As a psychologist, I am well aware that the blindness, as well as the hearing of voices by Saul of Tarsus, could be construed as a break with mental health. The lack of sight would probably be construed as hysteria and the hearing of voices as schizophrenia.
The general public, at least the Christian portion of it, thinks nothing of believing that Saul (Paul) had a genuine religious experience. They believe that God struck him blind on the Road to Damascus and that he called Paul to "turn over a new leaf" and turn to Him. Whatever caused Paul's great guilt complex on that road, he became one of the greatest Apostles of Jesus.
That same Christian part of the general public, however, is among the first to label a fellow human as mentally ill when they say they believe God speaks to them or sends them messages. Well, which way is it? You can't "have your cake and eat it, too."
It is this kind of schizophrenic Christian belief that causes non-Christians to view us as emotional and spiritual lepers -- the unwashed, the unclean, the untouchable. We need to merge our two personalities in this modern world and formulate a new, improved set of beliefs.
One thing we need to keep foremost in our minds is that Paul made a lot of decisions based on an impending end of this world. He did not expect there to be a full planet of Christians and non-Christians in 2013. He did not see beyond a brief lifetime -- probably just his. Now, we should not fault him for this belief. He was simply believing and quoting Jesus, himself.
The problem is, the words of Paul, meant for a short interim between the death of Jesus and the end of the world, are still being used to dictate Christian beliefs and behavior today.
One of my biggest issues is that we read his words not to marry -- at least leaders of Catholic Churches do -- as the gospel truth in this millennium even though Paul stated that his suggestion was due to the impending end. So, generations of religious leaders have lived bereft of a spouse and children. In some, their sex needs have become so great that they preyed on vulnerable little children. Perhaps had they been permitted a hetero or homosexual significant other, there would have been less molestation in the church. I recognize, of course, that there is an illness that causes some adults to prey on little children sexually, and some of these individuals may suffer from that. However, I believe it is possible that many turned to this disgraceful behavior because they could no longer quell their sexual needs and those poor, innocent little kids were handy.
In Women In the Ministry at lousdevotes.blogspot.com, I wrote of the apparent contradictions in scriptures attributed to Paul and his caution to wait until the new Kingdom to follow Jesus' teachings because the end is near.
I'm not suggesting that we "throw out the baby with the bathwater," but I am suggesting that we of the current age at least make note of what issues he raised that he attributed to being because of the impending end.
Paul was writing to the churches he had helped form about real issues of that age. He may have been a prophet, yet do we have evidence of that? His words at that time were pertinent to that time. They may be harmful today.
As example, had all Christians of that age chosen not to marry and reproduce, it would have meant the annihilation of the Christian portion of the human race. Big of Paul to say it is better to marry than to burn. That gave Catholics outside the priesthood a reason for families.
But at the same time, such teachings led leaders of the early church to classify sex as a sin. It is not a sin, it is a gift from God. It is how we exercise that gift in conjunction with God's commandments that renders it good or bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment