with all its death and suffering, to forestall
loneliness in its otherwise empty universe (Q
1054, part 3). This was an obvious abuse of
power—wherever that power came from—
because the Skygod achieved happiness at the
expense of all created life that would be
subjugated or oppressed throughout the
centuries. In other circumstances, the Skygod
ignored its power, thus allowing violence and
injustice to be perpetuated—even violence and
injustice to God’s own chosen people, the Jews
(Q 1054, part 3). Jones deemed his use of power
as more fitting of a loving being—most of his
apparent miracles were displays of healing.
Through these critiques, Jones instructed his
audience that godly power—the power derived
from divine socialism evident in Jesus—had to
be managed and channeled appropriately.
Moreover, Jones’s followers had to understand
that the power derived from divine socialism
was necessary to save oneself. The Christians
who worshipped Jesus as a supernatural savior,
Jones explained, prayed that Jesus would save
them through his power, regardless of their own
actions (Q 1023). Such a presumption, however,
broke down in light of Jones’s understanding. If
every Peoples Temple member had both the
capacity to be a god and to do miracles greater
than Jesus had done, then every Temple member
was as adept at saving him- or herself as Jesus
was. Thus, Jones taught that “Jesus said, ‘If any
man would come after me, take up your own
cross.’ He didn’t say anything about taking his
cross … You can’t take Jesus’[s] cross, and
Jesus can’t work out your own salvation” (Q
1023). Jesus’s ability to be a savior or messiah
figure was connected to his power, and that
power was available to all humans. Those who
heard Jones’s message and embraced divine
socialism had the responsibility of using this
power to work out their own salvation.
Second, it is possible to offer some comments on
Jones’s Christology—that is, his interpretation
of Jesus’s nature as the messiah. On the one
hand, one could argue that Jones had a rather
“high” Christology because his interpretation of
John 14:12 and 10:34 deemphasized the
decidedly human aspects of Jesus in favor of
Jesus’s embodiment of divine socialism. The
human Jesus, that is, was essentially a vessel or
signpost that was filled with or pointed to the
divine principle of socialism. On the other hand,
the fact that Jones, a physical human being who
interacted in concrete ways with his
congregation, likened himself to Jesus suggests a
“low” Christology. By emphasizing his physical
presence—among the poor and racially
marginalized, no less—in the physical world,
Jones showed a preference for a human
understanding of Jesus.
This low Christology is also evident in Jones’s
statements explaining that the entire Temple
congregation had the potential to perform
miracles and be gods. Although Jones referred to
himself in divine terms as “not a mortal… [but]
the very spirit and the actual conscious presence
of a living god,” he also highlighted the
similarities between himself and his audience:
“Shit, I’m no different than you. Everybody’s a
god. So Jesus is God. I am God! You are God!”
(Q 987 Q 953). Although Jones preached that
he had mastered divine socialism to the point at
which he could raise people from the dead while
his audience merely occupied the role of the
healed or revived, a powerful similarity
nevertheless existed between the Temple
members and their leader. Such a similarity
bolsters the suggestion that Jones had a low
Christology, since frequently he berated his
listeners for not understanding his message.20 In
one sermon, Jones lamented, “I don’t know how
some of you people get in this door anyway you
act like you must be lost” (Q 1059, part 2). To
interpret Jesus’s words as suggesting that such
lost and uncomprehending people could be gods
as Jesus was a god necessarily emphasized
Jesus’s lowly and human characteristics.
This vacillation between high and low
Christology suggests either that Jones struggled
with the divine-yet-human portrayal of Jesus in
the Gospels, or that Jones was an inconsistent
preacher. Likely both of these interpretations are
true. Regardless, it is apparent that Jones
understood Jesus’s words in these two verses as
20 For example, in Q 955 Jones lamented the fact that he could not
empower his congregation and send them out to proclaim the good
news of divine socialism because they did not understand his
message. Likewise, Jones spent much of Q 965 chastising his
audience for their lack of appropriate action based on his message.
44 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015
loneliness in its otherwise empty universe (Q
1054, part 3). This was an obvious abuse of
power—wherever that power came from—
because the Skygod achieved happiness at the
expense of all created life that would be
subjugated or oppressed throughout the
centuries. In other circumstances, the Skygod
ignored its power, thus allowing violence and
injustice to be perpetuated—even violence and
injustice to God’s own chosen people, the Jews
(Q 1054, part 3). Jones deemed his use of power
as more fitting of a loving being—most of his
apparent miracles were displays of healing.
Through these critiques, Jones instructed his
audience that godly power—the power derived
from divine socialism evident in Jesus—had to
be managed and channeled appropriately.
Moreover, Jones’s followers had to understand
that the power derived from divine socialism
was necessary to save oneself. The Christians
who worshipped Jesus as a supernatural savior,
Jones explained, prayed that Jesus would save
them through his power, regardless of their own
actions (Q 1023). Such a presumption, however,
broke down in light of Jones’s understanding. If
every Peoples Temple member had both the
capacity to be a god and to do miracles greater
than Jesus had done, then every Temple member
was as adept at saving him- or herself as Jesus
was. Thus, Jones taught that “Jesus said, ‘If any
man would come after me, take up your own
cross.’ He didn’t say anything about taking his
cross … You can’t take Jesus’[s] cross, and
Jesus can’t work out your own salvation” (Q
1023). Jesus’s ability to be a savior or messiah
figure was connected to his power, and that
power was available to all humans. Those who
heard Jones’s message and embraced divine
socialism had the responsibility of using this
power to work out their own salvation.
Second, it is possible to offer some comments on
Jones’s Christology—that is, his interpretation
of Jesus’s nature as the messiah. On the one
hand, one could argue that Jones had a rather
“high” Christology because his interpretation of
John 14:12 and 10:34 deemphasized the
decidedly human aspects of Jesus in favor of
Jesus’s embodiment of divine socialism. The
human Jesus, that is, was essentially a vessel or
signpost that was filled with or pointed to the
divine principle of socialism. On the other hand,
the fact that Jones, a physical human being who
interacted in concrete ways with his
congregation, likened himself to Jesus suggests a
“low” Christology. By emphasizing his physical
presence—among the poor and racially
marginalized, no less—in the physical world,
Jones showed a preference for a human
understanding of Jesus.
This low Christology is also evident in Jones’s
statements explaining that the entire Temple
congregation had the potential to perform
miracles and be gods. Although Jones referred to
himself in divine terms as “not a mortal… [but]
the very spirit and the actual conscious presence
of a living god,” he also highlighted the
similarities between himself and his audience:
“Shit, I’m no different than you. Everybody’s a
god. So Jesus is God. I am God! You are God!”
(Q 987 Q 953). Although Jones preached that
he had mastered divine socialism to the point at
which he could raise people from the dead while
his audience merely occupied the role of the
healed or revived, a powerful similarity
nevertheless existed between the Temple
members and their leader. Such a similarity
bolsters the suggestion that Jones had a low
Christology, since frequently he berated his
listeners for not understanding his message.20 In
one sermon, Jones lamented, “I don’t know how
some of you people get in this door anyway you
act like you must be lost” (Q 1059, part 2). To
interpret Jesus’s words as suggesting that such
lost and uncomprehending people could be gods
as Jesus was a god necessarily emphasized
Jesus’s lowly and human characteristics.
This vacillation between high and low
Christology suggests either that Jones struggled
with the divine-yet-human portrayal of Jesus in
the Gospels, or that Jones was an inconsistent
preacher. Likely both of these interpretations are
true. Regardless, it is apparent that Jones
understood Jesus’s words in these two verses as
20 For example, in Q 955 Jones lamented the fact that he could not
empower his congregation and send them out to proclaim the good
news of divine socialism because they did not understand his
message. Likewise, Jones spent much of Q 965 chastising his
audience for their lack of appropriate action based on his message.
44 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015
