But more especially, how explain Williamson's apparent rejection of the most obvious teachings of A Course in Miracles, which she has championed for decades?
Here's what I mean. According to A Course in Miracles:
- Its teachings are basically Christian mysticism that finds the root of all problems in a skewed relationship with God - or Source, the Ground of Being, the Great Spirit, the Tao, Brahmin, Allah, Life, Cosmic Consciousness, etc.
- That mysticism also reveals that "America" is not an exceptional nation. (Or as Ms. Williamson is fond of putting it "No one is special, and everyone is special.")
- Instead, all of us are living in a pseudo-reality reminiscent of Plato's Cave, where prisoners mistake shadows manipulated by their keepers for reality far removed from the real world.
- Consequently, what the dominant culture accepts as "reality" is actually 180 degrees opposite the Truth.
- Its upside-down "reality" is rooted in fear, greed, dishonesty, and violence.
- This means that while the prevailing culture would blame our problems on others (like Russia), the Truth is that we (the United States) are 100% responsible for our own "conundrums."
- Facing and correcting our own behavior are necessary first steps in solving any dilemma or conflict.
- Such inventory and rectification reveal that no one is attacking us. Instead, we are the attackers.
- Recognizing all of this is the key to peace.
- It embodies the miraculous in the ACIM sense of "a radical transformation of consciousness."
Now, imagine if Marianne Williamson' presidential campaign emphasized those ten points. It certainly would get attention. It would separate Williamson from the homogenized gaggle of candidates. It would raise the essential questions that no one dares raise. It would mark Ms. Williamson as a true leader worth following.
What I'm saying here is that unless Williamson finds the courage to go for broke by embracing the principles that she has taught for so many years and by identifying as The Peace Candidate, she'll be lost in the shuffle. She'll be ridiculed and dismissed once again.
Yeshua Goes for Broke
Today's Gospel reading presents Jesus as setting an example Marianne Williamson would do well to follow. By resolving to take a leading part in a Passover demonstration against Jewish cooperation with imperial Rome, Yeshua risks it all.
Think about it.
Today's reading finds the young construction worker from Nazareth on his way to Jerusalem, where he knows something extremely risky is about to happen. Yet he's determined to be part of it. The risky action has to do with the temple and opposing the collaboration of its leaders with the Roman Empire.
The temple has become worse than irrelevant to the situation of Yeshua's people living under Roman oppression. What happens there not only ignores Jewish political reality. The temple leadership has become the most important Jewish ally of the oppressing power. And Jesus has decided to address that intolerable situation despite inevitable risks of failure.
Everyone knows that a big demonstration against the Romans is planned in Jerusalem for the weekend of Passover. There'll be chanting mobs. The slogans are already set. "Hosanna, hosanna, in the highest" will be one chant. Another will be "Hosanna to the Son of David!" "Hosanna" is the key word here. It means "save us!" (The Romans won't notice that the real meaning is "Save us from the Romans." "Restore an independent Israel - like David's kingdom!") It was all very political.
Yeshua has heard that one of the main organizers of the demonstration is the guerrilla Zealot called Barabbas. Barabbas doesn't call what's planned a "demonstration." He prefers the term "The Uprising" or "the Insurrection" (Mk. 15:6-8).
Barabbas has a following as enthusiastic as that of Yeshua. After all, Barabbas is a "sicarius" - a guerrilla whose solemn mission is to assassinate Roman soldiers and their Jewish collaborators. His courage has made him a hero to the crowds. (Scripture scholar, John Dominic Crossan compares him to the Mel Gibson character in "The Patriot.")
Yeshua's assigned part in the demonstration will be to attack the Temple and symbolically destroy it. He plans to enter the building with his friends and disrupt business as usual. They'll all loudly denounce the moneychangers whose business exploits the poor. They'll turn over their tables.
As a proponent of nonviolence, Yeshua and his band are thinking not in Barabbas' terms of "uprising," but of forcing God's hand to bring in the Lord's "Kingdom" to replace Roman domination. Passover, the Jewish holiday of national independence could not be a more appropriate time for the planned demonstration. Yeshua is thinking in terms of "Exodus," Israel's founding act of rebellion.
And yet, this peasant from Galilee is troubled by it all. What if the plan doesn't work and God's Kingdom doesn't dawn this Passover? What if the Romans succeed in doing what they've always done in response to uprisings and demonstrations? Pilate's standing order to deal with lower class disturbances is simply to arrest everyone involved and crucify them all as terrorists. Why would it be different this time?
So before setting out for Jerusalem, Yeshua takes his three closest friends and ascends a mountain for a long night of prayer. He's seeking reassurance before the single most important act of his life. As usual, Peter, James and John soon fall fast asleep. True to form they are uncomprehending and dull.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
