Edge of Apocalypse

Edge of Apocalypse, by Tim LaHaye and Craig Parshall

After reading Marcus Borg's Putting Away Childish Things it seemed appropriate to immediately read an evangelical didactic novel and see where the contrasts were the most stark. In this regard Edge of Apocalypse, the latest by Tim LaHaye, did not disappoint.

As an aside I must admit that I didn't go out looking to read this book, but it dropped into my lap serendipitously. I recently purchased a Kindle, and Amazon has been giving away free ebook versions of many popular romance and Christian novels. Edge of Apocalypse was a freebie.

Borg and LaHaye paint startlingly different pictures of the world in which we live, flowing from their different theological and philosophical convictions. Borg's novel is set primarily in a small Midwestern university town, with a religious studies professor as the main character. LaHaye's novel is country and world-spanning, with a military hero turned defense contractor and entrepreneur in the starring role.

Borg's world is tranquil and self-reflective. The most valued traits his characters possess are the ability to reason through a problem, using a combination of intellect, study, prayer, relationships, community, and spiritual practices to slowly yet comprehensively work through a problem, discerning the best solution. God doesn't intervene in a supernatural or miraculous way, but is instead seen as working through the discernment process and through the hearts, minds, hands, and feet of people within the community.

LaHaye's world is apocalyptic. Time is running out. The most valued traits his characters possess are the ability to quickly make judgments in a crisis, determine right from wrong, then act decisively on the side of what is right. There is no such thing as random chance or coincidence in LaHaye's world. Instead the characters interpret such things as evidence of answered prayer and God's supernatural intervention on this side of God's people and what is right. While technical and logistical complexity exists in LaHaye's universe, his characters never struggle with complex moral issues. Moral choices are always crystal clear.

One of the things I found most telling about the two authors were the way they handled characters meant to represent their ideological opposition. For Borg this was the evangelical youth group leader and some of the members of his flock. For LaHaye this was represented by the Vice President in a U.S. administration dedicated to an internationalist foreign policy opposed by the main character. Inevitably in a didactic novel the author's side wins the argument. However I felt that Borg's opposing characters were faithful if simplified representations of the other viewpoint. They were still good people that meant well even if they were "wrong." LaHaye, on the other hand, felt the need to paint all opposing characters as evil and nefarious, above and beyond just opposing his ideology. Maybe this is part and parcel of the apocalyptic world view --is it possible to have sympathetic "bad guys" in an apocalyptic story?

In the end, I'd much rather live in Marcus Borg's literary, theological, and philosophical universe. For me his vision is far more sustaining --"good for you," if you will. Yet the appeal of Tim LaHaye's literary world is not lost on me. Edge of Apocalypse was an exciting page-turner and much more interesting to read than Borg's novel, but more like a spiritual bag of potato chips than good nourishing food.

Hardcover: 432 pages
Publisher: Zondervan (April 20, 2010)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0310326281

Putting Away Childish Things

Putting Away Childish Things: A Tale of Modern Faith, by Marcus Borg

I've long been a fan of Marcus Borg's scholarship. His non-fiction not only speaks to issues I find important, but is clearly written and easily accessible to a broad audience. If there was a single book I'd recommend to give people insight into what I think are the most important issues in Christianity and what it means to be a person of faith in the 21st century, it would be Borg's The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith.

Nonetheless, it was with some trepidation that I picked up Putting Away Childish Things, Marcus Borg's first novel, and a didactic novel at that. Growing up fundamentalist, I had read evangelical didactic works such as The Sugar Creek Gang, (boys having fun while converting their friends and families) The Third Millennium , (end times novel where rapture happens in 1994), This Present Darkness (demons, angels, and spiritual warfare), and of course the Left Behind juggernaut. Big questions I had going in: what does a progressive Christian didactic novel look like? Can there be a didactic novel that is actually worth reading, with characters you actually care about and doesn't get bogged down in preachiness?

I think Borg largely succeeds here. His story of an Episcopalian religious studies professor at a Midwestern liberal arts college was the perfect backdrop for interjecting theological and scholarly content in a way that didn't seem too jarring or unnatural to the story. The story was well plotted. While the characters seemed more cerebral than average people, they were reasonably well drawn and plausible. I especially appreciated that the evangelical characters in the story did not seem to be mere straw men, and in the end I truly cared about the characters and what happened to them. On the other hand, some may find the book to have a lecture-like quality at certain points. This may be unavoidable since the book aims to teach a large amount of information in relatively few pages, while trying to entertain at the same time.

This book is not the best novel I've ever read by far, but it is the best didactic novel I've ever read. Not just because I happen to agree with the message, but also because it presents its message strongly without demonizing other points of view (a flaw in just about ever other didactic work I've read.) I think Borg has made a great contribution by putting progressive theology and historical critical biblical scholarship into a format that might make it more accessible to people who would never read a non-fiction book. Putting Away Childish Things made me realize what a dearth of instructional fiction there is for progressive Christianity, and how bringing these ideas down to the mass-market level might allow progressive Christians to go head-to-head with their evangelical and fundamentalist brethren.

Beyond story, and beyond theological content, however, where the book truly shines is when it shows us how a modern faith actually works in practice. How does prayer, devotion, dealing with life's troubles and anxiety actually work for liberal and progressive Christians whose view of the supernatural and scripture is not fundamentalist? In every evangelical didactic novel I've read there has been a point or points in the story where God dramatically intervenes in a stunning and miraculous way --a type of modern day deus ex machina to solve the conflict and reinforce the literalistic worldview of the story. Putting Away Childish Things, in keeping with its message, doesn't do this. Yet one can still say that God is at work in what happens in the lives of the characters in this story; showing that God can be real and active for Christians that aren't fundamentalist may be the most necessary contribution this story makes.

Hardcover: 352 pages
Publisher: HarperOne (April 20, 2010)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0061888141
ISBN-13: 978-0061888144

Crazy for God

Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back (Paperback)
by Frank Schaeffer

If you grew up in the Christian fundamentalist/evangelical sub-culture the way I did, this book will really resonate with your own experience. At least it did for me.

Francis Schaeffer (father of the author) was a huge figure within Christian fundmentalism/Evangelicalism during the 1970s and 80s. His books are still lauded within that circle for putting an intellectual/philosophical face on biblical literalist views. Crazy for God is a tell-all book by his son outlining some of the hypocrisy and general craziness within the movement.

I read the book through two lenses. 1) Sons who aren't as successful as their fathers. 2) Former fundamentalists trying to make sense out of their upbringing and reaction to it. On both counts the book is successful, in my mind.

I couldn't put this one down. I can't remember the last time I read a book that is over 400 pages in just a few days. Frank Schaeffer writes clearly so the book is easy to read. He doesn't pull any punches, spilling all the juicy details about sex, drug use, spousal abuse, and insider conversations with leaders in the fundamentalist movement.

Others will disagree with me on this, but I think that at some level the author still respects his parents and his family, even if he has chosen a different path in his own life. I suppose some will see the book solely as a betrayal, but speaking as a former fundamentalist, one of the most difficult things in leaving that life is being able to honestly come clean about its secrets. So I tend to see the book in that light.

Paperback: 448 pages
Publisher: Da Capo Press; 1st Da Capo Press Pbk. Ed edition (September 29, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0306817500
ISBN-13: 978-0306817502

If Grace is True

If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person (Paperback)
by Philip Gulley (Author), James Mulholland (Author)

I enjoyed the premise, but thought the approach was a little too simplistic.

I would have preferred to see the author show all the scriptures that support exclusivism, then all the ones that support inclusivism / universalism. Then an argument could be made for why universalism is closer to the reality of God than exclusivism.

However the author merely states that he can't imagine a God that wouldn't save everyone, and most of the book is his personal journey from one view to the other. It's worthwhile, but more a personal story than exegesis.

In the appendix, he does cite a list of scriptures that support his view.

It was an interesting read, and I pretty much agree with the conclusion. However I would have liked to see more biblical discussion of why there are competing and contradicting views in the text, and why we should land on the side of universal salvation.

Paperback: 240 pages
Publisher: HarperOne (November 23, 2004)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0062517058
ISBN-13: 978-0062517050

The Dwelling of the Light

The Dwelling of the Light: Praying with Icons of Christ, by Rowan Williams

This wonderful little book is a great introduction to anyone who is curious about religious icons, their significance, and their history. Written by the current Archbishop of Canterbury and Anglican theologian Rowan Williams, this short readable book brings scholarship and devotion together in a very accessible manner that specifically addresses Protestant questions and concerns about icons.

The Dwelling of the Light begins with a helpful introduction which briefly sketches the history of icons, theological arguments for and against them, and the distinctions that Eastern Christians draw between icons, images, and statues. Understood correctly, icons are a window through which one looks to see the Divine, not an idol to be worshiped in its own right.

The part of the book I enjoyed the most was the middle section, where Williams takes four different icons of Christ --Christ's transfiguration, Christ's resurrection, Christ in Trinity, and Christ as ruler of all-- and explicates each one in detail, drawing our attention to various aspects of the paintings, suggesting ways in which the representations can invite us into a deeper theological and spiritual understanding of Christ.

Ironically enough, I felt the weakest part of the book were the reproductions of the icons themselves! One would think that a book about icons would have large, glossy reproductions and detailed close-ups. While the reproductions "get the job done" in this teaching tome, I felt they really short-changed the beauty of the subject matter. If I had picked up this book browsing in a bookstore, the ugly reproduction of The Transfiguration on the cover would have caused me to overlook what is otherwise a wonderful book, well suited for summer reading on vacation, yet leaving one with the sense of having learned of something profound.

PUBLISHER: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (January 2004); ISBN: 0802827780

What Rough Beast

What Rough Beast: Images of God in the Hebrew Bible, by David Penchansky

With provocatively titled chapters such as "YHWH the Monster (Genesis 3)", "The Bloody Bridegroom: The Malevolent God (Exodus 4:24-26)" and "The Mad Prophet and the Abusive God (2 Kings 2:23-25)" Penchansky's startling thesis is that these texts were written by people of faith bearing witness to their experience of God as "rough, violent, unpredictable, liable to break out against even his most faithful believers without warning." (pp. 1-2)

This was one of the most upsetting and disturbing books I've ever read, but I think the author is on to something. He presents a dark view of God very different than the God of sweetness and light espoused by many liberals, yet he is not willing to call evil its opposite when the act is attributed to God, as many fundamentalists will do.

Even if much of Genesis and Exodus is more parabolic than historical (and I think there is a good case to be made for that view) we're still left with the troubling images of God portrayed in the stories. Penchansky challenges us to "look into the very face of the abyss" with intellectual honesty, courage, and wit.

PUBLISHER: Westminster John Knox Press (September 1999); ISBN: 0664256457

Plan B

Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith, by Anne Lamott

In this short, rambling, yet entertaining book the reader is treated to an inside view of one middle-aged west coast liberal's attempt to make sense of life as a Christian, parent, Sunday school teacher, writer, and citizen under the Bush Administration.

Yes, I kid you not. A big subtext in this series of autobiographical spiritual musings is the despair that liberal types feel when the right wing is in power. I suppose anyone with strong political leanings is subject to this kind of despair. While most of the electorate are probably somewhere in the middle --with something to like and dislike about anyone who might occupy the White House-- those on either fringe fear the worst, braving the current Administration like a raging storm, hoping it will end without destroying everything in its path.

I couldn't help but think, "this must be how Christian conservatives felt during Clinton's eight years in office." As someone with a very conservative extended family, I'm constantly hearing ranting from that end of the spectrum. I can only hope that I don't rant like that myself. Lamott definitely shows that ranting isn't the sole property of one political party.

Part of me wondered, why put so much partisan politics into this book? Lamott has a lot of down-to-earth wisdom to share, wisdom gained from her own rocky experiences, wisdom that could be even be useful to certain Republicans. However any self-respecting Republican will probably toss this book after reading the first few pages of Bush bashing. Here are some nuggets of her wisdom. The tone is quirky, pithy, and down-to-earth:

". . .when you pray, you are not starting the conversation from scratch, just remembering to plug back into a conversation that's always in progress." (p. 25)

". . .if you want to change the way you feel about people, you have to change the way you treat them." (p. 143)

"This drives me crazy, that God seems to have no taste, and no standards. Yet on most days, this is what gives some of us hope." (p. 222)

"She said you could tell if people were following Jesus, instead of following the people who follow Jesus, because they were feeding the poor, sharing their wealth, and trying to help everyone get medical insurance." (pp. 222-223)

"If I were God, I'd have the answers at the end of the workbook, so you could check as you went along, to see if you're on the right track. But nooooooo. Darkness is our context, and Easter's context: without it, you couldn't see the light. Hope is not about proving anything. It's about choosing to believe this one thing, that love is bigger than any grim, bleak shit anyone can throw at us." (pp. 274-275)

"Every single spiritual tradition says that you must take care of the poor, or you are so doomed that not even Jesus or the Buddha can help you." (p. 307)

Great stuff.

On the other hand, maybe politics and religion do go hand in hand. For years I was a left-leaning parishioner in right-leaning churches. This gave me no end of consternation while I told myself I was holding out hope that church could transcend partisan differences.

Now I attend a church that more closely matches my political views, and I feel like a decades long hangover has finally ended! While it is nice to imagine that church can transcend politics, the reality is that everything is political, and the only way you can be represented is to be part of a group that shares your interests. That, and you can come out of church without fuming and bitching for days on end about what you just heard from the pulpit.

Lamott has the guts to be completely honest, even when it doesn't make her look good. She's comfortable enough about who she is that she can trash the Bush Administration yet also question her own motives for doing so. She just lets it all hang out, and then she attempts, albeit mostly unsuccessfully, to heal from the hatred. I can't help but admire her honesty and her struggle, which comes to a climax about two-thirds through the book:

"The sermon ended; people were crying. Veronica [Lamott's pastor] asked if anyone wanted to come forward for special prayer. . . I struggled to keep in my seat, but I found myself standing, then lurching forward stiffly. . .I whispered that I was so angry with and afraid of the right wing in this country that it was making me mentally ill.. . and the church prayed for me, although they did not know what was wrong." (p. 224)

This wound up being a very interesting read! Not what I expected and well worth my time. In a way Lamott's ranting is redeemed because it leads to a deeper insight into her own hopes, fears, and insecurities. This makes the book unlike anything I'd read before in this genre. Anyone can attack their political opponents, but it is a rare person who can also admit their own vulnerabilities at the same time.

PUBLISHER: Riverhead Books, New York, 2005. ISBN: 1-57322-299-2.

Our Endangered Values

Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis, by Jimmy Carter

I was a bit underwhelmed by this book, partly because I expected it to comment more on the state of religious fundamentalism in America, and partly because of its style. I was thinking this book would be an in-depth analysis of the fusion between right-wing religion and politics. Having recently finished Jim Wallis' "God's Politics: Why the Right is Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," perhaps I expected more from the former president and Nobel laureate.

"Our Endangered Values" begins with Jimmy Carter's self-described "traditional" Baptist beliefs, and continues with how he views current political issues. Yet Carter doesn't explicitly make the connection between religious belief and policy position as often as one would like. Instead the book is packed with a superficial critique of many Bush administration policy positions, as well as some justifications for Carter's own policies when he was president.

While I am certainly no admirer of Bush's policies and should have a sympathetic ear for Carter's arguments, I did not find the way he presented his case very compelling. I certainly admire what he has done through the Carter Center and Habitat for Humanity. I even believe that there are religious convictions that underpin compassionate behavior for both individuals and governments. I am certainly no endorser of the pre-millennial dispensationalism and fundamentalism that Carter sees as the root and the cancer of many American foreign policy decisions. Yet Carter's approach --lots of examples, lots of statistics, but no citations or in-depth analysis-- left me strangely cold.

The biggest question this book raised for me was, "Why is Carter the anomaly --a Baptist with relatively traditional spirituality, yet progressive on many political issues?" Carter claims that it is the Southern Baptist Convention (and by proxy the larger conservative culture) that has changed, but I tend to think that it's the other way around. With the vast majority of Southern Baptists finding right wing, not left wing politics as the most natural expression of the their convictions, Carter has the burden of proof in showing why being liberal is a more faithful expression of his religious tradition.

Carter remains fascinating to me nonetheless. The earliest president I can remember firsthand from childhood, I remember my fundamentalist parents voting for him because he was "born again," yet becoming bitterly disillusioned with what they perceived as his ineffectual handling of the energy crisis and hostage crisis of the 1970s. By the 80s they were Reagan supporters, Moral Majority supporters, and to my knowledge never again voted for a Democrat.

Almost every conservative Christian religious tradition I can think of imagines a golden age in the past, and claims its authority based upon being in agreement with that past, or trying to return to that past. Interestingly, Carter tries to do the same thing in his book, claiming that we used to have thoughtful, civil discourse which has been ruined by the fundamentalist influence in politics and culture. I found the approach interesting, and wonder if it is convincing to it's target audience.

Maybe progressives DO need to couch their arguments in traditional language in order to relate to a broader audience. I take a "re-constructionist" approach in my own theological views, using traditional symbols and language to articulate new ideas. Maybe the time has come for a similar approach in politics?

PUBLISHER: Simon & Schuster (November 1, 2005); ISBN: 0743284577

God's Politics

God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, by Jim Wallis

One thing you can't help but notice reading this book is the forceful personality of Jim Wallis. He obviously believes what he says, and has "put his money where his mouth is" with his life. Arrested over 30 times, Wallis lives the life of an activist, tirelessly proclaiming to anyone who will listen that how we treat the poor, or "the least of these" illustrates the authenticity of our Christian faith.

I agreed with a lot of this book. I think the religious and political discourse in the United States is too narrow, and has been co-opted by religious fundamentalists and secular leftists. I think there are valid problems worthy of critique on both the right and the left. Yet something also bothers me about this book.

What I like about Wallis is that he wants to critique both the religious right and the secular left. He even had a few barbs to throw in about the religious left. On the basis of the Bible, Wallis sees Christianity as the high ground upon which opposing sides can come together to provide a more consistent ethic that sees moral issues as both social and individual.

"Change the wind, transform the debate, recast the discussion, alter the context in which political decisions are being made, and you will change the outcomes." (p. 22) Wallis sees people of faith as "wind changers." I like this metaphor, which also refers to the Spirit of God, depicted as "wind" in various parts of the Bible (perhaps most notably, Genesis 1)

What I don't like about Wallis is his tendency to be a biblical literalist (although not a right-wing biblical literalist, as is so often the case). I suppose everyone who tries to live by the Bible takes some parts of it literally, and other parts of it metaphorically. Since the Religious Right couches their arguments in "proof texts" and politically expedient hermeneutic, it is probably useful to see the same thing coming from a more moderate perspective. I think it is a conscious choice on Wallis' part to see the Bible as providing a consistent moral ethic that ought to inform our politics. I tend to mistrust such attempts to systematize, but I suppose that is part and parcel of organizing politically. If Wallis was riddled with self-doubt and questioned his own beliefs, perhaps he wouldn't "have what it takes" to organize and give his whole life to his cause.

Wallis wants the Christian community to be the community that undermines, critiques, and revitalizes political discourse in the United States --a prophetic voice speaking on behalf of the marginalized. While this can be found in Scripture, many other things can also be found in Scripture. Wallis uses the Bible as his authority, and this I find somewhat troubling because in my view the Bible actually undermines all authority.

Ultimately people must take responsibility for their morality, drawing inspiration and guidance from God, the Bible, and their own conscience. I think the call to justice Wallis finds in the Bible is every bit as much of a construction as are the types of things the Religious Right constructs out of the Bible. I happen to like what Wallis has constructed, but I don't like how he pretends it is "what the Bible says" when the reality is a bit more complicated. Jim Wallis thinks that if you'll read your Bible with an ear toward the poor, you can't help but question the status quo in what he calls "our war-mongering, greedy, capitalist society." That is certainly true, but it is "having an ear toward the poor" that makes the difference, not the Bible.

Wallis shows that he is at least somewhat aware of hermeneutical difficulties when he writes, "Social location often determines biblical interpretation, and that truth goes a long way toward understanding why Christians from the United States and many other wealthy countries simply miss some of the most central themes of the Scriptures." (p. 211) Wallis interprets Mark's gospel "the poor you will always have with you," helpfully pointing out that the disciples social location assumed that they would always be dealing with the poor. The fact that they are having dinner with Simon the Leper as the story plays out proves that Jesus and his disciples were concerned with social outcasts. Yet an affluent America reads this text as an excuse to do nothing about poverty, because it can never be eliminated.

Wallis is amazingly critical of the Bush administration. Seeing this kind of critique come out of evangelical circles is perhaps the most amazing thing to come out of this book. Much of the book scathingly attacks Bush's policies at home and abroad. "The real theological problem in America today is no longer the religious Right, but the nationalist religion of the Bush administration, one that confuses the identity of the nation with the church, and God's purposes with the mission of American empire." (p. 149)

Wallis imagines an activist Christian who is not afraid to get arrested for the sake of social justice. "If biblical prophets like Amos and Isaiah had read the news about what happened to child tax credits for low-income families, for example, they surely would be out screaming on the White House lawn about the justice of God--and be quickly led away by the Secret Service." (p. 247)

The limits of Wallis' leftward leanings are most apparent in his views on gay issues. He is against gay marriage, but also against using gays as the scapegoat for straight families' problems. Wallis does favor legalizing civil unions. (p. 332). Perhaps as an evangelical the only way he can be pro-gay is to leave it to the civil government. I find it a little inconsistent that this is the only issue that he doesn't want to bring the Bible to bear on. While a more liberal religious outlook might question the Bible's applicability to modern gay and lesbian concerns, Wallis wants to stay in the evangelical camp and defuse gay marriage as a wedge issue. It seems to me like he punts, but it is hardly surprising given his social location and his over-riding passion for the poor.

Ultimately, I think Wallis' message is one America needs to hear. His call to return to biblically based values regarding the poor and disenfranchised is timely and refreshing. He models an authentic way to be Christian that differs from the prevailing conservative fundamentalist views that dominate the airwaves and the headlines. He is scandal free, lives what he believes, and has a clear and articulate message of hope for both the poor and for the rest of us called to serve Christ through serving the poor.

PUBLISHER: HarperCollins, New York. 2005. ISBN 0-06-055828-8

The Heart of Christianity

The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith, by Marcus J. Borg

While some of Borg's other books (especially The God We Never Knew) draw upon the author's personal experience and others (Jesus: A New Vision, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, and Reading the Bible Again for the First Time) are more scholarly, this book seems best categorized as the culmination of a lifetime of work --less scholarly, more personal, but overall a "summing up" of the ideas Borg has wrestled with and tried to put forward regarding the "new way of seeing Christianity" that has emerged within mainline denominations in the last 100 years.

I've always enjoyed Borg's writing style, which is extremely readable. Beyond that, I think the most powerful idea he puts forward is not historical Jesus scholarship, or even a good popularization of modern biblical scholarship, but instead what I'll call "a re-imagining and reconstruction of the Christian tradition from the ground up." In other words, Borg can take the essential elements and ideas of the Christian tradition: the Bible, God, Jesus, and use them and imagine them in ways that revitalize their meaning and keep them relevant to the modern world.

Much of my pet peeve with popular notions of "liberal Christianity" is that it seems to throw away so much of the tradition, especially problems with biblical interpretation. Borg, on the other hand, falls back to the tradition and seeks to integrate it in a new way. He gets beyond the conservative/liberal dichotomy and instead describes how an "emerging" view of the church compares and contrasts to an "earlier" view of seeing Christianity. Neither view can claim to be "the" view; both are attempts to best "make sense" of the Christian tradition in light of the issues and questions raised by the world in which we live.

Borg is liberal in the sense that he is firmly committed to modern methods of biblical scholarship. He was a member of the infamous Jesus Seminar back in the 1990s, whose main interpretive framework was to go through the synoptic gospels and categorize sections according to their likely historicity. On the other hand, he seems more conservative when he emphasizes the crucial role the Bible has played in the Christian tradition. Borg sees both elements as crucial to his emerging vision of Christianity. "Despite their differences, the two paradigms share central convictions in common. The emerging paradigm, as I describe it, strongly affirms the reality of God, the centrality of the Bible, the centrality of Jesus, the importance of a relationship with God as known in Jesus, and our need (and the world's need) for transformation. To state the obvious, all of these matter to the earlier paradigm as well . . . both emphasize a relationship vision of the Christian life." (p. 17)

Because Borg believes that the earlier paradigm overemphasizes faith as the assent to propositions, he spends much time examining other views of faith found in the Christian tradition, including faith as radical trust, faith as seeing things in a different way, and faith as being faithful (as to one's spouse). Returning to the important role faith as belief plays, however, Borg lists the following affirmations of the emerging view of Christianity:

• Being Christian means affirming the reality of God
  
• for Christians, "Jesus [is] the decisive disclosure of God and what a life full of God looks like."
  
• Christian faith means affirming the centrality of the Bible (pp. 37-38)
  

For Borg, love (not belief) is the central idea behind faith. Not only does this sidestep the literal/factual conundrum, but it pierces to the heart of the matter --To love God is to believe in God. "The Christian life is as simple and as challenging as this: to love God, and to love that which God loves." (p. 41)

Borg's view of the Bible is historical, metaphorical and sacramental. Emphasizing sacramental as one of the "big three" ways the emerging view of Christianity sees the Bible is a further development from what Borg wrote in Reading the Bible Again for the First Time. In Reading the Bible Again Borg promoted an "historical-metaphorical" approach over and against a "literal-factual" approach. While he did mention the Bible as a "sacrament of the sacred," the Bible as sacrament theme gets further elaboration in The Heart of Christianity

Borg seems to be moving more toward the "center" than in his previous works regarding the role of the Bible. I'm not sure if the change in tone is an attempt to be more pastoral or if it represents a significant shift in his thinking. "The Bible is thus both sacred scripture and a human product. It is important to affirm both. To use stereotypical labels, both conservatives and liberals within the church have been reluctant to do so. Conservative Christians resist affirming that the Bible is a human product, fearing that doing so means it will lose its status as divine authority and divine revelation. Liberal Christians are somewhat wary of affirming that the Bible is sacred scripture, fearing that doing so opens the door to notions of infallibility, literalism, and absolutizing." (p. 48) By saying "believe whatever you want about whether the story happened this way; but now let's talk about what the story means," (p. 57) Borg emphasizes the metaphorical meaning of the text over the literal meaning, and argues that conservatives and liberals both use metaphor. He sees this as a possible bridge between these competing and contentious views.

On God, Borg promotes panentheism over supernatural theism as a better way to make sense of how God operates in relationship to our world and us. Much of this is repeat material from The God We Never Knew, but Borg adds an emphasis, asserting that panentheism is found in the Bible, in the tradition, and can be traced back farther than the term itself, which only dates back about two centuries.

Borg sidesteps the issue of divine intervention, claiming that the language of "intervention" implies an absent God outside the world who sweeps in, and opens up a can of worms regarding why God would intervene in some cases and not others. Instead Borg still affirms that intercessory prayer can have an affect, but doesn't claim to know to much about what that effect actually is. (p. 67) He briefly discusses impersonal, personal, and transpersonal images of God. Borg does not believe God is personal, although he feels that the natural way we relate to God is ultimately personal. My own view is that we relate to God in a personal way because we are persons, not because God is a person. While God transcends mere personhood, maybe people can only adequately imagine God as personal, hence its popularity in devotion.

Ultimately, Borg sees the issue of God's character as decisive in our formulation of what it means to be a Christian. "What's at stake in the question of God's character is our image of the Christian life. Is Christianity about requirements? Here's what you must do to be saved. Or is Christianity about relationship and transformation? Here's the path: follow it. Both involve imperatives, but one is a threat, the other an invitation." (pp. 77-78)

As he did in earlier books, Borg makes a clear distinction between what he calls the "Pre-Easter and Post-Easter Jesus." Making the distinction, Borg argues, allows us to see what a remarkable man Jesus was; if we don't make the distinction Jesus' humanity becomes subsumed in his divinity and Jesus becomes merely some kind of God-puppet or superhero. To hold the two images as distinct and perhaps even in some degree of tension with each other, a fuller and more illuminating picture develops. Repeating compactly much of what he elaborates on in "Jesus: A New Vision," Borg sees the pre-Easter Jesus as a Jewish mystic, healer, wisdom teacher, social prophet, and movement initiator. (pp 89-91). For Borg the pre-Easter Jesus is the Jesus of history. The post-Easter Jesus is the Christ of faith, or more specifically, the experience of the risen Christ shared by the disciples, St. Paul, the early church, and people today.

Borg wants to reclaim the language of "born again" from the fundamentalists. For Borg, being "born again" is not the assent to propositions about the nature of Jesus, the atonement or the resurrection. It is a transformation of the whole person. Jesus' whole life, teachings, death and resurrection are a metaphor for the transformation that can occur in each Christian. "It means dying to an old way of being and being born into a new way of being, dying to an old identity and being born to a new identity--a way of being and an identity centered in the sacred, in Spirit, in Christ, in God." (p. 107)

Why do we need to be born again? According to Borg, it's because "we come from God, and ...when we are very young, we still remember this, still know this. But the process of growing up, of learning about this world, is a process of increasingly forgetting the one from whom we came and in whom we live. The birth and intensification of self-consciousness, of self-awareness, involves a separation from God." (p. 114) "The image of following 'the way' is common in Judaism, and 'the way' involves a new heart, a new self centered in God. One of the meanings of the word 'Islam' is 'surrender': to surrender one's life to God by radically centering in God. And Muhammad is reported to have said, 'Die before you die.' Die spiritually before you die physically, die metaphorically (and really) before you die literally." (p. 119)

For Borg the Kingdom of God is political. It is about procedural justice. Being Christian is two pronged. The personal aspect is the "born again" transformation. Transformation also belongs to the political realm, however, as the kingdom of God is at once all around us, and a vision of the future to be brought about in the present.

When I was growing up, God's justice and God's mercy were often contrasted, with all of us strongly preferring God's mercy, but fearing God's justice (judgment.) Borg believes setting up the opposites like this mutes the Bible's passion for political and social justice. Borg maintains that the opposite of God's mercy is not God's justice, but instead human injustice. This takes the emphasis off God as judge and puts it on human accountability for our actions. God is seen as the model of right behavior, right thinking, and action. (p 127)

Lord, savior, and other New Testament titles for Jesus were titles that were applied to Caesar. Thus Jesus is Lord, and Caesar is not. The political aspect of the gospels calls us to call into question our own allegiances. Is Jesus our commander and chief, or the president? As Jesus reminds us, we cannot serve two masters. Borg insightfully notes that Jesus is the only founder of a major religious tradition who was executed by the established political authority. I think this says volumes about Borg's vision of emerging Christianity being one that can call into question the authorities in the name of God and social/political justice.

"Open hearts" and "thin places" sum up much of what Borg is driving at when he describes spiritually of the emerging view of Christianity. I thought Borg's description of the "closed heart" was especially striking: "The birth and development of self-awareness involves an increasing sense of being a separated self. We live within this separated self, as if the self is enclosed in a dome, a transparent shell: the world is "out there" and I am "in here." Like an invisible shield, the dome is a boundary separating the self from the world. It can become hard and rigid. It closes us off from the world, and we live centered in ourselves. The same process of growing up that creates the need to be born again creates the need for our hearts to be opened. To mix metaphors, the reason we need to be born again is because we have closed hearts." (p. 153) I was gratified that in Borg's discussion of self-awareness and the development of the self he referenced Thomas Keating's Open Mind, Open Heart: The Contemplative Dimension of the Gospel, which I have recently read.

A panentheistic view of God will hold that God is everywhere and in everything as well as being "more" than that. Yet people do not experience God or the world this way very often. "Thin places" are those times and places where we do experience God shining through reality. "Thin places are places where the veil momentarily lifts, and we behold God, experience the one in whom we live, all around us and within us." (p. 156) One of the primary reasons to go to church and worship is because church/worship can be a thin place. "In liturgical and sacramental forms of worship, the use of sacred words and rituals creates a sense of another world." (p. 157)

Since for Borg Christianity is a "way," practices are central to journeying along the way. Practices are ways of paying attention to God and taking seriously the call to love God with everything we have and in everything we do. The most important practice, according to Borg, is being part of a church. Then he moves on to prayer. While Borg doesn't believe in an interventionist God, he nonetheless does petition and intercessory prayer because not do would be, in his view, an act of hubris and non-compassion. (p. 197) Finally, meditation, contemplation (Thomas Keating style), lectio divina, and other daily disciplines round out the list. "Christian practice is about walking with God, becoming kind, and doing justice. It is not about believing in God and being a good person; it is about how one becomes a good person through the practice of loving God." (p. 205)

Sharing the concern of an earlier vision of Christianity that while God created the world good, something has gone wrong and God seeks to put the world back on the right track, Borg questions whether 'sin' is the best word to describe what has gone wrong. (p. 166) Much hinges on how we see sin; how we define it on its most basic level. Many see sin as disobedience to God's laws. Reinhold Niebuhr saw sin as pride or "hubris" --putting ourselves in the place of God out of the anxiety born of our finititude. Paul Tillich saw sin primarily as "estrangement" of ourselves from God, "centering" in ourselves or in the world rather than in God.

Borg acknowledges these ways of looking at sin as getting at the heart of the problem, yet he questions whether sin has lost its meaning as the most helpful way of framing the issue. He suggests that multiple images might be more helpful, and draws these images out of the biblical tradition. "[W]e are blind, in exile, in bondage; we have closed hearts; we hunger and thirst; we are lost." (p. 168). Borg thinks these images are more helpful because they point the way to specific correctives. Instead of just saying the problem is sin, and the solution is forgiveness, the solution for a closed heart is not forgiveness for having our heart closed, but instead practices to open the heart.

While sin is one aspect of the human problem, Borg feels that it is overemphasized and over individualized, obscuring social ills and systemic evils. Borg calls for a broadening in liturgy away from just sin. "[I]t wasn't individual sins that caused Jesus' death. He wasn't killed because of the impure thoughts of adolescents or our everyday deceptions or our selfishness. The point is not that these don't matter. The point, rather, is that these were not what caused Jesus' death. Rather, Jesus was killed because of what might be called 'social sin,' namely, the domination system of his day. The common individualistic understanding of sin typically domesticates the political passion of the Bible and Jesus." (p. 171)

Likewise, Jesus re-thinks salvation away from the popular notion that is about "going to heaven" after death. Borg writes that belief in the afterlife, while common among writers of the New Testament and possibly a view of Jesus, was not common among the writers of the Hebrew Bible and probably a late development. Yet people have taken God seriously both in the Old Testament and today without believing in an afterlife, the reason being that salvation relates primarily to the here and now and not to a far-off future reward for good behavior. "Eternal life," or "the life of the age to come" is primarily about living now as if the kingdom of God was here now.

In the Bible, salvation is described as "light in our darkness; sight to the blind; enlightenment; liberation for captives; return from exile; the healing of our infirmities; food and drink; resurrection from the land of the dead; being born again; knowing God; becoming 'in Christ;' being made right with God ('justified')." (p. 175) Borg's biggest point here is that salvation, which has been almost exclusively taught as individualist, has an essential corporate aspect to it as well.

The emerging vision of Christianity is a holistic way of re-imaging and re-engaging the Christian tradition in a way that makes sense in light of the world we live in. For many of us this world is post-modern, pluralistic, and increasingly interconnected. Why be a Christian in this age of modernism and pluralism? Why be a Christian if hellfire and one's eternal post-mortem destination doesn't hang in the balance? While the emerging vision of Christianity Borg explains and advocates sees all religions as a human response to the Divine, some may be better suited than others for particular individuals. As a "cultural-linguistic tradition," each religion is distinctly different even as all the enduring religions emphasize the quest for "More" than a strictly materialistic worldview can offer, and bear compassion as their foremost fruit.

Why be Christian? Because for me, and for the author, Christianity is "home." Borg provides a compelling, well thought out vision for a meaningful Christianity that builds upon its tradition in an intelligent, heart-felt way.

PUBLISHER: HarperCollins, New York. 2003. ISBN: 0-06-052676-9

SEE ALSO: The God We Never Knew and Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, by Marcus Borg

Christopher

Christopher: The Holy Giant, by Tomie dePaola

Lately I've been reading a lot of Tomie dePaola's books to my daughter. Some, like The Clown of God and Christopher deal with Christian themes. Others, like Now One Foot: Now the Other deal with the impact on a child of his aging grandfather after he suffers a stroke. Still others, like Tom and The Art Lesson deal with themes surrounding individuality, conformity, growing up, and just plain having fun. All are richly illustrated with prose that manages to convey both depth and simplicity at the same time. Not skirting mature themes such as death and suffering, dePaola nonetheless manages to present these topics in a gentle way appropriate to younger children.

I found Christopher to be especially exemplary of dePaola's sweet yet substantive style. While retelling the legend of St. Christopher with alacrity, simplicity, and vivid illustrations, he also retains the full allegorical impact the tale for the benefit of the adult reading the story. I felt like two stories were being told simultaneously. One was a fairy tale for children, complete with monsters and a happy ending. Yet on another level we are introduced to the important themes of the Christian journey --spiritual practices, the dark night of the soul, the face of Christ found in service to others, prayer-- culminating in the transformation of the Christian into the image of Christ.

Transformation on every level is most clear in the middle of the story, which I consider the fulcrum or turning point of the entire tale. After having worshiped strength and power in the forms of both an earthly king and Satan, Reprobus wants to serve Christ because of Christ's power. He demands of a hermit he meets during his journey through the desert, "Tell me how to find him, so I can serve him." But the hermit refuses, saying "You cannot find him. . . you must pray, and Christ will find you. . . then you will be told how best to serve Christ." Reprobus obeys, humbles himself, and eventually finds Christ through serving others. And when he finds Christ, Christ's strength is made manifest through the weakness of a child. Yet as Christ's strength is made manifest through weakness, Reprobus' strength is also only perfected after he has humbled himself and carried the Christ child across the river on his back.

It was this theological depth that I loved about the book. While dePaola tells a good story and gives children what they want, he doesn't talk down to them, instead telling a tale that will grow in meaning instead of diminish with the passage of the time.

PUBLISHER: Holiday House, New York (1994); ISBN: 0823408620

Mystical Christianity

Mystical Christianity: A Psychological Commentary on the Gospel of John, by John A. Sanford

In this 337 page commentary on the fourth gospel, John A. Sanford paints a fascinating picture of Christianity that is steeped in the mystical, the mysterious, and the psychological. Drawing upon his clinical experience and extensive knowledge of Carl Jung's psychological theories, Sanford explicates a gospel message that connects spiritual and psychological realities, takes them seriously, and relates them to the modern world.

I read this book straight through from cover to cover, which is probably not the best way to read it. It is intended to be used as a commentary and reference guide. Either way, Sanford's work does much to explain both depth psychology and the gospel of John. As I've written elsewhere, I have struggled to understand Jung's writings, and Sanford helped me both comprehend them and see how they relate to Christianity.

"Christianity as a religious movement is in danger of losing its vitality, as it becomes ensnared in the conventional, and as the powerful and numinous impact of the Gospels is emasculated by the rationalistic and materialistic mentality of our times." (p. 310) In many ways the purpose of Sanford's book is to offer a corrective to our overly modern world view, which sees and takes seriously only the material, physical universe. The author of John's gospel calls us to see a hitherto unseen spiritual world, and to recognize that what happens in the spiritual world directs and impacts the material world. Sanford's genius lies in linking the spiritual world with the archetypal world of depth psychology, giving the spiritual new credence for modern people.

One of Sanford's most evocative images is the Son of Man. Often used in John's gospel to describe Jesus, this mysterious term is avoided by the church in favor of the term Son of God as the favorite title for Christ. Sanford sees Jesus the Son of Man as the ideal man, the archetypal man to whom all humanity can look to see its true self. Yet as Christ is believed by the church to be both fully God and fully human, when humanity strives for its true self it accepts both its humanity and its divinity.

Sanford quotes Robert Johnson, stating "the world isn't meant to work; but it does provide an arena for the development of individual consciousness." (p. 301) Christ is the exemplar of both the way to live and the way to die, the way to be fully human and the way to participate fully in the nature of the Divine. Life's purpose is to gain authentic knowledge of oneself, and of God. Christ's Way is the path to consciousness. Christ's cross is a mandala –a sacred image of wholeness and centeredness. As followers of Christ, we are the ground in which the cross is planted –the way of the cross is planted into our lives and consciousness. (p. 317)

PUBLISHER:Crossroad Publishing Company (February 1, 1994); ISBN: 0824514122

Hear the Difference

Hear the Difference? By Robert Hansen

Sometimes one is called to write a book to correct what one perceives as an imbalance in the conventional way of thinking. In “Hear the Difference?” Robert Hansen contends that what we think is the gospel in reality is something less. This not only tends to make an idol out of whatever it is we are substituting for the gospel, but it flattens the mystery that is the gospel, causing us not to see and hear the kingdom of heaven that is at hand all around us, and preventing us from loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind. While difficult to define, Hansen maintains that the true gospel by definition must transcend every category and resist efforts to put it in terms other than itself.

So what is the difference between the Christian gospel and everything else? Hansen suggests that it is a unique way of hearing --hearing others, and hearing the biblical texts. It is not self-esteem, change, acceptance, "keeping it real," utilitarianism, experience, reason, positive thinking, good intentions, or myriad other forms of seeking. To emphasize something such as change as the heart of the gospel is to subordinate it to an imported category –-and for Hansen the gospel must never be subordinate. Painstakingly aware that to proclaim the gospel may actually prevent others from hearing it as it truly is, Hansen gives us the sense that we must listen to others and to the biblical texts more deeply and differently than we have ever listened before.

Hansen finds the gospel crystallized in Jesus' saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” But what is repenting? While the dominant ideology today sees repenting as the need to change oneself, the need to accept oneself, or an attempt to strike a balance between acceptance and changing, Hansen points out that all of these are cut of the same cloth. “Our active, all embracing way of hearing embraces what is different and turns it into more of what we already do” (p. 53) To be able to truly see the realm of God and to respond to it transcends all worries regarding change, acceptance, or anything in between. “It is not by doing, thinking, believing, experiencing, or having any of them that separation from [God] is ended.” (p. 64) The heart of the gospel is to depend on God, and accept God as God is, without having any expectations of God. When things go badly or when things go well, we are confronted with the question: Do we trust God? Or do we trust in things going well or things going badly? What is non-negotiable for us? What we see as non-negotiable is our gospel.

The bulk of the book consists of Hansen's critique of various ways the gospel is transformed for the worst by would-be evangelists. He is critical of pastors and churches who try to frame the gospel in terms of everyday life, because that puts “keeping it real” above the gospel. Another way people bend the gospel is to hear it as “whatever works for me.” While in the Reformation era theologians argued about grace versus works, in our era the dividing line is “what works versus what doesn't work.” (p.117) If grace is “what works” is that not just works? Hansen says that to really hear grace, one must realize that nothing works, but grace comes from God. “It is not a matter of whatever we may do, think, experience, or have. None of them will do it. . . the Christian gospel says it is a matter of God --God's grace in Jesus Christ.” (p. 129)

Insofar as choice is something we do, it misses the point. “For we are not saved by our decisions, any more than we are saved by our actions, our inclinations or intentions, positive thinking, change, acceptance or by doing the best we can. That's the whole point: we are saved by God. God is the savior, not our choosing,” (p. 158) “Even if our will is free, even if it can and does indeed make choices, this does not mean that it is within its power to bring us salvation.” (p. 165) Drawing upon Martin Luther, Hansen drives the point home that repenting is different from choosing. Repenting is turning from anything but God, to God.

While Hansen's prose sometimes seems cumbersome and would greatly benefit from a more ruthless redactor, his message is both timely and timeless. In an age of polarized and competing religious ideologies, a gospel heard through deep and compassionate listening has never been more welcome. In a culture where individualism, self-help and choice reign supreme, it was refreshing to see the gospel presented in a way that attempts to transcend all that. Finally, Hansen succeeds in calling the reader to hear the gospel anew and afresh.

PUBLISHER: Xlibris Corporation, 2000. ISBN: 1-4010-8214-9

A Gay Bishop is Faithful

'A Gay Bishop is Faithful', by John P. Streit, Jr.

The recent conflict in the Episcopal Church over the election of a gay bishop is in part a result of sharp differences in how the Bible is understood and applied to contemporary culture. What is often lost in the din of loud and rancorous debate, however, is the fact that both sides of this debate are acting out of deeply held, scriptural convictions.

Yes, I do say scriptural. And yes, I do say both sides. I think this is not always obvious for two reasons. One, the conservative side of the debate likes to accuse the liberal side of not being scriptural. Two, the liberal side of the debate often frames their arguments in terms of social justice, human rights, and other categories that transcend purely religious categories. So it may not always be clear that the motivations flow from, as Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold put it shortly after the vote, "an authentic way of reading Scripture."

In this sermon, preached in September 2003 after General Convention, Streit delivers a positive theology that explains and undergirds the changing times we live in. While God is unchanging, Streit maintains that the Bible as a whole tells the story of gradually changing understandings of how God's will is to be acted out in the world.

Citing examples from the New Testament and Christian history, Streit uses the story of Jesus and the Canaanite woman, Peter and Paul's debates over the role of Jewish purity laws for Gentile converts, and nineteenth century Christian abolitionists to paint a picture of Christian history that progressively lowers barriers and roadblocks to full inclusion within God's kingdom.

What made this sermon noteworthy for me was that, unlike so much theological work done regarding homosexuality which focuses on tearing down six or seven scattered texts throughout the Bible that seem to prohibit same-sex sexual activity in very specific contexts, Streit builds up a much more positive view of God's work through all of history and creation drawing on the same biblical foundation.

LINKS: http://www.stpaulboston.org/Sermon%202.htm

I Feel Sorry for Jesus

'I feel sorry for Jesus', by Naomi Shihab Nye

I ran across this poem in the October issue of The Christian Century, and was delighted to see that it was also available online. Two things viscerally grabbed me about this poem.

First, the dangers of "talking for Jesus," which seem so obvious. I see it more as an indictment of theological and ideological certainty, or an over-association of one's own agenda with what one perceives as Jesus' agenda. We've all either known people or been people who wanted to be "His Special Pet," or missed the heart of the gospel in favor of the "pomp" and "golden chandeliers."

Secondly, and more importantly, it was the last line "You won't hear me talk about this again" that seemed the most arresting, all the more powerful for it's paradoxical relationship with the rest of the poem. In the earlier verses, Nye illustrates those who appropriate Jesus wrongly, then falls into the error herself. Yet the path to truth for Nye is not about talking for Jesus, but following in Jesus' footsteps. By standing in the spot where Jesus was born and by making "every twist" of the Way be "written on [her] skin," Nye experiences a truth beyond ideology, and beyond words.

One major commonality of the "appropriators," from my perspective, is that they not only talk for Jesus, but talk endlessly. Conventional wisdom seems to be that if something is important it needs to be mentioned often. But by saying "You won't hear me talk about this again" Nye draws attention to the need for silence as part of spiritual practice --both to hear what others have to say and to hear what Jesus has to say. She also subverts conventional wisdom by suggesting that the truly important things aren't mentioned often and have to be keenly sought out or listened for in order to be heard and understood.

PUBLISHER: "I Feel Sorry for Jesus" first appeared in Antioch Review (Spring 1998.) I first read it in the October 8, 2003 issue of the Christian Century.
LINK: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1058/21_120/110361288/p1/article.jhtml

What Paul Really Said about Women

'What Paul Really Said About Women', by John T. Bristow

Here is an argument I haven't seen before. I guess you could say it amounts to a hard-core biblical literalist argument for equality of the sexes in Paul's epistles. The author of this book (which is excerpted in the Beliefnet article I read) goes back to the original Greek of Ephesians 5:21-33 and other texts in almost excruciating detail, arguing that if Paul had really meant what we mean by such English words as "submit," and "head of," he would have picked other, more accurate Greek words that more exactly render his meaning. Instead, Paul chooses words that are more accurately interpreted as suggesting equality and mutuality in relationships between husbands and wives.

According to this author, Paul is arguing for something radically different than Aristotle's philosophy, which was popular in Hellenistic times and would have mandated that women are inferior to men. In fact, Paul may be giving traditional Aristotelian-ism a subversive Gospel-twist --showing his genius in turning the dominant philosophy of his age into something he could use to spread his own message.

Beyond the issue of equality, however, I think this book is the perfect illustration of how what we bring to the text determines our reading of it. If you're expecting Paul to be sexist, it's not hard to find sexism in his letters. If you expect equality to be God's truth for humanity, you will find radical equality in the New Testament. While some may find this observation to be disturbing, I find it to be a compelling reason for why the Bible has endured as a source of meaning and values for people throughout the ages.

PUBLISHER: Harper San Francisco; Reprint edition (March 1991); ISBN: 0060610638
(source: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/130/story_13009.html)

Paul on Sexuality

'The Apostle Paul On Sexuality', by Neil Elliot

This insightful article stands out from among many I've read that attempt to refute traditional church views of homosexuality. Unlike some whose agenda is merely to deconstruct traditional theology, this article provides a compelling, meaningful, and relevant alternative reading of Paul's letter to the Romans --especially Romans 1:24-27.

Elliot challenges us to consider that we are reading our own prejudices in the text when we make Romans be about homosexuality. First, he examines some of the popular ways theologians have treated this text in the past, noting that "importing" Jews as Paul's original audience doesn't make sense, nor does claiming Paul used stereotypes and exaggeration to make his points do Paul much credit. Instead, Elliot shows that within the context of the first Century Roman empire, Paul's insightful words are a biting critique of the excesses of Empire, and Romans 1:24-27 would have been immediately recognizable to a first century reader as describing the idolatry and excesses of Nero, Caligula, and others in the Imperial family.

Elliot ends with this quote, which not only sums up his position elegantly, but gives us hard questions to ask ourselves about the applicability of this text for us today:

The challenge we face, I believe, is to get beyond our own cultural and sexual prejudices and to hear what Paul has to say. As we ask about the ways our lives are corrupted by imperial culture — by any culture where power over people is the highest value — we begin to understand the true challenge of Paul’s letter: "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God — what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom. 12:2).

PUBLISHER: The Witness Magazine, July/August 2003. Volume 86.

(source: http://thewitness.org/agw/elliott071203.html)

The Reinvented Church

'The Reinvented Church: Styles and Strategies,' by Donald E. Miller

A few things struck me about this article. I was very impressed that someone whose own personal spirituality is so far away from that of the "new paradigm" churches would write such a glowing report on them. I would have expected all harsh criticism, especially of the way that the Bible is interpreted in such churches. Instead you get the image of someone really struck by the way that God is experientially real in these churches.

In my own experience I've found that mainline denominations are borrowing what works from the "new paradigm pattern and applying it to their own congregations. The last time my wife and I went church shopping, we found numerous Lutheran and other churches who incorporate small cell groups, contemporary Christian music, etc, and mix them into their own worship experience. So in that sense some of what Miller is calling for has already happened.

Spiritual experience. Personally, I'm at the point where I don't just want to read about God in the Bible or elsewhere, I want to experience God. The "new paradigm churches" as presented in the article struck a chord with me because experience seems to be a major theme there.

Miller seems to imply that the weakness of "new paradigm churches" is the same as their strength. Because they identify with the popular culture to a certain extent, they are blind to some of the excesses rational materialism has brought us.

I think its an interesting phenomenon because consumerism and capitalism (at least the forces of the free market economics) are major American values, and now we can see how those values have impacted everything, even down to our choice in faith communities and how we look at our relationship with God. Moreover, these assumptions are so taken for granted that almost no church in the land is left untouched.

PUBLISHER: The Christian Century, December 22-29, 1999

(source: http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=1519)

Restoring a Damaged Faith

'Restoring a Damaged Faith,' by Mary Tuomi Hammond

After reading this fascinating article about people who grew up in a churchgoing tradition only to leave it as adults because of the abuse they suffered within organized religion, I'm starting to realize that it's a much more serious issue for myself and others than I'd previously let myself imagine.

I come from the perspective of someone who has been in the church all my life. Unlike many, I've tried many different forms of Christianity, because I've always been looking for something from church that I've never quite found. Despite a regular history of church attendance, the church has, to varying degrees always disappointed me. To varying extents I've always felt like an outsider.

As I look back on it, what I've been looking for is twofold: 1) I'm looking for worship through which I can experience God (something where I perceive myself as being connected with God), and 2) I'm looking for a safe environment in which I can undertake spiritual exploration with others.

In my experience, I can find number 1. That's probably what keeps me in the church. However the church stinks at number 2. I think the problem is that the church only provides a "safe" environment on its own terms, and woe be unto those who don't meet those terms!

Here are some example "terms," from a church that I attended in the past. This church would only provide a safe environment for spiritual exploration with others if you fall into or agree with the superiority of these categories, and the extent that you step outside these categories is the extent that you are labeled, ostracized, held suspect, and encouraged to leave:

White, Straight, Biblically-inerrant, (male) Authority-driven, Capitalist

In the church I attend now, I've exchanged these terms for a somewhat different list of terms:

Gentile, Straight, Evangelical, Volunteer-driven, Sacramental

While before I would have congratulated myself on finding a place that had terms within which I could explore my faith while avoiding the wrath of my peers within the church, after reading the article on a damaged faith I'm realizing what a dismal vision of church this really is.

Is it healthy to have any sort of terms or conditions like these? I don't think so. On the one hand it's a straight-jacket for people like me who are within the church --I'm confined to only exploring my faith in community within this box. If I hear God calling me outside this box (a call I have heard already with regards to evangelicalism) I'd better not act on it in the church, or talk about it with anyone in the church, or I'm just asking to be spiritually abused.

On the other hand, these categories are even more of an insult to people who fall outside them --the church is saying, by the existence of these categories, that it has already pre-decided that anything that lays outside them --including people-- is not worthy of respect, or contains anything of value that could enrich the church.

I don't think that the church actually believes that it is abusing anyone, but through the use of standards of inclusion and exclusion abuse is taking place. The church needs to wake up and recognize what it's doing before any healing can begin to take place. I don't think Mary Tuomi Hammond goes far enough when she seems to imply that using a few different words (like "reconciled to God" instead of "saved," and "sharing one's faith" instead of "witnessing") is going to stop people from experiencing hurt in the organized church.

Maybe we need a church where the only criteria for taking the faith journey is the desire to take the faith journey, trusting God to take care of the rest, and not worrying about what ground we may cover or what boundaries we might cross along the way.

PUBLISHER: The Other Side, May-June 2000, Vol. 36, No. 3.

(source: http://www.theotherside.org/archive/may-jun00/hammond.html)

Good Grief

'Good Grief: An Undertaker's Reflections,' by Thomas Lynch

I have found that my notion of what existence after death must be like has been greatly affected by what seems most desirable or unattainable in the present. When I was in college and seeking estatic religious experiences (attending a charasmatic church) I envisioned heaven to be one eternal "praise and worship" session. Later, as I became interested in more contemplative approaches to spirituality, I became attracted to the notion that my individual ego would dissapate and peacefully dissolve into the Divine. I still like that image. Most recently --perhaps over-tired from chasing after a two-year-old-- the biblical image of sleeping in the grave until the end of the age (see 1 Corinthans 15:51) sounds very inviting.

Interestingly enough, all of these visions of the afterdeath (except perhaps for the last one) care little about the physical body. It's seen as merely a shell, unimportant to both the deceased and to those left behind. Often it seems unsightly, embarrassing, and even a little uncomfortabe to come face-to-face with a corpse. When is the last time you've been to an open-casket funeral? With cremation and other creative options becoming ever more popular, often the "memorial service" won't feature the deceased at all.

It is precisely this "shell game" that Thomas Lynch, funeral director and author of The Undertaking: Bodies in Motion and Still Life in Milford argues passionately against in 'Good Grief: An Undertaker's Reflections.' Lynch's thesis --cogently backed up by Christian tradition and scripture-- is that how we treat the dead is part of the social fabric of our dealings with the living. If St. Paul could write so eloquently of our spirts, and call our bodies a "temple of God," should we not treat the corpse with respect also?

Perhaps most provocative is Lynch's view that funerals are better when the corpse is present, because it helps the mourners come to terms with both the physical separation of death as well as the spiritual questions death raises. "The funeral --that ritual wheel that works the space between the living and the dead-- must deal with our humanity and our Christianity, our spiritual and natural realities, our flesh, our fears, and our faith and hopes, our bodies and our souls." (p. 22)

Of course, like many I'm highly interested in what medical science can do to extend the human lifespan --maybe I'll live to be 100! Even if near immortality is achieved, however, accidents will still happen and everyone will die sooner or later. Lynch's critique of contemporary atittudes towards death and dying raises important questions about how to die a "good death."

PUBLISHER: The Christian Century, pp 20-23. July 26, 2003 issue. ISSN: 0009-5281
LINKS: http://www.christiancentury.org