The Hermeneutics of Eric Butterworth

The chapter "In Defense of Judas" from Discover the Power Within You has always intrigued me. Actually, it has always brought me to a knee-jerk reaction of disbelief. Even though Butterworth's theology is, as always, upbeat and empowering, I wondered how much of his interpretation was grounded in conventional hermeneutics (i.e., the theory and methodology of the interpretation of scriptural text).

I have asked Tom Shepherd, Tom Thorpe and other Unity Institute teachers where I might find a list of Unity hermeneutic criteria. They have informed me that no such criteria exists. Therefore, I have been left to my own devices.

According to a Church of Christ website, Apologetics Press: Scripturally Speaking, "Hermeneutical Principles in the Old Testament," by Dave Miller, Ph.D. (2003), an analysis of the scripture (and I assume this applies to Old and New Testament scripture) must adhere to the following six criteria in order to be hermeneutically sound:

1. Absolute Truth is Attainable.
2. Logical Reasoning is Required.
3. Diligent Effort Must be Expended.
4. Be Aware of False Interpretation.
5. Remain within Scriptural Parameters.
6. Maintain a Receptive Attitude.

It may be that the above criteria is a bit conservative for Unity thinkers; yet, Dr. Miller is an accomplished scholar, speaker and minister, and the criteria seem reasonable to me. Here are my thoughts on "In Defense of Judas."

1. Absolute Truth is Attainable. Absolute Truth is only attainable for the individual, and it is an evolving process. As Jesse Tanner told us yesterday in his paper at the Unity Lyceum, we can "remythologize" (I think that is the word he used) our biblical interpretations -- in fact, we must.

2. Logical Reasoning is Required. In "In Defense of Judas" (hereinafter refered to as Chapter 15), Butterworth's reasoning is not always logical. On the one hand, Butterworth says, "One of the most significant events in human history took place not on a battlefield ... but on the summit of a windswept hill outside the city of Jerusalem" (DPWY, 190). On the other hand, Butterworth says, "The unfortunate thing about the Gospels is that the writers gave too much emphasis to the most impressive events" (Ibid.). Butterworth also calls the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection the "great demonstration" and Judas a "tool, an instrument, playing a destiny-chosen role in the dramatic portrayal of a great lesson" (Ibid., 195). Butterworth cannot have it both ways, either the drama of the crucifixion is important to the gospels or it is over-emphasized.

3. Diligent Effort Must be Expended. So much of Butterworth's writing is sermonizing, rather than theology. In Chapter 15 Butterworth spends half a page telling a story from Arnold Toynbee, a noteworthy British historian and philosopher, about a Chinese nurse who was offended by a crucifix hanging on the wall. Having lived through the inhumanity of Tenneman Square and the legality of ninth-month abortions in China, I find the story ironic and dated. In addition, I would hope for a more historical story from Toynbee, rather than an anecdotal one. Finally, I wear a cross around my neck to remind me of my relationship to Christ and of the Jesus Christ presence I have in my life; so I find the story mildly offensive. Or perhaps I am the offensive one for wearing the cross? I think Butterworth's viewpoint often lacks a historical, scholarly perspective, instead emphasizing the anecdotal to make his point -- which to me, is sermonizing.

4. Be Aware of False Interpretation. Butterworth's reliance on our belief that the crucifixion and resurrection story was simply a way for Jesus to personify, in the "Great Demonstration," the Divinity of Man is not a fait accompli. It is true that Unity practitioners believe Jesus was our 'Master Teacher,' exemplifying for us the Divinity of Man, and by being living examples of God's love, we, too, are lights upon the world. I have to add, however, that none of us has done anything even remotely similar to what Jesus did -- from his healing ministry to his resurrection. But, then again, no one has had the faith of Jesus, either. I am not saying that Butterworth's interpretation of the crucifixion story is false; I am saying that we don't all agree the point of the story is ONLY to prove the Divinity of Man.

5. Remain Within Scriptural Parameters. I re-read Matthew's and Luke's descriptions of the events leading to the betrayal, arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Generally, Butterworth tells the story. He embellishes the disciples' understanding of the events when he tells us, "Certainly, they [the disciples] had not understood Jesus' teaching of the Divinity of Man" (194). True, the disciples, including Judas, may have believed that Jesus could miraculously save himself. But what of the words "Divinity of Man"? Doesn't this imply that we could all save ourselves in this situation? I wish Butterworth would read the story of Judas' betrayal metaphysically, in the tradition of Charles Fillmore: defining Judas as having been informed by evil (i.e., the devil), giving in to the temptations of the material world instead of staying with the spiritual world (i.e., the 30 pieces of gold -- does anyone know the significance of the number 30?), and taking his own life when he realizes he had sold out (i.e., we are spiritually dead when we sell out to physical temptation). Mind you, a metaphysical translation would not necessarily stand the test of this hermeneutic criteria, but it might be more consistent AND open to individual interpretation.

Butterworth also suggested "It may be Judas accepted the role, as Jesus those many years ago accepted the mantle of the Messiah--choosing to fulfill the prophecy of man's divinity" (195). I recently wrote a paper on Second Isaiah and the Servant Songs, and though a Messiah was prophesied (I argued the Messiah was the Hebrew nation), there was no mention of Man's divinity -- just a suggestion of a universal God.

6. Maintain a Receptive Attitude. Butterworth doesn't often take the posture of viewing another point of view. Having now read four of Butterworth's books, I believe I understand his theology, and it never waivers: Jesus was here to teach us about our own divinity (Christ consciousness); we already have all healing and abundance in our lives, we need only accept it; and our relationship with God, especially in prayer, is the most important and powerful means to personal fulfillment. We can really 'go with the flow' when we center ourselves in God.

I have to agree with this theology, so it is hard for me to argue against it. There are those such as Bart Erhman and others who maintain that the world is so full of violence, poverty and suffering, that God cannot exist. Erhman described the world as a "cesspool" at the Midwestern Baptist Seminary debate a couple of weeks ago. The other debater, a fundamentalist preacher and scholar, reminded Erhman that the world also contained excessive beauty, grace and mercy. I must side with the fundamentalist preacher on this point. Bringing Butterworth into the mix, I believe he would have little appeal to those persons struggling to survive. Like many of Unity's teachings, Butterworth's theology appeals to people of means, who are adequately safe, loved and confident to reach self-realization.

* * * *

Similarly, in another of Butterworth's books, In the Flow of Life, the chapter entitled "Life, Death and Rebirth" analyzes Jesus' words, "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). Butterworth, a believer in some form of reincarnation, says "Jesus was implying that through birth and rebirth, the goal remains constant and that we are given all eternity in which to achieve [perfection]" (ITFOL 162). I am not sure this analysis fits Miller's hermeneutic criteria.

I believe that Butterworth violates at least three of the above-listed criteria, 4, 5 and 6.

4. Be Aware of False Interpretation. I do not believe that Jesus meant to imply reincarnation in the scripture, as Jesus does not mention reincarnation elsewhere in the Christian Scriptures. Why would he begin with this passage in Matthew, which is part of the Sermon on the Mount? Surely Jesus would be more direct about his belief in multiple lives in a sermon rife with lessons.

5. Remain within Scriptural Parameters. The Beatitudes portion of Jesus' Sermon discuss the way to God's Kingdom and human virtues and vices -- not reincarnation. Butterworth is not staying within the parameters of scripture when he brings the subject of reincarnation into Matthew 5.

6. Maintain a Receptive Attitude. Butterworth does not appear receptive to different points of view of the Sermon. My interpretation of the Sermon is that Jesus is talking about our reaching towards our Christ selves in this lifetime. To encourage us to perfect ourselves is to encourage us to reach the Kingdom of Heaven, and one does not have to be able-bodied or a genius to reach the Kingdom of Heaven; it is available to all of us. One only needs to feel the presence of God. Butterworth, however, does provide us with the disclaimer that Charles Fillmore did not consider the study of reincarnation "profitable" (161). He also tells us Fillmore "believed in [reincarnation] completely" (Ibid.).

* * * *

One final commentary. Tom Thorpe informed our class last week that Eric Butterworth detested the word "worship." Merriam Webster tells us the word "worship" comes from the 12th Century Old English word for "worthy," and it means worthiness, reverence, respect to a divine being. It also means religious practice with its rituals and customs.

I take exception to Butterworth's dislike of the word. First, I believe in worship as an empowering practice that connects us more deeply with our source -- whether in religious ritual such as a sacred ceremony or in prayer, itself. The word also paradoxically suggests a separate God, and this may be the reason for Butterworth's dislike of the word. Emile Cady, who we all recognize as a foundational Unity teacher, tells us we can pray to God within and to the Father.

I love the concept that I AM God. But I do not like the concept that there is no God outside of me. What about the God that exists everywhere? My former Unity minister, Rev. Joy Turowski, taught us at Unity-by-the-Sea that praying to God was actually praying to oneself. I am not sure how I feel about this concept. True, I am empowered by prayer. But I also acknowledge the mystery of the Holy Spirit that comes to me when I pray. Surely that is what Charles Fillmore meant by 'going to headquarters'?

I welcome your comments.