simply a way of expressing his intimacy with Yahweh. Nobody since the return from Babylon had imagined that Yahweh actually had a son, like the abominable deities of the goyim.”

Armstrong suggests Jesus' arguments with the Pharisees may really be with the even more stringent school of Shammai (pg. 81). “there was nothing particularly unusual” in a voice from heaven identifying someone as “son of God” or “Beloved Son” pg.81, and she cites examples.
Jesus stressed that all could do the same miracles, if they were like him, I.e. surrendered themselves wholly to God’s will. She talks about Paul’s break from the early disciples over whether gentiles could be followers p.83, and says, “Paul never called Jesus God.” He calls him Son of God in the Jewish sense, but “he certainly did not believe Jesus was the incarnation of God himself.” (p.83).

Armstrong places the urge to deify Jesus in global context. She points out that all of the Axial Age religions, which around 500 BCE made the move from local, partial deities to universal beings/processes, all begin around 10o BCE-100CE to develop personal devotion. The Mahayana Buddhists invent the concept of bodhisattva in the first century BCE, the first statues of the Buddha are put up at Gandhara and Mathira (p.84). [Bodhisattvas are those who sacrifice themselves for the salvation of the world]. And in Hinduism, bhakti yoga develops.

People who cannot relate to the austerity of the Upanishads personalize Brahman into the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. And Vishnu incarnates himself in avatars, particularly the beloved Krishna, who is both loved as a very human human – a child, a lover of cowgirls, a devoted husband – but also reveals himself to Arjuna as The God, terrifying in his vastness, his incorporation of all things, the source and completion of all things.

Isn’t this helpful? There is again a global trend. One can easily see how Buddhism and Hinduism influenced one another. Was there something about the stage of social/political/ economic development? Or something about the stage in the cyclical/spiral development of philosophical/religious thinking?

It is a good reminder that, while it is important to understand Jesus in the local context, it is also important to pull back and see the global trends. The development of Mahayana, bhakti and Christianity “all answer the need of the masses of humanity for a personal relationship with the ultimate” p.86. In the Eastern traditions, though, the Ultimate is seen as multiple and diverse; no one depiction can contain its greatness/vastness. Why is Christianity different?

Armstrong says Paul referred to Greek rationalism as mere “foolishness” I Corinth 1:24. Later, its important to remember that the early Christians were not philosophically sophisticated and weren’t interested in creating a theology, even. Religion was not a matter of carefully considered intellectual positions, but rather a set of attitudes – a “cultivated attitude of commitment” p.93. when they said their “creeds,” they were “assenting to” an emotional, not a logical or intellectual proposition. “Credo” meant to “give one’s heart” not “I think.”

Justin of Caesarea (100-165) was one of the first Greek Christians to try to explain Christianity to the rational Greeks. Armstrong describes him as not very bright, having studied under 3 different philosophers and understanding none of them. He said Christians were simply following Plato. Argued Jesus was the Logos, the Divine Reason – but he couldn’t explain this very well.

Basilides and Valentinus in Alexandria were Gnostics, who taught that first there was the Godhead, the ineffable One, Source, Simplicity, No-thing. It wasn’t content to be alone, so It generated “emanations” similar to the pagan mythologies. Gets complicated, but one of the main points is that one of the aeons, in a fit of pique, created the earth (as a result of his fall). Thus the Logos, another one of the aeons, had to come to the rescue by incarnating as Jesus (p.96). They never meant these to be literal – they were ‘symbolic expressions of an inner truth.” A quote from one of them sounds an awful lot like Buddhism.

Marcion, 100-165, a Roman who founded his own church, makes a good point. If a sound tree produces only good fruit, as Jesus said, then how could the world have been created by a good God? I asked my Dad the same question as an early teen. Dad’s answer was the devil, which didn’t satisfy, because why does a good God allow the devil to exist?

Marcion’s answer was that Yahweh was an entirely different God than the one Jesus talked about. The Hebrew scriptures don’t mention, even hide, the existence of this good God. He counseled throwing out the Old Testament and just concentrate on the teachings of Jesus, and he attracted a huge following. Armstrong points out that he’d put his finger on something important in the Christian experience – we don’t know what to make of the Hebrew God (p.97).

Tertullian (160-220), a North African theologian, pointed out Marcion’s god was more Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover than Jesus’ god.

August 6
The Sunday-school trained girl in me is worried that the God of the Hebrews is not happy with me for all the questions I’m posing. But the Hindu-influenced speculative me thinks perhaps this is precisely what the One, the God-Who-Was-Alone, wants; that this is what he/it created us for. To ask and ask and figure out what it is. Possibly because it doesn’t know, Itself.


It is gratifying that greater minds than mine have asked the same questions, been disturbed by the same things. Makes me feel less alone. People today take it so for granted that Jesus was the incarnation of God, as if it were something obvious. But it wasn’t obvious. In fact, the thought was not only foreign, but repellent, to Jews, Greeks and Romans alike.


Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215) thought the God of the Jews and of Plato were the same. He called Plato the Attic Moses p.98. “His god was characterized by his ‘apotheia’; he was utterly impassible, unable to suffer or change.” This doesn’t sound much like Jesus’ or the Hebrew God to me! But Clement figured the way to be close to this god was by mimicking him. Be calm and quiet, and one would discover the Quietness within. Seems a little Buddhist influenced, without really understanding it. He did think Jesus was God, but he thought we also could become divine. If we followed his program we would be deified and participate in divine life.


However, he didn’t think Jesus did it that way. Jesus was the logos, by which Clement meant ‘divine wisdom,’ who had “become man so that you might learn from a man how to become God” p.98. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (130-200), was teaching the same thing. But how do they square this with the God of the Torah? He is anything but calm and impassive. As Armstrong points out, Clements’s theology left a lot of unanswered questions. How does the logos become human? How can Jesus be god, and there only be one god? Armstrong says that Christians, as the notion of Jesus’ divinity developed, became anxious over that last question, as well they should.


Sabellius, first century Roman in Rome, suggested the biblical names “Father, Son, Spirit” were like the masks of actors. Most Christians, Armstrong says, were distressed at the idea, because it suggested that the Father, supposed to be impassible and omnipotent, had suffered with the Son on the cross, and this they didn’t accept. But Paul of Somosota, Bishop of Antioch from 260-272 almost lost his see when he said Jesus was just a man in whom the word of God dwelt, p.99. So, they aren’t happy either way. None of these formulations fit their experience, I guess, which is now 100-200 years after Jesus lived.


And then there was Origen. I’ve summarized him elsewhere, but his general idea was that we all, at one time, were in the presence of God, got bored contemplating his face, fell, were arrested by our bodies, and were now forever searching to get back. Jesus isn’t/wasn’t God, but his was the one soul that didn’t fall. He came to earth to show us how we could once again ascend the chain of being and be back in God’s presence. Belief in “Jesus’ divinity was only a phase; it would help us on our way, but would eventually be transcended when we would see God face to face” p.100. Origen was later declared heretical, in part because he didn’t believe God created the world ex nihilo, but also because he didn’t believe Jesus “saved” us; we save ourselves by following his path.


Plotinus (205-270), who studied in Alexandria, joined the Roman Army in hopes of going to India and eventually founded a prestigious school in Rome. I really like him – he seems to be attempting to merge Eastern and Greek philosophy. I’ve summarized him before. Armstrong covers his philosophy p.101-105.


After Plotinus, Armstrong discusses Montanus, a guy in Phygia, now Turkey, who lived after and around 170. He claimed to be an avatar of God (Hebrew?). “I am Father, Son and Paraclite” he claimed, as did his companions, Priscilla and Maximilla. He sounds pretty weird and crazy. Preached the immanent return of Christ, urged followers to extreme asceticism and celibacy and martyrdom. Death for the faith would “hasten the coming of Christ” p.105. Engaged in battle with evil forces. It spread all over Turkey, Syria, Gaul and North Africa! Even attracted Tertullian (p.105), the leading theologian of the Latin Church!


Armstrong points out that in the East, a Christianity was developing that preached “a peaceful, joyous return to God,” but in the West, a “more frightening God demanded hideous death as a condition of salvation.” P.105.

12:30 am. Since I’m up, I think I’ll go ahead and read Acts. I’d like to avoid commenting on every little thing, so I’m going to focus on: the view of Jesus, the early church, and the politics of that church. There’ll likely be other things I can’t resist.


Acts is thought to have been written by Luke, a companion of Paul, after his gospel. So circa 90-100 AD.

Anyway, in Acts 2:22-23, Peter refers to Jesus as “a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders . . . this man, delivered up by the predetermined plan.” No hint there of Jesus being God. In v. 24 he says it was impossible for Jesus to be held by death’s power and quotes David as saying “I was always beholding the Lord in my presence; For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. . . Because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow They Holy One to decay. . . “ Then Peter argues that since David in fact did decay, he must have been prophesying about Jesus.


Acts 2:33 “Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God . . .” Seems to say Jesus was a man, who through his goodness was rewarded by a special place/relationship with God.



2:36 “Let all Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” From the context of another quote from David (that Jesus also quoted to stump the priests in one or two of the gospels), “The Lord said to my Lord,” one could argue that Peter is saying Jesus was made divine, made equal with God. All in how one interprets “Lord.”


Right away they gain 3000 converts, and begin to live communally – sell their property, share with all as anyone had need, “continuing with one mind the temple” and eating from house to house “taking their meals together” praising God, and “having favor with all the people” 2:44-47. Sounds great, doesn’t it?


In chapter 3, Peter and John heal a man, and in Peter’s second sermon which follows, he refers to Jesus as a prophet “raised up his servant,” and “raise up” a prophet. Not incarnate.


4:32-36 More communalism, all selling and sharing their property with one another. Renounce private property. Ananias and his wife sold their property, but kept some money back, and Peter calls them on it. Not for keeping the cash, but for lying. And the guy falls down dead. So, some seeking personal glory. His wife also dies. Peter, in Luke’s account, doesn’t seem to be dealing with them harshly, it is God, or their own shame/guilt. Certainly would have scared everyone else!


The group is really making quite a scene, now. Hanging out in the Solomon portico, attracting more and more converts, and people are bringing their sick from all over for healing. They lay them in the street in hopes Peter’s shadow will fall on them and heal them. Unquestionably, he is the leader. 5:12-16. Again on trial with the Council, Peter says of Jesus, “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and Savior” 5:31.
5:33-42 tells of Gamaliel, who was a student of Hillel’s and a highly respected teacher in his own right. He councils the priests to leave the disciples alone, and cites two other recent cases of men who claimed to be the Messiah and attracted followings – Theudas, and Judas of Galilee.


By chapter 6, they are getting big enough to have internal squabbling, and the need to organize/institutionalize daily life – they select 7 to oversee all of that – food, serving, etc. Stephen was one of them. Stephen, of course, gets stoned to death, having driven the priests over the edge. That seems to be the signal to open season against the church (yes, they are calling it that – probably ecclesia). And Saul is in the thick of the rounding up. 8:2 The followers scatter. What might have happened had the priests followed Gamaliel’s council?


Phillip is told by the Holy Spirit to go to the road to Gaza, where he meets and converts an Ethiopian Jew, and immediately after baptizing him, he is “snatched by the Holy Spirit” and deposited in another town, where he keeps preaching 8:39-40. Wow, don’t remember that.


August 7
. . . And God sends them out as missionaries. It isn’t clear how God is communicating His will. Sometimes people have visions, sometimes, like here, it just says, “the Holy Spirit said.” 13:2.
13:16-42. As to who Jesus was, he says that through David’s link, “God has brought to Israel a Savior” v.23. And cites Psalms, “Thou art my Son; Today I have begotten thee.” V.33, in reference to the resurrection, not the birth.


In chapter 15, a real bone of contention. Some men come to Antioch from Jerusalem and tell the gentile converts they must be circumcised. Barnabus and Paul had “great dissention and debate” with them. They realize they need to figure this out, so send B & P to Jerusalem, where a council occurs. Peter sides with Barnabus and Paul, saying if God made makes no distinction (I.e. the Holy Spirit entered uncircumcised men) then why should they? James also agrees, but with a few stipulations (don’t eat things sacrificed to idols, or blood, or things strangled and don’t fornicate). Everyone agrees, so they send Barbabbos and Silas with B & P back to Antioch with a letter, the tone of which speaks well for the early church 15:23-29. Also shows that B & P are “beloved” of that church, with no tension apparent.


Hmm – first sign of tension? When B & P are ready to set out again, Barnabus wants to include John (Mark) who went with them a little ways before. Paul doesn’t want to, as he feels John deserted them when it got tough “And there arose such a sharp disagreement that they separated” 15:39, Barnabus taking John and Paul taking Silas.


In 16:16, says they passed thru Phrygia and the Galatian region “having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.” Why? And the spirit of Jesus didn’t permit them to go to Bythnia. After 16:11, Luke is saying “we” though he never described joining them.


God calls them to Macedonia and the first European convert is Lydia. 16:4. Note how, when people convert, their “households” are baptized. Do slaves have no free will? Again in 16:31, the jailer, Paul tells him to believe in Jesus and his whole household will be saved. Chapter 17 – says it is Paul’s custom to spend 3 Sabbaths trying to convert the Jews in the temple before giving the message to gentiles. Keeps getting thrown out, and Paul goes to Athens, where all the idol worshipping really bugs him.


Ahhh – 7pm, much better. A little rest, a little food, a pill working, and I’m good to go. Go where? Back to Athens with Paul, I guess. It is kind of fun to see it through a Hebrew’s eyes, or even a Greek’s (Luke) who was not familiar with it. How strange it must have seemed – the spirit of philosophical inquiry so very foreign to the Jews.


The Athenians saw him preaching in the marketplace and invited him to the Areopagus: “Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.” 17:21. As if that is a bizarre thing to do! No wonder it took so long for Christianity to catch on in Greece. They must have seen Paul and his message as backward, unsophisticated, uneducated, provincial, etc.


In explaining his beliefs to them, he describes Jesus thus: “He (God) will judge the world in righteousness through a man he has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead” 17:31. Claudius kicked all the Jews out of Rome (the city) 18:2. When? Why? Will look it up, but I'd guess he required them to worship him and they refused.


Big hullabaloo in Ephesus, home of Artemis and the “image that fell down from heaven” 19:35, which Luke attributes to the silversmiths, who were losing business in figurines of the goddess. Luke seems to have joined up with Paul again after that, in Macedonia. And Paul brings another back from the dead 20:9-10. Only fair, since he talked so long the lad fell asleep and out of a 3rd story window. But if Paul was really doing all Luke says, its no wonder people converted. He even blessed cloth, which healed people when carried home to them 19:11.


Passing Ephesus, Paul prophesies his death, or at least that he’ll never see them again. When he arrives in Jerusalem, the elders tell him the Jews will be after him due to stories they’ve heard that he’s counseling Jews to break the commandments. So they devise a plan for him to publicly demonstrate he’s kosher. 21:15-26. It doesn’t work; the Jews beat him up anyway, and he has to be rescued by a Roman soldier. He lets Paul address the mob, and Paul establishes his Jewishness, partly by saying he was a student of Gamaliel, the Pharisee, 22:3.
Its also fascinating to see the rights of Roman citizens. It gets Paul out of trouble several times. Again in 23:6 he says he is a Pharisee and son of one. That gets them on his side against the Sadducees.


If Acts is accurate, there were quite a number of Jews who were really angry at Paul, and maybe Christianity in general. In 23:12 it tells of a conspiracy to kill Paul that included 40 men who vowed not to eat or drink until he was dead, and got the chief priest and council involved in the plot. Why Paul particularly? The whole group of apostles live there, and don’t seem to provoke such ire – at least not at that time. It speaks to how threatened the Jews in Jerusalem must have felt. Or something. The Romans don’t really seem to care, so one can see how Medieval Christians came to blame Jews.


Jews point of view, thru Tertullus, the lawyer for the priests before Felix, governor (of Syria?): “For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world [inhabited earth] . . .”24:5. In jail under Felix 2 years! Because the Roman governors, Felix, the Festus, wish to do the Jews favors. So Paul appeals to Caesar, which I guess is any Roman citizen’s right. Great description of Festus’ loss at what to do with him 25:14-22.


What Jesus said to Paul on the road to Damascus has grown longer and more specific 26:15-18.


I wish I had access to my Oxford Guide to the Bible. It is time to begin Paul’s letters, and I’d really like to have all we know about the context. From my Bible, looks like the Galatians might be the earliest.

August 8
How can Galatians be first, when it is part of Asia, and Asia was off limits to begin with? I’m tempted not to begin with Paul at all, but with James or Peter. No, I’ve found where my Bible says I Thessalonians was the first of Paul’s letters, written around 51 AD. The others either appear to have been written later or I don’t have a date right now. So First Thessalonians it is.


The church at Thessalonica was established on Paul’s 2nd missionary trip. He wrote the letter from Corinth, and in general is pleased with the church at Thess. (which appears to be in Macedonia – but may be part of Greece). Verse one includes greetings from Paul, Silvanus and Timothy. Yes, it is Macedonia. In 1:10, Paul says, “to wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead.”


Chapter 2 reminds them of how the missionaries behaved when with them, pointing out all the bad things they didn’t do. A warning against false messiah’s, or prophets? At the end he says he tried to get back there several times, but “Satan thwarted us” 2:18. he includes in 4:3-11 a reminder to be moral sexually, to abstain from sexual immorality and possess either themselves or their wives in sanctification and honor, not lustful passion. Guess the word for vessel he used can be interpreted several ways. It does make a difference; can a man not greet his wife with lustful passion? And that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter. What could that possibly mean?


Timothy had just returned from a visit there (3:16), so likely the whole letter is in reference to specific questions and situations, and they would have known exactly what he meant. Interesting that sex is mentioned right off the bat.


II Thessalonians was written a few months later, to clear up misunderstandings occasioned by the first letter. The Church is still being “afflicted,” persecuted (tho not with death, as later). He says it is only fair that on judgment day those afflicting them will be afflicted, and they’ll be rewarded. “ . . . Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution.” 1:7.


They must have received a fake letter, because Paul tells them not to be gullible, or disturbed “either by a spirit of a message as if from us” saying the day of the Lord has come. He says that day cannot come until after the “apostasy,” or “falling away” from the faith 2:3. Does it say that in the gospels? This must be a new message to Paul – he seems to be referring to the anti-Christ. Hmmm. Revelation wasn’t written until much later – 40-50 years later. Actually, none of the gospels were written yet, tho I’m sure those procrites were making the rounds. I can’t recall any time Jesus specifically referred to an anti-Christ, or one who “sets himself up in the Temple . . . displaying himself as being God” 2:4, tho he does mention false prophets.


He is teaching this all over, that there will be this false messiah. “For God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth” 2:12. So here is that tricky, trickster God of the Hebrews again, who seems to delight in devising new ways to make people fall, the punish them eternally. Is it just Paul’s Jewishness causing him to misinterpret? Is this a belief widely shared with those who lived with Jesus? Is it just rhetorical, use of extreme language to make a point? Hyperbole?


Paul issues a number of commandments. He now commands them to “keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us” 3:6. It is maybe about communal life, because he goes on to talk about how they worked and were not lazy when with them, as a model. And “if anyone will not work, neither let him eat” 3:10. Some folks are being lazy and “busybodies” and he commands and exhorts them to behave. He ends with a “distinguishing mark” so they’ll know which are truly letters from him.


Now to Galatians. Church established on his first trip, the letter written between 48-58, addressing a crisis there. Ah-ha! Forgot Freeman has an entire chapter on Paul, where he says what every scholar says about how his letters were written for specific purposes, not as a thought-out theology, and their contradictory statements. Points out that while the Jerusalem Christians were “suffused with their memories of Jesus as a human being,” Paul’s Christ has relevance only through his death and resurrection, p.107.


Speaks of his great love for the new churches, his frustrations and enthusiasms and “the demands he places on the recipient communities are heavy, and his own authority often under threat” p.107. He says the letters generally agreed to be Paul’s are Romans, Corinthians 1 & 2, Galatians, Philippians, and 1, maybe 2 Thessalonians. Many add Colossians, p.109.
Above that, he points out, citing others, that Paul has a lot in common with the Essenes and may have at least been influenced by them. He speaks of Paul’s personality – how abrasive, how conflict-ridden were his relationships, that there is not one Christian community with whom he is fully at his ease. No one could agree he wasn’t driven and committed, and mentally strong. But he was not charismatic – he pushed or repelled people, where Jesus had attracted them.


Freeman makes out that it was Paul’s inability to get along with Jews that led him to preach to gentiles, born out by Acts. And we’ll see in the letters that the Jews may have had good reason to be mad at him: he stirred up trouble wherever he went, and suggests at times that now God prefers gentiles and that the Jews are no longer his Chosen People. We saw his first journey was with Barnabus, but after that falling out he worked out a relationship in which he would be the apostle to the gentiles and go much his own way, the only sustainable relationship with the Jerusalem apostles, Freeman argues, given Paul’s temperament.


Let’s see what Galatians has to say. Whoa – begins defensively. “Paul, an apostle not sent by men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” 1:1.
1:6 – he’s amazed that people are already listening to someone else, who is “distorting” Christ’s message. Geez! 1:8 – “but even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” So Paul’s message supersedes that of angels? He again curses anyone besides him who preaches something different. And then makes it clear he isn’t interested in pleasing men – something he may have found impossible to do in any case.


In 1:11 he makes a claim to legitimacy because no man taught him the gospel, but it was revealed to him. Case for direct revelation – equal to the 12 apostles who knew Jesus, better than anyone who learned from them. Yes, in 1:17 says after the revelation he didn’t need the approval of those in Jerusalem, and didn’t seek it. He assures them he isn’t lying when he says 3 years later he went to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter (Cephas) 15 days, and met James, Jesus’ brother, but didn’t see any of the other apostles.

August 9
I guess for now I’ll go back to Galatians, where poor Paul is suffering so much because there have been other teachers visiting the church. In the second chapter he says that 14 years later, after his first visit to Jerusalem, he went back. This is when the question of whether converts must be circumcised came up, because he says he “submitted to them the gospel I preach among the gentiles” 2:12, but not even Titus, a Greek companion, was circumcised. “But it was because of the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage” 2:4. Sounds kind of paranoid, doesn’t he?


He refers to “those of high reputation” with whom he consulted even tho “what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality” But says they “contribute nothing to me.” Sounds like there is some real tension. Perhaps Luke smoothed it over when he wrote Acts, trying minimize the differences. Anyway, James (brother of Jesus), Peter and John gave him the “right hand of fellowship,” recognizing that he’d been entrusted with the gospel to the gentiles, as Peter was entrusted with the one for the Jews 2:7-9. But in the next breath he says, “But when Cephos came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” 2:11. The reason is that, as Paul perceives it, Jesus broke the barrier between Jew and gentile, and taught that it is not thru observance of the Law that people will be saved, but only through faith in Him. Peter used to get that, but he’s fallen under the sway of the “party of circumcision” and swayed even Barnabus 2:21 “For if righteousness comes thru the Law, the Christ died needlessly.” There is the problem.


For Paul had dedicated himself to the practice of the Law, becoming a Pharisee of the strictest sort. Yet Jesus told him personally that wasn’t enough. He is utterly convinced that the Law is now irrelevant, that faith in Jesus is it. He also says in that passage, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” 2:20, which must have pissed off some of those who were there at the crucifixion.


He yells at the Galatians for having been duped, asking, “Did you get the Holy Spirit by following the Law? Or by having faith?” 3:5. He gives them a scripture lesson, and says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law” 3:13. So he’s saying it had become a curse for them in that it had them focused on their own actions, and the details of Law, and not on God. He’s also making the argument that they are all now one people, not many, and that even the believing gentiles can now claim kinship with Abraham. God made a covenant with Abraham, which was not nullified “430” years later with the coming of Moses’ law, 3:17. “For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise” 3:18. The Law was only given because “of transgressions” and “having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed had come to whom the promise had been made” 3:19. So the Jews are just space fillers? They were made to sin, in order that God could extend the promise to gentiles, or fulfill the promise that salvation would come to the whole world through the Jews.


3:23-27 he says the law was just the tutor, but now that faith has come, they no longer need the tutor. He says all are now one, “There is no Jew or Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for all are one in Jesus Christ” 3:28. And all are Abraham’s offspring. Sounds nice, but why then in later letters does Paul make distinctions and different rules for women? Why does he return a slave to his master? Seems contradictory.


In chapter 4 he presents a theology that must have angered the Jews still further. First he compares them, Jews, to children of a wealthy man, and the Gentiles to slaves. But when the heir comes, he frees the slaves and makes them equal to his children. Why then go back to being slaves? Equality is one thing, but then he uses the story of Abraham and Isaac as an allegory. Abraham had two sons, one through a bond-woman, one through a free-woman. One thru flesh, and one through spirit. He says Hagar is Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the “Jerusalem above” is free, and she is the Gentile Christians’ mother. For it is written: Rejoice barren woman who does not bear, Break faith and shout, you who are not in labor, for more are the children of the desolate than of those who has a husband” 3:27. So “you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.” But the child of the flesh persecuted the child of the spirit then and now. But:
Cast out the bondwoman and her son. For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the sons of the free woman 3:30
Ouch!
Then he gives them instruction on how to live good Christian lives, including a description of the fruits of the spirit 5:22. After ranting at them for several chapters, he tells them to correct one another with gentleness! 6:1.



To be fair, he did catch himself earlier and said he wanted to change his tone. He encourages them not to be boastful or envious of one another – isn’t that what he himself has done? He really doesn’t see himself as boastful “But may it never be that I should boast” 6:14. Forgot to record that in 4:13 he refers to a “body illness” he had when with them, “and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus himself.” That almost sounds like a disfigurement, or something repulsive/disgusting about him, that it should be a trial.
I remembered because he closes the letter with a reference to how he bears “on my body the brand marks of Jesus” 6:17. Could be real brands or other scars from prison, or another reference to some physical disfiguring.


I guess I’ll go to Philippians next. Philippi was the first “European” church, in Macedonia. My Bible has the date of the letter as c.62. Oops, no, should be Romans next, written from Corinth in AD 58. So just shortly after the letter to Galatia. Bible says Romans is the most important (now) of Paul’s letters, and maybe of the entire Bible. Again, its major theme is the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. It is a long letter, with 16 chapters.

1994 - Trying To Be A Christian - Again

I came out of 1993 knowing I needed to reconnect not only with family but with Spirit. I believed that all religions were legitimate paths to the Truth. I just needed to pick one. I felt most attuned to Hinduism, although Judaism and Islam also exerted strong attractions. But at the time, I decided that my early training in Christianity, and the fact that I live in a Christian-saturated culture, would make following Christianity the best path for me to follow. I therefore re-dedicated myself to the Christian faith, and did my best to practice it. I began to read the Bible again, and truly tried to struggle with the parts that I still felt were mistaken, to try to see what I was missing, what the original intent of the writer was, how God might still speak to me through things that didn’t make any sense. I spent a lot of time in prayer. Well, you can see how it went for yourself - that's what this is all about:


May 22, 1994 (25 years old)
It is a gloriously beautiful morning. A good day for reading Psalms. It seems that every time the worldly pressures of school and work and relationships, etc. are relieved for awhile, my mind turns naturally to spirit. It’s like that is the real work, the real project, and all the other things are just distractions.
I wonder constantly about Christianity. I know that God is beyond gender, and lately I’ve been wondering if it really matters whether I think of It as male or female. It couldn’t possibly care how I engender it, I don’t think. And my 17 or 18 years of conditioning have made it easier to relate to a male god, though it goes against my reasoning. Trying to call it Goddess in my heart feels strained and false. Am I to follow my intellect in matters of the spirit? Or my spirit? If thinking of God as the Father enables me to move closer to that Truth, what does it matter if in the process I have to give up my feminist ideas of Goddess? And if I am willing to call him Father, what stands between that, and my accepting his son?

June 4
So much is happening inside me. S [my boyfriend of one year] and I are camping at Trinity Lake. And I am becoming a Christian again. Where to begin? Maybe it doesn’t matter. Indeed, the only reason I want to write about it here is that I want to write Mom and Dad about this change, and I want to put my thoughts and feelings into some kind of order. I think I’ll just list points, and I can put them in a sensible order later.
1. I truly believe, and have for at least a year, that it doesn’t matter which path you walk, as long as you pick one, and really walk it. But for numerous reasons, I didn’t apply that to me and Christianity, and now I see that I can.
2. If I am going to walk a path, and I always knew I would, it began to occur to me that the religion I grew up with and am knowledgeable about and comfortable with, is perhaps the best one. I’ve tried to connect with Spirit, or the Ultimate Being on my own, and have found that I can’t do it.
3. I have struggled to be a “good” person, and have managed to make some improvements both in my behavior and my heart. But I have never been able to erase this basic sense of “badness,” of shame, that I think I really may as well call original sin. I’ve become aware that there is nothing I will ever be able to do to redeem myself. No matter how hard I try, or how “good” I become. I, myself, do not have the capability to save myself. And at the same time, I find that it is very important to me to be redeemed. Which leaves me in quite a quandary. I feel it necessary to be saved, but know I will never be able to save myself. So my only other option is the hope that God himself will redeem me.
4. I believe God to be beyond gender, but have only gotten in my own way – as I explained before, and am now very comfortable imagining a male type of God.
5. I’m not concerned with heaven at this point. All I’m really looking for is a way to be the kind of person I want to be, that I feel I ought to be, and that I know I can’t be all by myself.
6. I feel ready to surrender. I’ve proven to myself that my will lands me in some kind of trouble more often than not. I’m also willing to admit that I don’t know anything. The more I learn, the more I realize that. So I am not in a position to know what’s best, for me or anyone else. I feel ready to let some One or Thing tell me what to do. This can only happen because I really believe there is One who does know what’s best. Who does have a plan for me and who will guide me as soon as I ask.
7. I’ve struggled so long with the idea that you can only use logic up to a point, and then you must make this leap of faith. I’ve hated the idea of that leap. I think it is only because I understand better the alternative of that leap that the leap looks a whole lot more attractive to me now. I am tired of feeling disconnected, alone and meaningless.
8. Since I’ve begun to move closer to this point, the feeling of connectedness is too strong to deny. Whether it’s a psychological thing I’m doing to myself doesn’t matter to me anymore, because the feeling is real, however derived.
J. [a close friend from adolescence] and I were talking about all this, and she related a conversation she had with a customer once who was a Christian. He was explaining some of the basic points and they got to that leap. J. said, “I want all those things, but how do I do it?” The man answered, “Have faith.” That sent J. into a rage. “Have faith? That’s all you people ever say! I ask serious questions and that’s the only stupid answer you ever give!” Now, many years later, she had the brilliant idea that perhaps she should try it! And kablam! There it was. She discovered it was the only answer, and that it works. That when you try just a little tiny bit of faith, the faith itself seems to take over and produce even more of itself. I’m discovering that same thing.
Ditto with the concept “act as if.” Act as if you were the kind of person you wish you were, and lo and behold, that is who you become. This is an amazing concept to me . . . to anyone, I think, who realizes they are hopelessly evil with no hope of changing it. Ah, but I can act as if I am a good person. And maybe if I am lucky God will help me be that person someday. It does mean you have to do a lot of things you don’t want to. But what a small price to pay for the hope of redemption. I mean, after all, I was going to try to do right whether there was any payback at all. How wonderful that I can get paid back by getting help to be what I want to be.

July 24
I’ve been thinking about the tragedy in Rwanda/Zaire. I just can’t understand why God doesn’t do something. Drop manna and water from the sky, at least! Mom said something that helped a little. She said she had an idea that God’s answer might be that if we who have heard of Him were all doing what we should be, that wouldn’t be happening. Not to make us feel guilty, just a simple explanation of cause and effect. I had said something to Mom about manna being good advertising for God, and she agreed, saying He knew that. Then added that his Enemy would stop at nothing to give Him bad advertising. I said, “Why doesn’t God fight back?” She said she thinks he does, just not in ways we understand. I feel sure, too, that there must be some reason. I just don’t know understand what it is. I know I probably never will. What my job is, I guess, is finding out what God wants me to do, and doing it.

August 3
Thomas Merton says something about there being no neutrality between gratitude and ingratitude. That you either live your life gratefully or not. He remarks also on how much you miss if you choose not to live gratefully. Yesterday another opportunity came to be grateful. I had the chance to buy S. a Bible. He said he wanted one, so I stopped at two places and got him a Living Bible. I also got myself a planner, to guide my reading. I’m beginning on the correct date, which is in Jeremiah. I’m not exactly sure that’s where I need to be reading, but I trust that God has a plan, and also that there is something important to be learned in each passage of His book. So I will read it. I realize, of course, that doesn’t mean I can’t read other parts as well. I’d really like to re-read the gospels. I need to get to know Jesus again, through his life, and his words.
Things inside me are changing. As I read different things, I realize I’m reacting in a totally new way that I would have a month or two ago. Some of these reactions are hard to put into words. One is that I always yearned for a religion that was highly ritualized, one in which you could learn magic, and say intricate spells, that had to be done just right, etc. Now when I contrast that with the simplicity of Christianity I find the former lacking. It just isn’t as exciting as it once was. I don’t want my books on Goddess stuff anymore. They just don’t hold any interest for me. Same with a few of my CD’s. I think tomorrow I’ll actually get rid of them. For now I’m going to read the Bible, and will write about what I read.
Jeremiah 3:20. I’m not exactly sure what I was supposed to get from this. Perhaps it is to help me to come to terms with God’s anger. It is still difficult to understand, but easier than it was before. I think I’m also learning that God’s anger is different from human anger. There are also so many similarities between that time and this one, in terms of turning away from God and constructing our own. It is a good reminder that He will not always be so indulgent with me, and also that it is only when one does as God directs that one has nothing to fear.
I was trying to catch up with the guide, as well, so I read more that I really think I was able to digest. There was a mention of the potter and his clay, which I like. It reminded me that not only will God mold and design me to his will, but also that He can crumple me up and throw me away. He has promised, through his Son, that he will not do that, as long as I keep trying. But that is his gift to me, not my right.
There are so many things to think about.

August 5
Oh, I didn’t write about what I read yesterday in the Bible. One of the things that stood out to me was that in King Josiah’s time, he consulted a woman prophetess. That’s the first time I remember hearing of a woman prophet in the Old Testament, or should I say, a woman afforded any respect of that kind. Another point was that Josiah did his best to wipe out all of the paganism, destroy the idols and renew the covenant his fathers had made with God. Another example of how one person can make a difference.
I wonder what would happen if the Prime Minister of Israel did something like that now. Would the UN interfere? Or just the Americans, with our right of separation of church and state? Why we believe we can impose that on everyone else, I don’t know. If I had a leader whom I believed was really walking with God, and being led by God, like Prince Caspian or something, I’d rather live in a state that was the church. But it certainly would be horrible if they weren’t really close to God, or if they were walking with someone else’s God.

August 7
Lord, I’ve been reading and reading the history of Your Children, and I am sick of all the blood. It’s hard for me to understand how You can be the God of Peace, when all I am reading is war, and murder, and treachery. I realize that humans are treacherous and bloodthirsty, but did You not command them so? What am I supposed to be learning?

August 22
I’m reading Ezekiel and Numbers and I think my process is backwards. Instead of helping me understand and believe more, my reading is just making me question more. It’s so hard to reconcile the God of love with the Old Testament God of war and bloodshed and revenge. I was just thinking, maybe Islam is closer to what God wanted, with its holy wars and eye for an eye philosophy. Does the God I believe in exist? What are You like? Do you love me, or are You waiting to punish me? I think I need to read the New Testament. I’m getting lost in the Old. But it’s only for one more month, and I sense this struggle is good.
Another question, or problem I’m having is that so much of the Law and the guidelines seem culture-specific. I wonder if God still wants to be my God, of if He’s only for desert-dwelling, polygynous, bloodthirsty people. And if he does indeed wish to be my Lord, if he is my Lord, what does he want me to do? Did the rules regarding homosexuality go out with those of sacrifice and seclusion of menstruating women? What exactly is meant by fornication?

September 4
My Bible reading this morning was in Psalms. The recurrent theme was, “How long, O Lord, will Thou be angry?” That was good timing for me, because I can’t feel God close to me. I feel that’s related to all the emotions I’ve been having about my parents. I keep feeling displeasure, and I don’t know if it is from You, or from my internal parental programming. Every time I think about the way my parents treated me I’m immediately suspicious of my own motivations. Am I attempting to absolve myself from responsibility? I keep feeling, Lord, that You are putting those thoughts in my head, but I’m not sure. I can’t figure out if I have any right to be angry. But I was actually hurt. Can I go with that? Isn’t it all right for me to acknowledge that I was very wounded by their actions, without having the instantaneous thought afterwards that it was all my own fault? I know that we are all responsible for our own actions. I know that, and I really believe I am not trying to get out of anything.
After all, I’ve already opened myself, and I have given Mom, Dad and [my younger sister] many opportunities to express their anger at me, and their pain. But they’ve [parents] never given me that chance. I’ve never been allowed to say, “You hurt me,” without them responding that it was my own fault. And I can’t tell, God, if it is You agreeing with them that it is all my fault, or what. So I can’t feel You. I don’t know if you still love me or not.
Lord, my parents rejected me absolutely at one time. They told me they didn’t want me, and they showed it. Now I can’t believe I’m lovable. If my parents could just decide they didn’t want me anymore, then everyone can do that, including You. I’m so frightened that everyone will just stop loving me. Either for a bad thing I did, or just out of the blue. That’s why I can’t believe You really love me. People say You are the perfect Father, but my own father was a good man, and he still found it necessary to reject me. To abandon me. I can’t tell if he was right to do that, in which case, a more perfect father would be able to reject me more completely. Or did he make a mistake? Would a perfect father have more compassion? I just don’t know, and I feel so alone.
Why is it that when I think just of myself in relationship with You, I am sure You can and have forgiven me and that You love me. But when I think of my whole family in relation to You, I feel equally sure that You don’t like me at all? Maybe it is because I know You love them, and I know they walk with You, which means any time I disagree with them, I’m automatically separating myself from You. Or that’s what it feels like, anyway.
God, I made a decision to follow You, and I will not turn back. I have put my faith in You and I will continue to seek You, and I am trying to trust You on an emotional level as well. Until I can, I trust you intellectually. I’ve decided to trust You. But I’m scared and I can’t feel You. I believe You are there and I’ll keep trying to be someone worthy of Your love, though I am but dust.
But Father, will you reject me, too? Will you turn Your face from me? I will keep following You, even if You do, but Lord, I need You. Please don’t leave me. Please love me. How much more do I need You because my own earthly father doesn’t like me? Please let me be Your child even though I do bad things. Please don’t cast me out! Please hear my cry, o Lord.

September 30
I’m going to have to go in a few minutes, but wanted to mention that in my Bible reading this morning I began the gospels. I read the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, and I was a little confused and surprised to find that they are different. They begin being different at an early point – Joseph’s father. Now, I’m confused because a) I thought Jews were matrilineal, and b) if Jesus was born through Mary and an Immaculate Conception, who cares what Joseph’s line was? He had nothing to do with it! And c) If they couldn’t get the nearest relationship right, why are they so confident about times even farther back?
Another interesting point is that neither my Bible nor the reading guide discuss or explain the discrepancy. Strange. Will have to look it up in my Oxford Guide to the Bible.

October 3
My Bible reading was in the gospels, concerning John the Baptist, the Temptation of Christ, and the beginning of his preaching. How amazing it must have been to be there, then. To have seen Him with one’s own eyes. It seems that you would have to believe. Yet I guess some didn’t. But it seems to me that those who didn’t believe were those who had something to lose; I.e. the priests who had power. Who had pride. And I guess it’s the same dynamic today. It is those who believe they are self-sufficient who cannot hear His message. It is those who have nothing who are glad of Jesus’ message. It was only when I realized that I am not enough, and that in fact I am in a very precarious position vis-à-vis the world that I found comfort in the word of God, that I was willing to even look.
So I guess things haven’t changed much, and who knows where I would have stood had I lived then. Though of course I would like to believe that I would have seen. That I would have accepted the Christ as the Savior. In reality, it probably depended a lot on one’s economic and political status. Much as it does today.
Another thing to think about is the form of the temptation Jesus was subjected to. He was tempted to make food for Himself when he was very hungry. That is important to me because it means He does know how it feels to be humanly hungry, a state of which we say, “I’d do anything for food.” Yet He didn’t do as he was tempted, which means hunger is not an excuse for doing wrong. Neither is the will to power, much as Neichtze would argue it to be. So He does understand those urges, and he can still say, “Don’t do it.” He, though, was perfect. I’m sure He knows we aren’t, and will forgive us. But still, I cannot use excuses. Let me never call wrong right. It’s still wrong, not matter what ways we try to justify it.
Lord, I admit willingly that I do wrong, even when I know it is wrong. Actually, I think I’m pretty aware of the wrongness of my actions almost all the time. Still I do these things, and in my human, petty ways, I try to justify myself to You. But deep down, I know I am a sinner, and that I’ve disappointed You again and again. Please help me not to try and fool myself anymore.

October 6
Another week almost over. My Bible reading today was in Matthew, and included the Sermon on the Mount. The beginning is comforting, the rest is demanding. The commandments are things I’ve know since I was a child, yet reading them again, now, I realize that I am a sinner through and through. I am selfish and hateful. I have and still do hold some grudges. I have not succeeded in loving my enemies. I am selfish – I see the poverty and misery all around me and do nothing to alleviate it. I have so many excuses for why not. But in the end, will I not also be like Schindler, saying, “I could have saved more?” I know this will be all of our fates. And I am so lazy that I don’t even really want to do better. I want to be able to recognize my own evil and have that be good enough. I am indeed a miserable creature next to those who please You. How can I change myself? Maybe I can’t. I invite You, Father of Heaven, to change me. But let me not forget that I must do the work. I need to do more than pray and read the Bible. I know this. I’m frightened to change. I have not learned to trust. I want to learn. I want to be a Light. I want to shine with Your Light. You have said that we are blessed if we are persecuted in Your name. I have prided myself that I would be able to withstand torture. But I am not even able to risk being rejected by a few anthropologists. I am so weak. And my pride, besides being evil, is empty.
I keep trying to want to do better. I know I am not trying hard enough. It’s like starting a new habit. It’s difficult, and I feel myself failing. It involves thinking in a new way. Making new pathways for my neurotransmitters. But I know it isn’t impossible.
When You walked this earth and You helped people, You told them that their sins were forgiven. Does that mean that it is our own individual sin that makes us diseased and broken? It would be just, in my case. But what about little children, babies? What could they have done? And if it is our own sin, then why are we not healed when we believe in You, and ask that our sins be forgiven? It seems it must be more complex than that. We must suffer because of Original Sin, because we are separated from You, just by the nature of being human.
So when You healed them, You were pardoning them for being human. But didn’t You make them (us) human in the first place? How can You make an imperfect thing, and then require perfection from it? I don’t think I’m really questioning You. I know it’s just that I don’t understand. And I probably never will.
The Problem of Evil indeed. Greater minds than mine have been stumped by this one. After watching Schindler’s List last night, it is impossible not to ask why. Why did these terrible things happen? Why are they still? Why do You let it go on? I know You gave us free will. We have choices. We can choose to be so terrible. How can there be enough hate to make the Holocaust happen? I see that those of who do not act to stop such things are just as guilty. Indifference has always seemed worse to me than hate. Is our greatest sin that we do not trust You? Do you see that it is difficult because we know that You will allow us to suffer greatly? Not to make an excuse, but it is hard. We are to trust in a world beyond this one. But all we can see is this one, and we in the West have chosen to believe only what we see. Though I do believe You are there, it is a fight against all my conditioning to act for You, for the Beyond, instead of for this world that I can see. I want to, though. Please accept my puny attempts to try. Please acknowledge my good intentions and help me make them real.

October 11
My Bible reading was pretty heavy today. Matthew 6 and 7, Luke 7 and part of 8. Jesus tells us that we cannot serve two masters; money and God. Also tells us that we are not to worry about tomorrow; not about food or clothing or trouble. That’s really hard.
[My little sister] and I were talking about this the other day, and she said she wasn’t sure about all that, because look at all the people who are starving. She cited Rwanda as an example. So I was thinking about that, and about what Mom said; namely that if we were all doing as we are supposed to, she thought that wouldn’t be happening. So my thought is, that she’s right. If, as a nation, we were concerned with God’s will, instead of a profit, we would handle all our foreign affairs differently, and we would know what to do, we would have had a lot of practice at feeding the hungry, perhaps we’d even be able to stop wars with love. Mom is right. Another thing is that crises like the one in Rwanda give us an opportunity to do the right thing. A great chance to do great good. And we never take it. We Americans have the means to change people’s lives across the globe. And we never do it.
The third part of all this is that we are to trust God. Not trust Him to keep us from all harm, but trust Him, that when we walk in His path all that befalls us is His will. Father, I thank you for my life today. Thank you for the opportunity to learn in school and from books. Thank you for all the opportunities I will have to be kind to someone today. Thank you for yet another chance to learn to do Your will. Please be with me today, and guide my steps.

October 20
Lord, I am confused about Your word. It seems to say two different things. One, that You are very demanding, and that anyone who is weak and makes mistakes isn’t worthy to follow You. And two, that You seek to save even the worst of us, and that You are gentle and patient. It leaves me wondering, because I know that by one measurement, I am in no way worthy to kiss Your feet, let alone follow You. But by the other I have hope that You will forgive me. Is there a message here that is supposed to be clear, that I am just making complicated and obscure? Or is this a truly ambiguous message that we are meant to ponder over? For now, all I can do is admit my unworthiness, and pray that You will forgive me anyway, and let me be Your servant. I am, at least, willing to be willing. I need so much of Your help. People here on earth say I am a good person, but Lord, I know that You see my heart, and that it is full of pride, stubbornness, anger, and sometimes deceit, as well as selfishness. I know that you are not fooled by my mask, and I am grateful. It is freeing to be seen, to be witnessed as I really am. And it makes it possible for me to ask You honestly and humbly for Your help. I want to overcome these things. I don’t want to keep hardening my heart against You, as I know I so often do. How can I open myself more to Your will? Prayer. Thank You for that answer.
Okay. Then I ask your help in putting aside time for prayer – for listening, instead of the non-stop talking I do. Yes. This feels like the answer.

October 22
My spiritual question of the day is wondering about all the people, just in America, who have led incredible lives, and were really good people, but who weren’t or aren’t Christians. Will they be in heaven?
We watched Unsolved Mysteries last night, and there was a story about a man who’d had a near-death experience. Because of it his whole life had changed. Before, he was a mean bully, and when he “died” he say and felt what each of his cruel acts had done to people through the years. He was also shown 16-18 future events, like the end of the Cold War and the Gulf War. He came back with psychic powers, supposedly, but more importantly, he became an altruistic person, dedicating his life to helping others. He didn’t state whether or not he was a Christian, but I felt he wasn’t. So what about him? Where will he go when he dies? I am confused because in one part of the Bible Jesus says, “He who is not against me is for me,” and in another, “He who is not for me is against me,” and these two messages are not the same. Will that man be seen as for Jesus, since he wasn’t against Him? Or will he be judged as being against Jesus, since he wasn’t specifically for Him?
And what about all the other good people, like G and S? Lord, you said that no one can come to the Father except by You. Does that mean all these others will be locked out? You also said that, “He who seeks shall find.” But it seems to me that there are a lot of people in this country who are seeking desperately, but who aren’t finding anyone or anything. Only You can know whether they are really seeking or not, but they seem to be.
And it is said somewhere else in the Bible that some people will listen but not be able to hear, because You have closed their ears and hearts. That doesn’t seem fair. I know I’m just a human with limited understanding and ways of knowing, but it doesn’t seem fair to me to make people blind and then punish them for not seeing. I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand. I feel sad for all those people who are knocking, and I don’t see why I’ve been allowed to hear, at least a little bit. It seems I could just as easily been one of those who never saw Your light – and if that had been so, would it have been my fault? Or Yours, for blocking my ears? Is there any difference made in Your judgment between the two?
I do believe You are fair, and that Your judgments are just. I’m sure I cannot see this issue clearly because I am too small. But still, Lord, I want to ask You for compassion on those people, and on myself, for not understanding. I realize that for myself, I only do not find what I’m not seeking hard enough. I will keep trying. I desire so much to be with You, to have Your presence every day in my life, and to do Your will. Please help me, to see Your will and do it. Please do not keep my eyes from seeing nor my ears from hearing.
Another thing I need to speak to You about, Lord, is my molestation . . . But God, I don’t want to put my responsibility onto someone else. At what age am I responsible for the things that happened? I do not seek punishment for those who have hurt me. And I don’t want to accuse anyone of abusing me when it is really my fault that it happened. I also don’t want to use it to get more attention or sympathy than I deserve. But I also want it to be understood that I was hurt. Is that wrong, Lord? I need Your guidance, because I’m not really sure a) what all happened, b) who is at fault, c) if I’m entitled to any understanding or sympathy, and d) when I am using it to manipulate people into treating me in certain ways, or excusing me.
For example, yesterday I really wanted to be excused for being distant, selfish and nasty, on the basis of the fact that I was abused. Now, I know it is wrong to use it like that. But I think there may be some truth to the fact that my behavior today is influenced by what happened in the past. And again, age seems to figure into it. For instance, am I guilty for being sexually precocious as a teenager if it was due to abuse as a child? I mean, is there some age at which we aren’t held completely responsible for our actions?
I guess in some ways it doesn’t mater, because I know that You can and have forgiven me for my past. But it does matter, because if today it is wrong for me to blame someone else, then each time I do it I’m sinning. I feel like I need to know exactly who is responsible for what. I just don’t know if You agree with modern psychology that it is never the child’s fault. Psychology lets a lot of people off the hook when You would hold them to a higher standard. Or so I think, anyway. So where do I stand? Please be with me and guide me as I struggle with this. And please have mercy on me and comfort be because regardless of whether or not it was all my fault, I’ve been hurt and damaged by it.

October 24
[after several pages of questioning my own motives]
Lord, I want to be a good servant to You. But you see how bad I am? How involved in self I am? How can I ever be worthy even to call myself Yours? Protect me from pride, for I can even manage to be proud of how awful I am. How irredeemable. How sick. I feel like a hopeless case. And all I can say for myself is that I will keep trying to do better. I think sometimes that I am too smart. Too rational. My brain is so loud that it will not let my heart believe or hope or have faith. Father, I throw myself on your mercy.
Just to show you how convoluted it all is – I have to ask myself whether the writing about this is just another way to give myself strokes for being so honest with myself, or manipulating people way in the future who might read this to think I was too hard on myself. It never ends!

October 26
It occurred to me that I am at the stage with my guilt where I was when I left Christianity at age 18. It hasn’t developed through the years. Instead I’ve picked it up right where I left off. And I think it was a large part of the reason I quit being a Christian – because this issue of guilt seemed unresolvable. I am determined to resolve it somehow this time, so that I can move on and grow up spiritually. I will not let it drive me again away from God. But I see that I am going to need help.
My reading in the Bible today will have to be read again because it just confused me.

October 30
My Bible reading is just confusing me. Jesus seems to vacillate between being really harsh and really gentle. Lord, please help me to understand Your words. I feel that my capacity to truly take in Your lessons has been shut down. I don’t know if by You or by me.

November 21
Monday morning. I slept in late, then read my bible and read a little of C.S. Lewis to S. I read the rest of Galatians this morning, and I get really confused and irritated reading Paul’s letters. Lord, I know You must have chosen him and preserved his words, and I know I have no right to judge him. But I don’t understand how he can claim to be so like You. He isn’t humble in his writings at all. Maybe he didn’t need to be. But it is a stumbling block to me. Please help me get over it. Help me to understand what he is saying. I feel this is going to be a long struggle for me. Please help me to stick with it. Help me to hear what You are saying through him. Thank you. And thank you for Lewis, who helps me understand, and inspires me to do better. I am so weak.

November 22
Read James this morning. Oh Father. I sin in nearly everything I do, and sin also in the things I do not do. How will I ever live up to all you ask of me? I believe in You, yet how much has my life really changed? I read the Bible every morning, and I pray more often, but my works, my doing, really hasn’t changed. It seems I am unwilling, truly, to give myself to You. I don’t know what to do to change it. I am so lazy. I guess that’s the bottom line. I can’t even feel generous about the amount of time I’ve spent making gifts for people, because I’ve only done what I’ve wanted to do, and have used it as a way to avoid doing what I should be doing. I have a hard time motivating myself to do what I am supposed to do, let all the additional things I could be doing in the community.

December 1
I have been reading my Bible every morning, but I feel as if there is a veil over my mind, and I am just not able to understand or take in what I’m reading. My irritation with Paul – his writing style, his egoism – gets in the way. Its disappointing, because I really thought that once I got into the New Testament all, or at least much, would become clear. I guess it isn’t going to be that easy, eh?
Well, Father, I hope You will grant me enough time on this earth to struggle successfully with Your word. I mean, of course, not that I will conquer it, but that it will conquer me. More things need to change inside me. I know. But it feels like so much has to be done right now that I don’t have time to be introspective. I’ll keep reading and praying and asking You to work in me. I’m sorry, but it feels like all I have to give you right now are my preoccupations.



It is really difficult for me to present these excerpts without additional commentary. I see things so differently now, and even as I post these, I gain new insights into what might have been going on with me. But I'm going to save that for another day and let this be what it is for right now.