Article 14:
Rescuing God From Religion
by Wendell Krossa
(From the series "Creating A Horizontal God", Copyright, W. Krossa)
Part 1
Introduction
It has been argued that one of the ultimate expressions of humanity, and in particular the humanity of God, was seen in Jesus (1). Jesus, it is said, revealed God as truly and fully human- the supreme human. Jesus became the new standard for being fully human. He was the first to be fully human with a genuinely human worldview (2).
In Albert Nolan's excellent summary, "We have seen what Jesus is like. If we now wish to treat him as our God, we would have to conclude that our God does not want to be served by us, he wants to serve us; he does not want to be given the highest possible rank and status in our society, he wants to take the lowest place and to be without any rank and status; he does not want to be feared and obeyed, he wants to be recognized in the sufferings of the poor and the weak; he is not supremely indifferent and detached, he is irrevocably committed to the liberation of mankind... If this is a true picture of God, then God is more truly human, and more thoroughly humane, than any human being" (Jesus Before Christianity, p. 137-138).
In noting the life of Jesus as an expression or revelation of God, there is the risk of antagonizing some people who may feel he is too closely related to religion and all the excesses and perversions of religion. But it is a risk worth taking because of the valuable material on true humanity and truly human relating to be found in the story of his life.
Again, as we have stated several times before, the Jesus we are referring to, is not the Jesus of Christianity or of institutionalized religion in any form. Jacques Ellul has stated that on every point Christianity is the exact opposite to what the real Jesus intended (3). Thomas Jefferson said something similar in stating, "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature... The greatest enemy of Jesus (are the doctrines and creeds of the church). It would be more pardonable to believe no God at all than to blaspheme him by the atrocious writings of the theologians" (4). Consequently, the institutional Christian Jesus bears little resemblance to the historical Jesus we are referring to.
Inspite of the problems surrounding Jesus, we will refer to him because of his prominent historical position and the widespread use of his person (through institutional religion) as an agent of control over millions of people. That religious control must not go unchallenged. It has caused far too much misery and damage to humanity.
Even though Jesus has been one of the most prominent persons ever employed to control people through religion, he actually opposed all forms of control. In a very contradictory manner, many people have tried to validate their own control of others by appealing to this person, who perhaps more than anyone else in history, fought control and domination. Jesus was an striking example of subversiveness to every form of control, hierarchy, or authority and therefore his life has much to say to us about control, even today.
Jesus himself stated very clearly that he came not to rule or dominate but to serve (5). In saying this, he revealed a God who is radically different from the old dominating sovereign of religion. This statement, along with many others, turned the worldviews and social orders of his time completely upside down. He taught the complete reversal of hierarchical relating and domination in stating that the last would be first and the first would be last (6). He revealed God to be a friend of and a comfortable occupant of the very bottom strata of the social order of his day- along with outcasts, prostitutes, insurgents and thieves. Jesus was declaring God to be the very opposite and the enemy of all control, domination, eliteness, and superiority of any kind. God, according to Jesus, was a bottomup God, not a topdown God.
As Ellul states, Jesus taught that "the greater must be the servant of the lesser, that the hierarchical superior must serve the hierarchical inferior, the stronger must not exercise power and authority but put them, and the self, at the disposition of the weaker" (7).
We might insert here that Jesus was killed for his blasphemous levelling of God. He brought God down from on high to the marketplace and even to the gutter. This radical horizontalizing of God completely undermined the authority of the religious hierarchy of Jesus' time. That entire system of pompous ceremony and special privilege was condemned by Jesus as nothing but inhuman abuse of others.
The human God expressed in Jesus did not reveal himself in power, glory, or domination but rather in weakness, ignominy, and equality. This profound contradiction of common ideas of God is still missed today by people seeking God at the top of social orders and institutions instead of at the bottom. Trying to place God above all else is an orientation to power and glory that completely misses the essential meaning of true humanity.
Far too often this orientation of religious respect and belief toward the top (ruling elites or leaders) has led to an unhealthy and freedom-denying dependence on such leadership.
The fact that Jesus came in so-called weakness, shame, and poverty, is one of the profound insights from his life and teaching. It expresses the great paradox of true human life. Often, when we are what appears to conventional wisdom to be weak and even foolish, we are actually at our most human, and this requires the greatest strength and courage.
We live in a time when animal values are highly prized and validated in societies everywhere. Competition, aggressiveness, self-interest, domination of resources and other people are all widely accepted and highly valued features of modern human life. In such a context human values are often smothered or denigrated as weakness. Sharing, refusal to dominate, living for community- these values are often dismissed to the peripheriy of modern life as quaint and suitable for fringe existence only. Real success and advance, it is argued, demand a tough approach to life and others.
Life in God is so opposite to conventional values as to appear at times even foolish. But it is the way of great courage, strength, and nobility. The parables and life of Jesus often show this.
If God is actively involved in empowering and inspiring the human spirit in some way, then it would be in inspiring people to express truly human values which are so often the very opposite of conventional culture. It is in such values as losing one's self for others, not fighting for my rights but turning the other cheek, forgiving, toleration, patience, and love that true humanity is revealed. God inspires people to live according to the values of this humanity which in the view of conventional wisdom appear as weakness. A human God never inspires or empowers people to dominate, to be selfish, to compete and win over others.
Noting Ellul again, he says "How truly intolerable then, is a message, and even more a life, that centers on weakness. Not a sacrifice on behalf of a cause that one wants to bring to success, but in all truth love for nothing, faith for nothing, giving for nothing, service for nothing. Putting others above oneself. In all things seeking the interests of others... The renunciation of power is infinitely broader and harder than nonviolence (which it includes)" (8).
Brinsmead says that Jesus proclaimed a truly human society in which the greatest would serve and no one would have status or prestige above others (7). It was to be a radically human and horizontal kingdom. This new and fully human Jesus was a completely new revelation of God to the world. If this revelation is true, argues Brinsmead, then God is a truly human and a fully human God.
Jesus also stated categorically that he considered all people to be his friends, not his servants (8). In saying this, he abolished all subservience in vertical relating, all relationships of inferior/superior orientation. He placed God in a radically new horizontal relationship as an equal to humanity. He showed that to be human is to live on a horizontal plane where there are no superiors or inferiors, says Brinsmead.
In one of his most radical statements on human relating, Jesus said that if anyone wished to become a leader, then they should become the servant of all and lead by inspiring example or invitation (9), not by command or coercion. He knew the human self should never be violated by being coerced or commanded. This statement of his about inspiring by example, condemns all coercion and outside control of others. These radical teachings of Jesus have never been taken seriously by institutional Christianity or by vertically oriented humanity in general. Institutional religions continue to promote a domineering patriarch who rules all of life. This idea of a dominating partiarch is the fundamental support for religion's own self-created authority and leadership over others.
Reflect sometime on all the pomp and ceremony and the effort to appear important that accompanies elite leadership and authority. Gatherings of the big people are given specially crafted settings with a lot of public attention and great effort is given to making it all appear to be of special importance. Sometimes a little reflection on the silliness and even stupidity of it all, can place it in better perspective.
Jesus saw absolutely no value in wealth, power, or fame and the domination associated with these things. He intentionally resisted all efforts to push him in the direction of any of these things that would place him above others. He sought, instead, to establish truly egalitarian relationships with all others. He certainly never intended to found another crusading religion or to start another hierarchical institution to control people or resources.
As Albert Nolan says, Jesus also brushed aside the elite power structures, authority figures, and religious rituals and beliefs of his day (Jesus Before Christianity, p.20- 23). These sytems of power and authority had kept many people powerless and enslaved. Nolan says the poor or 'sinners' of Jesus' day had no prestige or honor and were dependent on the mercy of others. They were a shamed and disgraced people who were ignorant of the laws, rituals, and beliefs of the upper classes. The principal suffering of these people took the form of frustration, guilt and anxiety. They were cut off from God and his blessing and consigned to divine wrath and punishment, according to the views of the elite classes. Nolan says, "The result was a neurotic or near neurotic guilt complex which led inevitably to fear and anxiety about the many kinds of divine punishment that might befall them" (Ibid, p.24). Mired in such fear and guilt, these poor and wretched were subject to the manipulation of the powerholding religious elite who demanded that salvation by their cruel God would only come through subjection to the belief systems, taxation, and rituals that the elite controlled.
Jesus rejected all such domination and with brilliant insight taught the poor to empower themselves. This is seen clearly in his teaching on healing. He ignored established rituals and incantations and he refused to invoke any established authority in his healing. He instead inspired people to take control of their own situation. As Nolan says, "Jesus relied on the power of (personal) faith" (Ibid, p.30). To people who had been cured, Jesus did not attribute their healing to some special relationship with God, or to some psychic power, or even to God. Instead, he said, "Your faith has healed you... This is truly an astonishing claim... The man who has faith becomes like God- all-powerful" (Ibid, p.31).
(Note: We are including Nolan's quote not as an argument for faith healing which ignores established medical wisdom, but rather as an illustration of the healing potential of more personal control which frees people from the many psychosomatic and real illnesses which result from powerlessness)
This is a brilliant and prescient insight by Jesus into human nature and the need that people have for personal control and personal responsibility in order to exist as truly human. Such personal control is vital for human well-being. Much of the suffering of poor and neglected people is due to their powerlessness and loss of control over their lives and circumstances. This powerlessness and being controlled by others leads to all sorts of illnesses and psychological problems. By encouraging people to liberate themselves and take control- this enables healing in itself and leads to improved well-being. Ellen Langer made the some point earlier in arguing that powerless people must take learn to take control for themselves and not wait for it to be handed down from above.
In some of his most controversial teaching, Jesus exhibited a strong contempt for the accumulation of wealth and power. In direct contradiction to the prevailing spirit of greed and grasping of his day, he urged his followers to share everything with others, including those who were in no manner related to them. His worldview was that of a radical egalitarianism. He wanted to introduce an entirely new social order that was truly human with no element at all of animal greed, competitiveness, or accumulation of wealth. It is important to note this because of the power over others that is inherent in controlling resources and wealth.
Animal reality is all about self-preservation and the fiercely competitive drive to gain control of resources and the power to control resources and others. Animal existence is all about the intense concern for survival and improved advantages for myself, my clan, or my band.
Jesus opposed this animal reality in arguing for completely selfless giving and even in losing one's own life for the good of others. He revealed that truly human reality and existence was the opposite of animal reality in that the practice of true humanity would lead to the denial of advantage solely for one's self in order to contribute to the good of others. Such selflessness is the polar opposite of the powerful drive of animal competition which seeks to ensure self-survival by exercising power over the weaker members of a given society. Jesus countered this powerful drive of self-preservation as inhuman and wrong. He revealed true humanity as something entirely different from such purely self-oriented animal drives.
In light of such revelations about the nature of true humanity, we see that human beings can not be defined by the animal oriented selfish gene theory with its essential emphasis on competition with and the domination of others. True humanity, to the contrary, will counter a purely self oriented drive for self-preservation in sharing, cooperation, and concern for the good of others in the larger community of human life.
Admittedly, this teaching on self-denial for the good of community has often been taken to silly extremes in the various forms of religious self-denial and putting the human self down as something evil and even to be destroyed. But practiced sensibly it has a healthy edge of humanity and concern for human community. The practice of such truly human behavior is liberating and cleansing in the best manner possible for human development. It leads to true human freedom from debasing animal drives.
This teaching of Jesus is critically important for our contemporary world where the flow of world cultures and world ideology is toward an intense focus on competitive consumerism and the unlimited control of resources for personal use. Economic concerns have now become the dominant values and more than anything else shape modern views of reality. Everywhere people study, work, think, and live to be successful or get ahead, which simply means gain more goods or wealth.
We as citizens of modern states are measured and evaluated by GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and per capita income. Our buying power and the goods we have are the elements that define us more than anything else. As one anthropologist said, your car is a statement of your status in society (Chris Morgan). Our cultural heroes are men of economic power and success- Gates, Soros, Trump. In schools from the earliest age we are taught to make good grades, to get the best education in order to get the best career or job. Parents proudly boast of their children's educational and employment successes, not their humanity.
Even religion has imbibed this insane economic frenzy and shaped views of God to support material gain. The main sign of God's favor is now economic success. If you are not doing well now then you need to find out why God is not 'blessing you'. Poorer underdeveloped countries in the world are considered by Christians in the affluent West to be suffering God's punishment due to their godlessness.
From every angle of modern culture the demand to compete for material gain and hoard more material resources is shoved in our faces as the dominant and often only reason for human existence. This insanely selfish trend has led to a widespread neglect of community and community values.
This trend reflects in part what is known as the tragedy of the commons. The argument concerning the tragedy of the commons is based on the fact that humanity emerged from a traditional past where personal consumption of material resources was at much lower levels than today. Many resources such as land were left to the public domain to be shared by communities.
But gradually people began to see the advantage of claiming public resources and using them for personal gain. Others, also seeing the advantage to be obtained by personal appropriation or privitization of public resources, rushed in to do the same. They were responding in part to the fear that if they were to pass by the opportunity for personal gain in order to reserve the common resources for the good of all, then others would simply rush in and take those resources for their personal use. The widespread movement to private property and unlimited personal gain has its origin in this trend.
Compounding this fear now is the additional fear most of us have of being thought of as social failures if we do not show abundant material assets as the unquestionable tokens of success in contemporary society. We are terrified of being thought of as failures. So we all fearfully join the mad lemming-like rush of competitive consumerism to ravage and control as much of the public resources as we can possibly lay our hands on. Tragically, the ultimate result of such existence is ongoing conflict and war over resources. It is a competitive animal-like existence with no future for true humanity or human relating.
More than this, competitive/aggressive consumerism or the private accumulation of wealth is a blatant denial of all that humanity is meant to be. It is a denial of not just humanity but also of God and spirituality. We refer to spirituality as synonymous with the human spirit for spirituality is simply the human spirit expressing itself.
That human spirit in its essence is defined by giving, sharing, and cooperating in community and being responsible for others. Consumerism then misses the whole point of human existence and becomes a tragic waste of human life and potential. Instead of advancing the human spirit and encouraging the progress of humanity by sharing and cooperating as equals in community, competitive consumerism or the accumulation of goods retards and destroys human growth and development, as well as human community. It is a detour backwards into a more base animal-like existence with its greed and struggle to outcompete the other.
Consumerism demands a busy working lifestyle oriented toward endlessly accumulating more. Its demands on people are so totalitarian that it leaves little time for the development of humanity. It keeps people busy feeling they are accomplishing something useful with their lives. But this is what is so horrifically deceptive about consumerism- in the mad rush to gain, there is little time for consideration of what true human life is all about. Busy accumulating consumers often forget that the development of the human spirit is about love, sharing, and giving in community.
As Robert Wright said, "The pursuit of More can keep us from better knowing our neighbors, better loving our kin- in general, from cultivating the warm, affiliative side of human nature whose roots science is just now starting to fathom... Plainly, more gross domestic product isn't the answer to our deepest needs" ("The Evolution of Despair" in TIME, Aug. 28, 1995, p.38).
There is nothing more satisfying in life than sharing with others and taking responsibility for others in community relationships. In doing this people find their full potential as truly human persons. In fact, it is now more evident that true happiness can only be experienced through such genuinely human activity as sharing and giving. The pursuit of consumerism often detracts from what true human life is all about by enslaving people to a competitive effort that can never satisfy a true sense of humanity and simply wastes human life in a base effort of competing and selfishly hoarding which destroys the essential nature of humanity.
It is interesting to note in regard to consumerism that studies on happiness show that amassing wealth or consumer goods does not make people feel better or happier. This is true because material things do not and can not meet the fundamental need of the human self for freedom and relating with all others as equals. The deepest needs of human beings can only be met in sharing with others as true equals and in responsibility toward the greater good of the human community.
It will take great courage, vision, and a Herculean effort to break free of the slavery and destructiveness of consumerism and move toward a life of relating to others as truly human with energy focused on the sharing, responsibility, trust, and cooperation to be experienced in such relationships.
The tragedy that has occurred in contemporary societies is that excessive consumerism has become entrenched in social values as evidence of success and a sign of progress. World religions, particularly western ones, have completely imbibed the spirit of modern consumerism. Much religious practise, such as prayer and church attendance, has now become a selfish attempt to manipulate God in order to avoid suffering or loss and to gain material blessing. It is all but forgotten now that true human progress is about liberation from such base animal drives. The climbing of social ladders in terms of wealth and fame is a denial of God and true human spirituality which was revealed in people like Jesus. The humanity that God revealed in Jesus was all about sharing, giving, and existing with others as an equal in community. Jesus undermined all the concern for material security and abundance as a waste of human life and potential.
Equality for all people is probably the central issue here in regard to spirituality or the human spirit. If you promote the idea that human success is to be measured in terms of material gain then you are consigning most people to loss and poverty as there are simply not enough material resources for everyone to enjoy plenty. Some gaining more inevitably destroys the possibility for equality among all and therefore destroys the possibility for their existence as truly human equals. While not wanting to make material equality a central issue in the struggle for genuine freedom and equality, it obviously does play some part in human relating. You will never have true freedom aside from some measure of genuine equality.
This brings into question the current effort of nations like the US to smother world cultures with its own values- the chief one of which is competitive consumerism and the domination of resources and wealth. To pressure people to adopt this value (and many people do not have to be pushed too hard) and enter the drive toward consumerism, other cultures are made to feel bad about themselves by being labeled as 'not yet developed', 'backwards' or 'third world'. If those cultures are not completely committed to environmentally and socially destructive consumerism then they are stigmatized as poor and underdeveloped- as though they were economically crippled or retarded. Pardon my use of such terms, but that is the idea being communicated.
There is even a famous economic model which traces the path that all societies must move along from poverty or low consumption toward the ultimate goal or the highest stage of development which is mass consumption ("Rostow On The Stages Of Growth" in Economic Theories of Development, Diana Hunt, 1989, p.95-100).
But Western societies having reached the highest stage of development are still riddled with violence, family and community breakdown, widespread depression, abuse of all forms, and endless other social ills. Technological advance and mass consumption have not made for happy healthy societies or advance of the human spirit. This is true because consumerism is a blatant denial of true humanity and to deny the expression of true humanity always destroys true human existence. It leads to all sorts of pathologies in human relating and existence.
We need to pause for awhile, to stand back and reflect on life and our humanity and to look above the mad pursuit of consumerism toward the meaning of human existence. Hopefully this will lead to new ventures of the human spirit- new movements of love, sharing, and giving. The contemporary insanity of consumerism is a tragic detour that has destroyed human community and human relationships. It is destroying the essence of humanity as free and equal.
The Institutionalization of Jesus
Unfortunately, after his death, Jesus was co-opted by religious people and firmly entrenched as a dominating male patriarch at the top of the new emerging hierarchy of institutional Christianity. Jesus' brave effort to introduce a radically new view of God was soon buried in the old views of God and in the structures created to maintain the domination of that old God. His own followers were the primary agents in his institutionalization.
This verticalization of a horizontally oriented expression of God has been a great tragedy. In Jesus, we see that God wants to fully join the human race and to inspire people toward a more human existence. In Jesus, God intended to show humanity an example of freedom, egalitarian relating, toleration, inclusiveness, and unconditional forgiveness, among many other things.
But religious elites soon turned this most humble and inclusive of all persons into one of the most powerful symbols of domination, exclusiveness, intolerance, and vengeful punishment that humanity has ever seen. This person who stood so powerfully for true humanity was transformed into a symbol that embodied the most inhuman features to ever emerge from human reality. The distortion of Jesus within institutional religion has been used to validate the very worst in humanity- domination, selectiveness, and severe punishment of all who would dare disagree with the vengeful will of the religious authorities of institutional Christianity. The fact that this historical person was also made into a god intensifies the damaging effects of his impact on humanity.
As Albert Nolan said, "Many millions throughout the ages have venerated the name of Jesus, but few have understood him and fewer still hve tried to put into practice what he wanted to see done. His words have been twisted and turned to mean everything, anything and nothing. His name has been used and abused to justify crimes, to frighten children and to inspire men and women to heroic foolishness. Jesus has been more frequently honored and worshipped for what he did not mean than for what he did mean. The supreme irony is that some of the things he opposed most strongly in the world of his time were resurrected, preached and spread more widely throughout the world- in his name" (Jesus Before Christianity, p.3).
Jesus can not be fully identified with that great religious phenomenon of the Western world known as Christianity... He stands above Christianity as the judge of all it has done in his name. Nor can historical Christianity claim him as its exclusive possession. Jesus belongs to all men" (Ibid, p.3).
Also, worthy of note is the fact that institution has to do with exclusive membership and the selectivity of such membership. The structuring and segregating of humans is expressed in such things as the religious doctrine of election which says that some people are more special than others. The elected or chosen ones are alone privileged to be members of the accepted group in the institution and enjoy the special privileges of that group. But such exclusivity violates the basic nature of God and humanity as inclusive. It only promotes division among people.
The institutionalization and verticalization of Jesus has brought profound distortion to this expression of the human God. It has turned a radically human and horizontal reality into a vertical animal-like reality. In the institutionalization of Jesus we see base animal-like ideas and drives once again being projected onto ideas of God and seeking validation under the cover of ideas of God and then operating to crush newly emerging humanity.
Zwemer has suggested that the establishment of Christianity was simply a revival of the ancient view of the universe as a vertical reality (10). Christianity's heaven, earth and hell matched the three tiered vertical universe of the ancient world. Jaynes also said something similar in arguing that the emergence of the Christian religion was merely the expression of bicameral longing for a return to the old bicameral existence with its strict hierarchical control by gods (11).
The idea of a vertical, tiered reality was part of an ancient mythical view of reality from the distant past. In that mythology, heaven was believed to be above in the sky or out there in the stars. Hell was believed to be below under the earth. We now know that everywhere material reality is the same- whether out there or down here. There are no tiers or levels in our solar system- some material and some spiritual. God, therefore, can not be localized as above somewhere in a spiritual realm.
Religion has been one of the more sophisticated efforts to validate animal-like existence and relating since human domestication began. However, like all other institutionalization efforts, religion too often simply reflects the basest animal drives and longings for the familiarity of a vertically oriented and controlled existence. It reflects what Sandole said were the residual animal brain longings for ritual, a social pecking order, and awe of authority (12).
Religion from its very origin absorbed and embodied the vertical worldview of past animal reality and the vertical control of human behavior by law. Religion then moved forward claiming to be the true and only representative of God. It became a new form of institution which directly claimed God as its sponsor and validation.
Institutional religion was, however, just another expression of animal-like drives to dominate and control. This is obvious in the restoration of the tight vertical command/obey relationship of control over behavior found in all religious forms of relationships. And, with that vertical configuration, religion only continues to encourage the expression of the most base animal-like drives to control. While most social institutions express a vertical orientation in some sort of manager/worker relationship, religion expresses vertically oriented domination in its clergy/laity dichotomy. This is the same ruler/follower relationship found in almost all human institutions.
Religion has also too often channeled human passion toward violent conflict and the struggle dominate others. This, says Davies, has perverted normal human tolerance and unleashed barbaric cruelty. He states further, "Christian genocide of the South American native populations in the Middles Ages is one of the more dreadful examples, but the history of Europe generally is littered with the corpses of those slain because of minor doctrinal differences. Even in this so-called enlightened age, religious hatred and conflict fester all over the world. It is ironical that although most religions extol the virtues of love, peace and humility, it is all too often hatred, war and arrogance that characterize the history of the world's great religious organizations" (13).
Paul Davies quotes Hermann Bondi regarding the fact that religious faith has often made otherwise decent people commit unspeakably brutal acts toward others. This shows how common feelings of human kindness and revulsion at cruelty can be overruled by religious belief. Bondi claims that the ruthless power wielded by the Christian church and other religious institutions over the centuries has left those organizations morally bankrupt (14).
Religious institutions concern themselves too often with power and domination and are the most divisive forces in human society, according to Davies. Robert Buhl has also stated that the Christian religion, in its zeal to control humanity and human society, has shed more blood than anything else in human history (15). Brinsmead says the same in noting that, "It has been observed that the word 'religion' is synonymous with hate. Religion divides people and inflames them to despise others with everything from condescending pity to down right hate. Religion always generates rivers of blood. There is no place for religion in the realm of being truly human. It prevents people from being free" (16).
In a further comment on religion Brinsmead notes that "At times religion may serve as a legitimizer of social change and revolution. This, however, is rather exceptional and generally only takes place where there is charismatic rather than institutional leadership. Organized, institutional religion is generally the legitimizer of the status quo. Thus religion is generally a conservative force in society which allies itself with the forces of reaction to resist social change" (Religion and the Penal System, p.2).
"Throughout its history the Christian religion has had a major role in legitimizing anti-Semitism, monarchal rather than democratic rule, and the persecution of minority religions or cultures while supporting the institution of slavery, racism, oppression and exploitation of nonwhite nations, "just wars", the subordination of women, the arms race and many other abuses" (Ibid, p2).
The resounding conclusion emerging today is that both the human Jesus and the human God have absolutely nothing to do with religion or hierarchical institution.
We do not want to be completely negative in regard to religion. Many good ideas and practices have been absorbed and promoted by religion. But these ideas and practices can also be found outside of religion. Good ideas and practices do not belong in any special way to religion nor are they inspired in any special manner by religion. The impulses religion claims to represent- such as love- do not originate solely with a religious God or with religion. They are ideas and practices that belong freely to all people. They are human impulses found everywhere in humanity. Religion does not grant some special quality or validity to such things. We would argue that the good done by religious people has not been due in some mysterious manner to their religion, but rather, it has emerged because of their basic humanity and inspite of religion.
The problem with mediating good ideas and practices through religion is that the vertical orientation of institutional religion often distorts and destroys the essential horizontal nature of many good ideas and practices. The vertical domination found in religion destroys the essence of what Jesus, God, humanity, love, sharing, and other ideas or practices are all about. For instance, rather than viewing God as a servant on an equal plane with all the rest of humanity and life, religion presents him as a controlling Lord or King who dominates all of life. In doing so, religion distorts the idea of God by validating destructive control in the highest idea to ever enter human thought.
Consequently, formal religion, along with all other social institutions, emerged as an instrument of social control. Religious institutions were vertically oriented institutions from their earliest origins. That initial orientation set the pattern for all subsequent forms of institutionalized religion.
On balance, then, religious institutions and ideologies tend to be vertically oriented and controlling and are therefore a negative influence on humanity. It is much healthier to find God and spirituality in normal life and community rather than in a religious context. As Steve Allen once said, you often have to leave the church in order to really know God.
Also, many religious ideals and practices involve God overpowering and controlling the human spirit. Giving up self control and being filled with and controlled by the spirit of God is a very common religious ideal. But these let go and let God type ideologies are very destructive of human freedom, personal responsibility, and human development. They have led to all sorts of abuse and silly, inhuman behavior. Fortunately, God does not overpower, command or control the human spirit in any way.
Far too often the religious call to accept Jesus or God into your life has been a manipulative use of God to get people to join and pledge loyalty to some religious system controlled by powerholding elites- often calling themselves the guardians of the truth. This is a denial of all that the human God stands for.
Religion has always operated as one of the most powerful and influential tools people have created and used to control the behavior of others. Religious elites have always claimed to be the sole agents of God able to dole out the greatest gift ever imagined by human thinking- salvation, as well as the greatest curse to ever enter human thinking- eternal damnation. Salvation is granted to all those who will convert and submit to the authorities and their rules. Damnation is the curse upon all who would give the finger to such authority and be free human spirits. Tragically, these great human ideas have been used to control emerging humanity and thereby destroy the revolution for freedom and bring much misery to the great party of human life.
Also, the dominating Lord and King of Christianity has far too often been used to validate and support the dominating spirit of elites in nation states and other institutions. Such ideas of a dominating God are part of an ancient ideology used to support traditional ideas of patriarchal control of subjects. But such ideology represents little more than elite interests and ideals.
It is now evident that Western Christianity or religion has been developed into an institution which supports the domineering, competitive spirit of western cultures. There is little in such a religion that can serve true humanity or the development of a truly human spirit. Far too commonly Western Christianity is used to unashamedly support the accumulating consumer attitude of western greed and the spirit of domination exhibited in unquestioning support of nation states and their governing elites.
Religion, like all other ideologies, claims to hold a body of truth and a correct pattern of life for all people. Such a belief inevitably leads to intolerance and condemnation of those who disagree and it leads to insensitive efforts to convert the unbelievers. Loyalty to religious ideology inevitably leads to effort to control and dominate all who are not yet under the ideology.
We conclude that no religion can express God fully or properly. Institutionalized religion only distorts God by the use of rational systems of thought which create one monolithic and static view of God for all members. There is simply no human-made system of thought or human institution which can encompass the infinite reality that is God, yet most religions give the impression of having all truth- a final and complete version of all that God is. This is false and misleading as rational systems can not express the nonrational reality that is God.
I would also argue in regard to any system of thought or ideology that what is valuable in any ideology is that which is human. But even then, too often human elements in ideologies undergo distortion due to other elements which must also be rigidly adopted by adherents. It should be remembered that the human elements of any ideology are not due to the ideology itself but originate with common humanity.
The only ideology that any person needs to adopt is that of being human with all the freedom, equality, and diversity that entails. Being human is freely available to every person equally and being human is the essence of true spirituality.
(Note: In the following sections we are emphasizing freedom from law as essential for true human existence. The necessity of freedom from law arises from the fact that the human self has emerged as something growing and developing in process, not something static, fixed, and oriented to institution as object. A law approach to life inevitably tends to orient human beings toward institutional life as object- fixed, frozen, final- not toward life as freedom in an open, flowing process.)
Religion, along with most other human institutions, has established its authority mainly in law. In outlining the process of domestication earlier we noted that law supplanted the voices of the gods as the latest historical means of behavior control (17). Law emerged as the written form of the commands of the gods in order to replace the collapsing authority of the increasingly absent gods. Law became the latest social mechanism in states for controlling humanity. The development of the culture of law and the idea of a God of law are now fundamental elements in social control and conformity of human behavior.
In its origin and in its ongoing function, law was designed to operate solely as a mechanism for control of behavior. As the replacement of the commanding voices of gods, law served initially to directly control human behavior. Throughout its subsequent history and even into the present law, has continued as the main form of behavior control in human society. It continues to function mainly as a tool shaped by the dominant few to control the subservient majority. It also continues to operate in the same archaic manner as an institutional authority outside of the human self, controlling the behavior of the self. It can not operate or function in any other manner. Control, quite plainly, is its essential function. Law, in every possible manner, is an instrument for controlling human beings. This is why law can never promote true freedom or human development.
The human self, however, has emerged as a noncommandable reality and an entity that will suffer damage to its essential nature if it is controlled in any way. The human self, if it is to develop as truly human, can not be commanded or controlled from without by an external authority. The human self or person requires freedom from all control to express humanity in diverse and spontaneous ways without any element of coercion. The fundamental flaw of law is that, as an instrument of control, it can not operate to provide such freedom. With its essential function of control, law violates in every way the essence of the human person which is to be free from control, to be unique, and to live uncoerced.
True humanity and law are therefore simply incompatible realities. Thankfully, with a human God we have all been set free from the distorting influence of law to become fully human.
Law was also never intended or designed to be used to encourage or assist in the emergence of true human relating. It was never intended to be used for patterns of relating which involve people freely responding to each other and interacting as noncommanded and noncoerced equals.
Law always introduces control into relationships by orienting people toward vertical or superior/subordinate arrangements of relationships. In law oriented situations there are law makers or upholders and those subservient to the laws given. It has now been well documented (David Kipnis) that the entry of such control into any human relationship will inevitably destroy the truly human element in relating which is the free, horizontal, and egalitarian nature of human relating. True human relating as free equals and law control are also completely incompatible realities.
Human relating simply can not be commanded or controlled. You can not command the basic emotions of human relating- love, trust, cooperation- through law. These basic emotions, attitudes, and actions are essential to all human existence, human development, and human relating, but they are not brought forth in humans by command from without the human self.
Truly human emotions and actions are generally the spontaneous response of the free human person to inspiring example. The development of true humanity is inspired by the example of other humans. It has long been known that as people grow up in human society, their own humanity is encouraged and developed by their interaction with other human beings and the example of humanity in those persons. But, in its truest form, humanity is entirely free and spontaneous in responding to such example.
True humanity is especially inspired by the example of great persons such as Jesus, Ghandi, and others. There is no room for coercion or control in such inspiring example.
Humanity is also encouraged to continue responding as human by social structures that embody a human arrangement of relationships which are horizontally oriented and provide equal opportunities and privileges for all persons involved. These egalitarian relationships are supported by a human worldview and a human view of God.
As noted above, truly human relating always arises in freedom, freedom for people to spontaneously express their unique and diverse humanity to each other as equals. Law can never promote this spontaneity and freedom so essential to true human relating. To the contrary, law promotes the controlled and predictable response common to systems of often rigid and difficult to change standards.
In all law oriented institutions there is a tendency to take what may have been at one time a free and creative solution to some problem and to make it into a frozen and finalized policy embodied in law. Freezing creative human responses in law or institutional policy tends to exalt one form of response as the correct or right response and the fixed standard to follow. With time and the growing feeling of tradition, a sense of permanence surrounds such law, increasing its natural tendency to promote rigidity and conformity of response in those under its controlling influence. This inevitable tendency of a law approach to increase uniformity of human response then hinders uniqueness and spontaneity in human interaction. It therefore guts human freedom.
Also, law oriented situations are supported by evaluation procedures where people are rewarded or punished according to their faithfulness in fulfilling institutional laws. This threatening approach to control of people further promotes the conformity and rigidity in human response and behavior that was noted above.
We understand the argument that regulations, rules, and policy statements are valuable for guiding people so you do not have to keep reinventing the wheel. But sadly, such guidelines rarely remain as simply flexible guidelines embodying past experience for others to learn from as they feel they might need to. In most institutional contexts flexible guidelines inevitably tend to become inflexible laws by which others are evaluated and punished for not blindly and strictly submitting to.
The embodying of human response in systems of law leads to organizational conformity or uniformization of behavior within institutions. The demanding of conformity to institutional standards, inevitably promotes the development of bureaucratic responses and even bureaucratic personalities. It is a dehumanizing institutionalized approach to human relationships and to life in general.
The use of law in institutions as a finalized and inflexible standard for human behavior also destroys the diversity and creative freedom necessary for unique response in succeeding generations of institutional members. Systems of law in organizations are used to demand subservience and conformity from all who come under its authority. Institutional policies or practices of punishing variation from institutional patterns reinforces this rigidly conforming power of law. It allows little freedom for new people to freely experiment, explore, or exercise creativity and uniqueness in response. The loss of fresh creativity from new members has an immense cost for most organizations. Long term survival can be put in jeopardy.
Systems of law simply can not capture or express all that it means to be human. Such systems can never express all the possible options available for free and diverse humanity moving into an open and rapidly changing future. Law is severely inadequate to "address the infinite variety of real life situations and it is inflexible in changing cultural and historical situations" (18).Law simply can not promote or encourage the spontaneity and creativity necessary for true human interaction and relating. In fact, more commonly law operates to hinder and crush such basic expressions of humanity.
Also, the use of law may often just be a lazy and irresponsible way of avoiding the responsibility to deal with the complexities of human relating. In the past our ancestors spent more time sitting and talking together to work out agreements to complex issues such as the use of community resources. Law has now replaced such talk intensive approaches and perhaps that is a reflection of our now too-busy lifestyles. Law now regulates human relationships in many areas that were once governed by human interaction and responsible negotiating. This has resulted in colder and more impersonal human relating.
This study is not arguing for an entirely lawless existence in the present. We are still evolving toward a more human future. There are still situations where law may usefully apply. But for the great majority of people striving to live as true human beings, law simply can not serve to encourage their relating and the expression of their humanity. In fact, more often a law approach will hinder the expression of true humanity in relationships by orienting people toward dominant/subordinate relationships which then activate drives to coerce and control.
We are simply arguing that we should not take law too seriously. Law, if it has any place in human relating or organizing, should only be a tool to serve human cooperation. It should never become an inflexible master controlling humans and demanding conformity from all who come under its authority. It is an ancient and venerable idea that God or gods gave laws to people to live according to and therefore being under law is a sacred relationship. But the truth is that as emerging humans we are no longer all under law.
More importantly, the human and horizontally oriented God does not relate to humans through the rule of law. As we noted earlier, law inevitably orients people toward a vertical arrangement of relationships and the domination inevitable in such relationships. The human God does not sponsor nor validate such controlling relationships.
The human God simply does not control human behavior through law. God does not control at all. Inspite of myriad claims that law represents the will of God, the human God is not associated in any way with the use of law as a mechanism of control. The claim that law is of divine origin is simply another projection of something very animal-like onto God in order to validate control. Law was simply the creation of early humans seeking for a way to maintain animal-like domination and control over other human beings as the controlling voices of gods receded (see Jaynes on the emergence of law). To associate law control with God is a dehumanizing and degrading use of ideas of God. It is simply another attempt to orient ideas of God to validating animal-like existence.
God has never required people to fulfill complicated ethical systems which often have excessively detailed rules to define what is permissible and what is not. Right and wrong are not categories that are best defined by law with its basis in commands of gods. Right and wrong are better defined by categories that relate to animal and human behavior. For instance, right should be defined as treating others humanly. It involves granting people the freedom to be human and encouraging people to attain full humanity as creatively as they wish to. It involves relating as a true human to all others, without control or domination.
Wrong is refusing to treat others as equal and free humans. It is refusing to grant all others their full freedom to be uniquely and truly human. Wrong is a cowardly retreating to hierarchical animal-like existence and treating others in an animal-like manner by the exercise of domination and control. Wrong involves the ordering, commanding, and coercing of other humans. Such activity debases and dehumanizes both the controller and the controlled.
Wrong could be defined as any predatory and dominating animal-like behavior....
It is far more useful to evaluate right and wrong in terms of the animal/human dichotomy in humanity, instead of only in terms of good and evil as informed by religious and moral beliefs. Religion and a moral approach to life often does not recognize the tension of humanity emerging within animal reality and the human brain emerging on an animal substrate brain.
Consequently, a moral or religious approach denies a major influencing factor on human behavior and relating which is residual animal drives and emotions. This leads religion to respond to evil with things like prayer which can often result in a dangerous passivity where more responsible human action might be required to counter animal-like behavior.
Also, too often in contemporary systems of law, right and wrong are categories set by controlling elites to support their own interests. Much of the operation of legal/illegal categories is based on such elite use of law.
We want to add what we noted earlier that increasingly over recent time Western relationships have become bound and confined by legal categories instead of being guided and influenced by personal responsibility, a sense of honor or by shared community values. This reliance on the legal to guide human relating has led to a colder and more impersonal element in human relating.
Brinsmead notes that all Western institutions are based on the genius of written documents and the rule of law (19). This law orientation is essential to the nature of all organizations. Law orientation, says Brinsmead, is a way of thinking or a way of life which is structured and governed by law at every point (20). Brinsmead argues that however loudly such law oriented systems may argue that they promote liberation, they can not help but impose a new bondage (21).
Brinsmead continues, arguing that "under law a written code is the final authority over all human behavior. Rules determine conduct" (22). Using such outside authority to control human behavior violates the nature of the self as its own authority for personal choice and behavior.
Any ethical system or ideology based in law can only enslave and crush true humanity. Brinsmead states that "Living persons can not be liberated through living by any ideology, principle or ethical system... (These systems) may embody some blueprint for liberty, but they fail because they are letter and not spirit, something dead and not alive" (23). This last statement regarding letter and spirit refers to the apostle Paul's argument that letter or law kills, while spirit or freedom gives life (24).
We need to emphasize that a law orientation is a particularly Western characteristic with roots in Latin or Roman society which, according to Brinsmead, contributed the genius of government, institutions, and a law ordered existence to Western civilization. Asian and other traditional societies are not as dependent on written law to govern their interactions and relationships and they have functioned very well for millennia. We will note later the argument that oral traditions operate to avoid the stiffening effect of law traditions.
It may be very difficult for some people to envision freedom from law oriented thinking or existence. The entire experience of humanity in many settled societies has been based on the view that life should be organized and governed according to systems of law. Such a view holds that human behavior and relationships must be regulated and controlled by law. In this view it is argued that all human beings must live obediently under the same systems of law.
While control by law originally evolved directly from control by patriarchs and early gods, this belief in controlling life according to systems of law is now often based on a view that life is actually governed by fundamental laws that are rigidly unchanging. It is believed that, if behind all systems in life there are laws governing these systems, then all that is necessary is to discover those laws and build structures that operate to reflect those laws. This, it is believed, will bring predictability and certainty to life. Such an approach to life is merely the modern form of the ancient belief that social orders and institutions should be designed to reflect what is believed to be the divine order.
Abrahamsson notes that "the dominant form of knowledge today has largely to do with the discovery and conformity to laws in nature and humanity" (25). He argues that the way people organize their social life is based on this view modern science holds about law governing all of life. He continues, saying that "today's society is allied to a science that deals with scientifically demonstrable patterns" (26). Science, as the new god or authority, now provides the underlying patterns used to shape social orders.
And because the laws of nature and humanity have long been viewed as eternal and rigidly unchanging, consequently, there has always been a tendency in human society and human institutions for people to create rigidly determining systems of law which do not allow the proper expression of the indeterminate and chaotic order of nature and true human life. Such manmade systems of law have always been far more inflexible and rigid than the free flowing order found in nature and humanity.
Boorstin makes the insightful comment that this modern focus on the discovery of laws governing life has led to a loss of control over human future or destiny. He says, "In one of the least known ironies, modern Western man's enlightened grasp of history- with his belief in progress, in the rise of civilization and in laws for all humanity- led to the abdication of man's sense of control over his own future and to the discovery of historic forces that mastered him. The result in this century was... a belief that historical change occurs according to fixed laws. According to this view, the course of history may be predicted but cannot be altered by human will. The social sciences have taken on the role of the ancient prophets, the role of prediction" (27).
In adopting such rigidly law oriented views of life we have often fatalistically abdicated our responsibility to shape and control our own destiny and future. We have not taken personal responsibility for our own lives and communities. This has often resulted in domination by others, especially by those willing to set the laws for the rest.
Fortunately, indeterminacy or chaos theory is undermining the view that the fundamental order in life is composed of laws that are as rigidly unchanging as many worldviews have led people to believe. We now know that life is not structured according to such rigidly inflexible laws, but rather, life allows room for randomness, chance, and spontaneous change, sometimes even radical change. Few human organizations or systems of law embody this flowing change and flexibility.
Also, emerging humanity is moving in an entirely new direction from the confining existence of control by law. Humanity is moving into growing freedom, diversity, and the spontaneity of true human relating. This is an entirely new reality which can not survive in the old law governed structures of control which were derived from past animal and bicameral reality.
Science in this century has been at the forefront of introducing a new view of life and its fundamental trends as open, free flowing process moving in the direction of ever increasing complexity and diversity. This new view of life is challenging and undermining old views of law and law controlled existence.
There are other reasons for the creation of law governed institutions aside from the belief that all of life is governed strictly by law. One is simply the primal animal drive to control others. There is also the archaic desire for the supposed certainty and predictability of a controlled existence. This is the expression of what Jaynes calls the bicameral longing for the security of the ancient hierarchies and authorities of that commanded existence.
Law Inevitably Comes Before People
Most important in regard to a law orientation is the fact that law depersonalizes ethics so that "living by abstract rules takes precedence over real needs of human beings" (28). Under a law oriented existence, loyalty is directed primarily to conforming to abstract codes, instead of freely responding in creative new ways to the diverse and unique needs of people.
Where there is a focus on law, tradition, and rules, there is a tendency to inhumanely mistreat people in order to uphold rules, argues Brinsmead. In law oriented situations law is too often viewed as something sacred that must be rigidly upheld at all costs, even if humans suffer at the hands of people trying to be loyal to their systems of law or ideologies. A law orientation inevitably leads to an emphasis on law at the expense of people.
There must never be a devotion, Brinsmead says, to petty regulations, but rather compassion toward people and a realization that human needs are more important than regulations (29). We do not know of any institution which consistently practices such concern for people before institutional policy, traditions, or rules.
Kipnis also notes the same perversion of human feeling by loyalty to law in a study which shows that people within law oriented organizations become trapped by their loyalty to institutional authority and are not able to respond as human beings. These people, often found in the upper strata of organizational hierarchies have institutional roles which "demand that they control others in often inhuman ways even though they find it personally distasteful" (30).
There are, he says, demands associated with institutional roles that deprive people of voluntary choice. "The individual is trapped by his own loyalties to legitimate authority, so that he finds it impossible to ignore its demands" (31). Inevitably, all law oriented institutions demand this type of loyalty to their systems of law or policies.
Consequently, the obligations of power take precedence over obligations to human beings. Studies on obedience, says Kipnis, clearly show the callousness that enters human relations when people place loyalty to institutional authority and law before treating people humanly. As a result, in obedience to the demands of authority people will often carry out orders they find personally abhorrent and they will do things that they would recoil from as inhuman in some other situation .
Kipnis quotes from a study by Milgram who states "With numbing regularity, good people were seen to knuckle under to the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority... into performing harsh acts" (32).
"Basically what is implicated here is the influence of the early socialization process which stresses above all else obedience to parental and school authority and, as Milgram suggests, produces a national character structure which experiences greater difficulty in defying authority than in harming others.... The demands of a given role... override personal convictions and morality" (33).
The essence of that authority people submit so totally to, is embodied in systems of institutional law...
There are two mechanisms which allow people in institutional roles to carry out behaviors that they would ordinarily condemn if performed by others outside the institution, says Kipnis. First, most people believe that the institution grants them absolution for their acts. The individual believes that he has no choice but to obey and therefore he is not responsible for the suffering he has caused. Others, of course, simply do not care about any suffering they may cause.
This is especially interesting to note in regard to the widespread devastation caused by corporate and government elites responsible for downsizing or restructuring. The loyalty to economic principles such as competitive efficiency has led many people to blindly perform the cruelly inhuman functions of laying off thousands of fellow human beings. Worldwide, millions of lives have been destroyed by people bowing to such laws as economic efficiency.
Secondly, people in upper level institutional roles learn to view people below them as depersonalized objects. This allows them to treat people as less than human. This is the inevitable consequence of loyalty to the vertical authorities produced by law oriented existence.
Where the language of morality is that of rules, principles, and laws, says Brinsmead, we have then moved out of the sphere of personal relations, with its emphasis on intimacy, attitudes, and feelings, and moved instead into the sphere of law with its emphasis on generality, conformity, and controlled behavior.
Interestingly, in psychology, the orientation toward law or regulations and rule governed behavior is viewed as a very immature stage of childhood. Children at a young age will rigidly follow rules as they are not yet able to reflect, question authority, and exercise choice in diverse and changing situations. They are not yet able to personally evaluate and respond freely as unique and flexible humans. If it is true that a law oriented approach to life is childish, then why is law control still so predominant in controlling adult behavior in most institutions in our societies?
To be continued...
From the series "Taking The Vertical Out Of God" by W. Krossa, copyrighted material.
