Worship can become a thin place. Indeed, this is one of its primary purposes. Of course, worship is about praising God. but worship is not about God needing praise. I recall hearing a radio preacher talking about how "God just loves to be praised." He made God sound like a narcissist. Rather, worship has the power to draw us out of ourselves. Worship is directed to God, but is in an important sense, for us.
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 157
Monday, April 25, 2016
God's Justice vs. God's Mercy?
[One reason we have overlooked God's passion for justice] is because of a common misunderstanding of "God's Justice." Theologically, we have often seen its opposite as "God's mercy." "God's justice" is understood as God's deserved punishment of us for our sins, "God's mercy" as God's loving forgiveness of us in spite of our guilt. Given this choice, we would all prefer God's mercy and hope to escape God's justice. But seeing the opposite of justice as mercy distorts what the Bible means by justice. Most often in the bible, the opposite of God's justice is not God's mercy, but human injustice. The issue is the shape of our life together as societies, not whether the mercy of God will supersede the justice of God in the final judgement."
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 127
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 127
On being born again and Spirituality
Being born again is the work of the Spirit...Spirituality is midwifery.
Spirituality combines awareness, intention, and practice. I define it as becoming conscious of and intentional about a deepening relationship with God. The words are very carefully chosen. Becoming conscious of our relationship with God: I am convinced that we are all already in relationship to God and have been from our birth. God is in relationship with us: spirituality is about becoming aware of a relationship that already exists.
Becoming intentional about our relationship to God: spirituality is about paying attention to the relationship. Though God is "Mystery," there is nothing mysterious about paying attention to our relationship with God. We do so in the ways we pay attention in a human relationship: by spending time in it, attending to it, being thoughtful about it. We pay attention to our relationship with God through practice, both corporate and individual: worship, community, prayer, scripture, devotion...
A deepening relationship with God: in what is now a familiar theme, the Christian life is not very much about believing a set of beliefs, but about a deepening relationship with the one in whom we live and move and have our being. Paying attention to this relationship transforms us. This is what our lives are to be about: a transforming relationship to "what is," the "More."
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 120
Spirituality combines awareness, intention, and practice. I define it as becoming conscious of and intentional about a deepening relationship with God. The words are very carefully chosen. Becoming conscious of our relationship with God: I am convinced that we are all already in relationship to God and have been from our birth. God is in relationship with us: spirituality is about becoming aware of a relationship that already exists.
Becoming intentional about our relationship to God: spirituality is about paying attention to the relationship. Though God is "Mystery," there is nothing mysterious about paying attention to our relationship with God. We do so in the ways we pay attention in a human relationship: by spending time in it, attending to it, being thoughtful about it. We pay attention to our relationship with God through practice, both corporate and individual: worship, community, prayer, scripture, devotion...
A deepening relationship with God: in what is now a familiar theme, the Christian life is not very much about believing a set of beliefs, but about a deepening relationship with the one in whom we live and move and have our being. Paying attention to this relationship transforms us. This is what our lives are to be about: a transforming relationship to "what is," the "More."
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 120
On "Dying to self" and "Taking up your cross"
But the cross is the means of our liberation and reconnection. It is not about the subjugation of the self, but about a new self. And so to avoid the potentially negative meaning of "dying to self," I prefer to speak more precisely of an old and new identity and way of being. The way of the cross involves dying to an old identity and being born into a new identity, dying to an old way of being and being raised to a new way of being, one centered in God."
To be born again involves dying to the false self, to that identity, to that way of being, and to be born into an identity centered int he Spirit, in Christ, in God. It is the process of internal redefinition of the self whereby a real person is born within us."
To relate this to John's affirmation that Jesus is "the way": the way that Jesus incarnated is a universal way, not an exclusive way. Jesus is the embodiment, the incarnation, of the path of transformation known in the religions that have stood the test of time.
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pgs. 112-113,117, 119.
To be born again involves dying to the false self, to that identity, to that way of being, and to be born into an identity centered int he Spirit, in Christ, in God. It is the process of internal redefinition of the self whereby a real person is born within us."
To relate this to John's affirmation that Jesus is "the way": the way that Jesus incarnated is a universal way, not an exclusive way. Jesus is the embodiment, the incarnation, of the path of transformation known in the religions that have stood the test of time.
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pgs. 112-113,117, 119.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Jesus' Life, Death, and Atonement Theology
Jesus is, for us Christians, the decisive revelation of what a life full of God looks like. Radically centered in God and filled with the Spirit, he is the decisive disclosure and epiphany of what can be seen of God embodied in a human life. As the Word and Wisdom and spirit of God become flesh, his life incarnates the character of God, indeed, the passion of God.
In the judgement of the majority of mainline scholars, atonement theology does not go back to Jesus himself. We do not think that Jesus thought that the purpose of his life, his vocation, was his death. His purpose was what he was doing as a healer, wisdom teacher, social prophet, and movement initiator. His death was the consequence of what he was doing, but not his purpose. To use recent analogies, the deaths of Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. were the consequence of what they were doing, bu not their purpose. And like them Jesus courageously kept doing what he was doing even though he knew it could have fatal consequences.
In it's first century setting, the statement "Jesus is the sacrifice for sin" had a quite different meaning. The "home" of this language, the framework within which it makes sense, it he sacrificial system centered int he temple in Jerusalem. According to temple theology, certain kinds of sins and impurities could be dealt with only through sacrifice int he temple. Temple theology thus claimed an institutional monopoly on the forgiveness of sins; and because the forgiveness of sins was a prerequisite for entry into the presence of God, temple theology also claimed an institutional monopoly on access to God.
In this setting, to affirm "Jesus is the sacrifice for sin" was to deny the temple's claim to have a monopoly on forgiveness and access to God. It was an antitemple statement. Using the metaphor of sacrifice, it subverted the sacrificial system. It meant: God in Jesus has already provided the sacrifice and has thus taken care of whatever you think separates you from God; you have access to God apart from the temple and its system of sacrifice. It is a metaphor for radical grace, of amazing grace.
Thus "Jesus died for our sins" was originally a subversive metaphor, not a literal description of either God's purpose or Jesus' vocation. It was a metaphorical proclamation of radical grace; and properly understood it, it still is. it is therefore ironic to realize that he religion that formed around Jesus would within four hundred years begin to claim for itself an institutional monopoly on grace and access to God.
Because the sacrificial metaphor has often been taken quite literally, we in the church have often domesticated the death of Jesus--by speaking of it as the foreordained will of God, as something that had to happen,a s a dying for the sins of the world. But it ant he other purposive ways of seeing the death of Jesus are post-Easter retrospective providential interpretations. They matter, they're important, and rightly understood, they continue to be a way of proclaiming the gospel. but they should not be allowed to eclipse the historical reason for his execution.
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 92-95
In the judgement of the majority of mainline scholars, atonement theology does not go back to Jesus himself. We do not think that Jesus thought that the purpose of his life, his vocation, was his death. His purpose was what he was doing as a healer, wisdom teacher, social prophet, and movement initiator. His death was the consequence of what he was doing, but not his purpose. To use recent analogies, the deaths of Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. were the consequence of what they were doing, bu not their purpose. And like them Jesus courageously kept doing what he was doing even though he knew it could have fatal consequences.
In it's first century setting, the statement "Jesus is the sacrifice for sin" had a quite different meaning. The "home" of this language, the framework within which it makes sense, it he sacrificial system centered int he temple in Jerusalem. According to temple theology, certain kinds of sins and impurities could be dealt with only through sacrifice int he temple. Temple theology thus claimed an institutional monopoly on the forgiveness of sins; and because the forgiveness of sins was a prerequisite for entry into the presence of God, temple theology also claimed an institutional monopoly on access to God.
In this setting, to affirm "Jesus is the sacrifice for sin" was to deny the temple's claim to have a monopoly on forgiveness and access to God. It was an antitemple statement. Using the metaphor of sacrifice, it subverted the sacrificial system. It meant: God in Jesus has already provided the sacrifice and has thus taken care of whatever you think separates you from God; you have access to God apart from the temple and its system of sacrifice. It is a metaphor for radical grace, of amazing grace.
Thus "Jesus died for our sins" was originally a subversive metaphor, not a literal description of either God's purpose or Jesus' vocation. It was a metaphorical proclamation of radical grace; and properly understood it, it still is. it is therefore ironic to realize that he religion that formed around Jesus would within four hundred years begin to claim for itself an institutional monopoly on grace and access to God.
Because the sacrificial metaphor has often been taken quite literally, we in the church have often domesticated the death of Jesus--by speaking of it as the foreordained will of God, as something that had to happen,a s a dying for the sins of the world. But it ant he other purposive ways of seeing the death of Jesus are post-Easter retrospective providential interpretations. They matter, they're important, and rightly understood, they continue to be a way of proclaiming the gospel. but they should not be allowed to eclipse the historical reason for his execution.
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 92-95
The Post-Easter Jesus
The post-Easter Jesus is what Jesus became after his death. More fully, the post-Easter Jesus is the Jesus of Christian experience and tradition. Both nouns are important. By the post-Easter Jesus of Christian experience, i mean that Jesus continued to be experienced by his followers after his death as a divine reality of the present, and that such experiences continue to happen today; some Christians, but not all, have such experience. The post-Easter Jesus is thus an experiential reality. By the post Easter Jesus of Christian tradition, I mean the Jesus we encounter in the developing traditions of the early Christian movement--int he gospels and the New Testament as a whole, as well as in the creeds.
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 82
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 82
Grace, Transformation, Life, Heaven
Unconditional grace is not about how we get to heaven or who goes to heaven. The notion that salvation is primarily about "going to heaven" is a distortion; and when it is seen as primary, the notion of unconditional grace leads to the notion that everybody gets to go to heaven, regardless of their life and faith. However, unconditional grace is not about the afterlife, but the basis for our relationship with god in this life. Is the basis for our life with God law or grace, requirements and rewards or relationship and transformation? Grace affirms the latter.
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 77
God: Dimensions of Meaning
To echo a comment made...by Paul Tillich, one of the twentieth century's two most important Prostestant theologians: if, when you think of the word "God," you are thinking of a reality that may or may not exist, you are not thinking of God. Tillich's point is that the word "God" does not refer to a particular existing being (that's the God of supernatural theism). Rather, the word "God" is the most common Western name for "what is," for "ultimate reality," for "the ground of being," for "Being itself," for "isness."
So, what meaning or content can we give to personal language for God? Thus far I have been able to see three dimensions of meaning:
So, what meaning or content can we give to personal language for God? Thus far I have been able to see three dimensions of meaning:
Whatever God is ultimately like, our relationship to God is personal. This relationship engages us as persons at our deepest and most passionate level.
I am persuaded that God has more the quality of a "presence" than of a nonpersonal "energy" or "force." To use language Martin Buber used, I am persuaded that God has more the quality of a "you" than of an "it," more the quality of a person than the quality of an impersonal "source." I see this sense of God as a presence, as a "you," as grounded in experience. I also see it reflected int he centrality of the notion of covenant in the Jewish and Christian traditions. We are in a covenantal relationship with "what is" and covenant is an intrinsically relational model of reality.
Moreover, I think God "speaks" to us. I don't mean oral or aural revelation or divine dictation. But I think God "speaks" to us--sometimes dramatically in visions, less dramatically in some of our dreams, in internal "proddings" or "leadings," through people, and through the devotional practices and scriptures of our tradition. We sometimes have a sense--I sometimes have a sens of being addressed.-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 72-73
God, Divine Intentionality, and Interventionism
Rather than speaking of divine intervention, panentheism speaks of divine intention and divine interaction. Or, to use sacramental language, it sees the presence of God "in, with, and under" everything--not as the direct cause of events, but as a presence beneath and within our everyday lives.
[This framework] allows for prayers to have effects, including prayers for healing. It does not rule out extraordinary events. But it refuses to see efficacious prayer or extraordinary events as the result of divine intervention.
From [the panentheism] point of view, interventionism not only has insurmountable difficulties, but claims to know too much; namely, it claims to know that "intervention" is the explanatory mechanism for God's relation to the world. Except in the very general sense of "divine intentionality" and "divine interactivity," panentheism does not claim to have an explanation of the God-world relation. It is content not to know.
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 66-69
[This framework] allows for prayers to have effects, including prayers for healing. It does not rule out extraordinary events. But it refuses to see efficacious prayer or extraordinary events as the result of divine intervention.
From [the panentheism] point of view, interventionism not only has insurmountable difficulties, but claims to know too much; namely, it claims to know that "intervention" is the explanatory mechanism for God's relation to the world. Except in the very general sense of "divine intentionality" and "divine interactivity," panentheism does not claim to have an explanation of the God-world relation. It is content not to know.
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 66-69
The Truth of Metaphor
As I use the word, "metaphor" is a large umbrella category. It has both a negative and positive meaning. Negatively, it means nonliteral. Positively, it means the more-than-literal meaning of language. Thus metaphorical meaning is not inferior to literal meaning, but is more than literal meaning.
I have been told that the German novelist Thomas Mann defined a myth as "a story about the way things never were, but always are." So, is a myth true? Literally true, no. Really true, yes.
A Catholic priest once said in a sermon, "The Bible is true, and some of it happened."
I say to my students, "Believe whatever you want about whether it happened this way; now let's talk about what the story means." The statement applies to the Genesis stories of creation, the gospel birth stories of the Bible generally: a preoccupation with factuality can obscure the metaphorical meanings and the truth of the stories as metaphor.
The Bible as metaphor is a way of seeing the whole: a way of seeing God, ourselves, the divine-human relationship, and the divine-world relationship. And the point is not to "believe" in a metaphor--but to "see" with it. Thus the point is not to believe in the Bible--but to see our lives with God through it.
Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 49-54
I have been told that the German novelist Thomas Mann defined a myth as "a story about the way things never were, but always are." So, is a myth true? Literally true, no. Really true, yes.
A Catholic priest once said in a sermon, "The Bible is true, and some of it happened."
I say to my students, "Believe whatever you want about whether it happened this way; now let's talk about what the story means." The statement applies to the Genesis stories of creation, the gospel birth stories of the Bible generally: a preoccupation with factuality can obscure the metaphorical meanings and the truth of the stories as metaphor.
The Bible as metaphor is a way of seeing the whole: a way of seeing God, ourselves, the divine-human relationship, and the divine-world relationship. And the point is not to "believe" in a metaphor--but to "see" with it. Thus the point is not to believe in the Bible--but to see our lives with God through it.
Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pg. 49-54
Faith is Faithfulness to our relationship to God
If one thinks that "belief" is what God wants from us, then doubt and disbelief are experienced as sinful.
Faith is faithfulness to our relationship to God. It means what faithfulness does ina committed human relationship...Faith as fidelitas does not mean faithfulness to statements about God, whether bibilical, credal, or doctrinal. Rather, it means faithfulness to the God to whom the bible and creeds and doctrines point. Fidelitas refers to a radical centering in God
...when the prophets indict Israel as adulterous or Jesus speaks of "and evil and adulterous generation" they are not saying that there is a lot of wife swapping going on. Rather, they are referring to unfaithfulness to God and God's covenant.
Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pgs. 30, 32-33
Faith is faithfulness to our relationship to God. It means what faithfulness does ina committed human relationship...Faith as fidelitas does not mean faithfulness to statements about God, whether bibilical, credal, or doctrinal. Rather, it means faithfulness to the God to whom the bible and creeds and doctrines point. Fidelitas refers to a radical centering in God
...when the prophets indict Israel as adulterous or Jesus speaks of "and evil and adulterous generation" they are not saying that there is a lot of wife swapping going on. Rather, they are referring to unfaithfulness to God and God's covenant.
Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pgs. 30, 32-33
The Bible and the Emerging Paradigm
Historical: For the emerging paradigm, the Bible is the historical product of two ancient communities, ancient Israel and the early Christian movement. The Bible was not written to us or for us, but for the ancient communities that produced it. A historical approach emphasizes the illuminating power of interpreting these ancient documents in their ancient historical context.
Metaphorical: The emerging paradigm sees the Bible metaphorically, by which I mean its "more than literal," "more than factual," meaning. It is not very much concerned with the historical factuality of the bible's stories, but much more with their meanings. It is not bothered by the possibility that the stories of Jesus' birth and resurrection are metaphorical rather than literally factual accounts. It asks, "Whether it happened this way or not, what is the story saying? What meaning does it have for us?"
Sacramental: The emerging paradigm sees the Bible sacramentally, by which I mean the bible's ability to mediate the sacred. A sacrament is something visible and physical whereby the Spirit becomes present to us. A sacrament is a means of grace, a vehicle or vessel for the Spirit.
...the emerging paradigm sees the Bible as sacred scripture, but not because it is a divine product. It is sacred in its status and function, but not in its origin.
...the emerging paradigm sees the Christian life as a life of relationship and transformation. Being Christian is not about meeting requirements for a future reward in an afterlife, and not very much about believing. Rather, the Christian life is about a relationship with God that transforms life in the present.
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pgs. 13-14.
Metaphorical: The emerging paradigm sees the Bible metaphorically, by which I mean its "more than literal," "more than factual," meaning. It is not very much concerned with the historical factuality of the bible's stories, but much more with their meanings. It is not bothered by the possibility that the stories of Jesus' birth and resurrection are metaphorical rather than literally factual accounts. It asks, "Whether it happened this way or not, what is the story saying? What meaning does it have for us?"
Sacramental: The emerging paradigm sees the Bible sacramentally, by which I mean the bible's ability to mediate the sacred. A sacrament is something visible and physical whereby the Spirit becomes present to us. A sacrament is a means of grace, a vehicle or vessel for the Spirit.
...the emerging paradigm sees the Bible as sacred scripture, but not because it is a divine product. It is sacred in its status and function, but not in its origin.
...the emerging paradigm sees the Christian life as a life of relationship and transformation. Being Christian is not about meeting requirements for a future reward in an afterlife, and not very much about believing. Rather, the Christian life is about a relationship with God that transforms life in the present.
-Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, pgs. 13-14.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)