Part # 1 Making Christianity New Again: The Gospel of Veronica It is customary to write a story first and only then compose a follow-up with the theme: "The making of..." However, in this case it is best to reverse the order and write out the process of composition of a new kind of gospel at the outset so that its purpose can be better understood and the ideas on which it is based made use of by other writers. This is important because what is proposed is far more than a new kind of gospel genre that people can take or leave and find whatever value they may make of things purely as literature, with no other significance. But much more is intended here. New Gospels Early Christianity wasn't simply a matter of devotion-centered groups or individual believers who had faith in a spiritual Jesus who could answer prayers. Early Christianity included and was partly based on a literary movement. There really is no way to deny this historical fact; the New Testament exemplifies exactly this as do many other still extant literary creations of the first and second centuries AD. Can Christianity become a literary movement again? The advantages should be obvious, among them inspiration for new kinds of thinking about Christian faith, impetus for Christian intellectuals to work with ideas derived from the Bible for real world uses, outlets for creative writers to explore Christian faith for the 21st century, and so forth. That is, while literature is not some kind of solution to every problem, it can be an answer for some questions that are important to believers and, as well, anyone who might read such material and find it valuable for personal reasons. Actually there has never not been a time when there wasn't a literary movement within Christianity. Believers have been fascinated with the life of Christ from the beginning and created countless 'lives of Christ,' not to mention occasional stories about Jesus' disciples or other early Christians. And sometimes these fictionalized interpretations have become motion pictures, the most recent blockbuster being Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ of 2004. To be sure, sometimes examples of Christian literature can be cringe-worthy, like the "left behind" novels with their tales based on simple-minded literal readings of the Book of Revelation and related texts. but (A) even this approach can have its uses, in one case as the theme for an episode of the Law & Order TV series, and (B) for purposes of raising objective questions about how eschatological ideas have been worked with by various Christian groups to help define their missions on Earth, for instance as among Adventists. What is suggested here goes far beyond current denominational issues, however and takes as its starting point the need to create a "New Christianity." The idea is to make use of a new kind of gospel genre not to tell an old story all over again but more "hip" or "relevant" to modern times, but to take a completely new look at Christian faith and, in effect, to "re-invent" institutional Christianity. The concept suggested is to counter both the Religious Left and the Religions Right, since I have deep reservations about both. My view is that each is based on fundamental errors of understanding of original Christian faith. But how do you recapture the essence of earliest Christian faith while at the same time being meaningful for the 21st century? One alternative is through re-starting the tradition of writing new gospels, in this case, radically new kinds of gospels. The objective is to rethink not only Christian origins, something that seems to be demanded by more than a century of critical Bible scholarship, but also to capture the imagination of all kinds of people especially those who identify with Christian faith. About Bible scholarship, there isn't the least question that findings from this field of study have been largely ignored by pastors at the great majority of churches, hence it remains largely unknown to most parishioners even now. Which is intolerable. Either Christian faith is dependent on truth and cherishes truth regardless of anything else, or it does not. And clearly most Christians in positions of authority, when it comes to historical information, are more than willing to put truth aside so that traditions can be protected and traditional fictions extolled to assuage the sensitivities of benefactors. What is being proposed is to re-found Christianity but this time with as complete commitment as thinkable to speak the truth in all things. We should not run away from the truth, we should run toward it -even when it may be difficult and might upset some people. But polite lying must cease; it has gone on, far too long, and has undermined Christian credibility -and maybe has destroyed it among the young. If the mission to create a new genre of gospels is successful, then we would have something that many people might want to talk about, indeed, may find themselves irresistibly drawn to talking about. That is, think about the one time "boom" of interest in Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code, something that lasted approximately a decade despite -it has been pointed out- the many flaws in the book. But Dan Brown did not seem to have a higher purpose than writing a best seller and popularizing ideas about Mary Magdalene he had (half-) learned in his research over the years. That is, while he certainly achieved his goal of writing a popular book, he didn't know what to do with his material. He was incapable of making the most of his sources without far better command of scholarship than he possessed. Yet he got one thing very right: He knew that there was considerable existing interest in the Gnostic religious writings discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt at nearly the same time as the Dead sea Scrolls in Israel in the years immediately after WWII. And, it is clear enough, the image of a new kind of Christian believer following a non-traditional Jesus but a Jesus described in texts almost as old as the writings of the New Testament, fascinated many people. Especially since this "new" Jesus" had a relationship with Mary Magdalene. And because this dovetailed with interest in Goddess religion that had become popular among many people, particularly women, essentially since 1976, the year that Merlin Stone's When God Was a Woman was published. This is just a rough idea of what is intended here, but for very different reasons that anything Dan Brown had in mind. What is involved now is the creation of a New Christianity, the phrase and the concept the inspiration of Henri Saint-Simon the prophet of a new religion that came and went in early 19th century France but that, at the time, was premature. This is the moment to make Saint-Simon's vision a reality -but in ways he never dreamed of, and starting in America. Instead of a one-off novel the idea is creation of a new kind of literature intended to rejuvenate Christianity and in the process to facilitate the birth of a new kind of Christianity that is neither "liberal" nor "conservative" but is, instead, independent of all existing churches or forms of theology. Think of an entire contemporary genre of new gospels, of new kinds of gospels, not to invent history out of wishes and fears but to try and interpret the gospels as we have them as if it was possible to "fill in the blanks" that these documents leave open. Yes, imagination would be important but the idea is creation of a new kind of "historical fiction" that follows as much as possible the accounts in the canonical Bible -plus a few works that can claim to be complimentary to the Bible like, for instance, The Gospel of Philip and, for some specific verses, the Gospel of Thomas. This would be fiction that is founded directly on the best of modern scholarship, which is to say, the work of Bible researchers like Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marina Warner, Robert Eisenman, Dennis Mac Donald, and still others like them. In the future there might also be development of a parallel genre, something that takes inspiration from texts like Esther, Ruth, Jonah, and so forth, including the Book of Judges. Part of the inspiration for that kind of writing would be the work of scholars like the late Thorkild Jacobson, the premier authority on the religions of Mesopotamia, Simo Parpola of the Assyrian studies program at the University of Helsinki, William Dever, the world's leading archeologist of the antiquities of ancient Israel, and the late Mary Boyce, in her time the world's leasing expert on the history of Zoroastrian religion. Two books, more than any, set the stage for this kind of departure, one is the amazing 1967 text, The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai, and the other is a 1983 opus by Diane Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer, Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth. Why experts about non-Biblical religions? Because much, indeed, of the contents of the Old Testament have Mesopotamian or Persian or Egyptian or Syrian or other foundations and it is about time everyone was made aware of this fact of history. For everyone's sake. But let us focus on the gospels, which are the cornerstone documents of the Christian faith. The New Christianity should be ecumenical, however. We live in a religiously pluralistic age that is only becoming more pluralistic, and this means wherever possible, wherever there is a consistent message that does not play games with Christian tradition, -without any falsification of the historical record- showing where there were connections to India, as there certainly were in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, hence openings to Hindu ideas and to Buddhism. There were other openings, by way of Bardesanes, aka Bardaisan, for example, and for all anyone knows, by way of the semi-mythical King Abgar V of Osroene who supposedly exchanged a series of letters with Jesus. These kinds of themes could be developed in thoughtful original ways. Without, this has to be made explicit, anything at all like the so-called Aquarian Gospel, which is basically a work of fiction but with a quantity of historical miscellany in the mix. For a thorough debunking of the Aquarian Gospel see a meticulously researched article entitled "The True Story Behind the Aquarian Gospel," available on the Web. The author is unknown but his or her work is invaluable for unmasking the pretensions of this essentially fake scripture. The one major reservation to make is that in his (or her) overall characterization of the New Age the writer seems to be unaware of how multi-dimensional its sources actually were, far more than the Aquarian Gospel even if that book played an important role. But even though it was important my feelings toward the book are almost completely negative. Which is to say that what is intended here is pretty much the exact opposite of the Aquarian Gospel. That approach is not -at all- what this is about. In the early 1980s, the exact year escapes me but 1982 is a reasonable date, an ambition of mine was creation of such a new gospel, to be called "The Gospel of Veronica." Thankfully I ceased work on that project since my understanding of what this might become subsequently changed for the better. At that time I simply did not know enough to write the kind of text that I had wanted to put together. But what if I resumed work at this time, or in the near future, -started over again- with a new perspective? What would be an adventure of ideas might be something along the lines of: (1) Discovery of a lost trove of Biblical-era documents including the Gospel of Veronica (2) This gospel, as much as a mere man can do so, tells the story from the vantage of a woman who knew Jesus and who was an artist who painted his portrait at some point in the story, a "fact" that later became the stuff of various legends and miracle stories to the effect that "Veronica" wiped Christ's face with a cloth as he walked to this crucifixion and in the process his image was transferred to the fabric, (3) this would be unlike the other gospels in that Veronica lived several decades beyond Jesus' death and reported some of her experiences as late as maybe 90 AD or thereabouts The idea is a gospel along the lines of Luke-Acts but more in the style of the Gospel of John, which, of course, is a special pleasure to read.. (4) the story would be told with as little devotionalism as possible, to convey the story truthfully, although including devotions in a few places. The objective should be historical verisimilitude as much as can be achieved, each "verse" or passage based on scholarly evidence and the conclusions of Bible researchers. That is, this is not intended to simply be an exercise in creative writing where everything is basically made up to meet expectations of Evangelical theology and beliefs. That isn't how I operate nor is it what I actually believe even if, about a good number of issues, I agree with Evangelicals. However, about other matters I do not agree and this should be made very clear in the Gospel of Veronica. Nor is this intended to be some sort of promotion of the "liberal Christian" point-of-view. That outlook strikes me as fundamentally dishonest, in service to Cultural Marxist values, and is as much anti-Christian as anything else, and I want no part of any such thing. "Liberal Christians" do not see things this way, to be sure, but exactly what remains of any kind of 'orthodox' Christian faith when what one ends up with at typical 'liberal' church but, as it has been characterized, "the Democratic Party at prayer"? Unlike the past -when Franklin Delano Roosevelt worshiped together with Winston Churchill, when JFK and LBJ expressed Christian sentiments along with those of famed Baptist preacher Martin Luther King, Jr, even when a Baptist Sunday School teacher was elected president on the Democratic ticket, today's Democrats, with not many exceptions, are anti-religion generally (except for Islam) and anti-Christian specifically. I certainly have no case to make on behalf of the inept and hypocritical Republican Party but the Democrats take the prize for abominations in office. It is crucial to have no partisan political agenda in this endeavor because both major parties have betrayed us all. This is neither a project which is compatible with the Religious Right nor with the Religious Left. Story and History The objective -which needs to be made explicit from the outset- is to create first rate and realistic "historical fiction," something that makes best possible use of professional story-telling techniques to convey a serious message, Part of the purpose of the Gospel would be to tell the story of Jesus but without the panoply of -totally unnecessary and false- miracle tales recounted in the canonical gospels. The idea is to edit-out the majority of the miracle stories. Not by unexplained omission. Veronica lives a long life. She exits from Jerusalem on the eve of the Jewish War and relocates to Alexandria where she remains for the rest of her years except for one voyage to Spain to visit the places where the Apostle Paul had intended to go prior to his death. As a best guess for now, this means Valentia, today's Valencia, and its environs. Another possibility is Tarshish, if, anyway, it could be firmly established that there was such a city in Spain in Paul's era. One theory is that there was, near today's Seville, but this is uncertain. There also are legends that Paul did reach Iberia, legends maintained by several communities in Spain today, and any number of possibilities could be explored using this theme. But, while the legends are real, whether Paul actually got there is very questionable. Veronica's return voyage could have taken her to Marseilles (Massillia) in France before re-embarking for Ostia, then back to Egypt. In Alexandria, Veronica is able to read the "new" gospels -Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John- not long after they are written, one by one. She finally has had enough of the miracles stories and wants to correct the record. She also realizes that some of these stories simply are re-tellings of tales in the Odyssey. She likes some of the miracle stories, however, and does her best to say that, as stories, some of these tales are first rate and inspirational. This does not mean eliminating all the miracle stories. Because some are plausible and because other tales may not be literally factual but may convey important truths of Christian faith. But most have to go. There is no thought at all of eliminating the post-resurrection accounts, especially, since some are convincing to me, but most other miracles simply do not pass the "smell test." And everybody knows it -including majorities of most Christians. An example of what simply is so implausible that it is absurd, is the tale in Matthew 27 in which we are told that just after Jesus' resurrection the graves of a large number of the dead were opened magically, the people therein came back to life and walked into Jerusalem, thereby 'proving' the beliefs of early Christians. Except that there is zero evidence of any such thing, it is never mentioned again in the New Testament, and it reads like a plot device, not like a factual account. Such fabulism, in my humble opinion, gets in the way of Christian faith and deserves to be expunged. Not by taking a red pencil to the Gospels, no thank you, Luther was right that we should not tamper with the historic text, but by presenting alternative versions of the Gospel accounts that allow us to think about the classic stories in new and more plausible ways. Above all, we need an answer to the question, "what really happened in history?" We still aren't in a position to know all the details but quest-for-the-historical-Jesus scholarship is far beyond what it was in Schweitzer's era a century ago, and what can be done is to reconstruct parts of the Gospel story, retold in a form that takes us reasonably close to events in the real past. And who wouldn't want that? The problem for nearly all "true believers" is that, as far as available evidence allows us to know, the "real story" is rather different than the "Bible story." Not completely different, but different in all kinds of ways, starting with the fact that most of the miracles portrayed in the Gospels never happened. If you believe that they did, since many are lifted from Homer, then you actually believe the miracle stories in Pagan Greek literature. To be certain, matters are worse in some other religions, most notably Hinduism, which features literally thousands of fabulist accounts of mythological events. But Mahayana Buddhism also features many miracle tales, and some religions, like most Shamanist traditions, are based on exotic mythologies that, colorful as they may be, have nothing to do with the historic past, or very little to do with the historical past. And what is being proposed here is valorization of the truths of history, not who has the most exotic myths to offer people. While we need to take into account a wide variety of factors, the most important is historic truth. For all of the criticisms one may level against Biblical religion, what cannot be denied is that in comparison with all other faiths, Judeo-Christian religions are the most historical. What must also be said is that a close runner up to the value of history is the value of psychological insight, and no other religion compares with Buddhism in this respect, and that is a fact, admit it or not. But to speak of Christianity or Buddhism, is also to necessarily take into account their predecessors, Judaism and Hinduism, to which, in both cases since they have this in common, there were contributions from Zoroastrianism. And, ultimately, we need to give all due credit to the first "great religions" on Earth, those of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indus Valley. None of us would be where we are without them. Which, of course. Muhammad denied outright, calling all religions of antiquity products of an age of ignorance, with the Bible, especially the Old Testament -even if there is plenty in the New Testament also- often showing undeserved concept for other faiths. What is redeeming about the Bible, though, is that despite such slanders, is that it includes a great deal of material that shows sincere respect for other faiths, which is what I prefer to focus upon. It should be added, of course, that the Bible's criticisms of other faiths are sometimes richly deserved, especially its condemnations of idolatry. About which, it wasn't only the Bible that castigated veneration of religious statues and other images. Something similar is found in Zoroastrianism and in he writings of Cicero. And idolatry has no place in 'pure' Taoism, Confucianism, or Shinto, either. That is, if you demand total consistency in the pages of the Bible you will find it in some areas like basic morality, for example. Out of a minimum of 30 verses that discuss sodomy, in every case such desire or conduct is unequivocally condemned, there is no question about it. This includes Matthew 11: 20 - 24, where Jesus tells the people of Chorazim and Bethsaida that, as bad as the people of Sodom were in the past -which was unspeakably evil- today's sinners are even worse and will be totally destroyed at the Judgment, But this is the attitude throughout the Bible, in both testaments as well as the Apocrypha. You will also find total consistency in the Bible's negative views of veneration of religious art objects, viz, idols. But if you are looking for theological consistency, especially about attitudes toward other faiths, it isn't there, and instead there are competing narratives. So you need to take responsibility for making religious choices for yourself. And much of this concerns history. The issue here is historical truth and that is what the Gospel of Veronica is supposed to bring to the center of our attention. That is the purpose of it all. It should be based entirely -as much as this can be done- on historical facts, however, facts that cannot be brushed off or denied by anyone who knows how to do serious historical research. Those who have no such background should nonetheless feel secure that the text that is finally written does exactly this, that it has a foundation of objective truth substantiated by hard evidence. This is far more than my individual preference. See Burton Mack's 1993 volume, The Lost Gospel, The Book of Q & Christian Origins. Chapter 13, starting on page 237, makes it very clear that despite the fact that the Gospels are filled with mythological stories -Jesus supposedly walking on water, Jesus supposedly turning water into wine, Jesus supposedly transformed into a creature of light on a mountaintop in the presence of Moses and Elijah, to mention a few- what set Christians apart from everyone else in an age when just about all religions made claims to miracles, was insistence that all these supernatural events were, in fact, actual events. They were historical, in other words. As Burton Mack put it, while miracle stories of most other religions were set in a "once upon a time" era that could not possibly be checked out, the authors of the Gospels said that their stories were physically true, and asked their "adherents to believe that [they are] true." Which is to say that these tales can be disconfirmed even if what Christian true believers want is people to take their holy texts at their word and not question the claims they make. But this must end, viz, must be discredited. How do you know the Bible is true? Because the Bible says it is true? That is not a valid argument, it is not proof of anything. It simply is circular reasoning. Fewer and fewer people accept that kind of logic, and you can almost say that none of the young have any patience for such thinking. There is one qualification; for all anyone can say, sometimes miracles might happen. Before we rule out 100% of miracle stories in the Bible it would be best to investigate any that seem plausible and reserve judgment. Possibly a herd of swine did rush headlong into the sea of Galilee at one point in time. Whether this had anything to do with "demons" is an issue we can dismiss at will, but such an event is not outside the realm of possibility. And maybe the curtain in the Temple was torn in two at the hour of Jesus death on the cross; that isn't outside the realm of possibility either. But we have nothing at all that can be considered empirical proof and allowing for rare possibilities is not the same thing as magical thinking -which is what Biblical literalists demand that we all must do in order to even be Bible-believing Christians. No thanks, I'm not interested in that kind of forced choice with no basis in fact. Maybe you aren't, either. As many Christians have concluded at various times in the past, or at various times in their lives, we don't need miracles to be Christians, to regard Jesus as savior, or to try and live Christian lives The New Christianity does not depend on any miracles or miracle stories. It could be that, at rare intervals, events happen that sure seem like miracles, and maybe... who can say? But the kind of faith being discussed here doesn't need even one miracle, or any miracles, it should be good and true on its merits or it isn't good and true. ----- Crisis of the Church The Gospel of Veronica is also intended for a particular era of time, the early decades of the 21st century. Hopefully it will prove to be timeless, to have enduring value, but for that to be possible it must first of all be relevant to some specific era. What most characterizes the religious situation in 2019 America is membership collapse wherever you look. There worst problem is mass defection from normative religion by the young. There is a major crisis and it isn't "looming," we are in the middle of it. Some groups are in denial -like Focus on the Family- but most organizations are in near-panic mode. There are a variety of studies but conservatively 4 out of 5 of the young leave church, at best maybe half will eventually return. But that is very optimistic. The pessimistic estimates say that 9 out of 10 walk out and maybe only a third will ever return. One foreseeable effect is that in another 15 years or so the churches will have lost half their memberships. This decline does not hit every religious group equally but to speak of overall trends. Things are worse among the mainline churches where an implosion has been underway since the early 1970s, but statistics for Evangelicals, which began significant decline about 10 years ago, are rapidly getting just as bad. Ross Douthat's view is that the young (as well as many others) may not attend church in high numbers but they nonetheless mostly still are "spiritual." That conclusion makes sense. However, to the extent that it is accurate, all it does is to buy some time. If there is nothing new to capture the imagination, then the next stop is "Europe" -a religion-less North American continent This is also all about capturing the imagination. For now all of this is not a problem in the global South. This is about the "white West" -what used to be the white West but that is now the plurality-white West, with some locations being the minority-white West. This is an effect of 1. 75 % birth rates, as low as 1.5% in Norway, and large scale mostly "other" immigration. Gone is the old normal of 2 and 1/2 kids per family. Japan has this exact same problem although there it is Buddhism that is in demographic decline. But regardless of the culture and its dominant religion, the issue is disbelief. The young increasingly do not accept the basic beliefs of their parents or almost any other grown adults. And belief, whatever else you may say about it, is partly a matter of imagination, of engaging ideas, inspirational ideas, of ideas that are perceived as having real world value. My view is that insistence that if only we pray about it harder, if only we have sufficient faith, the problem will fade away. If only we remain true to our religious traditions and doctrines, we not only can weather the storm, we can be better off because of this "test." All of which, in my opinion, are misguided rationalizations guaranteed to result in failure, Disagree? That is your prerogative. But I know what makes sense to me, and what the best path forward seems to be. And that is the course I intend to take. Which others can also take if they believe it is the best choice for them. The Real World Nothing said here is a question of marketing considerations, if that was my motivation the concept would be false, but, this said, why ignore "markets"? I have been asked: "What is your target audience?" At first my thinking was that there are two primary groups who might have serious interest: (1) The young, Gen Xers and Millennials, and also (2) all those people who are interested in the Bible and in what may loosely be called "Biblical literature," writing that is inspired by the Bible The market is potentially huge, in other words. However, a new gospel that focuses on a woman means the potential for a large number of women readers. Plus there is the 'Da Vinci factor.' That is, some people who were inspired by Dan Brown's best seller might also find The Gospel of Veronica inspirational. To repeat the point, this is all about capturing the imagination. So, how do you capture the imagination? There is no magic bullet but it can be reasonably conjectured that a "new" genre of modern-day gospels would be a genuine help. Especially if the text is well written, researched in depth, and convincing. ----- There could well be a variety of kinds of new gospels. One form is suggested by the 1894 best seller, If Christ Came to Chicago. As the article about the book in the Encyclopedia of Chicago tells us, it was written by a British journalist named William T. Stead, someone who was a close friend of William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army. The popularity of the book was not only attributed to the fresh way it depicted Jesus in a contemporary setting but because the inside cover showed a map of locations of all the saloons and whorehouses in the Near South Side neighborhood, the 'sin district' of Chicago! Stead, by the way, died in the 1912 Titanic disaster. In any event, here is another idea that could be re-used to good effect, something like a 'contemporary gospel,' but in the form of a novel. Ergo: If Christ Came to Nevada. Or Paris, or Amsterdam, or Hong Kong, or Rio de Janeiro, or you name it. There could also be interpretations of Christ in Appalachia, or Bangalore, etc., not to emphasize sexuality but with attention paid to very special cultures and the lives of some extraordinary people, plus really bad villains. Another approach might be a website dedicated to contemporary interpretations of the life of Christ, any format desired. For example, Eusebius felt sure that Jesus had replied to a letter of Abgar V, the king of Osroene. And to follow-up letters. There really isn't any question that the supposed letter was a forgery, most of the text -which is extant, you can look it up- was lifted from the New Testament, but the idea has literary possibilities. What if, indeed, Jesus and King Abgar had corresponded for some length of time, maybe exchanging a dozen letters? Or someone might want to re-examine legends about Jesus during the "lost years" of his life, from approximately age 12 until the start of his ministry when he was about 30. Is there some shred of truth to be found? If the legends are all "dry wells" what best accounts for those years? Questions like these cannot be answered by guessing, by concocting a clever plot twist, or by projecting your wishes onto a character in a story. You actually need to do serious study so that you know what you are talking about. This is not an option. Of course, a website where people can create "gospel fiction" could become popular in its own right. For people in the computer business -who are almost all libertarians with nothing between their ears- that is the name of the game. Sign up a billion people and you become fabulously rich and become a new celebrity in the electronic firmament. There is no higher ambition that that. Except that what the Gospel of Veronica is all about, what the New Christianity inspired by Saint-Simon is all about, is not money and it is not laurels from Silicon Valley. In a sense I really don't give a damn about any of that; and why should I? Silicon Valley operates on the basis of nihilisitic values that I abhor, and when it isn't in thrall to libertarians it is under the thumb of Left coast Cultural Marxists. That is, Silicon Valley is the enemy. There are few things that would warm my heart more then to utterly destroy the popular culture that currently prevails in computer land, and not just in the valley, wherever it exists. And it would be nice to know what a billion ignorant people would accomplish in the process of creating fictional gospels based on little more than juvenile guessing games -plus half baked concepts consisting of bits and pieces of Biblical knowledge taken from other people who don't know what they are talking about either. Instead, the concept is to engage maybe a thousand well informed people who very well could advance everyone's knowledge and provide thoughtful ideas that can contribute to new understanding of Christian faith for the 21st century. This isn't a market popularity contest, it is about a New Reformation to change the world. If this isn't understood by everyone involved then the points that I have been trying to make would have been lost. In other words, yes, I would like to earn a lot of money; who wouldn't? But if that remotely leads to compromise of the vision that I happen to live for, millions of dollars would be the same as being robbed by a thief; what is most important to me would have been taken away. And "go to hell" if anyone thinks that I will allow that to happen. What can be done that could become popular in terms that a large number of subscribers could still take advantage of, is free and open discussion of new ideas for new gospels. Something like that could produce a "let a hundred-thousand flowers bloom" effect, as large numbers of people begin to think about the Bible in refreshing new ways: As long as competent students of the Bible are available to judge the creations of other people and give recognition where recognition is due. Think of this in terms of architecture. It might be great fun to design your own future home, whatever suits your fancy, anything you desire. However, wouldn't you want a certified architect to examine your design? That way you would have assurance that the house would not fall down as it is being built, that it could survive a winter storm, or that it should not require high maintenance costs. The purpose of writing a new gospel isn't to have a lot of laughs, to see who can out "gee whiz" someone else, or anything of the sort. The purpose is to help create a new civilization based on Christian values -which are also Buddhist values or Jewish values or other religious values. This is anything but a parlor game. It is a mission in life. This cannot be yet another algorithm that makes decisions for everyone regardless of the fact that probably no code writer in the world knows 10% of what would be necessary to make good judgments about Biblical subject matter. Good judgments, not judgments that serve Evangelical theological interests or Catholic interests or "liberal Christian" interests, or anything of the kind. Evangelicals or Catholics or liberal Christians are free to borrow ideas from me, there is no objection, but what they probably would do with those ideas would almost certainly not be what these ideas are most intended to do, This is all about creating a new kind of Christianity, and, speaking personally, I am sick and tired of trying to please people who are basically incompetent in the realm of religious knowledge, who think that what religion is really all about is nothing but devotionalism or rituals. Not for me it isn't, not at all. But it isn't only a matter of social service either, as the Religious Left seems to think it is. That may be a good effect of religious faith, but the point isn't who can organize the best nutrition service for a community or who can provide the most affordable day care, but what people believe in, and why. And it cannot mean adopting the language of Marxist-Leninists about "the oppressed" and focus on ending oppression as our most important objective in life. Exactly what good does that kind of ideology do for a family, for your inner self and your personal psychology? What good does it do for the relationships you have with others? And are all social problems really the result of oppression? Not a chance. Most are the result to ignorance, bad education, corruption among political leaders, breakdown of social values, broken families, drugs, alcohol, gambling addiction, the list goes on. Worse, focus on oppression, which is pathological on the Left, obscures the real problems, makes it difficult to see those problems for what they actually are, and promotes needless group antagonism. And it is past time to stop excusing population groups for their shortcomings based on the fallacy that, for instance, black people commit crime at disproportionate rates because they are oppressed. America isn't Maoist China or Franco's Fascist Spain. And it isn't apartheid South Africa. To the extent there was institutional oppression in the United States in the past, for the most part, by far, that era is gone. It is time to take responsibility and cease playing the victim card. Which, of course, the Left refuses to do. Which is one more reason I have for regarding today's political Left as a sickness. This is not about creating a gospel that celebrates the Left. Any such thought would be a horribly bad joke. What is at issue is the necessity to be objective about the implications of specific beliefs since some beliefs produce thoughtful actions in the world and others lead to obsessive self absorption -hours and hours of wasted time with nothing to show for it. That is, as gratifying as it could be to write gospel historical fiction, there is more at stake than self satisfaction. This is for people who are not interested in continuing the same religious traditions that have been with us for many generations. Yes, we can respect those traditions, we can try to be helpful toward people who live for those traditions. But the point here is to transcend past traditions and create a new kind of faith that is intended for the 21st century world we actually live in. And hopefully for the world of the further future. How can we proceed? What is necessary in order to begin? -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
