Chambumo-ron Lectures & Discussion 1st March 2025 - Part 1/4

So this is our second gathering for a discourse on the Chambar Ron. There's been so much talk about B Jurong, and we're trying to meet the expectation of discussing it. I'm really looking forward to having William explain some thoughts and give us an opportunity to think more deeply about these things. Just to remind you, what does discourse mean? It is a verbal interchange of ideas. I don't just want to stand here and lecture to you, though I can if you want. Please feel free to stop, ask a question, make a statement, or express any disagreement. I'm not a lecturer; I'm a teacher, and that's what you do in a school. The worst thing is if a child doesn't ask a question because they don't understand something, which means they won't understand the rest of the lesson.

Going to try and explain a little bit of what's going on in the world now through this discourse on Chambar Ron. Just to remind you, the word 'discourse' means a formal and orderly expression of thought on a subject. I usually do extended thought, and I will also be talking a bit about language in concrete contexts. Since our last gathering in November, I've been thinking about various topics, including politics, science, and global issues. I often wish I would talk a little less, but fortunately, I have someone to discuss these ideas with every two weeks.

Recently, I came across a concept that I titled 'A Lie and a Myth and the Consequences.' This is from a book by Humphrey Carpenter, who wrote a biography about a group called The Inklings, which included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. On the evening of September 19, 1931, Lewis invited Tolkien to dine at Magdalen College, Oxford. After dinner, they strolled along Addison's Walk discussing the purpose of myth. At that time, Lewis, though a believer in God, could not understand the function of Christ in Christianity or the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection.

Lewis believed that myths are lies, even though they breathe through silver. He thought that Christian teachings about the crucifixion and resurrection were lies if they were myths. Tolkien, on the other hand, argued that while myths may contain errors, they also reflect a fragment of true light. He suggested that by naming things and describing them, we are inventing our own terms about them. In this sense, myths and parables can convey truth. For example, when we read fairy stories to children, they teach truths about life, even if they are not literally true.

Lewis, being a philosopher, thought that myths are false. However, Tolkien believed that we come from God and that the myths we create, despite their errors, can guide us toward the true harbor of understanding. The stories in Genesis, such as God creating the world in six days, convey truth through myth. Darwin's scientific discoveries about evolution align with the biblical account, suggesting that these myths contain splinters of truth about human nature. The story of Adam and Eve, for instance, may not be historically true in a literal sense, but it conveys essential truths about human nature and our relationship with God.

In exploring what goes wrong within human nature, we can identify the root causes of the problems we face in the world today. J.R.R. Tolkien laid the foundation of his philosophy in the inherent truth of mythology. The creed at the heart of the Silmarillion, of which The Lord of the Rings is a key part, reflects this belief. Anyone who has read the Silmarillion knows it is a vast work, with about forty chapters, two of which have been expanded into The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien, influenced by his experiences in the First World War, sought to create a myth for England. Thus, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were born, portraying the little English people living in their small world against the backdrop of a larger, more menacing one, akin to Mordor and the Soviet Union. Characters like Gandalf can be seen as representations of Christ, illustrating the deeper meanings behind these narratives.

C.S. Lewis, a contemporary of Tolkien, came to understand that the death and resurrection of Christ represent one true myth, the full and clear revelation to which all others point. Twelve days later, Lewis wrote to his friend Arthur Greaves, expressing his transition from merely believing in God to definitively believing in Christ and Christianity. His long discussions with Dyson and Tolkien significantly influenced this transformation. Lewis and Tolkien maintained a lifelong friendship and became founding members of a small group called the Inklings, which met regularly in Tolkien's rooms or over pints of ale at the Eagle and Child pub in Oxford. They would read excerpts from their works, including The Lord of the Rings and Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, such as The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the Cosmic Trilogy.

As a teenager, I read several of Lewis's books, including The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I also encountered Mere Christianity, which was pivotal in my understanding of his journey from atheism to belief in God, and ultimately, belief in Christ. Lewis became one of the most significant Christian apologists of the twentieth century, writing extraordinary books that conveyed profound truths through myth and story. One of the most interesting aspects of Mere Christianity is that it does not explicitly discuss the Trinity, leaving some ambiguity about Lewis's beliefs on the subject. Another notable work of his is The Great Divorce, a small but brilliant book that explores the spiritual world and what happens after death, illustrating the opportunities for redemption based on how one lives their life.

The Great Divorce presents its themes through myth, conveying deep truths in a more engaging manner than abstract theology. I find traditional theology somewhat tedious due to its abstract nature, which is why I prefer to teach through storytelling. Lewis's Pilgrim's Regress also chronicles his journey from atheism to the conclusion that God exists. He avoided the pitfalls of formal theology by sharing stories, which allowed him to convey complex principles without being accused of heresy. This approach highlights the power of narrative in expressing spiritual truths.

At the heart of Christianity lies a significant lie: the belief that the crucifixion was the will of God, allowing for salvation through the forgiveness and rebirth made possible by the blood of Jesus. This myth, based on a misunderstanding of Divine Principle, is one of the foundational lies of Christianity. Another lie is the concept of predestination, which suggests that the fall of Adam and Eve was part of God's plan to demonstrate His love through the crucifixion and resurrection of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. St. Augustine taught that the fall was God's will, arguing that without sin and suffering, there would be no opportunity for God to show His love and compassion. I often question why God waited 4,000 years to enact this plan, as there seems to be no satisfactory answer.

A third lie is the notion that the Jews rejected and murdered their Messiah. This belief underpins widespread anti-Semitism, including the Holocaust, with many viewing it as a punishment for the alleged rejection and killing of Jesus. The truth, as I believe Father discovered, is that the goal of Providence was to restore the fall, which should never have occurred. The fall was a grave error, and God's desire was for Adam and Eve to succeed, not to fall under Satan's dominion. The Israelites were meant to establish the Kingdom of God in Canaan, as outlined in the Old Testament. There is no expectation that the Messiah would be killed; rather, the prophets spoke of establishing God's kingdom.

Jesus and His disciples sought to address the oppressive Roman occupation. Much of Jesus's teachings, particularly those delivered on the Mount of Beatitudes, were aimed at alleviating the suffering of the Jewish people under Roman rule. He understood that if the situation remained unresolved, the Jews would eventually rebel, leading to disaster. This indeed happened in 70 AD when the Romans crushed the Jewish rebellion, destroyed the temple, and took its gold back to Rome, funding monumental structures like the Coliseum. Jesus's message was fundamentally about establishing the Kingdom of God, promoting a world of peace and justice.

However, Jesus was misunderstood and arrested by the high priest, a Roman appointee, and found guilty by Pilate of attempting to incite a political uprising. He was executed as the King of the Jews, a charge that stemmed from political motivations rather than any true rebellion. This narrative diverges from Christian beliefs that suggest Jesus's crucifixion was part of God's divine plan for salvation. Some Christian interpretations claim that Jesus orchestrated events to ensure His crucifixion, including arranging for Judas to betray Him. This perspective raises troubling questions about the nature of God and the truth of Jesus's mission.

The early Jewish followers of Jesus faced immense pressure to shift the blame for His crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews. This led to the creation of narratives, such as Pilate washing his hands of responsibility, which were fabricated to absolve Roman authorities. Modern scholars, including Steven Patterson and Helen Bond, have pointed out that there is no historical evidence for the custom of releasing a prisoner during Passover, suggesting that these accounts were invented to shift blame. The consequences of these myths have been dire, resulting in 1,600 years of anti-Judaism culminating in the Holocaust. The Jewish followers of Jesus believed that by transferring blame, they could protect themselves from persecution, but this only perpetuated a cycle of violence and misunderstanding.

The importance of truth cannot be overstated. The Old Testament records the mistakes of its patriarchs without whitewashing their failures. From Adam and Eve to Abraham, Isaac, and Moses, the Bible does not shy away from the flaws of its key figures. This transparency is a crucial aspect of the Hebrew Bible, which serves as a reminder that acknowledging our mistakes is essential for understanding our spiritual journey.

Nothing's been whitewashed. If you read the histories of many countries, they whitewash things. We have to think about our own spiritual community: are we creating a myth or are we whitewashing stuff? This is something I learned when I was at university—historical revisionism. I never thought about it too much at the time, but then it just occurred to me to look it up. That's what was going on here when the Gospels were written; it's historical revisionism. It's not an accurate record of what really happened. They changed it. One form of historical revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments. Revision in this fashion can include denial or distortion of the historical record. For example, the Romans occupied the Holy Land. Is there any mention of the Romans in the Gospels other than Pilate washing his hands? The story of Lazarus doesn't involve a Roman. The Centurion is a different case, but is there anything in there about the terrible things they did, the taxation, the oppression, all the violence and horrible stuff that went on? Nothing about the historical record. If you want to know what really went on, you have to read real history books. None of it's in the Gospels. Why not? It's a myth; it's based upon lies.

What Jesus is doing here is trying to help the Jews deal with the reality of a terrible Roman occupation. If someone goes out shopping to get some bread and suddenly bumps into Roman soldiers who demand that he carry their luggage for a mile, how do you think that Jew feels? Happy or unhappy? Unhappy, of course. He would walk with a scowl, full of resentment, counting every single pace. When he got to the last one, he would drop it on the ground and say, 'I'm going back.' If he is feeling more angry and resentful, how does he feel about the Romans? Unhappy and resentful. How do you think the Roman soldier looks at the Jew when he sees this resentment? With contempt. The relationship between the Jews and Romans deteriorated partly because of how the Romans treated the Jews and also due to the Jews' natural reaction to this oppression.

There were many incidents of oppression. For instance, the Romans imposed heavy taxes on a village that would have bankrupted it. The villagers refused to pay, and the Romans arrested every single person in that village and sold them into slavery to pay the taxes. This was the harsh reality of the political, social, and economic situation at the time, and that was what Jesus was trying to address. One way to deal with it was to tell people they had to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. The Romans were the enemy. Jesus said you have to love God with all your heart, but also love your neighbour as yourself, and not just your neighbour, but your enemies as well.

So, if this poor man who went out to buy bread is stopped by a Roman soldier who tells him to carry his luggage for a mile, Jesus said he should love his enemies and pray for those who persecute him. Instead of walking along grumpily, he could engage the soldier in conversation. 'Where have you just arrived from? Has the train come on time? Where do you come from? Tell me about it. Are you married? Do you have kids?' If he starts to take an interest in this Roman soldier, who is essentially a bully, the soldier might begin to open up. After the mile, the Jew might say, 'I have a bit of time on my hands today; I'll carry your luggage for another mile.' This could change the dynamic between them.

The Roman soldier would likely respect this Jew more. He might think, 'I wish I had someone like this as a friend. Nobody takes that much interest in me.' At the end of the two miles, the Jew could offer to say a prayer for the soldier. The soldier might appreciate that gesture. This is how Jesus taught that love and engagement could change the relationship between the Romans and the Jews. What Jesus was teaching was a political philosophy to deal with a political reality and problem at that time. It wasn't abstract; it was relevant to the reality of the Roman occupation and how they were treated.

Historically, the Romans occupied Israel around 60 BC. Before that, Israel was an ally of Rome, and there were records of diplomatic communications. However, the Romans eventually became occupiers. Before the Romans, there were the Greeks, the Babylonians, and the Assyrians. During the time of the Assyrians, Israel was still an ally to Rome. The Romans were not as ruthless in their early days; they were more democratic. The original story of Rome traces back to the fall of Troy, and the Trojans who escaped built Rome. This was long after Moses and the Israelites entered Canaan.

The idea that carrying the soldier's bag another mile would change their minds is questionable. Occupiers are often ruthless, and Jesus wanted to find a way to change how the Romans treated the Jews. Otherwise, it would lead to disaster. There was another empire to the east, the Parthian Empire, which was known for allowing more religious freedom and decentralised governance compared to the Romans, who had complete political authority. The Romans appointed King Herod and had a procreator like Pilate. The Parthians, on the other hand, allowed nations to rule themselves. Israel was independent at one point, having liberated itself from the Greeks, but they invited the Romans in to solve their internal problems, which turned out to be a big mistake.

There was a lot of trade between Israel and Rome, and many Jews settled in Rome later on. However, when the Romans tried to exterminate the Jews, it was primarily in the Holy Land, not in other parts of the Roman Empire. The Jews continued to live undisturbed elsewhere. Personally, I believe it was a disaster for the Romans to occupy Israel, and it was a mistake for the Jews to invite them in. If one must be part of an empire, it would be better to be part of the Parthian Empire. Each empire had a very different history and consequences. For example, you find a British Commonwealth, but you don't find a German, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, or Italian Commonwealth. This historical revisionism is significant because when the Gospels were written, the harsh treatment by the Romans was left out to avoid creating a bad image for Christians, which could have led to even more persecution.

Historical revisionism involves denial or distortion of the historical record, including distrust of genuine documents or records, or editing and inventing facts to draw predetermined conclusions. It's well acknowledged by New Testament scholars that the Gospels are not biographies of Jesus. They contain theology, and what's recorded fits with their theology that the crucifixion was God's will. The Gospels reference many Old Testament Hebrew prophecies, framing Jesus' life story to align with those prophecies, especially regarding the crucifixion and resurrection. The Jewish culture was also influenced by African culture due to their time in Egypt, but the Judaic view was more democratic, allowing individuals to form their own relationship with God. The abolition of slavery began in Leviticus, and some ideas may have originated from Abraham. The stories of Adam and Eve and the creation of the world came from Babylonian and Canaanite myths, and the Jews picked up various influences during their time in Egypt and Babylon.

They're not Revelations anyway; it's a different topic. As I said, they invented facts, like the pilot washing his hands. That was an invented fact, and it took a long time before Christian scholars were willing to recognise that because they all believed this is scripture, this is revelation. But actually, these are just accounts written by the authors and editors of the Gospels to describe Jesus in a particular kind of way. Now, they're going through these things and asking, is this really what happened? These predetermined conclusions fit with the myth. This type of historical revisionism can present a reinterpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record, which is the moral meaning of the crucifixion being reinterpreted. Negationists use the term revisionism to portray their efforts as legitimate historical inquiry, especially when revisionism relates to Holocaust denial. There are people who say the Holocaust never took place; it's all fabrication, all made up, because they don't want to deal with the reality.

What I think was going on when the Gospels were written was historical revisionism, and you end up with this myth. The crucifixion and resurrection are part of God's will. However, I came to a completely different analysis of this story: it was not God's will; it was a terrible mistake that should never have happened. This was completely shocking for Christians, which is why Christians can't believe it. I wonder why it is so difficult for Christians to accept the principal understanding of the life of Jesus. I remember that I grew up in the Church of England, and the whole liturgy of the service every Sunday is to receive communion. The whole liturgy is about how that was the purpose for which Jesus came, so he could be crucified and we could receive forgiveness of sin through the shedding of blood. Then we can take the blood in with the bread and the wine, and that's how we can receive forgiveness of sin and salvation. The whole liturgy is there so that from the day people are born, they start to inherit that.

This is again something that made me feel uncomfortable when I was reading 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe'. The lion, Aslan, was killed on the altar and then came back to life. I could never figure that out. I read a lot of C.S. Lewis, and he said the reason why he told that story in the way he did—with Aslan being put to death by the White Witch and then coming back to life—was that it was very difficult for children like himself to understand the crucifixion and the resurrection. A, it really happened, and B, it was God's will. That was his difficulty as a child. So he said, okay, I'm going to write 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' so that children can enjoy this story. It's a myth because it's a story, but when they come across it in the New Testament, they will easily believe it. That's why he wrote it. It's interesting how these things work.

Now, will you choose a moment to make a coffee? I can because I've reached the end of this particular bit. The next bit is going back to this. Let's have a break. Thank you, Chris. Now, how long is the break? How many? Twenty, thirty minutes? How long do you want the break for? Twenty minutes? Thirty minutes? It's ten past eleven now. Okay, so we'll have a break until... for the sake of people online, we'll reconvene around about 11:30. Be patient with us; we might not be exactly on time.