Fictions
of God, Facts of Men
I have believed
for a long time that The URANTIA Book is a work of literary art as well as a
work of religion, philosophy, and cosmology. The "Urantia movement"
has been understandably plagued in its youth by various forms of literalism
when interpreting the text of the book. (see page 1343).
In this statement
of purpose, it is significant that not
once does the secondary midwayer render any kind of priority to historical
realism, objectivity, or accuracy. Rather, he calls the papers a
"narrative" twice (definition: "the representation in art of an event or story"), and
says he intends "to restate the
teachings and retell the doings of
Jesus of Nazareth" (my emphasis). The midwayer is telling us several times
in this acknowledgment that he will be allowing himself wide narrative
parameters in his conveyance of the truth of Jesus' life and teachings, without
going so far as to say that his recounting will be ahistorical.
The author admits
to have "drawn freely upon all sources of record and planetary
information" - but to what end? He then forthrightly tells us what his
"ruling motive" is. Is it only to objectively tell us the historical
facts about Jesus' life? No - it is to
prepare "a record" (def.: "something that recalls or relates
past events") that will be helpful not only to this generation but to all
future generations through choosing what is "best suited" to that
purpose. The material to be included is assigned value not primarily due to its
objective historical veracity but because of how it will help illuminate the
ideas and ideals of the life and teachings of Jesus for many generations to
come. He then goes on to establish the mandated priority of sources: first
human, then midwayer, then superplanetary.
In the middle of
the second paragraph on page 1343, the midwayer goes out of his way to state
that these papers are not so much revelations as they are
"restatements". What is the significance of this claim, now that we
know about the prevalence of human source materials in Part IV? The next two
sentences are particularly revealing: he is allowed to use superhuman sources only when he has proved to the
Revelatory Commission that he "had failed in [his] efforts to find the
required conceptual expression in purely human sources." This
"required conceptual expression" was intended to reflect the
"ideas and concepts of Jesus' life and teaching", and that human
expression that did the job was "invariably" given preference. So,
the priority for material included in Part IV is given to human sources, and
the value criteria for inclusion is based on best representing the ideas and
concepts of Jesus' life and teaching rather than historical activity. This is
opposite to the idea that Part IV was written to convey The Exact and Objective
Historical Truth of everything Jesus actually said or did; but also, this is
not to say that there is not much objective fact included as part of the
narrative that is Part IV - just as a good historical novel will seamlessly
interweave historical fact with historical fictions.
In the third
paragraph there is even more revealing information. The midwayer admits that he
and his collaborators, under the supervision of the Melchizedek, "have
portrayed this narrative in accordance with my concept of its effective
arrangement and in response to my choice of immediate expression". Again,
he does not refer to the Jesus papers as history, not even once. (Compare this
to the title of Part III: "The History of Urantia".) He does use the
term "narrative" repeatedly, and that is no accident. Take note: he
says that this narrative has been created "in accordance with my concept
of its effective arrangement". This reaffirms that this story
("narrative") being 'retold' has "drawn freely upon all sources
of record" and has been arranged by the author in the way "best
suited" to portray the "ideas and concepts of Jesus' life and
teachings". The midwayer then specifically informs us that the human
sources of record used include "those who are still alive at the time of
this undertaking."
Even if the
midwayer had stopped at this point, we would have enough information to explain
how the author could have used an historical character (or even an imaginary
one) as a means of inserting a great deal of contemporary religious and
philosophical expression that "acceptably expressed" the "ideas
and concepts of Jesus' life and teachings." After all, his "ruling
motive" was NOT historical accuracy, was it? No, it was to get the best human expression available into
the story of Jesus life and
teachings in such a way as to be enlightening not only for this generation, but
for all others to come as well. The midwayers' intent was to get as close as possible
to the truth of the story of Jesus' life and teaching, even if that meant subjugating
historical fact to these truths. (We are all familiar with the UB's claim that
we can be correct as to fact and still be without the truth.) Yes, the authors
could have directly inserted two papers' worth of direct quotation from this
contemporary source that best represented these aspects of the truth of Jesus'
teachings, and they could have chosen to break up the narrative context of Part
IV in doing so. But the midwayer reaffirms once again why he chose not to do
so:
"I have
unhesitatingly appropriated those ideas and concepts, preferably human, which
would enable me to create the most effective portraiture of Jesus' life, and
which would qualify me to restate his matchless teachings in the most
strikingly helpful and universally uplifting phraseology."
So the two ruling
motivations of the author are further articulated:
1) "to
create the most effective portraiture of Jesus' life". The "effective
portraiture" here is the restatement of the narrative value of Part IV - the greatest story ever told - and how
that quality needs to be preserved and enhanced.
2) "to
restate his matchless teachings in the most
strikingly helpful and universally uplifting phraseology". (emphasis
added)
In the case of
the Rodan papers, the author decided that using the person of Rodan helped to
produce "the most effective portraiture of Jesus' life". Whether
Rodan was a historical personage or not is immaterial because historical factuality
was not the author's goal. Using the
expression of the 20th century writer allowed him "to restate [Jesus']
matchless
teachings in the
most strikingly helpful and universally uplifting phraseology." In
addition, the phrase "unhesitatingly appropriated" says to me that
the midwayer felt no compunction about using his human sources in an artistic
and imaginative manner that enhanced the narrative of Jesus' life and resulted
in the most effective representation of his teachings.
We must remember
both the literary and the truth value of Jesus' parables, which were short on
fact but long on truth. The "Urantia movement" has been
understandably plagued in its youth by various forms of literalism when
interpreting the text of the book. Matthew Block's work will force readers to
confront a set of circumstances similar to those of free-thinking Christians of
two centuries ago, when they realized that their Bible was not about the
business of establishing objective natural or historical facts as much as it was
intended to convey spiritual truth - this is the case, I believe, with Part IV.
The spiritual priority of historical truth over historical fact needs to be
observed - such is the nature and responsibility of revelation. What Garret
Green has stated about Christians and the Bible will now be our task as well:
"to
become...readers whose critical awareness of the fiction like quality of the
text does not prevent them from affirming the truth of the story it tells".
"If it
sometimes seems so incredible as to strain the imagination and offend the
reason, the wise theologian will attempt no defense beyond a reminder
(paraphrasing I Cor 1:25) that the fictions of God are truer than the facts of
men." (1)
(1) "'The
Bible As...': Fictional Narrative and Scriptural Truth," in __Scriptural
Authority and Narrative Interpretation__, Garret Green (ed.), Fortress Press,
1987, pp. 91, 94]
Steven Hecht, USA < Home < Back to About The Urantia Papers