© 2002 Finlan
© 2002 The Urantia Book Fellowship
| Eugenics and The Urantia Book: Another Perspective | Volume 4, Number 1, 2002 (Summer) — Index | Faith Wiring in the Brain |
Matthew Block has opened up a new age in Urantia Book scholarship by his discovery and documentation of the use of human sources. In his most recent article (The Fellowship Herald, Summer 2001), he details how Weatherhead’s Jesus and Ourselves was used in the composition of “Instruction for Teachers and Believers.” [UB 159:3.1-14]
I have a term for what the midwayers have done in that section; I call it “mouthpiecing.” They have used a human author as the mouthpiece for a particular teaching session of Jesus. This differs from simply using an author for teaching purposes as in the Religion Papers, for instance. With mouthpiecing, the words of the human source are attributed to a historic character. We are forced to reassess what we understand the revelators to be doing. It seems that they are not giving us an English translation of the actual words of Jesus on that evening, but are reshaping the words of a known 20th-century author, using this author as a mouthpiece for that teaching.
If we take the revelatory claims of The Urantia Book seriously, we need to do some thorough assessment of what this means. A few initial observations are easy to make, and would be hard to dispute. Some further reflections that I will make are more open to argument. First of all, we must recognize that the human sources are made to become major contributors to the revelation; they are not just dipped into for a phrase here and there. Secondly, the use of these particular sources is not disguised but is highlighted, sometimes by utilizing chapter headings or quoting from the first page of a source hook. With Weatherhead, they make heavy use of pages 27 through 42. We were meant to discover these books.
In this article, I want to focus on what is involved in using a human source as a mouthpiece for a particular teaching session of Jesus’. I would like to offer three alternatives regarding the historicity of that session and how it is reported to us in The Urantia Book: (1) that session never happened; it is just a fabrication of The Urantia Book authors; (2) The Urantia Book’s reshaping of Weatherhead’s narrative really does capture the essence of Jesus’ teaching that evening; (3) The Urantia Book version conveys some points made by Jesus that night, along with a number of related ideas, one that Jesus communicated at other times in his career, as well as ideas gener ated by believers over the centuries, and finally, Weatherhead’s own development of the same ideas. I consider number 3 the most likely probability.
When truth is put into words, it is put into a succession. All truth, on the human level, is part of a truth-stream, a tradition. It may shock us to find out that the narrative of Part IV is not a direct translation of Jesus’ actual words, that it is a reinterpretation, or even a reshaping of a series of interpretations; but that seems to he God’s way. He always uses human conduits when it comes to communicating truth to humans. We may think of truth as “thought gems;” but is turns out that all these gems have been rolling along a streambed of tradition, getting their shine, their polish, from the human religionists whose lives they touched, and who then handed them on. Each truth-morsel is part of an age-old conversation.
All truth makes use of a truth-tradition. Jesus constantly interpreted Scripture, Scripture itself interpreted the old portions of Scripture, and Moses made use of the traditions of Melchizedek [UB 96:5.3]; Melchizedek based his commandments upon those of Eden and Dalamatia [UB 93:4.6]; and the Eden teachers restated the seven commandments of Dalamada. [UB 74:7.8] The revelators have plugged some new links into the “Scriptural” truth-chain, using 20th-century human authors to give voice to truths spoken by Jesus.
In the same way as they used Weatherhead, the midwayers used Henry Wieman as Rodan’s mouthpiece, as Matthew Block has reported. Once again, the same three choices are available: either Rodan is an invention of the authors, or their reshaping of Wieman’s hook is a faithful recounting of Rodan’s teaching, or it includes actual Rodanian expressions along with Wieman’s own 20th century equivalent of Rodan’s concerns. The interests of Rodan (the art of living, the effect of healthy values upon society, stable and progressive institutions) were also the interests of Wieman. If we can accept that there are such things as “creature-kinship serials” [UB 49:5.6], it should not be hard to imagine that a person may have the same truth-concerns, be “akin” to, someone who lived in the past.
Revelatory usage of tradents (people who hand on tradition) is nothing new. After all, Christians use the traditions handed on by Mark, Matthew/Isador, Luke, and John/Nathan for the words of Jesus; and The Urantia Book does so as well. The Bible is, by far, the most frequently-used of the human sources. The four canonical gospels are the main source books behind Part IV.
We need to go on and ask ourselves whether the revelatory mandate to utilize human mouthpieces means that the revelation incorporates any human distortions or biases (not a particular problem with Weatherhead, but maybe with some other sources). We know that Jesus trained Peter and John and sent them out to preach, even though he knew they would not get it exactly right. The gospels incorporate some fallible human material, and The Urantia Book apparently does, as well—but not when it concerns the personal attitude of God! In that case, the Divine Counselor speaks authoritatively, and in his own voice, in “Erroneous Ideas of God,” [UB 4:5] A Melchizedek does the same in the last section of Paper 98, “The Christian Religion,” as do the midwayers in “Meaning of the Death on the Cross,” at the end of Paper 188.
Nevertheless, it is a stunning discovery (to me, anyway) to find that the use of human tradents is so crucial, that it is considered acceptable to allow the revelation to be heavily colored by the viewpoints of the human sources. The revelatory have to use human mouthpieces: “The laws of revelation hamper us greatly…” [UB 101:4.1] This means that the revelation is flavored or slanted by some early 20th-century viewpoints, just as the gospel was flavored and slanted by first century viewpoints. But when it comes to things of primary importance, like the attitude of the Father, the authors are crystal clear and without distortion.
Still, it seems that Urantia Book readers need to have the experience that many Christians have had: realization of the fallibility of our scriptures: “…nothing which human nature has touched can be regarded as infallible.” [UB 159:4.8]
Truths tntot be restated or updated in order to be influential. Luther’s updating of Paul involved substantial distortion of Paul, reshaping Paul in Luther’s image; yet it was highly effective, and still shapes Protestant views about Paul. Similarly, Philo of Alexandria updated the message of Moses and made it accessible to many of his contemporaries, even though he hugely distorted Moses by making him sound like a Greek Stoic philosopher. Yet The Urantia Book repeatedly mentions Philo as an important teacher, barely taking notice of his distortions.
Of course, the original Moses is probably unrecoverable. The Hebrew texts attributed to Moses are themselves the product of tradition and accretion, and were written 400 to 600 years after Moses.
The Urantia Book actually draws attention to its updating process in an unprecedented way. For instance, in their restatement of the Urmia lectures (prefaced with the remark that they will he taking liberties), they actually have Jesus talk about “the American Federal Union”! [UB 134:5.13-15] Obviously, they are shouting at us: “look, we are allowed to add present-day thought to our narrative about ancient events.” The America reference is a red banner demanding that we rethink the way we understand this revelation. We need to recognize the process of updating and the role of tradition.
By utilizing authors like Weatherhead, The Urantia Book has salvaged a great liberal theological tradition that has since disappeared. By leaving their fingerprints on the human sources in such an obvious manner, the revelators have given a clear message to us: “Learn that truth is conveyed through tradition, learn to dive into tradition and taste the truth that is there, read these authors! Step into the truth-stream!”
…religious leaders are making a great mistake when they try to call modern man to spiritual battle with the trumpet blasts of the Middle Ages. Religion must provide itself with new and up-to-date slogans. [UB 195:6.10]
Do not overlook the value of the river of truth running down through the centuries, even to the barren times of a materialistic and secular age. [UB 195:9.1]
| Eugenics and The Urantia Book: Another Perspective | Volume 4, Number 1, 2002 (Summer) — Index | Faith Wiring in the Brain |