The Heart of Christianity

Section Internet Links	Al 's Notes	Marjorie 's Notes	Larry's Essay	Back to Index
This session was organized differently. Peter Barne's notes and questions were read, and the groups were sent off to small group discussion. When they came back to plenary, the discussion was entirely focused on "Born Again". This was such a hot topic that it was decided to push forward chapter 7 till next week, and to continue the Born Again discussion. The tone of the discussion was very negative. Three group members were asked to consider personal reactions as might help conclude this topic on a postive note.
Peter Barnes Notes. - Synopsis In the next two chapters Borg concentrates on two key transformations at the heart of the Christian life .... the individual-spiritual-personal (encompassed by the rather abused phrase ‘born again’) and the communal-social-political. These two are different, yet forever linked by history and tradition. The bible, Borg reiterates, is both personal and political, as is our life with God, and our understanding of salvation. He stresses that the individual and society are inseparable at the level of justice. The author spends some considerable time tracing the origins of the phrase ‘born again’ from the story of Nichodemus through the writings of Paul and into the evolved traditions of the Church, making a strong case for the mainstream churches to re-claim it as a right way of being Christian. During this process Borg picks up on a theme that those who have read Jack Spong and Michael Morwood would recognize .... that of the evolution of self-consciousness as the starting point for religion in human experience.
Al's Notes. At last Monday's session, we agreed that the chapter on "Born again" is so pivotal to an understanding of the emrging view that it requires further refelction at the next session. Here are my thoughts. Spiritual Re-birth - Are the Emerging and Earlier paradigms materially different? Some observations regarding Borg's sixth Chapter The over-arching question facing readers of the Borg, Spong, Armstrong, Funk, Crossan, King, Pagels school of contemporary Christian thinkers, is really quite simple, " Is it realistic to think that this emerging school can present a life transforming vision - a new myth within which millions might find meaning for their lives?" That question is perhaps best answered by a careful reading and re-reading of Borg's sixth chapter "Born Again: A New Heart". Borg presents a highly credible depiction of renewal in the emerging paradigm, quite similar to that described by proponents of what Borg calls the earlier paradigm. Borg goes as far as to imply that the earlier paradigm has inappropriately usurped the term "born again" to represent an all too narrow interpretation of a renewal process that is fundamental to the human condition. On use of the term "born again" Getting into a shoving match with fundamentalist and evangelical Christians over the use of a particular term was perhaps unwise of Borg. Such jostling emphasizes the differences in beliefs rather than focusing on the similarities. I will for the remainder of this presentation use the terms "re-birth" and "renewal" inter-changeably for the various interpretations of "born again". These are terms, which I believe that both sides acknowledge as descriptive of their transformations. Hopefully by choosing neutral nomenclature, we can avoid some of the burden of language in our search for understanding of differing interpretations. The necessity of renewal What brings the two sides closer together than anywhere else in the debate is Borg's rationale for the necessity of a renewal process within the human condition. He states, that without exception, we descend into a state of self-consciousness and self-concern - socialization, from which we must find an exodus if we are to lead fulfilling lives. This is of course a view shared by the earlier paradigm to whom that pre-renewal state is also evidence of a greater phenomenon - that of original sin. The impact on the human condition Borg does a splendid job of demonstrating that the process of renewal can be identical in either paradigm. Transformation can range from an epiphanous, "Road to Damascus" type of occurrence, to a barely perceptible, but deliberate and intentioned evolution from one state of being to another. Validity of the emerging view There can be little doubt that Borg's summation of the universal need for renewal, and the commonality of the renewal process demonstrates the validity of the emerging view within the Christian community, particularly for those for whom the earlier paradigm "no longer works". But is the emerging view a formula that can be life transforming for millions? For one like I, who has one foot on either side of what is viewed by many polarized persons as the "we/they" line, perhaps this should be difficult to answer. Alas, I fear it is not so. In fact, the emerging view as articulated by Borg, Spong et al falls well short of representing a vision that will result in a new reformation with Spong as its self-appointed leader. The emerging camp fails to satisfactorily address three critical questions - two intellectual, one emotional! Question 1 - Why was Jesus killed Borg acknowledges that the demoted Jesus he describes in his fifth Chapter, this passive and free-floating iconoclast, this politically correct guru, this civil rights leader, this laconic shaman, would not have been killed merely for being the social prophet he describes. Borg correctly asks the question as to why Jesus was killed, and then does not answer the question, other than to say that the domination system killed him for his politics. Borg never does address the issue of what aspect of Jesus political life necessitated so visible a death. Why were not Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, or Micah similarly killed with equal voracity and circumstance? Why not just quietly execute Jesus the way they did John the Baptist? In the final analysis, only one explanation satisfies the intellect - that Jesus purported that he was something greater than the sum of all those "less than messianic" superlatives grudgingly acknowledged by the Jesus Seminar set. In short, Jesus said he was the Messiah and some believed him. Question 2 - Why would eyewitness or second hand accounts of Jesus message speak in metaphors? The emerging scholars discount much of the "salvation by grace and only by grace" message of the Gospels and letters of Paul as metaphors depicting a much softer, less self-effacing form of inter-action with God. The apostles risked persecution and death for using the words they did. Why would they subject themselves to punishment for the strongest form of challenge to the existing order when the real message they carried was one of considerably less threat to the established order? This simply makes no sense whatsoever. It is like a petty thief going around boasting that he is a murderer as a metaphorical way of confessing his lesser crimes. Again, the more logical interpretation of the Gospels and letters is that Jesus said he was the Messiah and the early church believed him. Question 3 - If the need for renewal is universal, as Borg acknowledges, then what is so repugnant about the notion of original sin? The notion is only one of original sin, not one of inherent evil. Frankly, I have less difficulty envisioning certain persons in my life, specifically my father and my wife, as inherently sinful and in need of salvation at the foot of the cross than I have in envisioning them as ever having been the self-centered individuals in need of innefable re-birth that Borg says we all are. In the final analysis, the words "I'm just an old sinner, saved by grace" give me a whole lot less unease than the words "I am a self-centered fool in need of renewal through ineffable, ethereal communiques with a God I have largely created in my own image". No my friends, the likelihood of Borg, Spong et al leading the next great reformation is not great. I would that it were so.
Marjorie's Notes. Jock asked a few of us to talk about our personal ideas on the "born again". This is in response to the position on this concept presented by Borg, and also in response to a rather spirited discussion by the group at large last week. During that discussion (which by the way I enjoyed) I did think I observed, perhaps for the first time in our discussions, an emotion akin to anxiety, at being asked to consider some of Borg's suggestions. · So, for what they are worth, here are some of my opinions: · Borg is wasting time trying to "recapture" the use of the born again phrase for the universal Christian faith. This is probably impossible, and could be undesirable because of the strong identification it now bears with the literalist camp. · What could be important would be to have more widely accepted the concept of recognizing and internalizing feelings deeply held about our religious yearnings, as valid insights that quicken our understanding and deepen our faith. This process can be vital to having a faith that is real, that works for us, that is capable of changing and growing. Funny isn't it - the paradox - we search for a personal relationship with the unknown, trans-personal entity. · I accept that for some people there is a blinding, soul-shaking experience which is genuine, and that this experience, which they are apt to call being "born again", can give them a relationship that is priceless. I consider, however, that this way of finding a personal faith is no better or worse, or more important, than other methods of growing in one's faith. For some of us that process takes a lifetime. · The next point I would bring up is the business of "seeking or finding". I liked Borg's musings on this subject. When I was a young adult I just accepted the fact that if I searched hard enough I could "find" the truth in all this God stuff - all my questions would be answered and life would be so simple. --- Well, that idea went by the board years ago. It was valuable, though, as it launched me on the "seeking" path - which continues to this day. I now believe that the "seeking" has been a major factor in shaping the person I am, and how I lead my life. I no longer expect cut-and-dried answers, and am content to live my religious life with uncertainties. After all, we live with uncertainties in all the other areas of our lives. Why should we expect anything else from our faith? · One final point - My mother used to say to my sister and to me when we got upset, "Relax! don't get your shirts in a knot!" Good advice! Let's continue to explore the works of these outstanding writers. Let's see how they can stretch and expand our horizons - and recognize that rejecting a different idea can be as much an aid to our growth as accepting it - as long as we first make the effort to think about it clearly and fairly - and God Bless this group of ours, which has a tendency to hold our collective feet to the fire, and be sure we are both clear and fair!

Larry's Notes. - DIALOGUES AMONGST NEWBORNS: - CONVERSING WITH THE "BORN AGAIN" CONCEPT Originally prepared in part for St. David's Adult Study Group - Calgary, AB, Feb. 14, 2005. Portions of this were given that night. This paper is the fuller consideration of this important topic. BEGINNING IN SILENCE Please, bear with me for a moment or two and let's imagine together. Let's imagine silence. ..... complete s i l e n c e ..... Continuing in this imaginative phase may allow you and I to move beyond or through the noise of our thoughts..... .....through and behind the lure of ideas and insights..... .... the sound only of silence. Like an innocent outsider gaping wide-eyed at all the sensations and feelings inside, ..... s i l e n c e ...... ..... n o t h i n g ..... ..... perhaps an occasional wisp of peace, certainly of stillness, occasionally of either great joy or equally great sadness ..... ..... a continuation of the unlimited silence. We know we've had this experience before, but when, where? When was the last time I/you/we fully recognized this sense of attachment, of belonging, and to what? "What makes these momentarily quieted wants, desires, so-called needs and values seemingly so powerful?" "What are these thoughts which upon examination try to explain or define what I am, what we are, and why we must do what we do?" And yet I can choose to question them, I may choose to ignore or place them as if in a museum case and walk around them curiously and dispassionately. Have there been times previously, was there a time perhaps as early as our birth when we had this sense of "all is well, and all is very well"? INTRODUCTION I'm sorry, that this little essay really isn't about newly born infants and their communicative skills, at least not directly. Perhaps it might be much more helpful if it were. Rather, it is about communicating the "as if" experiences of such new life in adults. What follows are reflections on our capacity as "mature adults", courageously and honestly, to share our new life experiences with others whose thinking, feelings, beliefs, and characterization of experience, differ considerably from our own. The differences in this case have to do with how we embrace and then describe our new lives: moral or spiritual rebirth; unseen or unexpected blessings; amazing recoveries from, or graceful wrestling with, illness; or, gradual strengthening of capacities to move and live in alternative ways and in unaccustomed directions with a new sense of values or prospects. The "new-born" possibilities of which I speak may be as clear as a set of quite novel activities in a new vocation or a previously unfamiliar geographical setting. They may include a fresh way of facing death. The sense of newness may also be mixed, not clearly charted, or even, confused. It may literally take the form of new doubts, new uncertainties, a "pristine chaos" in what was previously a settled existence. Let me begin my illustrations of the task I have set myself by describing a particular situation, the death of one's child. My valued acquaintances in The Compassionate Friends (TCF) circle speak of a post-loss, post-grieving "new normal" which may eventually follow such a death. (TCF is a self-help group for parents of all ages who have lost a child, again of any age, through death by accident, disease or suicide.) Those of us who have grieved the death of a child, even an adult child, know the value of the emphasis on "new" normal. One may hunger deeply for a return to normal but know that it cannot be reached. The life before the death of one's son or daughter, what was considered normal, is gone forever. However, one can be blessed to achieve or arrive at a "new normal". Publications of TCF are sensitive to the profound psychological and spiritual repercussions of different words and phrases. Just as the notion of "new normal" can be liberating for some, so the replacement of the phrase "accepting one's situation", "accepting one's loss" by the alternative: "acknowledging" one's grievance, can allow some of those involved in the work of grieving to be more open to the painful change in their lives. Furthermore, "acknowledgment" in place of "acceptance" seems to avoid carrying the additional burden of a moral imperative implicit, for many at least, in the notion of acceptance. Wherever the burden of moral obligation is minimized in largely non-blameable grieving situations (even when somewhat incorrectly conceptualized) the capacity to grieve healthily and fully can be accomplished earlier rather than later. Unfortunately the notion of "acknowledgment" is all too commonly associated with "mental assent only" as if that were an intellectualization which prevents "feeling" the loss. In point of fact "acknowledgment" may be the prime recognition of loss which enables full confirmation in mind and heart whereas "acceptance" may imply for many the cruel action of another, (person, God or Fate) to which one must surrender. This latter notion carries with it an overload of unfairness and may be a channel opening up to guilt and shame. In religious circles some of us find the same difficulty with, and correlative release in avoiding, the words "submission" and "surrender" to describe a new relationship with the Divine. For those of us who have long suffered from a lack of self appreciation or for those of us who have lived lives consistently abused or belittled by others, "submission" and "surrender" may be weapons adding to further dis-empowerment and to the fear of, and flight from, the challenge of healthy confidence and growth. This is partially so because submission and surrender are associated, in those whose lives are ones of abuse and belittlement, with a deeply rooted psychological or spiritual presence or script, as with inner voices of bitter put-downs of self. All one need do is picture the sexually abused or raped person to appreciate what despicable connotations sit with "surrender" and "submit". Where does one go to find healthy and meaningful alternatives or synonyms to describe a new life, a new normal, and to which we wish to ascribe a religious or spiritual significance? Simply check out a good thesaurus for starters! We have no end of forceful words to describe our relationship to the Holy in the context of full newness of life and to do so without falling back on the traditional, tired and limited notions of surrender and submission. Consider the following as a mere preliminary round: a Holy Accord, a New Bonding, a Fresh Integration, a Divine Attachment, a Holy Blending, a New Partnership, Acting in Concert, a Fusion, Union, "One Taste", a Holy Synergy and a New Synthesis. Even a New Will-to-Meaning or Mindfulness. I've begun each of these descriptors in upper case so that their Divine or "product of the Holy Spirit" qualities cannot be so readily overlooked. In situations of severe depression, anxiety, disability, loss and suffering, the languages of "religious" and "secular" correctives may serve, as indicated above, stealthily to hinder the very possibility or movement towards newness and health. On the other hand, given a mindfulness of the "inside" of those same conditions, and how one thoughtfully gives voice to them, these same applications may become instruments for understanding or enlarging "newness"and wholeness. Take the case of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for one example. In situations of depression, anxiety, death, divorce and separation, plus both physical and moral torment, the traditional language and practices of contriteness, confession, repentance, forgiveness and restitution may be realized but with different emphases and sometimes alternative words and phrases. If we imagine, for illustrative purposes, the case of a severely depressed person who believes she or he is responsible for a shameful action against a close relative or friend, there are at least five steps in CBT that may facilitate proportionality, balance, health and new life. These are, firstly, "assessing the seriousness of the action" including determining how others perceive it, how it would be perceived if it were your best friend performing the act, how it might look six months from now, the extent to which one was fully cognizant of the consequences, whether the damage is redeemable, whether even worse actions were avoided, and so on. It may seem to some "God-fearing" or overly guilt-directed individuals that such an appraisal is mere rationalization and avoidance of responsibility. There is of course nothing to rule out this possibility. However, the probability is that this process of assessing seriousness is an important step, not in avoiding or hiding one's guilt or deeper shame, but in dealing with it honestly and openly. Similarly, the next step- "weighing personal responsibility" or determining one's share of the responsibility pie for damage done-can be most constructive. In my own case carving up the pie of responsibility for the suicide death of my adult son allowed me to recognize that 'yes, indeed' I must accept 10 percent, perhaps even as much as 20 per cent, of the responsibility for his death. This is a far cry from the 90 per cent plus that earlier depression and guilt prompted me to believe about myself. The total picture of the pie of responsibility more realistically consisted of the following components: my son's own decisions, values, and habits, and the roles of his friends, his therapist, his ex-girl-friend, his employers, his mother, his siblings, and of course his father, myself. This constructive thinking may then serve as the foundation for further steps: "breaking the silence" which is so often associated with guilt or shame; forgiving one's self and perhaps acknowledging that one performed a particular act not because one is "a despicable person" but because "I did this act in such a despicable period of my life, so hard that I no longer even cared what I did". Finally, there is the stage of making reparations or reconciling with an injured party. My argument to this point is to indicate that in the realms of events and circumstances which may lead to significant turns in one's life, to which one attaches religious or spiritual significance, and whether these are sudden or over long periods of time, there are common experiences which are, or can be, described by alternative languages. I will now attempt to further illustrate this understanding but do so with a view to considering the value and limits of what has become a common, and in some quarters dominant, position taken by conservative Christian evangelicals, the "requirement" of being "Born Again" or "Saved". RENEWAL, NEW LIFE, NEW NORMAL, REBIRTH, MINDFULNESS, WILL-TO-MEANING AND "BORN AGAIN" Those of us who followed with great enthusiasm the race for the Stanley Cup by the underdog Calgary Flames were quick to praise the magnificent performance of Calgary goaltender Miikka Kiprusoff. It isn't surprising then to see posters in car windows amongst some of Calgary's Christian drivers which read: "Kipper is good, but Jesus Really Saves". The strength of the "Born Again" understanding that Jesus really does "save" (and I take that to mean "is totally capable via Divine Intervention of turning one's life around completely" is that it is a belief system which works for millions, many or most of whom have lived a shallow shadow existence and many others of whom have lived lives of frightening addiction and horrendous suffering. Many of us who prefer not to use the language and connotations of "saved Christians", if we are at all open and mindful to the lives of some of those who call themselves "born again," have witnessed an oftentimes quite astounding movement from a crippling life of addiction and meaninglessness to a life of enthusiasm and optimism, if not remarkable dedication and service. What I personally find repugnant about "ye must be born again" is not the notion that rebirth, renewal, or new life is possible, even dramatically so, and critically desirable, but rather the myopic view that such new birth can only be understood or accepted in one way. To stick to the language of the so-called "Born Again" Christian it may be profoundly true that we must be spiritually born anew if we are to reach our wholeness as daughters and sons of the Living God. However, such a confidence does not have to infer that there is only one formula, passageway, or "membership card" to what may be a dynamic, many-sided, or universal human experience. Let me relate a brief story which might illustrate something of the universality of renewal. A Jewish friend of mine who rightly prides himself on being a skilled and devout listener to his clients seeking emotional well-being or spiritual renewal was told by one of his long-standing clients that a friend of the client had been struck by quite noticeable changes in his friend's (the client's) life. This friend of the client then asked something like: "Your life has dramatically changed. What does this coach of yours do?" The client reflected for a moment in stunned silence. Then he threw his arms in the air and with eyes bulging and mouth agape shouted "NOTHING". I don't want to read too much into this little story but I can't resist noting that true listening full of undivided attention and care may be of the same substance as "unconditional love" enabling people as it does to make up their own minds, solve their own difficulties, straighten out and renew their own lives by the powers and capacities which lie within them. It also seems to me that the Jesus of whom the "Born Again" speak had this same capacity. He was not busy giving detailed advice on how to organize one's weekly routine and solve intricate daily issues. He was rather fully attentive with the utmost confidence in the "Holy" spirit of renewal or "Kingdom of the Divine" which lay within. Following the telling of the "nothing" story I asked my friends how they would converse with the "born again believers" who, it seemed to me, would have difficulty accepting the seemingly passive approach to life-changes exhibited in my Jewish friend's story. 'In other words', I asked, 'how does "listening" appear to "the believer" who assumes that we are responsible for "actively accepting the offer of salvation"-along the lines of "only he who BELIEVES in the Only Begotten Son shall be saved". The response to my query was striking. It came as if from out of "left field", and it pleasantly surprised me. 'But we are ALL believers.' We don't believe the same things but we are all believers in some directives, Divinity, appropriate directions, constructive means of achieving newness of life. Furthermore, my friends argued, the believer in something different from the born again Christian believer may be instantaneously castigated as the "non-believer" by the "Born Again", or, as some earlier forms of Islam would have argued, he who does not believe (in what I hold to be true) is the "infidel". Here, for me at least, is the core of my difficulty with the "born again" position and language. It disparages all those who think, experience and believe differently as outsiders: non-believers, and by extension, infidels. And, incongruously, it does so in the name of the One whose earthly life was devoted to inclusiveness. Allow me to circle back one last time to this question of beliefs and the insistence of having to acknowledge a particular understanding in order to be reborn or discover and achieve new life. One of the most noticeable limitations surrounding "Jesus Saves" and "I am THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life, no man cometh to the Father but by me" (John 14:6) is that such assertions are founded on a powerful and quite vehement system of beliefs or mental assent. I would like to contrast or compare that central belief system with one or two alternative perspectives on what I am convinced are the same realities. In the past year I have had several experiences which seem to me to challenge the singularity of the "Born Again" and "Jesus Saves" "[only] Jesus saves" injunction. The first of those experiences was a long dusty automobile ride from Calgary to Regina and back with a new Muslim friend. As we talked about the losses and changes we had in common in our lives (divorce, depression, dislocation) we grew ever more astounded at the similar spiritual realities, not only about our losses and struggles but about the grace-filled new confidence and life which had emerged for each of us. We were both believers in some form of Divine Presence but my friend's was definitively the workmanship of Islamic Allah while mine was a form of what, for the sake of the current argument, I might call 'dynamic Christian liberalism'. In the past few weeks I have been reading the work of the world-renowned Jewish father of logotherapy, Viktor Frankl, and his insights into the human will-to-meaning. Frankl's reflections in large measure grow out of his three years in four Nazi concentration camps including the extermination camp of Auschwitz. I have also been reading the work of the venerable Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, in particular his Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers. And finally, I have been reading Marcus Borg's The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith and Ralph C. Wood's Flannery O'Connor and the Christ-Haunted South. The latter is the story of a famous American story-teller who was riddled with debilitating lupus, a remarkable woman of Roman Catholic background who used "born again" Protestant Southerners to embody her iconoclastic stories designed to detonate American mainstream religious and political smugness. This past Wednesday I began the day by reading a little more of Flannery O'Connor and her embracement of Southern fundamentalism, with all the power which this religiosity encapsulates in its confidence in supernaturalism and high regard for the scriptures. 'Scratch an Episcopalian and you're liable to find most anything" O'Connor chided. While one of her critics struck up the corollary: "Scratch a Baptist and you will find the inerrant word of God, or worse". As I entered my time of morning contemplation I realized that what O'Connor enthusiastically appropriated from Protestant fundamentalism was the strength and starkness of the Divine Otherness which challenges all. I could feel its "rightness" in my gut even while I measured its stringent discomfort in my mind. I felt unnerved, somewhat angry and frightened. I do recognize the chilling sharp-knifed truth of this fundamentalist posture. Then, almost mysteriously and unconsciously, the image of Viktor Frankl came to my heart and mind. Here was the threadbare Dr. Frankl speaking to fellow inmates in Auschwitz, quietly urging them to hold to their memories and mental images of meaningful events, loved ones and future possibilities. My own mental imagery shifted again, softly, swiftly and quite unexpectedly. I recalled Thich Nhat Hanh portraying an invitation from the Buddha to Jesus to come for afternoon tea. What would they say to each other? The Venerable "Thay" knew what they would NOT say-things like 'what are you doing on MY turf' or "I'm elbowing in here because "You Vietnamese people...follow a wrong spiritual path. You have to reject all that and you have to learn a new spiritual path that I am going to offer to you. It is the only path that offers salvation." No, that is not what these two spiritual brothers would speak to each other. Thich Nhat Hanh suggests that perhaps their conversation would go something like the following: The Buddha turns to his sitting partner Jesus and says, "My dear brother, is it too difficult to continue in this time of ours? Is it more difficult to be straightforward, to be fearless, to help people to understand and to love than it was in the old time?" Later the Buddha, quietly sipping his tea, might turn to Jesus and conclude: " My dear brother Jesus, is it much more difficult in our time? "What can I do to help you, my brother?" I must confess to having been deeply moved by all of these images and to the point of tears. Then I realized that I was capable of embracing each of these images, each of these "world-views" or belief systems. In one of those quiet "eureka" experiences which may not always look like so much from the outside, I realized that my choice was not one or the other, not the "born again" position or some liberal Christian opposite but that I was capable of deeply feeling and identifying with several positions. "Just like bi-lingualism", I thought. And now looking back after further reflection that understanding might just be the gist of my tentative question to us all-Can we not choose to become multi-lingual in this realm of conversation around "life-changing forces"? Since, however we apprehend it we are truly new-borns in making good sense of, and giving purposeful direction to, our lives, why can we not choose to speak and actually BE of more than one language and more than one spiritual/religious experience? Given such gifts of the Spirit we may learn to engage in genuine dialogue amongst the new-borns that we may rightfully call ourselves. AN EPILOGUE ON THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE The argument was made following one of our adult study sessions on Borg's The Heart of Christianity that the early Christians could not possibly have been speaking in metaphors. If they were we likely wouldn't have a Christian heritage in which to explain things metaphorically today! And if Jesus and his early followers of "the way" had talked only in metaphors certainly He would not have been killed. I disagree. The problem in speaking spiritual and perhaps even political truths, it seems to me, has always been one of "stiff-necked literalists" who have no patience for the art of the one who speaks in "troubling metaphors". In a mild vein do we think for a moment that our current Canadian Prime Minister doesn't mind the appellation "Mr. Dithers", because, after all, its only metaphor? Or that Stephen Harper can ignore the metaphorical implications of his name as the "harping one"? Not so! Metaphors cut to the quick. They can be deeply disturbing simply because they are larger than life and particulars. The sources of the "born again" phrase (which Borg and all interpretations and translations universally agree may be rendered "born anew" or "born from above") are really only two in number: John 3: 1-12 and 1Peter 1: 22-23. Why must one take a phrase like "born again" so literally while avoiding both its alternative translations and its source's complaints about the blindness of literalists? This is a particularly cogent question when we know that the Gospel of John is almost universally accepted by scholars to be the least accurate historical rendering of the words of Jesus. Perhaps this is one of the great sad ironies of contemporary religious life. Has the language and associated obligation around being "born again" and "saved by Jesus" become a new substitute for the same literalism which Jesus repudiated in the Gospel of John? Even the author of this Gospel is consistently and emphatically opposed to such a spirit and practice. Hence the single most important source for "born again Christians" and their contentions is belied by both its historical unlikelihood or by the internal contradiction even if one were to take John's Gospel as accurate. Allow me to provide a few examples of the literalism. In John 6:52 where Jesus describes Himself as the Bread of Life, He is countered by Pharisees who complain that He is arguing that they "must eat his flesh". They are completely literalistic and they don't get it. Or more precisely my guess is they don't want to get it. Eating of the life of Jesus (His words and Spirit) is the last thing they want to do because it would turn everything they have ever learned, believed, lived, and taught on its ear. In John 8:22 Jesus talks about going to a place where others cannot or will not have gone. Again, the religious authorities of the day take him literally and think he must be talking about suicide, when in fact he is talking about trusting in Him even in His apparent absence. Finally, we have Nicodemus, the elite member of the Jewish Council, in the classic "born again" passage of John 3: 1-12 taking Jesus literally once more: "What am I supposed to do climb back into my mother's womb so that I can be "born again"? In every one of these cases (and there are plenty more in the Gospel of John) Jesus Himself is talking in metaphors and people don't get it. Just like so many of us don't get it today. Jesus makes it clear in his responses to his literalist critics that he is talking about things of the spirit, and calls them to "get That", "understand That", "get with the Spirit"-" you're supposed to be one of the great spiritual leaders in Israel and you don't know this?" John 3: 10. When in John 14:6 Jesus describes himself as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father except by me" he risks being misunderstood again. He still risks being misunderstood in 2005. These are obviously metaphors in the same way as being called "the Light of Life", "the Lamb of God" or "the Door". But contrary to being a diminution of reality a metaphor or a myth is its greatest recognition, appropriation, and celebration. Jesus as Christ is Way, is Truth, is Life. So may be Buddha, but that doesn't take away from the singularity of Holy Spirit, of Way, of Truth, of Life, of the Door to human fulfilment and destiny. Remember that little exercise of imagination around silence that we conducted when you began reading this essay? There is something of Way, Truth and Light there for any reader. I recently experienced this meditative move to silence with a group of Calgarians. When I entered a situation of silence and listened to the patient and insightful comments of participants who could have been of any religious or spiritual background in the world (since I didn't know any of them and I had read no prior announcement of the event or its leader) I was moved by what for me was a clear description and embodiment of the Divine Other. In my understanding Jesus as the truly Compassionate source of new life was palpably present in this mixed group of what turned out to be Buddhists, agnostics and curious Christians like myself. It was a compelling exercise in Mindfulness, resulting in new life and new birth in a manner we Christians could do well to emulate. If literalism operates today as it has throughout human history then perhaps it is important for those of us who are unnerved or repelled by the misuse of 'born again' as a narrowed "belief requirement" to substitute other phrases which help us in our struggle to be less literalistic, less stiff-necked and more open to the realities of the spiritual rebirth that Jesus and His Sisters and Brothers have tried to bring to our attention throughout human history. When we come to those two (only two) references to 'born again' we know we can knowingly, sensitively and in good conscience choose the alternative phrases "born anew" or better still "born from above" implying directly the Wind, Breath or Spirit of God from beyond and from deep within. And when we come to Jesus' declaration: "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life" we can refer to the only corresponding passage to this biblical verse (at least in all of the translations which I have researched this past two weeks): If you had walked in the way of God, you would have lived in peace forever. Where is understanding, where is strength, where is intelligence and insight? Learn that and then you will know where to find life and light to walk by, then you will know where to find a long and full life, light to guide you, and peace. - Baruch 3: 13-14 (New English Bible and Good News Bible) RESOURCES: Marcus J. Borg, The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith (New York: HarperCollins, 2003) esp. Chapter 6, "Born Again: A New Heart". Viktor Frankl, The Doctor and the Soul: From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy (New York: Vintage Books, 1986). Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning (Toronto: Pocket Books, Washington Square Press, 1984) First published 1946. Dennis Greenberger & Christine A. Padesky, Mind Over Mood: Change How You Feel by Changing the Way You Think (New York: The Guilford Press, 1995) pp. 198-207 from Chapter 12: "Understanding Anger, Guilt and Shame". Thich Nhat Hanh, Going Home: Jesus and Buddha As Brothers (New York: Riverhead Books, Penguin, 1999) p. 198. Ralph C. Wood, Flannery O'Connor and the Christ-Haunted South (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004). Scriptural Quotations tailored from: Good News Bible with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha The Holy Bible: King James Version The New English Bible with Apocrypha. Larry J. Fisk Apt. #2, 1640 - 20th Ave. NW Calgary, AB, T2M 1G8 Phone/Fax: (403) 210-3184 Email: larry.fisk@shaw.ca

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: How do you understand the phrase ‘born again’ as a description of the committed Christian life? In what ways might ‘born again’ Christians seek to participate in and influence the political process in order to create a more just society? 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