Assessing the A Course in Miracles (ACIM) with the Historical Jesus liberal methodology and the "seven pillars of scholarly wisdom" employed by the Jesus Seminar

"Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you"

The Five Gospels, p. 5 

I'm a critic of the Jesus Seminar, and my comments about it may be seen in some of the articles about the historical Jesus published in this blog.

In this post, I'm not going to criticize the Jesus Seminar, but simply to apply the same liberal methodology, specifically the explicit working assumptions which the Jesus Seminar uses in assesing the 1st century Gospels, to the 20th century source known as A Course In Miracles (ACIM).

The purpose of this post is not to offend anybody, but to contribute to intellectual honesty in the study of the historical Jesus, providing examples of how wishful thinking, prejudices and methodological inconsistency is a serious problem for the searching of the truth, in this case regarding the Historical Jesus. Perhaps it will be an eye-opener to some...

In page 2 and following of the book The Five Gospels, the editors of the Jesus Seminar discuss what they consider to be the "Seven Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom", namely:

1-The distinction between the Historical Jesus, to be discoveried by historical investigation, and the Christ of faith which is part of the Christian creeds. (This distinction seems to be subtly question-begging, since it seems to assume that the Jesus of history is not the same Jesus of "faith". But how the hell do you know that in advance? After all, perhaps after you investigate carefully the evidence, you could find that the Jesus of history coincides with the so-called Jesus of faith... if it is the case or not, it is precisely what need to be investigated! However, charitably, we must to understand the Seminar' distinction as a purely methodological one, not implying any prior conclusion whatsoever.)

2-The priority of the synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), which are closer to the historical Jesus, and the Gospel of John which poses a "spiritual" Jesus. (Note the implication: The "spiritual" Jesus "later" view and hence is not historical)

3-The recognition that Mark is prior to Matthew and Luke, and that both of these sources used Mark.

4-The identification of as an early "Q" as a common source of Mathew And Luke.

5-The view of an "eschatological Jesus" (that is a Jesus who spoke about Final Judgment and God's future intervention) is fictional. Jesus was a mere teller of stories and parables, not a eschatological prophet.

6-The contrast between oral culture and print culture (like our).

7-The assumption that the Gospels are not historical until proven historical. (=The Gospels are historically guilty until proven innocent. Let's call this the "uncharitable principle" of historicity).

Assessing the A Course in Miracles (ACIM) with the "7 pillars of scholarly wisdom" of the Jesus Seminar

In this analysis, we're going to employ exactly the same scholarly "pillars" of the Jesus Seminar, but this time applied exclusively to ACIM.

Let's begin from the last pillar to the first one:

7-The assumption that the ACIM is not historical until proven historical (=the uncharitable principle of historicity).

The Jesus Seminar operates on the uncharitable assumption that the Gospels are not historical until proven historical by the criteria of authenticity. Therefore, if some tradition about Jesus don't pass such criteria, it is assumed to be non-historical = fictional = later invention put back in Jesus'lips.

But what would happen if you apply exactly the same "pillar" to ACIM? What would you get?

Exactly, what historical evidence, which pass some methodological criteria of the Seminar, does exist for the claim that 20th century psychologist Helen Schucman's "inner voice" was Jesus himself (the same person of the historical Jesus studied by the Jesus Seminar) and not other spiritual entity, interdimensional or extraterrestial being or simply (more consistent with the Jesus Seminar skeptical and atheistic naturalism)  Schucman's imagination?

There is absolutely not evidence at all that Schucman's "inner voice" was the voice of Jesus himself.

Moreover, there are exist other 20th century paranormal sources which claim to come from Jesus and which provide information incompatible with ACIM. Hence, any defense of the reliability of ACIM has to explain why the other competing and conflicting 20th century sources of Jesus are false or unreliable.

Therefore, on the consistent application of the Jesus Seminar's 7th pillar (uncharitable principle), we have to conclude that ACIM doesn't contain any factual teaching coming from Jesus and it is purely fictional.

Unless the ACIM can be proven as coming from Jesus, the uncharitable principle requires to conclude that such extremely late source is false and unreliable.

6-The contrast between oral culture and print culture (like ours).

This pillars don't seem to be very much relevant, except for the fact that the ACIM was written in a print culture. However, the source of information for such writting was (supposedly) a spiritual being which provided no evidence of its existence, or claimed identity, and who appeared as a purely subjective "inner voice", and not as an objective, historically verifiable Jesus (see pillar 2). 

 
5-The realization that an "eschatological Jesus" (that is a Jesus who spoke about the "end of the world", and the events connected with it, like the Final Judgment and other things happening on the last days) is fictional. Jesus was a mere teller of stories, aphorisms and parables, not a eschatological teacher.

A Course in Miracles contains putative Jesus' teachings about the Last Judgment. In fact, an entire section of the ACIM is entitled "The Meaning of the Last Judgment".

Consider this teaching:

The Last Judgment is one of the most threatening ideas in your thinking.  This is because you do not understand it.  Judgment is not an attribute of God.  It was brought into being only after the separation, when it became one of the many learning devices to be built into the overall plan.  Just as the separation occurred over millions of years, the Last Judgment will extend over a similarly long period, and perhaps an even longer one.  Its length can, however, be greatly shortened by miracles, the device for shortening but not abolishing time.  If a sufficient number become truly miracle-minded, this shortening process can be virtually immeasurable.  It is essential, however, that you free yourself from fear quickly, because you must emerge from the conflict if you are to bring peace to other minds.  The Last Judgment is generally thought of as a procedure undertaken by God.  Actually it will be undertaken by my brothers with my help.  It is a final healing rather than a meting out of punishment, however much you may think that punishment is deserved.  Punishment is a concept totally opposed to right-mindedness, and the aim of the Last Judgment is to restore right-mindedness to you.  The Last Judgment might be called a process of right evaluation.  It simply means that everyone will finally come to understand what is worthy and what is not. (A Course in Miracles, chapter 2, The Separation and the Atonement)

Note very carefully that the ACIM's Jesus doesn't deny the existence of the Last Judgment, it only changes its meaning. ACIM explicitly asserts the Last Judgment existence and even uses the same exact Chrsitian theology words ("Last Judgment"). The whole passage of above is a ratification that the Last Judgment exists, even if its meaning is wholly different than the one commonly thought.

By the way, in the Gospels, the phrase "Last Judgment" is, as far I know, never put in Jesus' lips!. However, ACIM put in Jesus' lips precisely such expression. (In this point, at least regarding the uses of such Christian terminology, the ACIM's Jesus seems to be more Christian theology influenced than the Gospels' Jesus).

How could a supporter of ACIM agree with the Jesus Seminar's skepticism about Jesus uttering such eschatological  teachings and expressions, and at the same time to give credibility to the ACIM's Jesus who, explicitly, uses the Christian phrase "Last Judgment"?

If according to the Jesus Seminar, the historical Jesus was absolutely non-eschatological and never thought nor taught anything explicit about the Last Judgment (whatever could such expression mean), why exactly we find the ACIM's Jesus using exactly the same theological expression and asserting its future, actual existence and even mode of operation?

If the Jesus Seminar were right that Jesus never thought anything about the Last Judgment, then why the ACIM's Jesus didn't mention that, clarifying explicitly that Christians put in his mouth such expression which he never uttered, instead of explicitly asserting, ratificating and trying to re-interpret what the expression Last Judgment means?

Again, the consistent application of the Jesus Seminar's non-eschatological Jesus as a pillar of scholarly wisdom implies that the ACIM's Jesus teachings which use eschatological expressions like the Last Judgment (even if devoid of any eschatological meaning) are fictional, false and contrary to the wisdom of scholars.

Note: The Jesus Seminar argues that Jesus was a mere teller of stories, aphorisms and parables. But if you read carefully the ACIM's Jesus, you will find that he almost never uses parables or aphorisms as particular modes of expression. On the contrary, such ACIM's Jesus enjoys providing categorical and dogmatic statements and long explanations about psychological, emotional and spiritual benefits of the new meanings and new interpretations of biblical expressions found in ACIM (biblical expressions which, according to the Jesus Seminar, Jesus never uttered!).

For any unbiased reader, it is clear that the Jesus Seminar's Jesus is a different person than the Jesus of ACIM, and that the ACIM's Jesus only have in common with the Seminar's Jesus the rejection of the Christian theology connected with Jesus (despite of ACIM's consistent use of the Christian theological expressions).

4-The identification of as an early "Q" as a common source of Mathew And Luke.

The Jesus Seminar accepts the hypothetical source "Q" as an early and reliable source of information about Jesus, and the traditions which don't belong to "Q" are seen as later, more unreliable traditions, specially if they pose more advanced theological concepts.

Now, consider this teaching in ACIM put in Jesus' lips:

The Son of God is part of the Holy Trinity, but the Trinity Itself is One. There is no confusion within Its Levels, because They are of one Mind and one Will.  This single purpose creates perfect integration and establishes the peace of God.  Yet this vision can be perceived only by the truly innocent 

Would the Jesus Seminar accept such teaching and expressions like "The Son of God" and the "Holy Trinity", as coming from the historical Jesus, if it were recorded in John's Gospel, or even in Mark, or even in Q? Obviously not.

But then why the hell a person who agree with the Jesus Seminar should accept such teaching as factual and coming from Jesus, when it comes from the extremely later, 20th century source like ACIM?

This grotesque double standard is unacceptable for any objective researcher about the life, teachings and identity of Jesus.This is a kind of slape to the face of serious researchers.

But let's that pass. From the perspective of the "pillars" mentioned by the Seminar, we have to note:

1-ACIM's Jesus teachings about the "Trinity" (and the expression "Holy Trinity") don't appear in Q. In fact, the expression "Holy Trinity" doesn't appear in any Gospel as something coming from Jesus' lips.

But ACIM puts such expression in Jesus himself.

2-If such expression doesn't appear in Q and doesn't pass any criterion of authenticity, then according to the Jesus Seminar, such teaching is fictional and false (remember pillar 7).

Therefore, in addition to the overall unreliaibility of the ACIM (due to the application of pillar 7), we have in this case additional specific reasons to reject ACIM's teaching about the Holy Trinity.

Again, the consistent application of the Jesus Seminar methodology is seriosuly damaging and destructive to the credibility of ACIM.

3-The recognition that Mark is prior to Matthew and Luke, and that both of these sources used Mark.

The topic of "priority" is very important to the Jesus Seminar. So, "Q" is seen as very early and hence reliable and John's Gospel as very later, and hence unreliable, even when all of such sources come from the 1st century.

Applying such view about "priority" and "reliaibility", what is the logical conclusion about the reliaibility of ACIM, which comes extremely late, namely in the 20th century?

From the "priority" perspective alone, is ACIM reliable?

2-The priority of the synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), which are closer to the historical Jesus, and the Gospel of John which poses a "spiritual" Jesus. (Note the implication: The "spiritual" Jesus is not historical)

Note the Jesus Seminar's subtle implication that a "spiritual" Jesus is later and therefore not historical.

With that "pillar" in mind, consider the fact that the whole of ACIM was given through a spiritual channel, namely, the mental channeling received by Helen Schucman in the form of an "inner voice"!

The reliability of ACIM depends necessarily on the falsehood of the above "scholarly pillar", since the whole of ACIM assumes Jesus' post-mortem survival and the actual existence of spiritual ways of communication from post-mortem people to earthly people (e.g. channeling). In other words, the whole ACIM's Jesus is not just extremely late (20th century), but it is also a SPIRITUAL JESUS in the strongest sense of the word.

But then, how could a supporter of ACIM to agree with the Seminar's skepticism about certain Jesus traditions (e.g. in John), based upon the pillar Nº 2, and at the same time to skip entirely such pillar when giving credibility to ACIM?

The egregious double standard becomes evident in this case too.

The Seminar largely rejects the Jesus of John's Gospel because it is too "spiritual" and later than the synoptics. On parity of reasoning, the whole ACIM should be rejected too, since it is spiritual and (extremely) late too.

If the supporter of ACIM claims to reject such pillar, then John's Gospel traditions cannot be dismissed anymore on such restriction.

Methodological consistency works both ways, but some people agree with the Seminar and ACIM not for methodological reasons, but for ideological reasons.

1-The distinction between the Historical Jesus, to be discoveried by historical investigation, and the Jesus of Helen Schucman which is part of ACIM

Since historical evidence (even the truncated one accepted by the Seminar) about Jesus exists, and since there is not evidence that ACIM came from Jesus, the Seminar's distinction seems to apply perfectly in this case.

The Jesus of history is one. Helen Schucman's Jesus is another one.

Additional inconsistencies between the Seminar's Jesus and ACIM's Jesus

Consider this teaching, put in Jesus' lips, in ACIM:

"No man cometh unto the Father but by me" does not mean that I am in any way separate or different from you except in time, and time does not really exist.  The statement is more

meaningful in terms of a vertical rather than a horizontal axis.  You stand below me and I stand below God.  In the process of "rising up," I am higher because without me the distance between God and man would be too great for you to encompass.  I bridge the distance as an elder brother to you on the one hand, and as a Son of God on the other.  My devotion to my brothers has placed me in charge of the Sonship, which I render complete because I share it.  This may appear to contradict the statement "I and my Father are one," but there are two parts to the statement in recognition that the Father is greater.

And consider this another passage in ACIM (found in Lesson 61, which is titled I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD):

I am the light of the world. That is my only function.  That is why I am here.

These passages (specially the sentences and expresions in blue) are astonishing, since ACIM ratifies the authenticity of traditions and expressions coming Jesus which the Jesus Seminar claims that Jesus never said and were put in his mouth by the evangelists.

Note that the ACIM' Jesus even defends the expression "I and my Father are one" (found in John 10:29-30) from the charge of contradiction, claiming that such contradiction is only apparent, and that the statement has two parts in recognition that the Father is greater!.

However, according to the Jesus Seminar (p.10): 

The words attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are the creation of the evangelist for the most part, and reflect the developed language of John’s Christian community.

In this interview, liberal scholar Marcus Borg comments:

The first is that Lewis’ statement depends upon accepting John’s gospel as a historically factual account of how Jesus spoke: “I am the light of the world,” “Whoever has seen me has seen God,” “I and the Father are one.” Most mainstream scholars today would say that Jesus never made those claims for himself, that they are the post-Easter testimony or witness of the early church, and when one no longer thinks of Jesus making those claims for himself, then Lewis’ argument evaporates.

Now, if "mainstream scholars" say that Jesus NEVER made those claims, then why the hell the ACIM's Jesus ratifies precisely such claims, expand their meaning and even defends them from the charge of contradiction?

If Borg were right, is not the ACIM evaporated together with Lewis' argument?

If tradition A is found in John, and such tradition is false, then if ACIM repeats the same tradition, it follows that ACIM is providing a false information.

This is what methodological consistency demands. You cannot applaud the Seminar when it is denying the historicity of the Christological expressions of Jesus, but then agree when the ACIM's Jesus when it repeats exactly (and with the same words) the same expressions.

This is simply unworthy of serious people.

 Conclusions

 Obviously, the Jesus of the Seminar is NOT the same Jesus of ACIM. There are serious inconsistencies between what "mainstream scholars" claim that Jesus said and much of what ACIM puts in Jesus' lips.

The reason why some people sympathetic to ACIM (and other sources about the historical Jesus) are sympathetic to the Jesus Seminar is because they find in such liberal portraits a view of Jesus that they find palatable (i.e. a non-Christian view of Jesus). Moreover, since such views are defended by some "scholars", they appear to them to be serious and reliable conclusions about Jesus.

But when you examine carefully the methodology being employed, you will discover the reality behind such "conclusions".

Supporters of ACIM who agree with the Jesus Seminar don't do it for consistent methodological reasons. Methodological consistency has nothing to do with it.

As shown in this post, methodological consistency with the Jesus Seminar's "pillars" would be extremely destructive to ACIM, so they're forced to appeal to a DOUBLE STANDARD according to which the ACIM is saved from the extremely skeptical methodology of the Seminar.

Some of the "conclusions" of the Jesus Seminar are straightforwardly incompatible with some of the contents in ACIM, since the former denies the historicity of Jesus' words which the ACIM ratifies as authentic and even expand their meanings.

The reason behind such egregious inconsistency is psychological, ideological (and, if Jesus' teachings as recorded in the Gospels were theologically true, spiritual too).

Psychological, because in a deeper level, these people don't want a Jesus like the one portrayed in the Gospels. Such view of Jesus produces strong feelings of fear and guilty (specially, according to my personal observation, such feelings become intense regarding Jesus' references to the "hell" and rejection from God's kingdom), that they find repulsive and hence false (=emotional criterion of truth).

Ideological, because the psychological point above tends to cause a rationalization (in the intellectual level) in which anti-Christian versions of Jesus are seen more sympathetically, specially if they come from "scholars". This causes the double standards, which are necessary for such self-deluding rationalizations.

In future posts, I'll discuss specific cases of the Jesus Seminar's uses of the criteria of authenticity, its rejection of specific traditions, more inconsistences between the Jesus Seminar and ACIM and how the information of ACIM stands on the consistent application of such criteria.