The War of Prophet, Priest and King: The War Among Men (part 2 of 3)

The War Among Men

The War in the soul among these three needs led to the rise of these three powers: the Kings, the Philosophers, and the Priests. These three rulers each saw their own domain as the dominant one, and so fought with the other two for the allegiance of the men. So, not long after the dawn of Man and the rise of the powers, the War of the Powers began. Priests would denounce the Truth of philosophers, and philosophers would mock the Mystery of the priests. The kings, fearing the power of them both, would have them censored or punished or killed. In exchange, the Philosophers would tell the people of the Righteousness of rebellion, and the Priests would excite their passions to fight.

For most of history, this War was a Cold War, with the Kings content to rule in their palaces, the Philosophers to ponder in their huts, and the Priests to celebrate in their temples. As their domains were often non-overlapping, each had dominion over some part of most men. The same man would pay his taxes, feast in the temple, and often unconsciously, believe the philosopher. Each power would rarely risk this to make a grab at more power.

The War smoldered for long forgotten centuries, occasionally flaring up in rebellions or conquests, with no hope of peace. Finally, a man came who saw a way of reconciliation. His name was Plato, and he suggested Philosopher-Kings, men who would be both pragmatic and govern by Truth. Plato never got a chance to try it out himself as nobody trusted him to run a kingdom. But Akhenaten, King of Egypt, did try it when he attempted to usurp the priesthood with his philosophy of a singular God, Aten. Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor, was a Stoic philosopher, and studied Plato himself. Confucius, perhaps as close as the world has ever come to a philosopher-king, built a rational and incredibly pragmatic system. Siddhartha, perhaps noblest of all, renounced his own kingdom and lived the model life of the philosopher. But Akhenaten’s sterile monotheism did not satisfy the hunger for Mystery, and the priesthood was thrust back into power after his death. Marcus Aurelius’ philosophy, true as it may have been, was impotent; in the end, he wrote his thoughts in private and in public, surrendered to popular enthusiasms. Confucius’ codes could not speak with authority as from Heaven, and the hunger for Mystery had to be satisfied with other systems. Buddhism came very close, but either sacrificed Mystery for Truth (Theravada) or Truth for Mystery (Mahayana), with the full benefits of either system reaped only by those few who could endure monasticism. In the end, none of these were able to achieve a broad alliance in these domains.

And so the War raged on in the two theaters: in the soul of man, and in public. It was a war of perfect and terrible balance, one without hope for end or peace. The hungers were fixed from the birth of man; the powers grew out of these. If one was killed and the flag dropped, the human hunger would pick it up immediately. And so the king in his palace, the priest in his temple, and the prophet in his hut battled one another for the affections and attention of mankind.

>>>>>>> Next: The Christmas Conspiracy
<<<<<<< Previous: The War Within Man

The War of Prophet, Priest and King: The War Within Men (part 1 of 3)

The War Within Men

New Hungers

Out of a whirlwind of birth and death, tooth and claw, blood and sweat, a man woke up as a man. It was a thing that had never happened before. The creatures who were before him were all unique in their own way, a kaleidoscope of colors and claws. And even though he did look funny himself, he was different because he was awake. He found himself in possession of an enormously expensive adaptation: consciousness. And like a more complex animal requiring more complex foods, this new adaptation needed caused in him a hunger for two things: Mystery and Truth. It seems that the capacity for Mystery and Truth had been building for some time; the symphony of species had prepared the way. The apparatus for Mystery seemed partly developed in dogs who dream, and the apparatus for moral Truth seems to be foreshadowed in the complex and sometimes altruistic social instincts of Prairie Dogs.

It must have been a wonderful day (probably a Friday; Friday’s are good days) when that which was foreshadowed finally appeared. On that day, the swirling chaos of instinct and id finally had an opponent; it had to convince the ego against its strange newborn enemy, the superego. On that day, the War of the Psyche was declared in the mind of man.

Mystery

“…man seeks not so much God as the miraculous. And as man cannot bear to be without the miraculous, he will create new miracles of his own for himself, and will worship deeds of sorcery and witchcraft, though he might be a hundred times over a rebel, heretic and infidel.” – Dostoyevsky, The Grand Inquisitor

But the War was a unique one for the man was a unique creature. The Id, long a chaos of instinct, had a new element to it. Swirling in with the senseless instincts appeared a sensible story. The dreams, expressions of inner hopes and fears, began to produce stories that were strangely consistent. The men lost the ability to forget their dreams. In fact, they became convinced that the bizarre hallucinations contained profound meaning. They began to share them with one another, and even to tell of their daydreams. They told of men who were greater than men, men who were not content simply to wrestle against terrestrial threats. Otherworldly demons and monsters were remembered from the night who would fight against the super men in a thousand, thousand stories. The heroes were celebrated in feasts no less than if they were real men of great honor, and the villains were appeased and warded against no less than if they were real monsters. Such telling of stories, honoring of heroes, and warding of evils became an obsession for the men. As the race increased, and as they spread across the face of the earth, the hunger for Mystery was so intense that every group of them found it necessary to set aside some men who would focus entirely on celebrating the heroes and appeasing the villains. These men became the mythmakers, the poets, and the priests.

Truth

“For the secret of man's being is not only to live but to have something to live for. Without a stable conception of the object of life, man would not consent to go on living, and would rather destroy himself than remain on earth, though he had bread in abundance.” – Dostoyevsky, The Grand Inquisitor

On the other front of the War of the Psyche was the newborn superego. Social organization had long since existed, but a new element was present. The prairie dog was content to allow the instincts to war with one another. If and only if the herd instinct was stronger than the survival instinct, the animal would act ‘altruistically.’ The Man now had the two competing instincts brought before the Ego as before a jury tried before the judge of the Superego. The instincts would have to appeal to the Ego by presenting evidence admissible to court, namely that of Truth. The jury was by no means perfect, and justice was not always done. But for the first time in the history of life on the planet, a trial was occurring. Then something even stranger occurred. The men began to assert that the judgment in the court of their own mind applied to foreign courts. The men began to appeal to one another on the assumption that they all possessed the same court rules. “It’s not fair” and “You wouldn’t like it if…” became valid accusations, like grievances of a plaintiff against a defendant before a higher judge.

The Truth-Seeking part of Man, when it wasn’t serving as a judge between the Ego and Id, was far from idle. Without ceasing, it looked for patterns, to see the “reality” behind the appearance. It regarded the eyes, the only windows of truth for every other creature under the sun, as deceptive. The eyes, it knew, were only able to see shadows on the wall of a cave, when the light of reality was blazing bright outside. With a pair of feet utterly unique to the biosphere, it sought to stand on something more solid than matter. Matter, it thought, was as unstable as a flowing river. Forms, Numbers, Justice, Truth, God, the Cosmos; many concepts were proposed as the ultimate foundation, discovered by reason, meditation, or revelation.

In every group of men, there were some in whom the Hunger for Truth was ferocious. If a group found themselves lacking in Truth, they would hunt for it like a deer and would not stop until it was caught. They were not content to hold popular ideas; their Truth was as cold as stone, and as firm. Unlike the poets, these men did not suggest that their ideas were simply a good story enjoyable to some men in some places, but that they were True for all men in all places. And maybe because the societies were anemic and really did hunger they were tolerated and sometimes even believed. But usually their food was divided long after they were dead. These men were the prophets and philosophers.

Bread

“Turn them into bread, and mankind will run after Thee like a flock of sheep, grateful and obedient, though for ever trembling, lest Thou withdraw Thy hand and deny them Thy bread...In bread there was offered Thee an invincible banner; give bread, and man will worship thee, for nothing is more certain than bread.” – Dostoyevsky, The Grand Inquisitor

These new hungers for Truth and Mystery were present alongside the older hunger for food. Men yearned to be freed from the tyranny of chance in hunting and gathering, and so came together through agriculture and civilization. Men arose who promised security to the people. They led others to build granaries where food could be secured. They defended themselves with walls and gates. They raised armies to increase the practical power of their group, and in war, could reap where they had not sown. The practical necessities which each organism fought for on its own or with a small band of close relatives had now were provided by the super-organisms of the city and kingdom. The men who were the heads of these new entities included the concerns of the Prophet and Priest to support practical politics. But the ultimate concern was power, and their power depended on their ability to provide practical necessities to the people; they were pragmatists. These men were the kings.

>>>>>>> Next: The War Among Men

Superman: Man of Steel, a Review

[Spoiler Alert]

It is not often that one gets the privilege of watching truly epic Sci-Fi. But you get to with Man of Steel. Like The Dark Knight, is able to communicate good messages without making it a boring movie. And, finally, it does what all the old Superman movies never could (or wanted to) do: epicly strong characters beating on each other. Mid-air fights, awesome punches, and an impressively animated destructible environment makes for great fun.

Flight, for whatever reason, rarely feels real on camera (and in video games, I might add). But this does. Like so many of our dreams we wish were true, Superman really takes flight. And so does this movie. Great acting, spectacular cinematography, awesome script, and a Hans Zimmer soundtrack with lots of drums made for a spectacular movie experience.

The movie opens on Krypton and spends exactly enough time showing you the planet and politics there. It makes you care about the place and the people (and even the poor strange animals), and when then time was ripe, the planet was destroyed and you felt sad. There were some awesome Kryptonian battles, with Russell Crowe (as Jor-El) inspiring manliness with his words and punches before the planet dies. The movie continues to show all the classic Supermanly locations of Smallville and Metropolis, with characters that were true to the original spirit, but not simple copies, of the originals. Henry Cavil (who?) does a solid job as Superman, at displaying cool confidence through most of the movie, but some powerful scenes of questioning his identity and showing moments of despair.

I am no purist, and I hope some of the sci-fi faux pas were because of Superman orthodoxy. Superman’s powers come from his cells absorbing the “younger” sun’s energy. Though able to fly in space, he loses his powers in a Krypton-like “atmosphere.” The DNA of his entire race was put into his cells (the animation for this showed red blood cells, which are one of the few cells in the body that don’t have DNA). But, aside from these gripes, I can accept Superman as Sci-Fi with an emphasis on the Fi. At least we didn’t have to hear about mitochlorians.

The Father of Superman

The aspect of the movie which was so endearing was the relationship between Superman and his two fathers, Jor-El and Jonhathan Kent. His adoptive father (played by Kevin Costner) tells him after he resists his teenage impulse to murder a bully, “You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Whoever that man is, he's going to change the world.” But how? Clark Kent leaves home and for years wanders through the wilderness of trivial jobs and superficial relationships. We see ourselves in the young man searching for his identity. We all want to know: “Who are we? Why are we here?” We have a renewed hunger for such answers. Sure, he helped people along the way, but he didn’t really know what would finally satisfy him, how he could truly use his powers to their limit.

Batman Begins was about mental and physical training. Man of Steel was about moral training. What is the good life? The next section of the movie was a very tender telling of Clark Kent’s early life in wrestling with his identity and powers. It shows him struggling to both hide his powers while developing his virtues. These are some of my favorite scenes in the movie, with Kevin Costner (as Jonathan Kent) raises and mentors his son through normal rebellions with the added twist that if Clark goes bad, it would alter the course of the world. Jor-El tells him, “You've grown stronger here than I ever could've imagined. The only way to know how strong, is to keep testing your limits.” This is the inspiration for one of the coolest “learning to use your superpowers” scenes in all movie history: Superman learns to fly. After his first hop, skip and jump, he “falls” into a mountain. And then out of it on the other side. And then the damage he does to it crumbles the top of the mountain. Then there is an extended flight through canyons and valleys, up to space, back to the canyons, all the while having the exhilarating music of Hans Zimmer making it all the more engaging.

The Superman problem is a tough one. What does one do with (near) unlimited power? Is the old aphorism “Power corrupts” actually true? Superman finally accepts his mission from his father Jor-El, “You will give the people of earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun.” Superman’s job is not to fix all the problems in the world, but to lead humanity, to provide an example. He is to be what we all aspire toward.

The Ethics of the Man of Steel

Superman: Man of Steel is appropriately titled.  Superman is a super man; that is, he is the embodiment of masculine virtues. He is physically and emotionally strong. He is bold and confident, but not arrogant. Time and again, he allows others to insult him without fighting back. He is a defender of the weak. He is willing to sacrifice himself for those he cares about and even those who are strangers to him. Most of all, he shows his masculinity with laser vision (a power which definitely gets an upgrade in this movie). OK so maybe laser vision doesn’t make a man.

The central virtue of Superman is his sacrificial compassion. He cares deeply about humanity. This is a virtue which both Jor-El and Jonathan Kent demonstrated, each by laying down their own lives for him. At an early crisis of the movie, General Zod demands Superman reveal himself and surrender or he would make earth suffer. Superman seeks the counsel of an anonymous priest. Should he give himself for the sake of humanity? In this dialogue with the priest, there are large stained glass images of Jesus in Gethsemene (where Jesus wrestles with whether or not he should sacrifice himself for humanity) and Jesus the Good Shepherd (where Jesus is in the role of gentle leader and guide) in the background. The priest tells him “You must take a leap of faith. Trust will follow.” And so he does. He gives himself up to humanity, who, in turn, gives him up to Zod. Despite the humans constantly trying to get control of Superman, he continues to gently remind them (i.e. by taking down a drone that is spying on him, or by breaking out of handcuffs) that he will help them but, “It’s got to be on my terms.” The Man of Steel teaches us that the only way to approach a super man is on his terms.

In addition to these moral themes, the plot wasn’t without its philosophy. General Zod was no stereotypical crazed villain; he was a patriot for Krypton and, in his political theory, a Platonist. The conflict was between Zod, who wanted to give Krypton another chance and Superman, who didn’t want to extinguish earth’s chance. Zod was fighting for Krypton’s system, with children born into their given roles as scientists, soldiers or leaders; Jor-El wanted to let his child make his own path. And, while reading a book by “Plato,” young Clark Kent resists using his powers and, throughout his life, rejects the crown of the Philosopher King.

Man of Steel, Christianity and Myth

Check out this trailer. There are enough lines that make explicit comparisons to Jesus that, when they are all edited together, it’s pretty clear that the Director wanted Christians to look at his Superman and say, “That’s just like Jesus.” They’ve posted a website with sermon notes and other resources to aid pastors in preaching about The Man of Steel. CNN writes about this with an emphasis on the greedy movie studio (which, as it turns out, is owned by the same greedy parent company as CNN) trying to extract money from unwitting Christians. On this subject, I would like to say the following to Hollywood: What took you so long? I’m thrilled that you’re finally making an effort to produce something that we like and want to see. Some of the $125 million that came in this opening weekend (i.e. the biggest June opening in cinema history) came from people going directly from pew to theater after hearing the pastor talk about the parallels between Jesus and Superman. Keep it up. Tell stories of heroes that look like Jesus, and help us out by telling us what you’re doing. We’re totally into that. We’ll reward you with our dollars.

The wonderful thing about mythology is that, like Jor-El, Superman’s corporeal existence is not necessary for him to accomplish his mission. He can lead us as Homer’s Odysseus and Virgil’s Aeneas have led us. Superman’s original mission was to uphold, “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” and as any cultural hero, we have poured into him our goodness and virtue. Superman, as our first superhero, represents us on the mythological scene. I am proud to stand behind the man in the red and blue. In a great scene, Lois asks him what the “S” stands for. He explains, “It’s not an ‘S’. On my world it means ‘hope.’” And let us look to that symbol which we first raised in the darkness of the Great Depression and take its meaning to heart. Let us have hope.

Healthy Diabetes Recipe (Stew!)

Nutrition Facts can be found here on Self.com's amazing nutrition calculator.

At the request of a vegetarian friend with developing diabetes, I have designed the following recipe.

Ingredients

1 lb Soybeans (mature seeds)
1/3 lb Wheat berries (hard red winter)
1/3 lb Navy beans
1/3 lb Amaranth
1/2 lb shredded coconut
1/2 lb flaxseed
1/8 lb nutritional yeast
1 lb almonds (slivered and/or sliced)

5 onions (mix red, yellow, white)
2 bell peppers
4 Jalapenos
2 lg cans of diced tomatoes
1 lb Swiss chard
1 lb Collard greens
2 bunches of cilantro
2 heads of garlic (yeah, the whole thing x 2)

1 cup olive oil
1 cu apple cider vinegar
1/4 cup of each of the following spices: black pepper, cayenne*, cumin, coriander, paprika, tumeric, yellow mustard seed

*1/4 cup of cayenne will yield a solidly spicy stew. Scale back to preference.

Instructions

1. Rinse soybeans, navy beans and wheat berries. Divide in 2 and put each half into a large pot. Add water and boil for ~1 hour (until they're still tough, but chewable). Stir occasionally to make sure nothing is sticking to the bottom.

2. Chop onions, peppers and garlic. Put into a pot with the cayenne pepper, black pepper and coriander. Add some of the olive oil and fry on high heat, stirring constantly, until onions begin to look translucent (~10-15 minutes). Divide in half and set aside.

3. Chop the collard greens, the Swiss chard and the cilantro. Do chop this carefully (I prefer ~1/2 inch squares) because long, tough greens do make the soup messy. Set aside. Open the cans of tomatoes. Divide all the other ingredients in two portions. 

4. When the beans are finished, put everything that's not in the pot, into the pot. That's right. Everything (including what you set aside in steps 2 and 3). Cook for 15 minutes, or until it's as soft as you'd prefer. Remember, the tougher you can handle it, the better (slower digestion, better for blood sugars; also the more work it is to eat, the less you'll eat). Stir frequently, making sure to scrape the bottom (the stew is quite thick, and it's really easy to burn the bottom layer).

 5. (optional) I like to divvy it up into day-use Tupperware so I can just grab-and-go. Also, I do sometimes freeze a portion of it for later use.

Discussion

First off, to be perfectly clear, this is not a recipe for diabetes. You won't actually get diabetes by eating this stew. But it is for diabetics, or anyone who wants to get better control of their blood sugar (I'm talking to you, average American). The above is a modification of my previous recipe, but this time optimizing factors important for blood sugar. The most important thing goal for the diabetic is minimizing glycemic index (GI), how fast the food turns into sugar. The faster this happens, the harder it is on you pancreas and cells; a nice, slow gradual release of the sugar is ideal. Coca Cola and white bread are bad. The other thing I found in my reading was that fiber is good. I'm not sure it's entirely clear the mechanism (I've heard some argue that fibrous foods make it physically slower to digest food). Also, to throw a kink in, the particular person I designed this for was a vegetarian. So no meat.

So with some reading and comparing of foods, I decided to go with soybeans as the primary base (the kind that look like nuts in the bulk food section; not the ones that look green that you get at Sushi restaurants). They've got a ton of fiber, really low GI, and high protein. For diversity (and also inspired by Ezekiel 4:9), I decided to add in wheat berries, Navy beans (best-in-(bean)class on fiber and GI), and, partly because Milton thinks it was next to the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, partly because it means "unfading beauty" in Greek, and partly because it has pretty darned good nutritional properties, I added a bit of Amaranth.

In looking at the nutrition facts above, you may think I failed. "626 Calories!?" "34 grams of fat?!" It was deliberate. The first thing you may or may not know is that humans need to eat food in order to keep on living. For most humans about 2000 Calories need to come in one way or another. The goal should not be to try to eat 1500 Calories and splurge up to 2500, but to try to eat a good 2000 Calories.

As for nutritional goals, I think it came out fairly well. One hearty bowl of the stuff and you get all the fiber you need in a day without Metamucil (and I suppose this is as good a place as any for the disclaimer: that much fiber will probably change your bowel habits: get ready for it). The glycemic load is low at 19 for the bowl (~61 if you ate nothing but the stew all day, well below the target 100). Those were my goals, and they were met. And now for the gravy (don't eat gravy; it's bad for you).

Veggies (not bacon) are good for you, especially slow-digesting, nutrient rich ones (i.e. the green-leafies). It's  winter, so the tomatoes locally are about a bazillion dollars a pound; so I went with canned this time (of course, fresh is always better if you can get your hands on 'em). And because I love garlic, I was not sparse with it. For most people, and for people with blood sugar problems especially, veggies are very important.

Let's move on to the fats. Because of (as far as I can tell) very clever "fat free" marketing in the 90's, we have adopted the idea that "fat is bad!" It's equivalent to arbitrarily selecting a class of words and declaring them evil: "Nouns are naughty!" "Verbs are viscous!" In reality, there are good and bad fats. The only "traditional" diet studied with rigor has been shown to be really good for you; it's called the Mediterranean Diet and includes a LOT of olive oil. Coconut oil (which is expensive... dried coconut is much cheaper, and believe it or not, has coconut oil inside of it) has been shown to increase good cholesterol (HDL) and improve blood sugar. Monounsaturated oils (lots in olive oil) also improve cholesterol profile (increase the good, decrease the bad), as well as improving blood sugars. So I included lots of both. I also read that almonds, in addition to the great benefits of their good-for-you fats, were really good for sugar control. And (also because flaxseed extract is expensive) I added flaxseeds; the stew has as much heart-healthy Omega-3 in one bowl as a supplement pill.

As with the previous version, the massive amounts of spice provide anti-oxidants anti-inflammatory which are good at curing everything ("Cancer!" and "Infection!"). Some people even think that diabetes is a problem with "inflammation" (e.g. bariatric surgery can sometimes reverse diabetes; some think this is because people lose their "inflammatory" fat tissue). But we have meandered to the fringes of scientific hypothesis and in the imagination land of nutritional benefits; I have not even heard of people who tried using coriander for cure. The whole inflammation story seems to simple to be true IMHO, but I'd bet that some of the hype is real. Even if it wasn't, spice is the spice of life.

So that's the "Diabetes Stew." The more of it you eat, the better! If you just have a little bit with your meals, it'd have some effect. If you can, as I did, completely replace your diet with this one item (you'd have to sacrifice the Western proclivity for variety and learn to enjoy repetition as the rest of the world does), it'd have big effects.

[For the record, all the health claims are scientific second-hand: I have not read the original papers nor am I an expert in nutrition. I have written the above mostly with what I have learned from (probably) reliable sources (mostly professors at Stanford). If you find sources and/or info that contradicts this, please post in the comments]

The Neuroscience of Empathy

You’re 10. The lunch bell just rang. The epic and thrilling sport of kickball is about to begin. Now it’s time to pick teams. Today you’re relived to get picked in the middle. The other kids are getting picked. Now there’s just two left. You look out with sadness at the last two schmucks. One of them will end up getting picked second-to-last and one sorry kid will have to endure the gut-wrenching feeling of being the only one on either team that didn’t get picked at all. The second-to-last kid is picked. You look out at the face of that last pitiful kid. How do you feel?

If you answered, “Hey! I was that last kid!” you make a really good point. Before we look at empathy, let’s take a quick look at our own emotional pain. Researchers set up a virtual playground where participants were playing the videogame “cyberball” while in a brain scanner (fMRI). And then, in the equivalent of the playground, two of the players rejected the participant. What happened? Ouch. What did the researchers see? A part deep in the brain right between the temples called the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC) burned bright with activity. They asked the participants how bad it was, and they found that the more distress they felt, the brighter the ACC burned. Getting picked last for kickball is a terrible thing.

But what’s also terrible is watching someone get picked last. The experiment was repeated, but this time the participant watched while another player got rejected. What happened this time? Ouch again. Again, the ACC burned bright. Watching someone else get picked last is also a terrible thing.

It turns out that the ACC seems to be important for feeling any kind of pain. It lights up when you stub your toe or when you watch someone else stub their toe; it lights up when you get dumped, or when you hear about your friend getting dumped. One group even looked at patients who cannot, for neurological reasons, feel physical pain. They found that even these patients were still able to share a pain they never felt; their ACC was active when watching others experience physical pain.

This might lead you to think that the ACC was important in making people altruistic. You may think: the worse you feel about someone else’s situation, the more likely you are to help. The more pathetic-looking they make the African orphan on the commercial, the more likely you’ll donate money. But it’s false. Even though it seems to be an indicator of pain, it doesn’t seem that pain produces altruistic action. In the study of the cyberball watchers, the participants got a chance to write an email to the rejected player, and this was then rated by how helpful and comforting it was. Changes in ACC didn’t predict nice emails. In another study of people looking at pictures of hurricane victims and considering donating money, they found the same thing: ACC was active but didn’t predict generosity.

What did? A part of the brain between the temples near the top of the head (dmPFC). The more dmPFC activity, the more helpful the emails to the rejected cyberball players, and the more money was committed to the hurricane victims. Why?

To answer that, we need another experiment! This time, researchers tested a very strange hypothesis: the most selfless people were actually being selfish. In other words, they tested whether people’s generosity was because they felt bad for people in a bad situation, or whether it was because they considered themselves “one” with the others. Oneness, “reflects a sense of interpersonal unity, wherein the conceptions of self and other are not distinct but are merged to some degree.” They asked people how they would help various kinds of people (from strangers to family), in various situations (from a phone call to helping their orphaned kids) and found that the empathic concern was only important insofar as the people considered themselves one with the other person. Their altruism was driven by their oneness, not their empathy.

So what about our friend, the dmPFC? It turns out that it’s more active when we’re making evaluations about others, particularly when we’re considering others as a part of ourselves, a part of our group.

Conclusion

It seems that the emerging story is that empathy is an important human capacity. You can look at a person in pain, feel bad for him, and keep on moving. In fact, it doesn’t seem to matter how much it actually hurts you to see another in pain. So long as you think of the person as ‘him,’ you’ll probably walk on by (probably crossing to the other side of the road while you’re at it). But the more that you think of the other person as ‘me,’ the more likely you are to let your empathy drive you to action. Jesus may have been speaking quite literally when He said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Disclaimer: Professor Plumb, in the Library, with the Candlestick

Professor Plumb was in the library, but did he actually commit the murder? We see a provocative correlation, a brain region that lights up when you’re about to do good, that same region lighting up when you consider people part of your group, and the observation that feeling “oneness” with others lines up with altruistic action. All the pieces are in line for it to be true, but we don’t know for sure. That is to say, the above goes into the category of “speculative hypothesis.” All these observations might be explained by a third factor. Or it might turn out that some of these observations are actually false. Or an hundred other things. That’s the problem (and the fun) of speculation. So long as the speculation is backed up with a firm Theology (i.e. that we ought to obey Jesus regardless of whether there are discovered neural pathways to support His advice), it’s all in good fun.

Together in the New Jerusalem (4 of 4)

We often hear that we were once a violent race that killed people who believed in other gods. Then we made a great compromise. Some great peacemaker suggested Pluralism, “If you just say that your all-powerful god isn’t all-powerful, we’ll do the same; our gods can share the sky.” And so, by compromising on God’s power, we achieved a cease-fire. And some would advocate that we again accept it. But the advocates are often humanists, and as it is said in business, beware the naked man who offers you his shirt; so now, beware the atheist who offers you his god. Pluralism was a reasonable compromise for two monotheists, but not for an atheist and a monotheist. But what can we compromise on? How can we have peace?

The unique solution to our dilemma is to put our faith in Peace embodied. Jesus came and was the Prince of Peace, and he founded a religion with just the structure to meet the need of our species. The one place where Christianity cannot compromise is where everyone else can (doctrine). Where everyone else cannot compromise, Christianity can. So my dear reader, if your heart is to reconcile all religions, you have the heart of Christ. And if you seek a path that can satisfy all people, you can find it in Christ. And if you seek to bind together all the diversity of humanity in a wonderful unity, your desire can be satisfied by the Church.

Muhammad desired that men might learn humility before God. Christ humbled Himself unto death and bids His disciples do likewise. Confucius was looking for social order. Christ founded His Kingdom on Love to bring perfect order. The Buddha sought an escape from suffering. Christ bore our suffering on Himself, and promised a Resurrection unto joy. Hinduism sought an escape from the unending circle of reincarnation. Christ adjures us to take the straight and narrow path to the Holy City. Yoruba religion sought reconnection with God, others, nature and destiny. Christ tears the curtain of separation between God and man, and demonstrated how love can tie us intimately with all around us. Judaism seeks a Messiah to bring Israel back from Exile. Christ is that Messiah. Laozi was searching for the Way. Christ said “I am the way.”

Many visions of the afterlife, though beautiful in many ways, turn out to be narrow. The blissful unity of Nirvana is wonderful, but it would certainly exclude a man as passionate as Jesus. Buddhist ideas of inner peace are profound, but Muhammad was far too aggressive to find it. The pleasures of Muslim Paradise are easy to yearn for, but the Buddha wouldn’t know what to do with virgins and wine. The freedom and formlessness of the Dao is beautiful, but not a beauty that Confucius with his focus on about cities and politics would appreciate. The structure of Muslim Sharia establishes a firm public order, but not one that Laozi would ever have submitted himself to. There are strange truths present in the words of the mystics, but Rabbi Hillel would much rather know by reasoning. We have all felt the bottomless despair of death so well captured by Greek Hades, but Socrates could never accept an afterlife absent of ultimate justice. But the New Jerusalem is big enough to fit all these men.

In a Christian Heaven we might see, standing at great gates of pearl, Plato and Augustine discussing the City of God. In Heaven, the Buddha may sit silently with St. Benedict and the Desert Fathers under the Tree of Life. In Heaven, Hippocrates may gather leaves of healing with Maimonides and Dr. Livingston. In Heaven, Hector may wrestle with Joshua and Arjuna. In Heaven, Gandhi may join Moses and Dr. King on a freedom march down streets of gold. In Heaven, Solomon, standing in the court of the Final Temple, may explicate the finer points of his administration to Muhammad and Confucius. In Heaven, Laozi may wander with St. Francis and Adam, following the Dao through wondrous Eden.

<== Back to The Universal Church (3 of 4)

The Universal Church (3 of 4)

At the opening of the movie Wedding Crashers the priest is about to start reading. John whispers to Jeremy, “20 bucks, First Corinthians.” Jeremy accepts the bet, “Double or nothing, Colossians 3:12.” Jeremy loses the bet, and 1 Corinthians 15 is read. That is the famous “love” chapter (the one opening with “love is patient,” or if you prefer the older translation, “charity suffers long”). At the end of the section, it talks about something that I, as a Bible-clutching believer in Truth never really understood. Love, “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” I get the bearing and enduring. But believing? Hoping? Isn’t Christianity about disbelieving things? Aren’t there definitely things that need to be rejected?

Christianity seems to have been specifically designed to be the most universal and unifying thing in the galaxy. And this is very strange. Isn’t is supposed to be close-minded and bigoted? Superficially, so it seems. But let’s review some history.

Jews for Jesus

In the first century, the Church was made up entirely of Jewish converts. They still kept Jewish feasts and really didn’t see Christianity as anything but a Jewish sect. Then, God called some Romans to be Christians, too. When the news of their conversion was shared, it blew the minds of the listeners who, to that point, thought God cared mostly about the Jews: “When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." There arose a great argument: wouldn’t the new converts have to first convert to Judaism (and get circumcised…ouch!), or could there be such things as non-Jewish Christians. Because of the convincing (to them) evidence of miracle surrounding the conversions, they decided that non Jews could be Christians, too.

Gentiles for Jesus

Fast forward a few millennia and the tables have turned. Christianity, originally a Jewish sect, is now perceived as a non-Jewish group. But not entirely. Meet Glenn Blank (not Beck), a good Reform Jew who was minding his own business. Out of the blue, he saw a vision of Jesus crucified. He did not understand it at the time, but through a process that included a Bible-as-literature class in college, he eventually came to believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. So what did he do? Give up his Judaism and become Christian? On the contrary! He got more Jewish. “I didn't know [my Jewish identity] was important! I thought I'd become a Christian! But in fact, my Jewish identity is important to God, and I began to grow in understanding what it means to be a Jew.” Glenn is an example of what is called today a Messianic Jew, a startlingly large group that has been reported at 250,000 in the US alone; even with only these counted, it would mean that about 1 in 50 Jews worldwide believes in Jesus.

So we see in Glenn something very interesting. The first century question was whether Christianity was broad enough to include non-Jews. Today, it is whether Christianity is broad enough to include Jews. But in both times, God seemed to be calling people in their own cultural contexts not to change cultures, but to believe in Jesus.

Muslims for Jesus. Wait, what?

Now let’s take a look at Islam. Meet Soleh. He was a construction foreman who also taught in the mosque of his remote village. He took a job working on a Christian school for several months. The students at the school were running out of food, and prayed for food, and food came. Soleh believed the coincidental timing of this donation was indeed an answer to prayer. Later, he had a conversation with one of the students about faith, and came to believe in Jesus. He was ready to leave everything to follow Jesus, but was told he didn’t need to; he could follow Isa (the Arabic name of Jesus) without leaving Islam. He returned to his village, gathered his community and, “announced that he was a Muslim who now followed Isa. Not only did nobody seem upset, but many people were very interested, including the village chief who also became a follower of Isa soon thereafter!" The same source also tells the stories of other Muslim followers of Isa like Taufik who “never thinks of himself as being a ‘Christian,’ ... He sees himself being a good Muslim, called to share salvation in the Messiah with fellow Muslims” and Achmad who, “perceives himself as a Muslim who knows Isa.”

How is this possible? A Christian may wholeheartedly claim to be a Muslim, “One who submits.” He may pray 5 times daily facing east. He may give alms. He may fast during Ramadan. He may visit Mecca. He may say and even believe the Shahada (“There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his messenger”). A Muslim cannot accept the Christian idea of Jesus (that he was the Son of God), while a Christian can accept the Muslim idea of Muhammad (that he was a prophet). An orthodox Muslim cannot take Communion, accepting the sacrificial death of the Son of God (because God has no son), or Baptism, taking part in His resurrection (for Jesus never died) while a Christian can observe the Five Pillars. Christianity is a bigger circle than Islam. An orthodox Christian can be a Muslim, but an orthodox Muslim cannot be a Christian.

If there can be Messianic Jews and Messianic Muslims, there can be a Messianic anything. We think of religions as mutually exclusive largely because we, in the West, impose a Christian framework on other religions. We see conversion as a person leaving all that they once knew, and doing something completely foreign. But conversion to Christianity is not a universal rejection; it is a universal acceptance.

Omniworship

Christian universality is possible because Christianity is flexible in the right places and rigid in the right places. Jesus does command that you love him more than your family and your culture. But when the healed man from Decapolis would leave his people to follow Jesus back to his Jewish ministry, Jesus told him to stay. Some are called to literally leave, but most are called to stay, to work within their own cultures.

A Christian may, in the same year, celebrate Holi, Passover, Ramadan and Christmas. She may make pilgrimage to Mecca, Jerusalem and Tibet. She may meditate, pray, chant, sing, worship and do yoga. She may eat meat, abstain from meat; she may eat kosher food, halal food or food sacrificed to Vishnu. She may tell stories about the Jews’ redemption from Egypt, Odysseus’ return to Ithaca, or Rama’s romance with Sita.

St. Paul explicitly encourages this sort of thing. He himself walked amongst the idols of the Greeks and participated in Jewish practices he was freed from. He wrote that “All things are permissible,” even doing very un-Jewish things like eating meat sacrificed to idols. A huge part of Paul’s teaching throughout his life was that Christians didn’t have to keep Jewish traditions.

Real unifying faith

All this allows for a beautiful and unprecedented unity. When we talk about our color preferences, we are talking about something purely subjective. When we enter into the realm of true and false, we cross the threshold into that part of the human experience we can share. Conversations about theology are impossible in pluralism, or at least they’re very short. “Oh! Very interesting. That’s good for you.” True and interesting conversation can only come when people are talking about the same thing. And with Jesus’ audacious claim to be the Truth, the logos, the foundation of rationality, he permits his followers to seek him literally everywhere. The Christian can discuss the truth in a Hindu story, or a Jewish scripture, or a Greek epic, or a mathematical postulate. He can feel the emotional truth in Muslim architecture, Buddhist yoga, or even a secular nightclub [1]. The Christian can baptize a piece of art, or an experience, or a story in the waters of Truth, allowing all that is false or evil or wrong to die, and bringing the rest of it into the Light. GK Chesterton once said that St Thomas Aquinas baptized Aristotle: Thomas found his work and literally saved it from being lost, but also translated the good of it into the new orthodoxy. The Christian can affirm the true and the good in every culture, in every religion, and even in every person. The Atheist must deny all things (certainly all religions). The Pluralist must deny some things (e.g. Christianity and Islam). The Christian, unique in history and amongst philosophies, may truly believe all things.

Calling Christianity intolerant is like saying that the Allies were secretly Nazis. Without context, it might have been confusing to see Patton in Germany with American tanks. Patton’s defection might be a plausible story, or maybe he was a German general all along. But if one simply watched the Battle of the Bulge, it wouldn’t take long to see that the Allies were not friends with the Nazis. Of course, there were Nazi spies amongst Allied ranks, and there were Allied soldiers who poorly represented the group. But it’s difficult to argue that the Allies were pro-Nazi because it was the Allies who defeated the Nazis. And so it is with Christianity.

On Christmas Day, the beaches of Darkness and Intolerance were invaded. Since then, thousands of missionaries, abolitionists, and translators have been broadening the Church. As the Allies marked time from the day of their invasion, so Christians count time relative to “C-Day”. In fact, so do you. In the corner of your computer screen and on your wrist and on the phone in your pocket you can see exactly how many hours, days, months, and years have elapsed since the invasion began (“The Year of our Lord 2012”, abbreviated 2012 AD from the Latin Anno Domini). In 33AD, the Church spoke Aramaic and included Judaism. Within a few decades, its leaders were from diverse parts of the Roman Empire and it included Greek. Today, the Gospel has been printed in well over 1500 languages and the Church includes members from every continent and every major religion. And it continues to broaden.

[1] I have recently discovered the feeling of being ‘one’ with a crowd, moving to loud music in a dark club is true. Of course, there are a million bad things mixed in. But the feeling of unity with strangers is a mystical truth: we are indeed all one blood, and the breath that we draw is from the same Father in heaven. This is the kernel of truth I found at Bootie.

<== Back to Color, Culture and Christianity (2 of 4)
==> Onward to Together in the New Jerusalem (4 of 4)