© 2000 Richard Bain
© 2000 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
Jesus once said, “…the truth never suffers from honest examination.” (UB 153:2.11)
Yes, it is a provocative title. Sometimes when people think of mythology, they think of the stories of the Greek gods and Homer’s epic tales, and they may equate such myths with fables. But it’s not necessarily so. We know the fable is a fictional story; a myth may or may not be factual. A fable may have a moral, but a myth is more inclusive and broader in scope. In the words of Rollo May, “A myth is a way of making sense in a senseless world. Myths are narrative patterns that give significance to our existence…myths give us our sense of personal identity… make possible our sense of community…undergird our moral values…mythology is our way of dealing with the inscrutable mystery of creation…” [1] Therefore, the point of the myth is not to give a set of facts, but rather to explain the phenomena in our lives and our world. Insofar as the myth is derived from facts, it is factual; but the value of the myth does not lie in its factuality, but rather in its utility in making sense of our lives. How does it do this?
A well-known myth is the story of Job in the Bible. We could argue endlessly about whether there really was a Job and the idea of God willingly afflicting Job to prove a point. The point of the story is that Job’s faith did not depend on the circumstances of his life. This was a valuable insight for the Jewish people, who were often conquered and frequently oppressed. Myths are a feature of most cultures. For example, almost all cultures have some sort of creation myth. But lest we think that myths are the sole province of only unsophisticated and prescientific peoples, consider the Big Bang theory. The ancients observed a volcano erupting and tried to figure out why; they came up with an anthropomorphic explanation. When a person becomes angry, he or she may explode in an angry outburst. Therefore, someone or something in that volcano is angry. How to stop the volcano? Give the volcano god something very valuable, such as someone’s child. Just as the ancients observed the volcano and formed a hypothesis, astronomers observed the heavens and fashioned a myth based on their observations. From their observations, astronomers have concluded that the universe is expanding. If we run the cosmic expansion film backwards, the Big Bang appears to start out as a point in space. Therefore, in the eyes of the astronomers, there was a “Big Bang” at the beginning of time that started the expansion of time and space. The astronomers believe so strongly in this scenario that anyone who tries to cast doubts on this theory may find it hard to get a job in astronomy or funding for research projects; they are sacrificed to the Big Bang god. Whether or not it’s true, the Big Bang myth provides an explanation for the universe and its expansion. It provides the framework The Urantia Book tells us we need to explain the universe. (UB 115:1.1)
Supposedly, the scientific method was used to generate the Big Bang theory, but it is nearly impossible to eliminate bias from such an enterprise. The scientist is supposed to be an impartial observer, but too often emotional involvement gets in the way of his or her objectivity. I am sure that when people in our Urantia community try to be impartial observers of our community and our mythology we suffer the same problem. How might an impartial observer see our mythology and us?
Let us imagine that an anthropologist from another inhabited planet came to study the cultures of our world. How would such an anthropologist view the Urantia community and its mythology, The Urantia Book? Would he or she see any difference between the Christian community and ours? We both have our holy books that give us a framework wherein we can interpret the world and the universe. Of course, those of us in the Urantia community would be quick to point out that the Christian Church is an organized religion with all the trappings of such a religion such as a priesthood, altars with candles, a stock market portfolio, etc, and, of course, the Urantia community isn’t a religion (yet). And we would be quick to point out that The Urantia Book, with a few minor exceptions, such as the Big Bang theory, integrates science and religion in a way that the Bible doesn’t. Certainly, the anthropologist would notice that the mythology of The Urantia Book is a much more complete picture of our universe and more in harmony with 20th century science than is the Bible. But just because the picture is more comprehensive, that doesn’t make it factually correct. If our anthropologist is a pragmatist, he or she might try to determine the efficacy of our mythology on the basis of how it affects our lives. If students of The Urantia Book have a superior philosophy, then they ought to lead superior lives. Do we? Are we more beneficial to humankind than a Christian or a Buddhist? Do we live more peaceably among ourselves? Perhaps our community is too young to judge based on these criteria. And it would be a mistake to assume that everyone in our community accepts all of The Urantia Book as a revelation, free from flaws. But even those who accept the book as a divine revelation may be forced to modify their idea of what revelation is, and therefore what The Urantia Book is.
Many of us have heard the story of the young Christian man or woman who goes off to college and becomes an atheist. We may shake our heads and ask ourselves, “What happened to their faith?” What we observe in this case is a sudden evolution of the person’s point of view due to expanded horizons. They may have believed what they were taught as children and never questioning it. But in college they are taught to question things. They hear exciting new ideas and points of view that are a revelation to them. They begin to see the narrowness of their childhood religion. They may view their previous naivete with distaste and resolve to reject the religion of childhood. But at some later time, they will often begin to experience a hunger to be a part of some sort of spiritual community, and may even begin to explore their religious roots. They may come back to the religious community of their childhood, but with reservations about the theology of that religion. I believe that this story of acceptance, rejection and reconsideration has some relevance to students of The Urantia Book.
One metaphor I have used previously to describe our relationship to the book is that of the falling-in-love phenomenon. Infatuation is often the first stage of our relationship. We see the beloved as flawless, because we have known them but a short time and know very little about them. After a few weeks or months, we are likely to enter into a new phase of the relationship. We may begin to notice a few annoying idiosyncrasies in our beloved. The relationship begins to lose some of its luster. But if we persist, and if we are able to love each other, warts and all, we may proceed to the next phase: engagement and marriage. After the marriage, the real work of having a good relationship begins. Idiosyncrasies that were just annoying may become maddening. After a few years, when we begin to know each other much better, we may decide that we made a mistake and decide to end the relationship. Or, we may be willing to compromise, accept each other’s limitations, and build a strong lifelong relationship. It seems to me that many of us pass through some similar phases in our relationship with the teachings of The Urantia Book. Some people neverget past the infatuation stage; they would be the last to admit that there are problems in the book. For some of us, the discovery of a few flaws in The Urantia Book may lead to a period of disillusionment; does this need to end by our rejecting the book? To answer this, perhaps we need to look at mythology: what it is, and what it is not. What should we expect from our mythology? Should we demand perfection in a quite imperfect world?
When Jesus told Pontius Pilate, “… everyone who loves the truth hears my voice,” Pilate replied, “Truth, what is truth — who knows?” (UB 185:3.5) As we look at areas in The Urantia Book that are a problem for us, we might well ask the same question, “What is truth?” When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan, was he telling a “true” story? Was this an incident that really happened? Many will protest that everyone knew that Jesus’ stories were parables, and everyone accepted that the stories were invented to illustrate a point, not to relate the facts of some incident.
Whether or not the story actually happened is irrelevant. The parable is just a vehicle to convey some truth even though the story may not be true in the literal sense. The same could be said about metaphors or Aesop’s fables. But what about the stories in the Old Testament? Many are told as if they are the recounting of an actual incident, yet they strain our credulity. Consider the story of Jonah and the whale. Some Christians accept that a large fish actually swallowed Jonah and spit him out on dry land; other Christians label the story a flight of fancy. But those who argue over the factuality of the story miss the whole point, which is that God forgave the people of Nineveh and spared them because they did heed Jonah’s call to repent. This was the truth of the story. In such cases, perhaps we should ask ourselves, “Which is more important, truth or fact?”
Truth often has a deeper dimension than fact. We have to deal with cold, hard facts, but it is the truth that sets us free. Facts are registered in our intellect, but truth rings in our hearts. Factuality is more a function of external objective reality; truth tends to be more of an inner and therefore subjective reality. Factuality is a knowing of the mind; truth is a knowing of the heart and soul.
Many of us who are long time students of The Urantia Book have found things in the book that we realize just aren’t so, facts that don’t fit in with our present knowledge, especially in the area of astronomy and science. But the authors did warn us that concepts in the book would need revision as our scientific knowledge advanced. I have heard it said that forewarned is forearmed. So perhaps we are not justified in being indignant when confronted with errors, considering that we were warned about such errors by the authors. But what about the non-cosmology areas? Should we expect that everything other than the cosmology and science is factual? Should we feel betrayed if it isn’t?
Truth often has a deeper dimension than fact. We have to deal with cold, hard facts, but it is the truth that sets us free. Facts are registered in our intellect, but truth rings in our hearts. Factuality is more a function of external objective reality; truth tends to be more of an inner and therefore subjective reality.
Consider the Rodan papers. I have read them many times and always found many concepts that resonated with me. It has a different flavor than the other Jesus papers, but it sounds like an authentic encounter. A while back, I began wondering if there were any historical records that mentioned Rodan. I asked people in the Urantia community about this, and no one knew of any such records. However, Matthew Block, intrepid investigator book, surprised me when he told me that he had found the human source of the concepts in the Rodan papers. I was a bit crestfallen. I remember picturing the Apostles and Rodan wrestling with the idea of God as a person and being gratified that the Apostles were able to convince Rodan that God is indeed a personal being. I decided to research the name “Rodan” on the Internet. The only origin I could find was that it first appeared as a surname in England several centuries ago. Matthew Block said that “Rodan” was the name the Hebrews gave to the Isle of Rhodes. Matthew said that he will present his findings on the Rodan papers in a forthcoming publication.
I remember a conversation with a fundamentalist Christian about the factuality of the Bible. I noted several suspicious things in the Old Testament. His response was something like this: If you disbelieve anything in the Bible, then you might as well throw it away because you can’t trust anything in it; I know there are a few folks in the Urantia community who feel the same about The Urantia Book.
So, why did the authors include the Rodan papers? I suspect there were certain ideas contained in the source work used in the Rodan papers that the authors felt weren’t covered elsewhere in the Jesus papers, so they inserted this information as a story. And after all, there were Greeks coming to see Jesus, and they certainly would have been familiar with Greek philosophy. Perhaps the Rodan papers give the story of the philosophical struggle these Greeks had in reconciling Greek philosophy with Jesus teachings. Should we feel annoyed that the authors didn’t give us a hint that Rodan might be a fictional character? Is this yet another “time bomb”?[2]
Surely, the authors knew that some time someone would research the matter, and find the actual source of the ideas in the Rodan papers. Considering that this is an incident not reported in the Bible, it stands out as something to be investigated. Also, where else in the Jesus Papers is there such a dialogue between the Apostles and one individual? But all this does not destroy the truth carried in the Rodan papers. The concepts are just as true whether Rodan existed or not. And the concepts are those of one of our fellow mortals. There are several thousand such inclusions in the Jesus papers, according to the acknowledgement on UB 121:8.12 of The Urantia Book. Now we can read the papers without wondering who really wrote them; we know the human source of much of the material in the book. Perhaps we should be grateful to the authors for rescuing these thoughts from the trash bin of time and giving them back to us.
The Urantia Book provides us with a mythology to live by; a mythology that gives satisfying answers to many of our serious questions about life here and hereafter. It provides a powerful vision of our potentials in this life and the next. Myths give us a sense of community, of belonging to something larger than ourselves, a sense of being connected to some group that has ideas and ideals in common. Our mythology can provide us with what I call a core purpose, as when Jesus told his apostles to go into all the world to spread the gospel, an admonition known as the Great Commission. For many of us, a core purpose for our lives is spreading the teachings of The Urantia Book to all of those who will receive them. The mythology of this book gives us a clearer vision of who we are and our relationship to God. Most of us in the community cannot conceive of life without The Urantia Book as a stabilizing force, a source of words of comfort in a sometimes unkind world. But, as we grow spiritually, I believe it is inevitable that we will begin to view the book in a different light.
Because The Urantia Book has such comprehensive answers to questions about life and death, it is a powerful mythology. While we may be mesmerized by its powerful truths, its power should be not to seduce our minds but to lead us to a closer relationship to God.
Liberal Christians have long since ceased to view the Bible as a history or science book. Perhaps we in the Urantia community need to adopt the same point of view about The Urantia Book. Liberal Christians long ago learned to winnow the wheat from the chaff as they study the Bible; do we have some things that belong on the threshing floor instead of in the grain bins? I believe it’s time to view the Fifth Epochal Revelation as a useful tool, as a series of guideposts on the eternal path rather than an infallible document.
Because The Urantia Book has such comprehensive answers to questions about life and death, it is a powerful mythology. While we may be mesmerized by its powerful truths, its power should be not to seduce our minds but to lead us to a closer relationship to God. We need to remind ourselves that The Urantia Book isn’t an end in itself. Rather it is the doorway to a larger reality: the “eternal adventure.” (UB 1:0.3)
Rollo May. The Cry for Myth. New York: Norton, 1991, Chapter One. ↩︎
“Time Bomb” is a concept I introduced in an article by the same name. Time bombs are concepts the authors included in The Urantia Book that are found to be incorrect or inaccurate as human knowledge and understanding expand. I theorized that the authors included such time bombs for us to discover, as time goes by, to counteract our human tendency to idolize so-called holy books. ↩︎