4 posts tagged “history”
So, I'm having an interesting discussion with a friend on a message board. He belongs to the Orthodox Church, believes that no one goes to Hell when they die, and thinks that Jesus' message was primarily about *this* life and not the next. So far I agree.
Our discussion is centered around the events in Christ's life, and whether them actually taking place in the time line has any affect on the meaning derived from them. I'm quite enjoying this discussion, so I'm going to paste some parts of it here for remembrance sake...and for anyone who wishes to continue it. :)
*****
I guess I find so much meaning in the story that I'm not sure what affect its historicity would have on its impact?
I mean, say we had the bible, but the names were all changed...would it still have the same power? If it doesn't, is it a meaningful difference, or does it just have less power because it's not what we are used to? Or, say someone came up with undeniable proof that Jesus never existed at all, would that shake your faith?
I see your point here. And I know for a great many people throughout history it has been somewhat of a security blanket that gives them courage and strengthens their faith. But, I guess, that's exactly my point. It's a huge comfort, and since when did Jesus tell us to seek comfort? Again, I'm not arguing that the story *wasn't* historically true, I just think that we tend to be way too attached to that aspect, and it can limit our understanding so that we miss some of the most profound and meaningful things in the story itself.I think it was important to them for a number of reasons, including validation of Jesus' claims, encouragement in their sorrow, hope that they share the same fate, and confidence that they could now risk their lives and do anything they dreamt of.
I guess I am just wary of attachment to particulars.
For me, even thinking that the story may be entirely myth, I still find incredible power in it. My life experience validates Jesus' claims. The concepts in the story give me encouragement in my sorrows and hope for my own resurrection (mainly in my life here, but sure after death too). It doesn't always give me the courage to risk everything and follow my dreams, because often my vision is clouded by fear. But when I am calm and centered, I see clearly and that courage comes to me in waves. I worry that a courage based on a particular historical event is a way to deny that fear. It's a subtle underlying aspect of human life, and it cannot be denied.
The only way to be rid of it is, as through Jesus' example, letting it in and not avoiding it. It's a subtle thing I'm talking about, how someone might push down a feeling of fear because of their unshattering faith in a particular event...versus understanding what that event tries to show us (regardless of whether it happened that way or not) and listening to that advice and being open and receptive...even to fear and suffering.
It did have to happen, in the story, because of what it means. Because of how it teaches us. It would make sense that Jesus would acknowledge that it has to happen, because part of his point is that even seeing something like this looming up ahead in our future, we must not be afraid, for there is nothing to fear. If you imagine Jesus' prediction as a literary device in the story of the resurrection, it makes a lot of sense. Not that it can't be real as well, but it seems that the meaning is there regardless.Let's not forget though that it was important to Jesus too. For some reason, it had to happen, he predicted that it would, and told his followers to look forward to it.
Do you really think the Bible becomes empty and meaningless if these events didn't happen? Acknowledging that the events may not have taken place in real life does not take away from the profundity and the *truth* found in the story. This story puts into beautiful and precise terms what so many other stories try to get at...some with better success than others. It speaks directly to our hearts the way only stories can. And there are echoes of these truths in almost every story we write, in almost every life we live. But here we have it unclouded by the fear in our normal stories. Jesus is a character without fear (or rather, who does not act of fear), without sin, and the huge tragedy in his life puts God's lessons to us practically in neon lights.But as to why it should be important historically, I guess I don't really have an answer right now, but it seems inseparable from the story, to me anyway. Perhaps they are pat Christian answers, but if it's just a story, and never happened, and the Son of God didn't exist, and the Incarnation didn't really happen, I'm forced ask what the point would even be then? Besides just trying to be a better person by modeling your life after a character in a story. And the Gospels, as well as the other NT writings, and the writings of those shortly thereafter, place great importance upon these events really happening.
It's so much more than just trying to be a better person. It's discovering the path to truth, to life. It's trusting in the process, even if it looks like it is leading you toward death...because the path to death is a path to rebirth. It teaches us that there is no need to fear, ever. And that love is a never ending spring; the more you pour out of yourself the more you have. It is about letting go.
Stories are meant to teach eternal truths in such a way that we can resonate with them on the deepest level. Christ's story is one of, if not the, most profound of all. I don't know about you, but when I talk about these things my heart fills with excitement and joy at the sheer *truth* of it all. It's incredible.
Well, I'm not a bible scholar, so I can't tell you what his original meaning was. I can only tell you what I gather from it. Why must Paul be talking about a concrete event? In the same passage he talks about the reflection between Christ and Adam. But you don't believe Adam existed. You have no attachment to the particulars in that story. Yet somehow what Paul says is true, isn't it? That what was introduced with Adam is now overcome by Christ. Is it an event that somehow canceled out a prior event? No, because the prior event never happened in real life. It was a myth. But the meaning of it is still strong...and the eternal aspect of the myth, the truth of it...is now reflected and expanded on in the story of Christ.Question for you, what was Paul meaning when he said if Jesus didn't really die and rise again, our faith is in vain? If it's not important as an event that really happened, why do they all place so much importance upon it?
I don't think he's really talking about Christ being risen on a concrete level (though again, it may be concrete as well), but on a personal and existential level that goes much deeper. If Christ is not risen, if there is no rebirth after death, then your faith and your preaching are worthless. You do not fully believe in the meaning you preach. You do not truly have faith. You are still in sin because you are still in fear of death and suffering. And in your mind, those who are asleep (notice he doesn't say dead, interesting) have no hope of awakening, so why preach? I think he's showing how their point of view is reflective of an inner state of despair and fear, when it should be one of hope and life.
Anyway, just my perspective.
*****
Finally, all my videos have been uploaded to youtube, so now you can go through the whole talk in order, so that everything makes sense. :)
Last night I had the pleasure of seeing Tim Freke speak at a bookstore in San Rafael. If you don't know what he's about try watching the following video:
I thoroughly enjoyed myself. I knew he'd be good, but what I didn't count on was (a) the personal resonance that I felt because though he is obviously Gnostic he does not identify himself with ancient Gnosticism and (b) the fact that he had the same sorts of mannerisms and passion for what he was talking about as my favorite professor in college.
I found my heart getting all excited like it always does whenever I'm listening to or reading something of incredible value that resonates with my personal experience. Like Freke, though the history is interesting that is not my focus. I'd much rather look deeply into the essence of it, and it especially delights me when that essence seems to be shared across multiple religious backgrounds.
I had my trusty camera along with me, and so I was able to take a lot of video to share with people who weren't able to come with me. Here are the three that were short enough for me to upload to vox, but the rest will be coming soon once they finish uploading to youtube. I will make another post with links to those videos.
For now:
Oh, I also got a book signed. :)
It's funny, because I picked up Borg's book The Heart of Christianity, just three days ago. I'm more than halfway done with it, and I haven't had much time to read it. As I started reading, it felt incredibly familiar. You know that class that I loved more than anything in college? The professor (a Jesuit priest), had been teaching us this new paradigm, and had even called it that, but it never felt like an attack on our old way of thinking. That course lit me up in a way nothing ever had. The second chapter of Borg's book felt exactly like one of his lectures. It kind of felt like coming home. :)
So here goes. A simple comparison of the earlier paradigm (what we think of as traditional Christianity) and the emerging paradigm, as written by Marcus Borg, with additional information from my college coursework:
First of all, all who claim to be Christian must adhere to these three things:
1. There is a God.
2. The Bible gives us a way to know God. It also gives the Christian faith a sense of identity.
3. Jesus is the word made flesh. He is the perfect example of how to put the word of God in action in our own lives.
Everyone good? I know I know, atheists reject the first tenet and therefore all three. Just hang in there. :)
What is a paradigm shift?
The best way to explain a paradigm shift is by example. Generally, a paradigm is a way of seeing things. A viewpoint, a worldview. Our worldview is shaped by the religious, cultural, and scientific environment in which we are born and/or live in. A paradigm shift happens when some piece of information is given to us that changes the way we look at *everything.*
How about we look at Copernicus, the man who first proposed a heliocentric universe. The earth is one of many planets that revolve around the sun. It seemed like merely a scientific revelation, but it affected the whole world view of the people in that time. It did change the whole field of astronomy and astrophysics, but it also changed the common person's view of their place in the world. They'd gotten used to thinking that they were the fixed center of things. All of the sudden the meaning of their lives had changed. This was met with great resistance, as all paradigm shifts are.
No objective facts changed. The world remained the same as before, but their understanding of it was different.
All of that said, here are the differences between the earlier paradigm and the emerging paradigm:
Faith
Earlier Paradigm: Faith is about "belief"; it mainly concerns matters of the head. If you can't hold certain tenets as fact, then you have no faith. You are a non-believer.
Emerging Paradigm: Faith is about trust, fidelity, and seeing the world in a certain way. It is a matter of the heart. The opposite of faith is anxiety, idolatry, and seeing reality as either entirely threatening or completely indifferent.
There are traditionally four definitions of the word faith. The first is as I described in the earlier paradigm. Faith as assent to propositions. It's an add-on to knowledge. When you can't know something, you can believe it. However, it's more questionable than knowledge, giving it a somewhat lesser status.
But this definition is a fairly recent one. If you look at the etymology of the word, a better meanings are "to trust" and "to love, hold dear." Another strong meaning is faith as vision. Faith as a way of seeing things. Now, instead of faith being an add-on to knowledge, it becomes the lens through which all knowledge is viewed. It colors everything, and its status is raised at least to the same level as, if not above, factual knowledge. It's what we give our heart to, it's what we remain faithful to, and it's what determines every single action we make. In short, faith is a paradigm.
In the earlier paradigm, you didn't have faith if you couldn't accept certain facts. In the emerging paradigm, losing your faith is very much losing your way in life. You feel like there's nothing to trust in, and so you scrabble to find anything that can give you the illusion of hope. You see the world as a place of horrors we must protect ourselves from. Or you see it as a place that is completely indifferent to human interests, thereby drawing a line between humanity and nature.
Doesn't this ring true? Isn't this type of faith not just richer, but more descriptive of the human experience? Even many of you who ascribe to the earlier paradigm (notice I do not make distinctions about whether you are religious or not) have probably implemented elements of this type of faith.
I stress that this paradigm is not being "invented." There are many areas in which we have to go *back* to find the foundations of our faith, not just make them up to fit whatever model we want them to.
The Bible
Earlier Paradigm: The Bible is the direct word of God. As such, it is infallible, and it is (at least mostly) factual. It should be interpreted literally.
Emerging Paradigm: The Bible is the response of Israel and the early Christians to God. It is inspired by God. It needs to be interpreted historically, metaphorically, and sacramentally.
The concept of infallibility is actually a recent one. It wasn't until the 1600s that biblical infallibility appeared, and it wasn't until two hundred years later that some Protestant groups began insisting on it. In the Catholic church, Papal infallibility was decided on in 1870.
It also seems to me that the Bible being the direct word of God has a logical flaw. God couldn't have spoken through someone word for word, because to do so would be to hijack that person's free will. By God's own rules, the writing is subject to human error and interpretation.
Even so, in this case the earlier paradigm shows the type of faith it puts in the bible. If you can't accept the whole bible as fact, you're not a believer. A matter of the head, not of the heart.
Instead, let's look at the bible as a response. A human reaction to the experience of God in ancient Israel and the early Christian community. Doesn't that make more sense?
If the Bible was a reaction to the human experience of God in Israel, then couldn't something like Taoism or Buddhism be the reaction of people in those places to the same experience of the sacred?
As far as metaphor goes, a problem that many people face is the realization that the stories in the bible might be "just" metaphors. But this denies the power that metaphor holds. It could be fact. There are definitely parts of the bible that are fact. The people of Israel did flee the Egyptians, for instance. But as soon as we concentrate *only* on what is fact, we are back to the earlier paradigm. Instead, lets think about it in a more-than-literal way.
So now we introduce a different way of thinking about truth. There is a difference between something being literally true (fact), and something that reveals truth. Haven't you ever read a particularly good work of fiction? You know that it is not factually or literally true, but good books usually reveal some sort of truth about the human experience. They are true in a different way. A Native American storyteller begins his story "Now I don't know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true."
So the bible may or may not be fact. But we have to stop
fixating. Fact is not the point. Truth is. Truth about our lives and
the human condition. Isn't this type of truth much more meaningful?
Some from the emerging
paradigm propose things that sound crazy to traditional Christians.
That the resurrection wasn't fact, that Jesus was married, etc. I
don't know if these people are correct or not, but I do think that part
of the reason they push their ideas so much is because they want to
challenge our perceptions. They want to shock us into ridding
ourselves of our preoccupation with fact, but I think they are actually
causing the opposite effect. What we should be emphasizing is that our
faith is not dependent on these facts, but on the truth revealed in the
Bible and through Jesus.
God
Earlier Paradigm: Supernatural theism. God is out there somewhere. He "intervenes" in our lives whenever He deems necessary. He is person like, and a God of Law.
Emerging Paradigm: Panentheism. God is in everything and more. The whole world is God, but God is not just the whole world. Divine intervention makes no sense, instead the divine runs through and underneath all things. He is a God of grace.
Some people emphasize the vertical relationship we have with God. How God is different from us, and we are less than him, and we need something to mediate between us and him. Others emphasize a more horizontal relationship with God. That God is everything and we can know him just by looking around or looking into our own hearts.
But the answer lies in both approaches. God isn't far off watching us and every once in a while moving a piece on the board. He's still greater than us by far, but he's also in every single thing around us. He encompasses us. And so whenever anything happens, God is there. Not to say that everything is a direct result of God's will, but that God is at work actively wherever anything happens.
So that means that God is constantly speaking to us. Constantly prodding and pushing us towards the right way of life. He doesn't come down from Heaven and make a sweeping miracle (that really, is just an elaborate party trick) to show his power. Instead he humbly works behind the scenes to push us in the right direction. And if we really discern what is happening in our lives, we can hear his voice calling to us.
But that is not enough. We can't just follow our heart where ever it leads us, because the heart is deceitful above all things. This is where the simultaneously vertical relationship comes in. We, as Christians, need the Bible, we need Jesus, to show us the path to God. We need some sort of revealed truth/wisdom.
Another point here is that it doesn't particularly matter what you call God. Whether it's just the More, Allah, Yahweh, the Tao, enlightenment, the sacred, etc. As long as it is the same truth of human experience, the same wisdom of the ages, it doesn't matter how it is revealed.
This doesn't lessen the power of God, but rather increase it. God is in all things and works so hard to reveal himself to us that he inspires people where they are at. He didn't just establish one church and wait for everyone to find it. He works with whatever people have to try to bring them the fullness of a life lived near him.
So is God personal? Incredibly. He gives his grace to each one of us individually. It is a free gift. As soon as we attach conditionals to this gift, it is no longer a gift but a reward. This will be explained further in the section on the Christian life.
Jesus
Earlier Paradigm: Concentrate on Jesus's divinity, his miracles, and the facts of his life.
Emerging Paradigm: Concentrate on the unique combination of divinity and humanity found in Jesus, and take his message and his example as the path to God.
As another consequence of the earlier paradigms focus on faith as "belief" and facts instead of truth, we tend to look at Jesus and emphasize what is different from us. The divine part. The part that "proves" that Jesus was/is God. Again, we focus on the "facts" of his life. The fact that he was able to perform miracles and healings becomes more important than what performing those particular miracles/healings might mean. Yes or no, do you believe Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, etc? An easy way of separating believers from non believers without ever actually looking at the substance of what Jesus shows us.
This particular area is moving more and more towards the emerging paradigm, even in mainline churches. More and more, the fact of the miracle is taking a second place to what the miracle means, and that is a very good thing.
As a consequence of trying to look at the Bible historically, Borg (and most bible scholars) found that many of the things that were written about Jesus and his death were written decades after it actually happened, making the accounts imbued with the meaning his death had for those who wrote about it. I'm not saying, as some would, that this makes them false. They may or may not, but the point is that the meaning may have arisen mainly as a reaction to Jesus's life.
This has some consequences. Jesus, as we all agree, was about humility and service and love. Would someone so humble constantly remind people that he is God's son and therefore has authority over how they should live? I don't think so. He constantly asks people "Who do *you* say I am?" To proclaim it over and over would be a form of arrogance. Jesus didn't want people to follow his authority, he wanted them to follow his example. Part of his whole message was to stop the current authorities from having a monopoly on God.
Jesus's death is also imbued with extra meaning. In fact, Borg mentions five meanings, some of which we will find very familiar, and all of which make sense. The first two are mainly political, having to do with Jesus as strictly a human being. Jesus *was* a political revolutionary, simply because of his passion for God's justice. The first meaning was a simple rejection-vindication meaning. The authorities rejected him, but God vindicates him. A way for the people to show that thought he was executed by man, his place is sacred because of God.
The second was to show how corrupt the powers of domination were at the time. Also political. By killing Jesus, the powers of the time showed how corrupt they were. To kill a man who had done nothing wrong his whole life but get people to start thinking and feeling was horrible. In his death, he triumphed over them.
The third meaning was to see Jesus's death as a way or a path. How to get to God. We have to die to an old way of being and be reborn or raised into a new way.
Fourth, Jesus's death reveals God's love for us. This one is pretty self-explanatory.
Lastly, Jesus died for our sins. A living sacrifice. This is one of the most familiar to the earlier paradigm. But it has different meaning for each paradigm.
The earlier paradigm sees it mainly as a story of sin, guilt, and forgiveness. We are sinners, and we are guilty. The only way our sins can be forgiven is if an adequate sacrifice is made. Sacrificing animals won't do it. Sacrificing an imperfect human won't do it, as his death would only be enough to forgive his own sins. So God sent his only son, the perfect human, to die on the cross and appease God's anger for all that would believe in him.
But this is an odd way of thinking about God. Is God really so limited in his ability to forgive that a sacrifice must be made? Is his anger really more powerful than his love? Is there really a conditional attached to God's love for every individual?
Back when the gospels were written Jesus as a sacrifice for sin had a very different meaning. The temples of the time had declared that there are certain types of sin that cannot be forgiven without a sacrifice in the temple. In this way, they gathered for themselves a monopoly on forgiveness, and therefore on God. Because of this Jesus as a sacrifice meant a denial of temple sacrifice. The sacrifice has already been made, your sacrifices mean nothing. Stop thinking you have a monopoly on God. The ironic thing is that only four hundred years later, the Church would fall back into this practice.
This meaning is not somehow less than the meaning of the earlier paradigm. It proclaims God's radical grace and accessibility to each person. No mediating force is necessary. God is present to everyone and bestows grace and forgiveness without any ifs. We don't have to do anything to receive God, God takes the first step. This was an incredibly radical idea, and one that we've forgotten over and over again.
In short, Jesus is the way, the path, the light of the world. To know Jesus is to know God. Although it is still important, we need to de-emphasize his divinity and look at the lessons he taught us through word and example.
Christian Life
Earlier Paradigm: Life is full of requirements and rewards. We have to do what God says so that we can spend the afterlife in Heaven.
Emerging Paradigm: Life is about constant transformation and relationship in this life. We have to follow the path Jesus laid out for us in order to become better human beings (i.e. closer to God).
Because of the sin, guilt, forgiveness model of the earlier paradigm, God is a God of laws. Of requirements we must follow in order to receive the ultimate reward: to get to Heaven in the afterlife. The earlier paradigm puts an enormous emphasis on the afterlife, to the point that it de-emphasizes this life. The only reason to pay attention to this life is to do it "right" so that we can get into the good afterlife with God.
Evangelism has to be spreading the good news that Jesus came to save us, but also the bad news that if we don't accept God's love, we are doomed to an eternity of suffering. Regardless, it is focused on the afterlife, not on this one.
The emerging paradigm sees Jesus's message as mainly an earthly one. It is about our life here on earth as finite beings, and how we can transform ourselves through a series of deaths and rebirths and become closer to God here. God is working in and through and behind each action of our lives, and if we pay attention to the nudging and gentle prodding, we can live our lives in the loving, humble way of service that God wants for us. To reach God, or to reach enlightenment, nirvana, the Tao, or whatever you want to call it.
There is one world, there is one frame of human experience set in many different cultures. There is one God and one Way to to get to him/it. The way, the path, the method looks very similar in all of the religions. From a Christian frame of reference, Jesus/God are so loving and so present that they reached out to people in whatever culture they were born into. We all have the same basic struggles, and the same truths are exposed in every human life, no matter where they are.
For atheists, isn't there some sort of unity of human experience? That all these different and independent cultures came up with a God is not as important as the fact that they came up with a way to better ourselves that looks incredibly similar.
The afterlife is de-emphasized. We don't necessarily know what will happen after we die, but that shouldn't be our focus in the first place. We need to think about where we *are* instead of where we might go after death. There might be heaven and/or a hell, but if they exist, they probably look a lot different from our cloud and fire images. The point is that we waste too much time longing for immortality to deal with our finite lives here on earth. Let's look for the path to God here on earth.
Evangelism looks different too. Instead of necessitating the language of God, Jesus, Savior, etc., we can reach out to people where they are, similar to how God works with us. It's about helping a person in the context of their life, and helping them find the truth and clarity that runs through it and lies underneath it. Instead of making them come to us, we have to go to them. We have to leave our comfort zone and dare to walk the unfamiliar territory of the Other.
This is one of the reasons why, to me, Christian rock and worship music is for the most part (not all of it) superficial. So much of it is just about hitting buzz words. The words promote reverence. We need reverence, but we need more. We need the substance behind the buzz words. We need content. We need to be shown the path, and we need that path explained to us in terms that we can relate to. We need to be able to see how the path can be implemented in the context of our own lives, whatever that context might be.
Why do earlier paradigm Christians have such a problem with these ideas?
The emerging paradigm is seen as "new" and based on recent historical findings that may or may not be true.
I hope I've shown that the emerging paradigm is only new because it is being compared to the existing paradigm. Many parts of it involve going *back* to tradition we've lost along the way. The historical findings of some scholars have influenced the move from the earlier paradigm to the emerging one, but the paradigm has existed before. The paradigm itself is not based on any of these facts that sound crazy to some of us. However, this paradigm promotes a way of seeing that does allow for them to be true, or not. It allows for people to challenge the status quo, just as Jesus did. It allows it because of the emphasis on truth about the human condition rather than mere facts of history.
It is a perversion of Christianity made to fit today's culture.
Again, I hope
I've shown that though today's culture/science has influenced the
resurgence of this paradigm, it was not invented by people of this
culture.
The core beliefs of Christianity don't matter anymore.
Another false statement. The core beliefs of Christianity describe a way to imagine the world and a way to live our lives. We are still true to that. We only admit that we could have imperfect knowledge of objective facts. The truth is the same.
Liberal Christianity picks and chooses the parts of the bible they like.
First of all, liberal isn't the right term. The ideas are progressive, but at the same time they involve a return to earlier ways of thinking. Hence the term "emerging" rather than liberal or new. There is no picking and choosing because a paradigm, as described above, affects the *whole* picture. All of the bible is true, just in a different way then the earlier paradigm pictures it.
You are just grafting your own personal philosophy onto Christianity.
In light of what I wrote above, doesn't it look like it comes from Jesus? The philosophy Jesus held is what we are trying to expose. Instead of using symbols as literal truth, we try to expose the truth behind the symbols. I personally have probably not done a particularly good job of showing how the path I describe comes from Jesus, and so I understand the accusation. Perhaps there will be another forthcoming essay on the path to God as described by the life of Jesus Christ. We'll see.
Sorry for such a long entry, but I felt like people were rejecting the
idea without really understanding what it was. I hope this helps. I believe it to be a much more consistent and whole view of human life and religion's role in it. But, I
am by no means a perfect or complete source for this information. If
you are interested in it, read Borg's book. Then go read The Way of
Suffering: A Geography of Crisis by Jerome Miller for a wonderful description of the
transformational power of suffering and "death." Then go read The
Shine at Altamira by John L'Heureux for an account of how God is present even in the most
horrible of lives and deeds.
