The Heart of Christianity

Section Internet Links	Wayne's Notes	Jock's Notes	Back to Index
Peter Barnes Notes. - Synopsis Borg continues expanding his ambiguous metaphor of the heart by considering where God fits into our faith picture. From his North American situation where 95% of the people believe in ‘God’ to parts of Western Europe where the percentage is less than 35% there appear to be divergent opinions as to what people mean by ‘God’ and their belief in God. A person’s ‘worldview’ clearly dictates much of that person’s understanding of God, and earlier and emerging paradigm Christians are clearly on different paths. Borg develops William James concept of God as the ‘More’ which is always beyond rational inquiry, expounding the two positions of supernatural theism and panentheism, as central to earlier and emerging Christianity. Much of Borg’s discussion of particular issues will be found to be helpful to those sensing loss as they struggle with a non-interventionist God in all and over all. It is also helpful to follow Borg’s argument that the emerging view of God makes sense of, rather than denies, biblical reading. Jesus Christ becomes a transforming and life changing force for individuals, and for the world. Jesus invites us into life. At the heart of Christianity is Jesus. Just as important as the Bible and God. The earlier paradigm, with its focus on literalism of the Gospels, has become a barrier to understanding and transformation. Breaking free of the earlier way of literalism makes it possible to explore the same texts as metaphor with the possibility of finding new depths where before there was only one ‘right’ interpretation. In this section Borg attempts to ease people through an understanding that church language attached to Jesus really is the language of the church, and did not originate with Jesus himself. We all need to understand this if we are to have the freedom to acknowledge the validity of other pathways into the being of God. Recognizing that much of the language of the earlier paradigm .... the language of ‘churchianity’ .... blocks us from understanding the message of Jesus. As we explore with Borg the significance of Jesus as metaphor and as an way into God, we start to see God through whom Jesus was.

Wayne's Notes. God. Two Ways of Understanding God (with insights from Marcus Borg: The God We Never Knew, 1977). A lot of the misunderstanding about how we understand God to exist today stems from alternate philosophical ways of looking at the world. Borg tells us that the two main ways of understanding God are the cultural worldview and the religious tradition. It is quite apparent from polling that most people today believe, or want to believe, in God. But modern life forces us to deal with our understanding of God in ways differing from people of the past. Our worldview is our image of reality, Borg says (62) Most of us develop a way of looking at reality through the blending of our culture's worldview and from the worldview of a religious tradition. Both religion and modern science sense inherently that there is something more to reality than what meets our eye. While some are decidely atheist, and deny that "More" most people are not atheists. A goodly number, I suspect, are agnostic, however. For such people, the traditional way of defining God as a supernatural being "out there" is no longer workable. But they have not discovered another way of describing God. So they remain undecided. Borg says he believes there is a God, but he cannot prove it. He appeals to work already done on this subject by the former english nun, Karen Armstrong. Armstrong, in her book A History of God traces how God has been understood through the ages, and in various religious traditions. This is helpful, because, for the first time, most of us are seeing a picture of God from within and beyond the Judeo-Christian tradition than we have always known. She calls the traditional view of God supernatural theism. God is viewed as a personlike being who is out there, and far removed from us. God occasionally intervenes in the world, and can be appealed to through prayer. But essentially, that God is separate from creation. Panentheism Armstrong suggests a second, ancient way of perceiving God, always there in some fashion, but now much more appealing. Panentheism - is the way she describes that kind of God. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes panentheism in this way: Panentheism is the belief that the Being of God includes and penetrates the whole universe, so that every part of it exists in God. But GodOs being is more than, and not exhaused by, the universe (p. 1213). Borg says that this encompasing spirit called God exists in everything. The universe is not separate from God but is subsumed in God. Omnipresense - is that term we have traditionally used for a God who was both separate, yet part of us (transcendence and immianence). God is the "More" right here and now. God does not OinterveneO but God intends and interacts with humans. God did not intervene at Auschwitz, or when the recent tsunami occured. We know that God was not separate from creation when those tragedies happened. We believe that because God becomes part of creation, God cares and suffers with people caught in disasters like ovens, tidal waves, car accidents, etc. So there is an option to belief in the God of supernatural theism. Borg does not, however, speak of the Oend of theismO as does Spong. He differs with Spong because Borg does not believe that theism is dead, only that one way of thinking about God is no longer helpful. Borg continues to accept the reality of God. For those who claim panentheism is a modern heresy, in the same category as pantheism (the gods exist in all things) which the church has always rejected, Borg claims that panentheism better captures a biblical way of understanding God. Stated simply, panentheism describes a God who begins with humanity and the human mind, but exists beyond us - both at the same time. It is what Paul Tillich called the Ground of our Being as well as Ultimate Reality. God does not exist in space and time. God is pure being itself, not confined to space and time as we are. God is the name we use for the nonmaterial, stupendous, wondrous "More" that includes the universe even as God transcends the universe (70). God As Personal I cannot myself think of God as personal in the sense of being a personlike being, even though I am very comfortable using personal language to refer to God, says Borg (72). I do believe that God OspeaksO to us, he continues, but not in the sense of oral or aural revelation or divine dictation (73). And just to celebrate how many of the subjects of our studies learn from each other, Borg here quotes Frederick Buecher (whom we learned about from Yancey last fall). God speaks when we listen to our lives, says Buechner. Listen to your life. Listen to what happens to you because it is through what happens to you that God speaks... in language not always easy to decipher, but itOs there powerfully, memorably, unforgetably (The Sacred Journey, 1982). The Character of God Borg views the term OcharacterO as more than OnatureO or OwillO. How we view the character of God shapes our sense of what faithfulness to God means and thus what the Christian life is all about (74). The early paradigm or way of viewing God describes GodOs character as requiring something of us, and rewarding us when we come through. This is a legalistic way of describing God. The emerging paradigm sees God as a God of love and justice. Instead of leading with demands, God leads therapeutically with love. But that God of love wants us to live justly in the world, in terms of our relationships with other humans and all creation. The Reformers had an understanding of God in this way. They saw GodOs first characteristic as OgraceO. God doesnOt demand. God loves. But because GodOs grace unconditionally accepts us, we want to live justly. It is a natural response to such a wonderful gift. The God of love and grace is a much different God from the God of conditions and rules. The Christian life is not about believing and doing in order to be saved. It is about seeing what is already true, says Borg. We live is a relationship with God based on grace, not law. Christianity is not about requirements but about a relationship. It is an invitation to a transformed life.

Jock's Notes - Jesus Extending the "heart" image of this book, Borg says Jesus is the Heart of God. That's helpful. Christians indeed seem to have understood God because they have understood Jesus. The words and life of Jesus point us to God. But when he then claims Christianity's primary distinction from other religions is this "in a person", he's literalized the metaphors himself. Distinctions are hard to come by in religion except for those who see their myth as history, in which case, distinctions abound. For those for whom religion is myth and ritual, distinctions dissolve as we discover we share archetypes. No element of Christianity - no aspect of Jesus' acts, parables, or words - is without precedent and parallel. So when Borg introduces his unique term-set, "pre-easter" and "post-easter" to replace "Historical Jesus" and "Christ of Faith", he gives us a useful demarcation . He adds to this in his end-notes saying he means "both-and" not "either-or". We are invited to stand witnesses at the crucifiction, as best we might, and consider what we there see and believe. Other authors have viewed Jesus without such a discontinuity - whether their view be . Whether Jesus is seen as man or God or Trinity. Whether Jesus is historical, mythical or gnostic. Borg puts a marker on the place of ending/beginning and says lets review this Jesus before easter, and then, after easter. Who might the historical Jesus be and what has the church become are issues capable of distinction. Our differences become more apparent, and more objectively compared. As Robert Funk, founder of the Jesus Seminar, asks in "Honest to Jesus": Did Christianity begin with Jesus himself? Was he in fact the first "Christian"? Or did it begin at Easter with his resurrection?" The search for this Jesus has kept a lot of scholars busy for a long time and there are literally dozens of well considered opinions. At one end, there is the idea there never was an historical Jesus. Tom Harpur has had such a conversion lately, and his latest book "The Pagan Christ" reviews the arguments for this position. Harpur feels that the vital origins of Christianity are found in ancient Egypt, and are paralleled in the other religions of human kind. He feels this acceptance frees Christianity from its bonds. He finds it personally liberating and energizing. It solves the "inigma" of the Bible. By removing the idolatry of Jesus, Christian teachings on compassion and justice are made relevant again. That celebration and ritual become re-empowered. That this Eternal Christos is the true central mystery of all human existence. At another end, there is the continuing discovery of the Jesus of the Gospels. M. Scott Peck the author of the best selling series "The Road Less Travelled", tells how he re-discovered his Christian faith by re-reading his Bible in researching Jesus the healer "I was absolutely thunderstruck by the extraordinary reality of the man I found in the Gospels. ... I discovered a man so incredibly real that no one could have made Him up." Phillip Yancey helps us here. In preparation for his book, "The Jesus I Never Knew", he read all he could find in" three seminary librarys - one Catholic, one liberal Protestant, one conservative evangelical", and then said of this review: "It occurs to me that all the contorted theories about Jesus that have been spontaneously generating since the day of his death merely confirm the awesome risk God took when he stretched himself out on the dissection table - a risk he seemed to welcome. Examine me. Test me. You decide." Here is a little excerpt from Bill Moyers famous PBS interview with Joseph Campbell. It well illustrates how the progressive view can be harmonious with the traditional. Moyers: What do you think about the Savior Jesus? Campbell: We just don't know very much about Jesus. All we know are four contradictory texts that purport to tell us what he said and did. Moyers: Written many years after he lived. Campbell: Yes, but in spite of this, I think we may know approximately what Jesus said. I think the sayings of Jesus are probably pretty close to the originals. The main teaching of Christ, for example, is, Love your enemies. Moyers: How do you love your enemy without condoning what the enemy does, without accepting his aggression? Campbell: I'll tell you how to do that: do not pluck the mote from your enemy's eyes, but pluck the beam from your own. No one is in a position to disqualify his enemy's way of life. Moyers: Do you think Jesus today would be a Christian? Campbell: Not the kind of Christian we know. Perhaps some of the monks and nuns who are really in touch with high spiritual mysteries would be of the sort that Jesus was. Moyers: So Jesus might not have belonged to the Church militant? Campbell: There's nothing militant about Jesus. I don't read anything like that in any of the gospels. Peter drew his sword and cut off the servant's ear, and Jesus said, "Put back thy sword, Peter." But Peter has had his sword out and at work ever since. I've lived through the twentieth century, and I know what I was told as a boy about a people who weren't yet and never had been our enemies. In order to represent them as potential enemies, and to justify our attack upon them, a campaign of hatred, misrepresentation, and denigration was launched, of which the echoes ring to this day. Moyers: And yet we're told God is love. You once took the saying of Jesus, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust" - you once took this to be the highest, the noblest, the boldest of the Christian teachings. Do you still feel that way? Campbell: I think of compassion as the fundamental religious experience and, unless that is there, you have nothing. Borg reviews the materials. Borg's reading is from the "historical-metaphorical" perspective. That essentially means he avoids the question of historical accuracy or even historical veracity, and deals rather with the meaning and spiritual purpose of the words and stories. This is why Borg finds more respect than many current authors. The Gospels are deep waters. They are read of course from the perspectives of both the old and new paradigm. He avoids unnecessary confrontation. Much of the story and much of the language is post-easter language. Many consider that Jesus would not have referred to himself in Christological terms, for that is language of the community later giving testimony to his divinity The pre-easter Jesus Borg reviews was a Jewish mystic, a healer, a wisdom teacher, a social prophet, and a movement initiator. Then Jesus was killed. Borg reviews 5 traditional cross perspectives: the authorities rejected and killed him but God vindicated and raised Jesus as Lord, per Paul, "the principalities and powers" that is, the domination systems of society killed Jesus, but again God triumphed, the death of Jesus is the revelation of "the way". Incarnation and spiritual transformation are the centre. Christ lives in me. the death of Jesus is the revelation of God's love for us. (John 3:16) sacrifice. Jesus died for our sins. These are of course comfortably interpreted at face value by many Christians past and present. The same are powerfully understood by other Christians as symbolic and mythically powerful So concludes the author, "Jesus is a metaphor of God." He draws an analogy from the life of St. Francis of Assisi. After his death there was a huge cathedral and much art and much expense made in his honour. Of course he would have protested. But Borg considers these things still worthy, because to point us to Francis, perhaps not unlike the way Jesus (and the gospel traditions) point us to God. John Crossan in "The Historical Jesus" brings it together. "Christianity, however, when it attempted to define as clearly as it could the meaning of Jesus, insisted that he was "wholly God" and "wholly man," that he was, in other words, himself the unmediated presence of the divine to the human. I find, therefore, no contradiction between the historical Jesus and the defined Christ, no betrayal whatsoever in the move from Jesus to Christ. Whether there were ultimate betrayals in the move from Christ to Constantine is another question."

Questions for Discussion Discussion in groups: (3 - 5 people) 35 min Please appoint a ‘spokesperson’ for each session Look at the first question that follows, then subsequent or other questions as time permits. If your own questions seem more relevant please raise them and seek discussion of them. Question 1: To what extent does the church continue to blur the lines between the ‘post Easter Jesus’, and the ‘pre Easter Jesus’ and to create barriers which make it difficult for church goers not to leave their intellect at the door when they worship? Try to list some specific examples. Question 2: Discuss your understanding of God from the perspectives of supernatural theism and panentheism. Are there better terms than these to describe God? Question 3: Discuss your experience living by guilt and living by grace. How grace-filled are our churches, even though we claim to follow the teachings of the great church reformers like Luther and Calvin? Plenium Discussion (20 min) Each nominated spokes-person to have an opportunity to share their group’s discussion. The leader will facilitate the group discussion.

	Clicking the icon left will activate the e-mail on your machine and direct your comments to us. Comments are welcome and will be posted with usual editorial courtesies.
EMAIL