Was Jesus a Lobbyist?

The other morning I came to a realization - one of those realizations that made me wonder why I hadn't realized it before. It came amidst the many laws that state legislatures are passing that have purely religious thinking as their motivation. The governor of Nebraska even characterized opposition to the laws that he championed as "diabolical"  (in the literal sense as "devilish") and "Lucifer at it's finest". I have long criticized certain laws as nothing but religious opinion that shouldn't be applied to those who don't adhere that religion, but it's obvious that legislators aren't even trying to hide the religious nature of their legislation.  

Oh yeah, the realization.

Jesus never attempted to change the laws of Judea or Rome to match up with what he was preaching.

I'm of the opinion, influenced by the books of Dr. Bart Ehrman, that Jesus was a real, historical person. No, I don't believe that he worked miracles, or rose from the dead or ascended into "heaven", but that by reading the gospels without preconceptions, and applying principles that would be applied to any other historical figure, you can determine, with a reasonable degree of confidence, what the historical Jesus preached. He was what is called an apocalyptic prophet. That means that he was predicting that the end of the world was coming pretty damn soon. One strain of Jewish thought and belief at the time was that evil powers ran the show and that at some point God would intervene to set things right. This was not a predominant mindset throughout what Christians call the Old Testament, but was a way to explain a way the fact that the Jews, time and time again, were being defeated, enslaved and beat down. How to reconcile this with the triumphantist attitudes of the earlier books? Change the rules! Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels, was clearly within this apocalypticist tradition. 

Throughout the gospels Jesus is urging his followers to change their behavior, to modify their actions so that they might be worthy to be part of the soon-to-come Kingdom of God. There's a new administration coming to town and he's telling people what they need to do to be part of it. Individually. He's not trying to change society, he's not trying to remake the culture, because he doesn't think that there will be a society or a culture - God's going to tear it all down and build a new one. He's most definitely not lobbying to have laws changed, because the legal system will have been destroyed in the near future and replaced with a heavenly regime. Even the post-ascension preaching of the apostles is focused on individual repentance and not societal change. 

Eventually, when Christians gained control of the levers of power in the Roman Empire, and eventually the kingdoms of Europe, Christianity, or at least it's outward expression, was imposed on society, but I doubt a convincing argument can be made that the conversion by the sword, or the mass conversions because the king said so, are what Jesus had in mind. 

In today's United States, there are millions of Christians who strive to live their lives as they understand Jesus wants them to live, but there are also millions of Christians who support the forcible molding of society into the image of what they think Christianity is, or should be; and they have elected representatives to make it a reality. A significant number of Americans equate Christianity with patriotism and believe that it's the mission of government to turn us into a theocracy. 

Jesus would like a word.

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Follow Up - Part IX - Could I Be Fooled Again?

I've been writing these "So, You Want to Join a Cult" blog posts since October 2020. I've documented my own journey from my first contact with The Way in 1978 to my exit from the cult in 2001. Here's the first installment . I've done a few follow ups, covering how a cult recruits and keeps members. Today I'll be musing on the question of whether I would have been sucked in had it been 2018 instead of 1978 when I was approached by The Way.

If the culture, as well as the state of technology in 1978 been what it is now, would I still have been convinced to become a cult member? What-ifs are "iffy" things, you never really know what you would have done if circumstances had been different, nor do you know what the cascading effects of your actions had been if you had chosen differently. But one of the main differences between now and then is the widespread availability of information. Not that all the available information is accurate, but it's orders of magnitude easier to not only access information, but also to spread lies. In 1978 the internet was a science fiction dream, not to mention the possibility of everyone holding a powerful computer in their pocket being outlandish fantasy. What would my teenage self have done if the internet and smart phones had existed in 1978? 

Me in 1978 was intensely curious not only about my own religion, but about other religions as well. Part of this was because I was bemused by the huge number of religions to choose from. In addition to Christianity, the faith I was raised in, but there was Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and others I was only dimly aware of. And not only that, besides Catholicism, which I was taught was "The" church, there was a number of Protestant Churches. (I naively thought that the Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Baptist churches in my neighborhood were the extent of it) I visited the churches of the other Christian denominations in my neighborhood and read all that I could about other religious traditions. It didn't lead me anywhere. It wasn't until I met people from The Way that anyone so much as suggested that firm answers could be found. Since no one else was making any kind of case for determining truth, I defaulted to the only people I knew who at least attempted. But what if resources available on the internet had been at my fingertips? Hard to say.

The vast pools of information would have definitely given me more options. A deep dive into Catholic theology may have served to convince me that truth could be found there, or the labyrinthine and evolving arguments on the nature of Jesus could have convinced me that it was all double-talk. Educating myself on theology would have likely inoculated me against the facile and simplistic descriptions of what Catholics and mainstream Protestants believed peddled by The Way. It's almost impossible to speculate what direction I would have gone in spiritually, but with virtually unlimited options, I doubt that I would have settled for joining one little group that claimed to have all the answers. 

Another question is easier to answer. When accusations of being a cult first surfaced in the late seventies, the information was scant. Newspaper articles by disgruntled ex-Way people or Christian pastors copied over and over so you could barely read the print were the main source of anti-cult information. I was never swayed by the information that I saw, mainly because it bore little resemblance to what I saw in my interactions with other Way people. Church centered people often threw the "cult" label around based mainly on doctrinal differences. I was far from convinced, and the attacks strengthened my resolve, kind of like a martyr. But in 2001, when Wayworld was roiled by accusations of sexual coercion and corruption in the lofty ranks of Way leadership the internet was available. It wasn't just people who objected to The Way's nonstandard theology or misrepresentations of fairly innocent situations, this time it was internet posts by people currently in The Way who shared very plausible stories that were consistent across wide parts of the country. People compared notes and researched Way beliefs and the background of The Way's founder. This information helped solidify my reasons for getting out. The problems that could with little effort be swept under the rug in 1978 were revealed in the bright light of day in 2001. 

The internet is not an unalloyed positive though. Millions of people have gotten caught up in outlandish beliefs based on unsupported and twisted information on the World Wide Web. Would I have become a wearer of the metaphorical tinfoil hat if all of this was available in 1978? Impossible to say. I can say that the one thing that my involvement in The Way and my escape from it have made me a skeptic. One of the positive aspects of the methods that The Way used to indoctrinate was by undermining the authority of what they called "denominational Christianity" (as if they weren't themselves a denomination). Naturally this was done in order to bolster their own credibility, but in most cases the contradictions in mainstream Christian doctrine and the misunderstandings of what was written in the Bible were correct. The Way substituted unquestioned beliefs in their doctrine instead, but for most of us, the tendency to question and "research" was too ingrained. It proved their undoing. Once I was no longer involved in cult life I found that not only was I no longer interested in being a "joiner", and I was skeptical of any dogmatically stated opinions, no matter whether it was religion, politics or any other category. 

Would I have gotten involved specifically in The Way if the internet had existed in 1978? Would I get fooled again? probably not in that way, but I'm not so egotistical to think I'm so much smarter than the rest of society that I wouldn't have fallen for something. After all, I would still have been a naïve teen, searching for answers. The 1978 Tom hadn't seen or experienced everything that the 2023 Tom has.

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Follow Up - Part VIII - Insidious Leadership Influences

I've been writing these "So, You Want to Join a Cult" blog posts since October 2020. I've documented my own journey from my first contact with The Way in 1978 to my exit from the cult in 2001. Here's the first installment . I've done a few follow ups, covering how a cult recruits and keeps members. Today, I'll take some time to look at how cult thinking influenced one area of my life: management. 

One of the core tenets of most cults, and The Way International was no exception, is that the leader is not to be questioned. This, of course applies primarily to a cult's "supreme leader", but it also applies to anyone down the line in any kind of leadership role - local or state leader, or parent. The presumed infallibility of any subsidiary leader is subordinated to the levels of leadership above him, but is considered sacrosanct within his area of responsibility. So much so, that even when a leader is shown to be wrong, or even kicked out of The Way, that leader's previous decisions are considered to be blessed by God and not subject to questioning by the peons. Shortly before I left The Way Craig Martindale, the Way's President, was forced out following legal action against him involving coerced sex with a follower. My thinking, and the thinking of many Way followers at the time, was that Martindale obviously did not have God's Word foremost in his mind - how could we trust the doctrine in the extensive series of classes that he had been putting together if he thought it was okay to cheat on his wife? His class series, The Way of Abundance and Power contained many novel takes on The Bible that many were unsure of, but the remaining leadership assured us that what he taught was still valid due to some mystical connection due to him being the "Man of God" at the time. 

Leadership style was also something that set a terrible example to those of us who had less lofty leadership roles. Martindale's style was yelling. His style could also involve name-calling and insulting those who weren't on board 100%. Think Donald Trump, but spouting Bible verses. This leadership template made its way down the ladder to local leadership, who also got their points across with unyielding bluster and yes, yelling. Even the ones who didn't yell, were inflexibly dogmatic in their approach. These were my examples of how to be a godly leader.

In my work life I gravitated toward management roles - managing people and operations was something I was good at. Each year The Way put on a conference called God's Word in Business and Profession. In its early iterations it had sessions geared toward specific businesses and gave guidance on how to apply Biblical principles at work, and gave the opportunity to meet with people in the same line of work. Eventually it became just another "teaching" event, with nothing specific to business or profession. But I would attend these conferences and soak up the example of what being a leader meant and became a bit of a yeller myself. 

During most of my time in The Way in the nineties (after having been out during the eighties) I worked for the Omaha World-Herald newspaper as a Circulation Manager, but in 1999 I changed companies to become a manager with B&R Stores a local grocery chain at one of their Super Savers. With the World-Herald my management was mostly at a distance, but at Super Saver there was much more face-to-face management. In my management series I talk about different types of managers, but in retrospect I was definitely a bad one. In Managers Part-III - Sources of Power I cover the ways managers can assert their influence over subordinates. I relied upon what is called "Legitimate Power", which is simply the authority that comes with the title, rather than any personal charisma. I was swayed by my Way experience to think all it took was the title and the implied authority that came with it. In a cult like The Way that was all it took; if you're claiming that the title as bestowed by God, then anyone arguing with the cult leader was arguing with God. 

This isn't to say that there aren't managers out there who don't have cult backgrounds but are nonetheless dictatorial in their leadership style, I've worked for a few of them in my time. In my case it was the cult influence that molded me into the type of manager who expected unquestioning obedience and who yelled when I didn't get it. Fortunately I had several bosses who recognized my potential and took the time to show me how my approach was suboptimum. They gave me constructive feedback regarding my style and how it was perceived. By this time I was out of The Way and was open to different ways of doing things. By the time the company decided to rotate all the Assistant Store Directors (my position at the time) to different stores, I had rehabilitated my reputation and was viewed as a straight-talker, and was very direct, but a manager who coached and developed younger employees and managers. 

As part of my new approach I was far from a pushover. I still had employees who viewed any type of correction as getting "yelled at", and I was not at all patient with employees who persisted in arguing about everything. However, instead of yelling, or demanding blind obedience, my goal was to teach employees why they had to do things. 

We're all products of our environment, nature and nurture, and my environment for decades was a religious cult, which couldn't help by affect my outlook on life, but once out, I was willing to make changes and put it behind me. 

Weather Magic

I'm defining "weather magic" as any method, by supernatural (aka magical) means of changing or affecting the weather. If you don't believe in magic, or even the possibility of affecting nature through prayer or appeal to deities, this isn't a discussion for you. 

I'm going to look at weather magic from two perspectives, the practical and the ethical, and finally, discuss alternatives. I will be assuming, for the sake of this discussion, that nature can, in theory, be manipulated, either by the magical ability of an individual, or by intervention by supernatural beings. 

Weather in general, and storms in particular, are complex things that do not exist or function in a vacuum, nor is weather in one region isolated from that of other regions. Everything affects everything else. We've all heard of the Butterfly Effect, which postulates that the flapping of one butterfly's wings  has cumulative effects that can cause a hurricane on the other side of the world. A bit overly simplistic, but true in principle. Therefore any weather manipulation is going to affect more than just the immediate vicinity. If you magically stop the rain that's ruining your picnic, where is that storm going to go? Will the intensity of the storm increase and cause unforeseen damage if it's moved? 

A typical storm has a lot of kinetic energy. See this encyclopedia article about the energy inherent in a storm. If you think that you have enough power to shift the incredible momentum inherent in a thunderstorm, why not try to nudge something smaller, like the path of your lawn sprinkler or the gentle breeze that's blowing a leaf across your driveway first? If you can't do that, you are out of your league when it comes to guaranteeing a sunny day for your softball game. 

The alternative to envisioning yourself as a powerful weather mage is to posit a god or goddess who has the power to do the weather shifting for you. Any deity so proposed can be as powerful as you want to imagine. There is no arbitrary upper limit to god power. An omnipotent pantheon dweller should be able to clear the skies, or water your crops, or melt the snow or whatever you else you might need. The energy of the storm is negligible for such an entity. But in this scenario we still run up against the reality that weather systems are global, not local and the storm has to go somewhere. 

Let's look at the ethics of magical (or divine) weather manipulation. Being that weather is global, stopping a tornado in your vicinity might mean that someone else gets it, or getting rain to water your crops if you're a farmer could result in someone else experiencing drought. What about if you really need the rain and you trust the deity of your choice to work it all out so that no one else gets hurt? I've addressed on a several occasions the ineffectiveness of prayer here, here, and here. You can follow those links, but they can be summarized as "prayer, i.e. the asking a deity to do or provide something, does not yield discernable results". So I guess we can theorize above the ethics of omnipotent being fixing the weather to your liking, but their track record is poor. 

I'm very much a disbeliever in the belief that things were "meant to be". That it's raining today because of some divine game plan that stopping the rain would interfere in. So my objection to weather manipulation magic, even if an individual or group would have the ability to work it, is that it's almost always self-centered and ignorant. Self-centered because it takes into account only one's own interests and ignorant due to a lack of knowledge of the wider effects of the changes wrought. If you're a magical practitioner, my current opinion is that the magic should be worked on oneself.

Look, I don't care if you're Aleister Crowley or Jesus in a boat on the Sea of Galilee you don't have the metaphysical watts to change climate, i.e. the changes that need to be made to reverse drought conditions or seasonal flooding. For most people it's the immediate weather circumstances, affecting them personally that offers a target for change. What if, instead of attempting to stop the rain from ruining your outdoor event after it's already on its way, you work on being aware (magically or otherwise) of what the weather will be like and plan based on what the weather will be rather than expecting the weather to change for you? Hone your thinking skills (magically or otherwise) to know what to do when dangerous weather comes to you. Magically increase your reaction time and eliminate distractions so that you can safely navigate that slick road during a storm. 

What more realistic? Magicking yourself  or the entire weather system of our planet?