THE VISIONS OF THE APOSTLE PAUL AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITION
REFICIATION
Reification refers to the projecting of the contents of a subjective exper- ience to some sort of external existence, such that these contents are con- sidered to have an objective, independent existence ‘out there’. It is to transfer something subjectively perceived and imagined into something that has an independent, concrete, objective existence. In spirituality it is a danger that we have to be constantly aware of. With the reification of an experience there arises a whole raft of burden of proof: If we say something like, for example, an angel, exists ‘out there’ then it is quite right that people ask should ask for proof, for evidence of it’s objective existence and it is reasonable for people to want to observe, measure and have such proof or evidence for the existence of this angel. However, not all mystics or those who have spiritual experiences claim such objectivity to their perceptions and experiences – they do not all insist that their ex- periences have an objective, independent existence ‘out there’. The Hindu teacher Shankara, for example, argued that such notions of ob- jectivity are a mere projection on our part and that the contents of these experiences have no substance.
REIFICATION AND THE JUDEO/CHRISTIAN TRADITION
However, reification is the tradition within early Judaic/Christian thought. Thus, if a person had some sort of unusual, subjective experi- ence whereby they had an unusual, transcendent experience whereby they saw, let us say, an angel, then this experience became interpreted as being an objective occurrence – it was considered that an angel literally appeared to them in objectively real, physical space ‘out there’ and com- municated to them - as opposed to any idea of the person concerned having an internal, subjective image and sound arising in their minds. When Jewish people in the Old and New Testaments had unusual dreams or had visions or heard voices, the tradition was that they were often understood as objective visitations. The Judaic tradition did not merely say ‘I had an unusual dream’ or ‘I had an ecstatic experience whereby I went into a trance and heard a voice or saw certain images’. On the contrary, their traditional interpretation of such experiences was to reify the contents of these experiences to concrete objective reality. Thus, they would say: ‘God appeared and spoke to me in a dream’, or ‘When I was praying the Temple, an Angel appeared to me and gave me a command from God’ and so on.
REFICIATION AND TRANSCENDENT EXPERIENCE
Indeed, it must be said that some mystical or transcendent spiritual experiences do appear very Real. This is because when we experience them, we operate in a different and non-usual mode of awareness. Normally, we are active in the way that we interpret our experiences and perceptions of the world – we actively categorise, conceptualise, label, systematise, synthesise and place values on our experiences in order to make sense of our world so that we can make effective predictions concerning outcomes and thus function and survive in the world. This means that to a great degree our experiences and perceptions are mediated through our conceptual, linguistic and value categories that we have created throughout our life – we assimilate experiences through a hierarchical web of meaning and value. Mystical experiences however are often described as Immediate or Non-meditated, and we are often Passive rather than active such that we feel that they are Received rather than actively created by us. Transcendent spiritual experiences, whether arising spontaneously, or through the practice of meditation or through the taking of drugs, tend to various degrees, to by-pass our usual, active- rational mode of being and functioning. Indeed, the taking of drugs or the practice of meditation or contemplative prayer serves to quieten and subdue our active-rational mind. It is this temporary bypassing of the active/rational mode that gives the sense of Directness, Immediacy and Transcendence and thus the contents of such experiences appear very Real and True.
REIFICATION AND ASSURANCE
The cultural tradition that the contents of such unusual experiences have an objective existence ‘out there’, when taken together with the Im- mediacy, Directness and sense of Truth and Reality of this non-usual mode of being, can produce a very great certainty, assurance and confid- ence and may on later reflection lead to deep theological insights. It is common with mystical experience that afterwards, the powers and func- tions of the rational mind are brought to bear on it in order to evaluate and understand it. Such an insightful doctrinal scheme together with the confidence with which it is held may well carry on in those that become followers or advocates of the person who had the original experience and indeed, a new form of religious orthodoxy may well be established as a result.
PAUL AND THE DAMASCUS ROAD EXPERIENCE
I suggest that this exactly what happened with the disciples and the Apostle Paul after the death of Jesus. Their culture and tradition did not incline them to say: ‘I had a vision, dream or subjective experience where it seemed to me that I saw Jesus risen from the dead’. Rather, their tradition and culture inclined them to say: ‘The risen Jesus appeared to me in a dream or vision – therefore, he is literally alive and risen from the dead! I know that that this is true because Jesus has appeared not only to me but to others as well!’ Paul, after his Damascus Road experience, went into effectual retreat for a number of years during which time he had more immediate experiences, the contents of which informed and shaped the theology which he established and formulated in the light of his experiences, background and culture. He avoided communicating with the disciples of Jesus for quite some time, eventually meeting with them to verify his understanding and become an associate with them. It is this theology that dominates the New Testament literature and also makes up its oldest texts, written about 18 – 20 years after the death of Je- sus. Three of the gospels, though seemingly based on an older narrative of the life of Jesus, were not to be written for another thirty or forty years. The fourth Gospel attributed to John is written last of all and takes a more mystical strand.
Returning to the Apostle Paul, the writer of the Gospel attributed to Luke, potentially an associate of Paul, gives three accounts of Paul’s Damascus Road experience in the book of Acts in Chapters 9, 22 and 26. They stand together reasonably well in agreement:
Saul as he was then known, was a strict traditional Jew – a Pharisee, one skilled in Judaic law, and he was ardently and obsessively opposed to this disruptive and upstart sect of Christianity that had emerged with- in Judaism. Saul went around issuing murderous threats and persecuting Christians, arresting them and having them put to death, approving for example of the stoning of Stephen. He went from synagogue to synagogue preaching against them, having them punished and forcing them to blaspheme. He obtained letters of authority from the High Priest to give authority for his actions and he even went to foreign cities to hunt Christians down.
It was on one such journey, to Damascus, that about noon, a bright light in the sky blazed around Saul and his companions and they fell down. Saul heard a voice in Aramaic saying:
“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Saul asked: Who are you, Lord?”
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” the voice replied. “Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do.”
The men travelling with Saul were speechless; they saw the light and they heard the sound but did not see anyone and they did not under- stand the sound.
Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So Saul’s companions led him by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded him. He was blind for three days and did not eat or drink anything. Eventually Saul’s sight was restored by Ananias. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among the Christians there?” Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by showing from Scripture that Jesus is the Messiah.
Saul then seems to return to Jerusalem and while praying in the temple there fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking:
‘Quick! Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’
“‘Lord,’ he replied, ‘these people know that I went from one syn- agogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’
Then the Lord said, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ ”
In his letter to the Galatians, Paul gives us his own account of what followed:
‘The gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. You have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how in- tensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally un- known to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me. Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favouritism—they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.
Now I am not qualified to comment on Saul’s state of mind as he persecuted the early Christians and indeed after all these centuries, any such assessment can only be speculative. Luke seems to quote Saul himself in the strong descriptions of his obsessive opposition to Christianity. Certainly, on the Damascus Road, something external happened – a flash of very bright light from the sky that one way or another seemed to blind Saul for three days – they all seemed to see this light and they all heard a sound – but only Saul made sense of this sound in terms of a voice speaking to him. This puts some considerable doubt on the external objectivity of this voice – though perhaps not on the fact that there was a sound – because only Saul heard it in this way. Typically and consistent with his Jewish tradition, this whole episode was reified into an external appearance and communication from Jesus. That Saul was the one most affected may say more about his mental and emotional state at this time than about the nature of any of these external events. Saul certainly seemed to have a predisposition to trances and ecstatic experiences, be- cause on his return to Jerusalem, he has another trance experience, re- ified again as God speaking to him and telling him to leave Jerusalem. According to his letter to the Galatians, he relied on further visions and trances, because he says quite plainly – ‘…the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ’…that is, in and through a set of reified experiences. It was quite a few years before he actually met the disciples in order to verify his message. The gospel that he preached was approved of by the Jewish disciples in Jerusalem and he was regarded as one sent to the Gentiles or non-Jews, just as Peter had been sent to the Jews – both of them declaring Jesus as the Messiah.
This reified view is how these events are presented to us in the narratives – as though some external event occurred – as though Jesus literally appeared in the objective external space ‘out there’- in front of the disciples or Saul, just as if you or I might stand in front of someone. Thus we read that Jesus appeared to hundreds of followers following his death. It does not read that hundreds of followers had subjective impressions in their minds concerning Jesus. This second interpretation also sounds far less impressive in terms of any miraculous event. This way of presenting these events in the New Testament narrative – that Jesus actu- ally and objectively appeared – often gives further weight and bias in our own interpretation of these events, a bias towards an objective event occurring instead of a subjective one, thus reinforcing and continuing the more miraculous-sounding reified view. I am not suggesting in any way that the disciples or the Apostle Paul for example were in any way duplicitous or dishonest in this. I consider that this is the traditional, cultural way of interpreting these kinds of events for those within Judaism. I think that Paul firmly believed that he had met with Jesus on the Damascus Road, not in terms of a subjective experience, but in terms of an objective encounter. In the light of this understanding of the experience and in the light of Paul’s cultural background and learning in Judaism, he applied his Pharisaic Judaic theology and extended it to accommodate this new situation and the Pauline theology of Justification by Faith emerged as a result. What Paul considered to be the objective appearance of Jesus after his death on the cross was accommodated and assimilated within Paul’s Judaic understanding as a Pharisee, which in turn, was extended and developed to what we know as the predominant New Testament theology, since the bulk of the New Testament is either written by the Apostle Paul or by his close followers or assistants – though there still re- main in some writings – in the Gospel of John in particular – a more mystical interpretation.
By the time that what we now know as New Testament accounts were put in writing, anything between twenty to seventy years had passed since the death of Jesus – and more and more fantastic stories and claims about him were being made. The view of Jesus changed from him being an influential itinerant preacher and healer to being the Word of God In- carnate, born of a virgin, resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven, surrounded in his earthly life with miracles and extraordinary powers. This was becoming the new orthodoxy and soon, those holding alternative interpretations and views, such as the Gnostics, would be classed as heretics and systematic attempts to burn and destroy their writings and silence their teachers and advocates would follow. In the end, only a few documents would make it into the canon, or rule of faith known as the New Testament and these would those documents thought have been written by first-hand witnesses of the resurrection – namely some of the disciples and Paul. Through this sort of process, the reified view held by Paul and the disciples, gained almost total supremacy as the orthodox Christian view.
If we consider that Paul and the disciples were mistaken in taking a reified view of these experiences, then we end up with a much more subjective spirituality – a spirituality of it’s time in the sense that we could say that God met Saul just where he was – full of anger and venom concerning Christianity – and led him to deeper insights using the forms, symbols, types and figures that he was trained and educated in. Instead of opposing Jesus, he embraced Jesus – but still accommodated Jesus within his Judaic tradition. Paul did not stop being a Jew – he came to see that to be a Christian was to be a True Jew – not to be one circumcised outwardly only, but rather, inwardly, in the heart. He did not leave his Jewish heritage but extended and applied it to accommodate Jesus as the Promised Messiah.
THE ASSIMILATION OF TRANSCENDENT EXPERIENCE
This is true for all of us – God meets us where we are – and though there may be some radical change in our understanding and insight as a result of a mystical or transcendent spiritual experience - there usually also remains a continuum and extension of what we have learned. We absorb the insights gained according to our capacity. Sometimes our existing system of faith may become more established, more firmly held, with a deeper conviction. Sometimes we may appear to take on novel and new interpretations that make those of an orthodox persuasion feel uncomfortable – or make them feel that in some way we are becoming unorthodox or heretical. Nevertheless, sometimes, we may even change our belief system, say by moving from Christianity to Islamic Sufism or to Hinduism. In this present age of trans-cultural global knowledge via the Internet and so on, such outcomes as these may be more common. But whatever theological scheme seems best suited to our experience our cognitive scheme is nevertheless a delimited and bounded form that ultimately cannot embrace the Formless Infinite.
But the worst thing that we can do with regard to transcendent, mystical experience is to reify the contents of the experience as Paul and the disciples did, because then the contents are presented to others as objective facts. I have already said that this then results in a burden of proof being laid upon those who follow such reified ideas. A fine ex- ample is the six-day creation story in Genesis. This is not necessarily an example of reification, but it is a passage that can be read metaphorically or literally – as though it were a series of objective facts. When this pas- sage is read literally, as though it were an objective series of facts, then people naturally look for evidence to substantiate the narrative. Thus we have had more than one archaeologist claiming to find evidence for a worldwide flood in Noah’s time, only to be subsequently proved wrong. In the same way we have the Creation Research groups who constantly seek to show scientific evidence for a young earth and a literal six-day creation. Arguments and debates like these can soon become burden- some and distracting to true spirituality. A similar process and similar set of problems arise when we reify the content of a transcendent experience. But in addition to this, reification also brings in the danger of ultra- orthodoxy. Since the contents of the transcendent experience are por- trayed as actually happening ‘out-there’ then these events become en- shrined as THE objective truth. Paul in particular constantly refers to the fact that he and others were witnesses of the resurrection (via his reified understanding of the Damascus Road experience and others like it) and that he had received teaching from God and in turn had faithfully declared to others what he had received. These followers in turn, must re- main faithful to this teaching, received it is believed through a literal, concrete, objective appearance of Jesus. Thus to deviate from this teach- ing and tradition is to fall into error, or worse still, to hold to ideas that are false and deceitful. Those who persistently hold on to such erroneous ideas may be classed as guilty slanderers who hold forth a lie – as heretics who deserve to be cast out in case their deceit and lies corrupt the true disciples and lead them astray. Before long the leaders of the church itself persecute them, with bishops ordering that their studies and written works should be burned. The end result of this imposition of orthodoxy – of one belief and practice – are of course organisations such as the Spanish Inquisition, or events like the Crusades and witch hunts. There is little room in theologies arising from reified experiences for tolerance, the use of metaphor, or for mutually existing but different theologies. At stake, in Christian terms at least, is an eternity in a literal heaven or hell.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIANITY
If we acknowledge that these experiences are subjective rather than a perception of objective phenomena, then the whole view changes. For a start, in the example we have been considering, we see this very much as Saul’s personal spirituality – an individual having a transcendent experience that is interpreted within his own personal world-view. When we compare the Apostle’s teaching with that of Jesus and the Disciples – Paul adds to and enriches their theology with his own insights that he has gained through this subjective experience. But it is nevertheless a very powerful theology – as attested to by its prominence and survival down to this very day. It speaks to people’s needs and desires in many ways. But it is also a theology that is less and less tenable in the light of the scientific discoveries that have been made in the last century or so. Part of its power has been in the fact that many of the statements in Paul’s writings and in the Bible as a whole, could not be disproved or seriously questioned. But these days, in the light of our scientific discov- eries, it is difficult to hold to the six-day creation story in Genesis for ex- ample. The reified, supposed ‘facts’ of Genesis contradict and oppose discoveries made in geology, archaeology, astronomy and physics – and this has a knock on effect in Paul’s theology, as we shall see in a moment.
The Gnostics sought a more metaphorical view of ideas such as the resurrection – they thought in terms of Jesus being spiritually resurrected or raised from the dead and indeed, had a whole range of different metaphors referring for example to the creation. But early Christian teachers like the Apostle Paul criticised these teachings as phantasms and as mere empty imagination in contrast to the basis of his faith and practice which was based on what was for him a literal physical, objective occurrence – the bodily resurrection of Jesus, of which he, through his reified mystical experiences, was a witness. For Paul, his theology was not based in metaphors, symbols, figures, types and empty imagination, but in real, concrete, objective facts. But this theology of Paul’s integrates within it the entire Judaic system. Paul refers to characters such as Abraham and Moses to show how their lives and teaching foreshadowed the message that Paul is preaching. In his explanation of the Headship of Christ, Jesus is referred to as the Second Adam and Paul makes comparisons between the first Adam as the head of all humanity and Jesus as the Second Adam as the Head of all who have faith. Paul’s exposition seems to demand a literal view of the Genesis account: ‘Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin…if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!.’ [Romans 5 v 12, 15. My italics]. If we embrace Paul’s theology properly, then we are obliged to embrace his view of a literal Genesis account and much more of the Old Testament in a similarly literal fashion too.
But I have already said that the Judaic culture had a tradition of reifying transcendent experiences and indeed, the whole of the Old Testament mixes the reified content of such experiences with literal events such as battles, the reign of kings and the general history of Israel. This is why it is so difficult to take a metaphorical view when using the Bible as a spiritual guide: the writings of the Bible constantly bring us to what seem to be concrete, historical events, (however they are debated and interpreted by historians) – we have biographies, journeys, rivalries, love affairs, battles and wars, temples being built, people being taken into slavery and captivity and so on – all mixed in with the reified contents of transcendent experiences – so that amongst these events and narratives, we have the world created in six days, God appearing, Angels appearing, the devil deceiving, commandments written in stone by the finger of God, bushes burning without being consumed, the waters of a sea being parted, people wrestling with God and so on – all described as actual, objective events. And this is before we consider how these writings may have been written in such a way that myths and magic stories became added and infused into them for one reason or another. As soon as we try to adopt a metaphorical view of these Judeo/Christian narratives, we seem to be brought back down to the objective, everyday events within which these magical and metaphorical images are reified and embedded, making it difficult to take a purely symbolic and metaphorical interpreta- tion as the early Gnostics sought to do.
The embracing of these Judeo/Christian ideas and concepts is no longer a tenable option for me. Even as symbols and metaphors they just no longer work for me and I find that the Bible constantly draws me back into a more literal view which in turn generates a reified view of God – usually as ‘Big-Stern-Old-Man-in-the-sky’. But modern discoveries have also rendered many of these narratives as questionable in content and historical accuracy. Of course, this is not the case for many believers, who still sincerely hold to beliefs and loyalty with regard to their view of Jesus.
Where then can we go with this? Is there any way that we can find a spiritual path through these varying, conflicting, contradictory spiritual beliefs and loyalties without finding ourselves either intolerantly dismissing or condemning a whole swathe of sincere, spiritually minded people to the dustbin of heresy and hellfire? Can we make any sense of all this or do we have to consign all spirituality to the drawer marked
‘Irrelevant nonsense’?
FORMS OF THE FORMLESS
Some mystical traditions refer to the Divine Absolute as being Form- less – no form, concept or object can adequately encapsulate Divine Spirit. But, we are creatures of form – we have a bounded form ourselves by having a physical body, and we live in a material universe that is made up of different bounded forms. To try and relate to an Absolute Spirit that is Unmanifest and Formless is therefore actually quite difficult for us and though it is a spiritual path that is sometimes followed by a few, the formless, iconoclastic nature of such a path makes it seem very arid and dry indeed. We are creatures of form and used to relating to forms and concepts. Even within Christianity, there is a large section of the Christi- an community that makes use of altar pieces, paintings and statues of Jesus, angels, the virgin Mary and so on as objects and forms that assist worship by giving us some thing or form to focus on. In other Christian circles, the use of such statues and paintings is regarded as idolatry. Indeed, in the Old Testament, carved images of the Divine are forbidden because such forms cannot encapsulate the Divine and may even be seen as demeaning of the Divine Spirit. Of course, similarly in Islam, there is a prohibition on depicting Allah and even the prophet, for similar reasons. The Apostle Paul contrasts his own faith with that of idol worship, which on occasion greatly distressed him. He felt that such worshippers were giving adoration to lifeless blocks of wood and stone whereas in contrast, he served an objectively existing, living, resurrected Son of God as opposed to these lifeless carvings or mere figments of the imagination. Whatever our approach to such paintings and carvings, it is clear that we all tend to have some form or image before us when we worship. With