The value of THE TRUTH, or "Was Jesus Married?"

The following is adapted from a recent assignment in seminary. The professor used an actual event from his own life to ask us to examine and put into words our own faith in response to such a situation.

Spiritual Reflection #2

By Alison Longstaff

For TH680 A

October 26th , 2012

The Scenario

     Maria and Susan have been colleagues for 10 years. They know each other very well and often enjoy their conversations while working at the Air Canada Check‐In counter at Pearson International Airport. Maria is from the Philippines and Susan from a small town in southwestern Ontario. They like to talk about current affairs. It is two o’clock in the afternoon when I arrive at their counter to check in for my flight.
       “So where are you headed?” asked Maria.
       “To a conference,” I responded.
       “Oh, that must be interesting. What do you do?” Maria continued.
       “I teach at a theological school,” I said. “It is a theological conference.”

With absolutely no one behind me and no one at Susan’s counter, Maria went on, “Really, that is interesting. We were just talking about Karen King; you know the one that found this old document that said Jesus was married.”
      “Oh yes,” I said, “I read about that in the newspaper.”
       Maria said, “She went running off to the press with all that stuff before she checked it out. Remember the St. James’ Ossuary (Burial Box)? It was a fake in the end. The Vatican sayes this document is a forgery too. I am a lifelong Catholic. I know what I believe, but Susan says ‘What does it matter?’ So you’re a theologian. What do you think?”

Here is my response for the professor, grade TBD.

     The question of whether Jesus was married or not typically threatens a long-held and well-established point of faith for many. It is possible that for one or both of these women the deeper question might be, “If ‘the church’ (the Vatican, the Pope, authorities through the ages, their own trusted ministers, etc) has been wrong about this all these years, what else have they been wrong about?” Looked at this way, my response could threaten the spiritual foundations of anyone still reliant on an official outside authority to define what they should believe (as opposed to their own personal, internalized synthesis of faith). That is, of course, if they didn't dismiss me out of hand, as I am neither a Catholic, nor even a man. The very fact that this original scenario was encountered by a mature, Anglo-Saxon male with a beard already changes the significance of how my response will be weighted by the questioners.

      Nevertheless, this situation calls me to examine how I view my role in relation to such casual yet deeply significant questions. I will likely never see these women again, and it is not my desire in any way to undermine their need to believe what they already believe. My heart desire is to support people in formulating their own faith in intelligent, conscious, and well-informed ways, and not simply to impose my understanding on them. While on the one hand I want to give them a response that invites them to continue to deepen their faith intelligently, on the other hand I do not want to so challenge their faith that they are thrown into crisis.

      Therefore, as I look into the eyes of these women, I must ask myself this: What is the most pastoral response that I can give, knowing that I am seen as a “religious authority figure,” and specifically not wanting my answer to stir up contention between them or precipitate a crisis of faith in the questioners?

Foundations

      My natural teaching style is to lead any student to their own understanding by reflecting a question back to them in a respectful and inviting way. A person’s own attempt to articulate what he or she believes helps them understand and integrate their own beliefs more deeply. I wish to show respect for both Susan and Maria’s faith traditions --- to do no violence to either one’s sacred beliefs while being yet true to my own tradition and formulation.

      Further, I am Swedenborgian and a psych undergrad. For me, spiritual and psychological development is entwined and inseparable. James Fowler’s stages of faith development shapes my pastoral response to these women. Fowler’s findings echo statements in Swedenborg’s own material, written over two-hundred years earlier.[1] If I could know for certain where each woman was in her spiritual journey, I could shape my response accordingly. But I cannot.

         In terms of my own doctrinal integrity in addressing the significance of whether Jesus was married or not, my tradition has two points that speak to this. First is the teaching that Sacred Scripture holds a continuous deep inner meaning. [2] This belief frees me from worrying about any literal accuracy, as the integrity and value lies in the inner meaning, not the letter. What may or may not be historically accurate is a curiousity to me, but in no way threatens the foundations of my faith. Secondly, Swedenborg promotes throughout his theology that marriage is a metaphor for the spiritually evolved or “regenerated” human. Marriage represents the inner union within a person’s psyche of intellect and heart, or true integrity---the intellect is suffused with a deep sense of love and connectedness with the rest of humanity, while the heart is steered toward useful service by the intellect. Jesus being “married” makes absolute sense to me through the lens of this metaphor. On the other hand, it has been in God’s providence so far that we have primarily believed that Jesus was unmarried. I trust God’s leadership and timing, and the detail of Jesus’ marital status is not significant to me.

             Finally, I also believe strongly that what we believe is not as important as how we live. This is also supported in Swedenborg.[3] Looking this way at the effect of my beliefs on my living was brought home to me during a lively debate with friends a few years ago. The question was whether or not hell was eternal. After debating back and forth within this group one dear friend said at last, “All I know is that believing that God gives us as long as we need to get straightened out, instead of us having to get it right in our short time on earth makes me a kinder, gentler human being.”

That one statement revolutionized the way I go about examining my beliefs. When my core value is the Golden Rule, the question, “In what way does this belief affect how I treat my neighbour?” is of more value to me than whether it is the “perfect truth.” Swedenborg would say that any truth that is not softened and informed by love ceases to be true anyway, no matter how accurate it is.[4]

I will leave it there. My response would be pastoral according to what and how these women responded to me. I would invite these women to tell me more about their beliefs, and I would respond further according to the tensions and unmet needs I might sense within their answers. For my part, it isn't about what is “THE TRUTH.” It is about what these two souls need from me to be more peaceful, more fulfilled, and more wisely loving. That is my job in this encounter, and that is all.

---

[1] Swedenborg describes at least four stages of faith or “regeneration” loosely paralleling Fowler’s six stages, in Arcana Coelestia (henceforth cited as AC) §3603:3

[2] This is most succinctly described in Swedenborg’s De Verbo, §1 and following.

[3] Swedenborg promotes “charity” or loving-kindness first.  Kindness without wisdom still comes from the heart, whereas faith not lived in acts of service is seen as dead. AC §7884 and AC §1100

[4] Beliefs not informed by love actually slay loving-kindness as Cain slew Abel. AC §369

 References

Fowler, James W. (1981). Stages of faith : the psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Swedenborg, E. (1983). Arcana Coelestia (J. Elliot Trans.). London, England: Swedenborg Society. (1748).

Swedenborg, E. (1934). De Verbo (J. Chadwick Trans.). London, England: Swedenborg Society. (1762).

A Note About Page Numbers in citations from Swedenborg Text citations from Swedenborg=s material do not refer to page numbers but to passage or paragraph numbers.  This numbering system is used consistently throughout all his editions. Citations may include Name of Publication as Translated, date the translation came to print, name of the translator from the Latin, and the passage number preceded by the symbol §.