The First Paul

The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon
by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan

I've been a fan of Marcus Borg for a long time. What he did for Jesus in Jesus: A New Vision and Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time Borg and Crossan apply to their study and analysis of Paul. By separating Paul's letters into three categories: genuine (radical), contested (conservative), and authored by others (reactionary) they are able to highlight the radically egalitarian, non-violent, and mystical vision of the body of Christ and the kingdom of God which Paul preached as a sharp contrast to then prevailing notions of the Roman Empire and its emperor.

Two things stood out for me in this book. First, I have always been a bit perplexed about how the same man who wrote "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) could also write such passages as "Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:22) or "Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honour, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed." (1 Timothy 6:1) Attempts to harmonize these kinds of passages with each other inevitably water down Paul's more radical statements of egalitarianism, transporting them off to some spiritual realm where they cannot impact real life. Another approach, to claim Paul as the first wily pragmatist who said one thing to one church and the opposite to another is also ultimately unsatisfying. Crossan and Borg's historical approach, which defines the earliest genuine strand of Paul writings as the most radical, with subsequent strands reflecting later accomodation to culture as Christianity became more widely accepted through the Roman Empire makes sense to me as a logical progression and evolution of a religious tradition even as it disturbs me at the same time.

My favorite part of the book, however, was Borg and Crossan's treatment of Jesus versus Ceasar and the Kingdom of God versus the Roman Empire. Drawing upon Roman historical writings from shortly before the birth of Jesus, they are convincingly able to show that many of the most important ways in which Paul and Christianity talk about Jesus (i.e., Jesus is Lord, Jesus' divine birth, Jesus as the Son of God, and Jesus as the one who brings peace to the earth) would have immediately resonated with first century listeners as familiar language about the emperor! While not discounting the spiritual significance of these terms at all as they apply to Jesus, knowing their context viz. the god-king Caesar really awakened me to the political implications of Paul's writings, and also easily explains why the early apostles and followers of the Jesus movement were martyred by the Empire. Paul's writings were treason, threatening the legitimacy of the emperor. When Paul says "Jesus is Lord," that means Caesar is not.

One thing that I always appreciate about Marcus Borg is the clarity with which he explains difficult concepts. This book did not seem as clearly written as some of his others. I'm not sure if this can be blamed on John Dominic Crossan or is just part and parcel of a book that is written by more than one author. On the whole, however, I found it an enjoyable and illuminating read, even if the writing bogged down a bit in some sections. By placing Paul and his message in their first century contexts, Borg and Crossan are able to illuminate his radical message in a way that still speaks to us today.

Hardcover: 240 pages
Publisher: HarperOne (March 3, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0061430722
ISBN-13: 978-0061430725

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

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

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)

Talking with the enemy

'Talking with the enemy', by L. Gregory Jones

Sometimes I find that I have a swirl of ideas in my head that I can't articulate, and then I read a book or an article that crystallizes those very thoughts perfectly. Such is the case with L. Gregory Jones recent contribution to the May issue of the Christian Century, entitled "Talking with the enemy." In it he discusses the rancorous debate that has arisen in churches when clergy disagree with their congregations, and faithful parishioners on both sides of current issues like the war in Iraq feel alienated by debate and disagreement. While it's tempting to say that controversial issues shouldn't be discussed from the pulpit, most important issues are controversial, and avoiding them renders the church irrelevant to daily life. Yet Jones articulates a way to discuss them that doesn't alienate faithful people on the other side.

Jones draws upon scripture to articulate a vision of loving mutuality and listening to one's "enemies" when discussing controversial issues. Citing James 1:19, he writes, "Let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not produce God's righteousness." While preserving anger as a valid human emotion and response, he notes that a quick angry response has negative consequences for any community, including the body of Christ. From the Hebrew bible, Jones discusses the book of Jonah, "which presses the question of whether we really want our enemies to repent."

The most striking part of the article, however, was this quoted passage from Wendell Berry's novel Jayber Crow. I loved the way it simultaneously proclaimed a great truth, yet also called into question the authenticity of the truth teller. Part of the problem with communicating with the enemy is that it's so easy to become smug and prideful in the perfection of ones own position, which tends to close off the ability to truly hear what the other person has to say.

"They ought to round up every one of them sons of bitches and put them right in front of the damned communists, and then whoever killed who, it would be all to the good."
There was a little pause after that. Nobody wanted to try to top it. . . .
It was hard to do, but I quit cutting hair and looked at Troy. I said, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you."
Troy jerked his head up and widened his eyes at me. "Where did you get that crap?"
I said, "Jesus Christ."
And Troy said, "Oh."
It would have been a great moment in the history of Christianity, except that I did not love Troy.

As I mentioned earlier, part of why this article was so striking is because it resonated with some earlier reading I was trying to digest unsuccessfully. After seeing the VeggieTales movie "Jonah" last year, I was driven to attempt Yvonne Sherwood's A Biblical Text and Its Afterlives: The Survival of Jonah in Western Culture. Although I was unable to finish the entire book, it did fire my imagination about Jonah and sensitize me to noticing Jonah wherever he pops up in my reading.

Jonah is such an interesting tale for precisely the same reason I find the passage from Jayber so tantalizing. Both show a flawed person striving to be good, and not succeeding. Only where Jayber knows and acknowledges his flaws, Jonah denies and is unaware of how they destroy his relationship with God and others. A powerful message we would do well to heed today when dealing with our enemies, both abroad and next door.

Publisher: The Christian Century, May 31, 2003 issue. page 50. Chicago. ISSN: 0009-5281

3rd Corinthians

'3rd Corinthians', by Michael F. Flynn

I enjoy both science fiction and theology, yet rarely do I get to see science fiction that deals with religious themes. Moreover, I don't think I've ever read an SF short story in which modern religious scholarship served as the backdrop against which a time travel tale was spun.

3rd Corinthians does just that. Set in an Irish pub, this seven page story dishes up the main philosophical arguments for and against biblical literalism within the framework of a disheartened Catholic priest arguing with an atheistic bartender. Yet as the tale unfolds and we learn that the recently unearthed Pauline letter, 3rd Corinthians, seems unassailable, genuine, and theologically disturbing, it's the atheist that starts presenting arguments for faith and the priest that seems skeptical.

I'll not mention the final surprise --I fear I may have given away too much already. If you frequent Starbucks you'll get a kick out of this plot twist. Even without the "O. Henry" ending, however, I was impressed with how many of the concepts of theological inquiry were packed into an entertaining yarn. Through the conceit of the debate between the priest and the skeptic the reader is introduced to literalist hermeneutic, metaphorical interpretations, apostolic succession, church councils, deutero-canonical texts, literary criticism, historical biblical criticism, and manuscript analysis. If one was teaching a course on Christian theology or biblical interpretation, this would be a fun piece to include among the assigned readings.

PUBLISHER: Analog: Science Fiction and Fact (Astounding); Vol. CXXIII, No. 6, June 2003; ISSN: 1059-2113

Reading the Bible Again for the First Time

Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally, by Marcus J. Borg

In Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, Marcus Borg applies his "historical-metaphorical" method of interpreting the Christian tradition to the Bible as a whole. Starting with a thorough discussion of the various "lenses" through which readers see when they read, Borg moves through the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, applying his method to a number of sample texts. With separate chapters devoted to the creation stories, wisdom literature, the prophets, gospels, Pauline letters, and finally Revelation, Borg covers a lot of ground in relatively few pages, demonstrating his method as a comprehensive and compelling alternative to "literal-factual" interpretations.

Part of what I find appealing about Borg's books is that while he is so provocative in many ways, he also seems to be consciously and respectfully attempting to maintain continuity with the Christian tradition and its respect for the Bible. Granted, his interpretations are often at odds with traditional interpretations, but in re-interpreting the Bible he upholds the Bible's crucial importance to the Christian tradition. This does Christianity a great favor by opening up the text to those who would otherwise be unable to accept it on any level. In an ironic sort of way, Borg is quite traditional in his goal, which is to help Christians use the Bible to connect with God. This is summed up most eloquently on page 18: "Being Christian, I will argue, is not about believing in the Bible or about believing in Christianity. Rather, it is about a deepening relationship with the God to whom the Bible points, lived within the Christian tradition as a sacrament of the sacred."

In the preface, Borg alerts the reader that his is a post-modern approach to the scriptures. By using "lenses" as a metaphor for the assumptions Borg brings to the Bible, he underscores the point that we all see things differently, and bring different culturally conditioned lenses to bear on how we see the Bible. Borg discusses pre-modern and modern approaches to reading the Bible, and notes that we are on the boundary of the post-modern age. On page xi Borg writes: "The test of our subjectivities. . . is whether they make sense to others." This quote can serve as the theme of the book, in a nutshell. Even while using modern historical scholarship, Borg tries to present his vision in as non-foundational a way possible.

At the beginning of chapter one Borg writes "As we enter the 21st century, we need a new set of lenses through which to read the Bible. The older set, ground and polished by modernity, no longer works for millions of people. . .the older way of seeing the Bible, which I will soon describe, has made the Bible incredible and irrelevant for vast numbers of people." The "older way" is actually two older ways, referring to both fundamentalism's view of the Bible (which is "incredible" to Borg) and liberalism's view (probably epitomized by Bultmann, although Borg doesn't say this) which renders the biblical text increasingly irrelevant. Both fundamentalism and liberalism are products of the modern age. Both in their different ways try to flatten the text down and make it "scientific." One thing I find exciting about Borg's way of reading is that it allows for surpluses of meaning --I could disagree with every one of Borg's specific interpretations of a text, yet still use his techniques effectively to draw my own meaning out of the text. I see Borg's approach as a kind of post-liberal post-modern reading, striving to keep the text relevant without resorting to fundamentalism, yet being aware of the historical issues surrounding a text and its creation and transmission.

One thing that struck a negative chord with me the first time I read Chapter 2 was Borg's insistence that one must choose between considering the Bible to be either inspired or a human product. It seemed to me easily possible that God inspired the writers but the writers, being fallible, could fail to accurately translate that inspiration into words. Upon second reading, however, I think Borg is so strident in this point in order to distance himself from what I'll call a "classic liberal" reading of the text --one that wants to sift through the text, discarding most or much of it, in order to find that little kernel of inspiration that is hidden within. Using historical research to "cut down" or find the "kernel of truth" is far too reductionist for my tastes.

By seeing the Bible as an entirely human endeavor, written by people in response to God, there is no inspired kernel to be found. What then are we to do with the text? Pitch it? If we want to do anything with it at all we need to be aware of the issues facing the people that wrote in their context, and then try to see it as meaningful in our own situation --the heart of the historical-metaphorical method. I still like to use the word "inspired," as in "The Bible was written by people based on their inspiration from God." However, what I mean by inspiration is the same thing that Borg means by "in response to" as in "The Bible was written by people in response to their experience of God."

In chapter 3 the historical-metaphorical approach is outlined in more detail. By "historical" Borg means trends in biblical scholarship that have arisen over the last 200 years, including critical methods, literary criticism and linguistics. By "metaphorical" Borg means a non-literalist approach to finding meaningful truths in the text. By combining the two, Borg constructs a theological lens that remains critical, but not overly so. On page 51 of this chapter, Borg writes: "The initial movement into critical thinking is often experienced as liberating, but if one remains in this state decade after decade, it becomes a very arid and barren place in which to live. . ." Thus by combining imaginative metaphorical reading with rigorous scholarship, one can hopefully move past the "barren place."

I disagree with Borg's wholehearted assertion that critical thinking is inevitable. In one sense, I think everyone develops a "crap-detector" as they get older, which allows them to sort through competing claims, retaining that which is useful to them, discarding that which is not. Relatively few people apply this to their religion, however. Why? I think that most people are satisfied with their religion. Marcus Borg's The God We Never Knew blew my mind when I discovered it on the bookshelf of my local Barnes and Noble back in 1998. But I was supremely dissatisfied with the way I envisioned my religion at that time, and was looking for an alternative. Most people have what works for them, so why expect them to change? Why should they change? One answer might be that if critical thinking offered more, people would be interested in it. But I'd say critical thinking generally appears to offer much less. That "arid and barren place to live," if you will.

Chapters 4 through the end of the book apply the "lenses" that have been so painstakingly defined to the scriptural canon. Borg reads Genesis 1 and 2 as "true myth" outlining the Hebrew view that ". . .something has gone wrong. Life began in paradise but is now lived outside the garden, in an exile of hard labor, suffering, pain, violence, and fragmentation. Though the world is beautiful, something is not right; we do live in a world of suffering and pain." (p.78) Here Borg retains the meaning (or a meaning) of the creation stories, while rejecting the need to take them literally. While I agree with Borg's interpretation, I do raise an objection to it. While Borg provides us with a way of making sense of the creation stories that doesn't conflict with the theory of evolution, does he really take evolution into account in his theology of origins? I think he sidesteps the issue, as does most theology. I have yet to see a theology of origins that dares to take the next step --i.e., draw conclusions about the nature of God based on the reality of evolution as the driving force of creation. I'd argue that such a God would look quite different than traditional views of God, and be potentially quite alarming, regardless of one's theological orientation. Such a God would seem overly capricious, random, chaotic, and distant. In his other works Borg outlines the panentheistic view of God, which sees God as very immanent in the universe, but not necessarily transcendent. Borg still sees this kind of God as representing somehow more than just merely the sum of the universe's parts (which would be pure pantheism, in my view).

One of the stories I have the most trouble with in the Pentateuch is the near-sacrifice of Isaac. A walk on the wild side, to say the least. I would have liked to see Borg treat it. I guess per Borg's theme of promise and fulfillment in Chapter 5, the sacrifice of Isaac could be seen as yet another way of raising the dramatic bar --that God still had the ability to fulfill the promise even if Isaac were killed. But --especially to someone who has children of their own-- this seems like an overly dramatic license to take. Plus if we are going to say that God doesn't act like this (a panentheistic God may not even have the ability to act like this) it seems strained to draw any sort of conclusion about God from this story.

In Chapter 6, Borg maintains that in the West Christianity is no longer synonymous with the dominant culture. Therefore for Borg the prophets once again become an indictment of the dominant culture. The prophets can be relevant to today, and this is echoed in some of the mainline churches' critiques of consumerism and globalization, although I don't think its articulated loudly enough, or clearly enough. Personally, I tend to think that if I start thinking I'm "there" or have "arrived" then I'm in big trouble because I'm not open to learning more. Maybe this was the problem with Christianity when it becomes culturally dominant. It gets too complacent, and started caring about itself more than the betterment of the world. These prophets raise all kinds of questions for me, and present visions for how things should be, but I don't see them as providing much of a roadmap for how to get from here to there.

In Chapter 7 Borg makes the same distinction between conventional wisdom and subversive wisdom (and the tension between the two) that he made in The God We Never Knew. I've found this distinction to be very useful in dealing with the tension between different voices in scripture. The subversive stuff (Job, Ecclesiastes, The Sermon on the Mount) really speaks to me, maybe because I live such a conventional life. Yet as I've grown older I recognize a place for the conventional wisdom (Proverbs) as well.

As Borg moves through the New Testament, the dual lenses of historical and metaphorical are applied in a manner consistent with his Old Testament approach. Generally speaking, events in the narrative that don't meet the muster of modern biblical scholarship get reinterpreted metaphorically. For Borg this takes some interesting and unexpected turns. For instance, since faith healing phenomena are reported in all religions and across cultures, Borg considers Jesus' reported abilities here to be historical. Likewise, Jesus' resurrection appearances, and Paul's vision on the Damascus road are affirmed as events that would have been real to those who experienced them, although not necessarily objective events. On the other hand, however, events that clearly violate the laws of physics such as turning water into wine at Cana, and Jesus walking on water are seen as metaphors for larger spiritual truths.

Borg concludes his book by enunciating three major biblical themes about God in the epilogue. 1) God is real, and can be experienced. 2) Life is made "whole" and "right" by living in conscious relationship to God. 3) God is described as a God of Justice (procedural) and compassion. While I readily agree with these three statements, and feel that they can be drawn out of the narrative using Borg's interpretive technique, I don't feel that they are the only possible interpretations using the historical metaphorical approach. Depending upon which sections of the narrative are interpreted metaphorically, and what historical criteria is used, these three assumptions about God could be deconstructed. I think postmodern theology's true challenge is presented by these large questions of meaning and the nature of God. Is there any meaning of purpose beyond oneself? If so, on what basis could one possibly promote such a purpose. With God only "an experiential reality" I don't see how God can possibly be used to legitimate any social agenda. Are we left only with the Darwinian struggle for survival? Does might end up making right after all?

PUBLISHER: Harper San Francisco; 2001; ISBN: 0060609184

RELATED LINKS:

Professional information about Marcus Borg
A Portrait of Jesus --from Galilean Jew to the Face of God. Good introduction to Borg's theology.

The Great Divorce

The Great Divorce, by C. S. Lewis

Lately, books have evoked memories of movies I've seen. C. S. Lewis' The Great Divorce reminds me of the movie What Dreams May Come. Both deal with visions of the afterlife, but while What Dreams May Come is a post-modern vision of heaven and hell --where our bliss or torment is entirely of our own creating-- The Great Divorce maintains that the Kingdom of Heaven is the Platonic Ideal (or Form) of Absolute Reality. That makes it all the more surprising when many of Lewis' characters don't have the spiritual wherewithal to live in that Reality, and choose to live in subjective hells very similar to the ones depicted in What Dreams May Come.

In the preface (page x, to be exact) Lewis warns against the arousal of "factual curiosity about the details of the after-world." Such equivocation is startling from the man who tirelessly (and tiresomely) insisted in Mere Christianity that we must choose between liar, lunatic or Lord. Instead we get Lewis' dream of the Kingdom --beautifully and pastorally represented as the dawning of a new day where only the pure in heart can gaze upon the Son/Sun and live. As in the Narnia series and the Space Trilogy, Lewis is at his best when he's imagining evocative new worlds.

Evangelicals love Mere Christianity for its proud trumpeting of certainty, but The Great Divorce is literature for those who acknowledge increased levels of ambiguity, mystery, and uncertainty when it comes to things theological. Often it seems that Lewis skates on the edge of orthodoxy, but never sails over the edge by hedging with paradoxes --for Lewis the Kingdom is a Platonic form, rendered paradoxically and shrouded in mystery. For instance, Lewis comes very close to saying that Heaven and Hell are states of mind, but one of his characters crisply corrects this contention, saying that Hell is a state of mind, but Heaven is Ultimate Reality. On the issue of free will versus predestination --the biggest paradox of all-- Lewis upholds both by saying that what looks like predestination from a cosmic point of view is actually free will from a human point of view. Lewis' version of hell seems more like the dusky, murky mists of Old Testament sheol than the New Testament fires Jerry Falwell likes to emphasize. Lewis circumvents the problem of evil's existence with the classic argument of making it a privation of the good --for Lewis hell is only a crack in the earth of heaven. In a surprisingly post-modern take, spending an eternity in hell is merely the lack of a broad enough "heavenly" perspective.

Everyone has a chance to move on up to heaven, but many prefer to stay wallowed in their own issues. The bulk of the book is devoted to the stories of different "ghosts" who, upon being extended the chance to enter Heaven, either refuse outright or refuse to enter on anything other than their own terms. Since for Lewis it impossible to enter the Kingdom without orienting oneself to the Absolute Reality, no one is denied entrance, but all in hell choose to be there. The "ghosts" represent types of moral lapse: pride in chapter four (the ghost who believes he's earned salvation on his own merits), apostasy in chapter 5 (which for Lewis is epitomized by the liberal theology of the Episcopal Church), apathy in chapter 7 (coupled with cynicism), self-preoccupation in chapter 8 (the embarrassed/ashamed woman), obsession ("mother love" gone awry) and lust in chapter 11, and finally --the greatest sin of all-- holding the joy of another hostage to your own misery (epitomized by a man who could not appreciate his wife) in chapter 12.

Of the moral sketches that make up the meat of the story, the three that moved me the most were, not surprisingly, issues in which I could see myself and my own struggle. In two of these cases (for me, lust and not appreciating my wife enough) I felt that Lewis' insights were jarringly accurate. However, for the third issue of apostasy epitomized by liberal theology I think Lewis thoroughly misses the mark in an attempt to score some easy points. If it is really true that folks see least clearly and strike most fervently against those in whom they see their own undesirable traits mirrored, I can't help but wonder what this says about Lewis.

First, a quibble over terminology. An apostate is one who repudiates the faith --something Lewis' liberal theologian ghost does not do. Even if we grant Lewis' version of what the faith actually is, his liberal ghost would not be an apostate, but merely a heretic, which is one who claims to hold onto the faith while simultaneously believing things contrary to it. I used to listen to a pastor who commonly referred to the Episcopal Church (and by extension all mainline denominations) as "the apostate church." Now I can see that it was clearly a reference to "the Episcopal ghost" in The Great Divorce --inaccurate as the apostate label in this instance may be.

Secondly, Lewis paints the Episcopal ghost as a liberal whose liberal views serve only to self-aggrandize. Even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence, holding onto liberal views are more important than the truth. As one with liberal leanings myself, I can personally attest that this is a straw man. If I could be shown that the universe is really as Lewis says it is in The Great Divorce, I'd gladly amend my views to match. I'm on a search for truth, and to the extent that my views are liberal or unorthodox only reflects that I am willing to be open to the direction the Spirit blows me. Any other view makes an idol out of orthodoxy that's put in place of the living God.

PUBLISHER: Harper San Francisco; ISBN: 0060652950; (February 5, 2001) Originally published in 1946.

The God We Never Knew

The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith, by Marcus Borg

The God We Never Knew is simultaneously a fascinating account of one man's spiritual journey from one understanding of God to another and a compact, readable summary of the major trends in theological thinking from the Enlightenment through the present. Marcus Borg, a Jesus scholar and professor of Religion at Oregon State University, uses his own personal experiences as a metaphor for the changes that have taken place in biblical understanding through the centuries.

For years I have sought to resolve the conflict, or tension, in my own mind between modernism and Christianity. Because the modern scientific world view so rigorously and systematically reduces all of reality to what can be measured or observed with the physical senses, Christianity is totally deprived of reality. Yet the heart cries out for a level beyond the material; a longing for the sense that God is real and near and grants life meaning in a very personal way. I think the major reason why some Christians are so threatened by modern scientific theories such as evolution and literary/critical techniques of reading the Bible is because they fear that there is nothing real left to base faith upon when the Bible does not match reality in a very literal way. Part of the reason why I enjoyed The God We Never Knew so much is because Borg's theology is able to incorporate modernism intelligently while critiquing its tendency to reduce everything in the universe to the purely physical. By the same token he is able to view and interpret the Bible in a non-literal yet meaningful way which illustrates a close personal relationship with God that is not only possible but indeed nurturing to Christians daily, strengthening their faith.

As the title suggests, Borg compares and contrasts two different ways of looking at God. One view comprises a distant God "out there," who points his finger at humanity's failings, and demands adherence to a set of beliefs in order to gain acceptance into heaven. This view of God focuses mainly on eternal rewards for earthly deeds, and uses biblical metaphors of king and lord as the primary way of viewing God. Borg's view of God, by contrast, holds that God is close and personal, existing in us and around us as well as "out there," is accepting and nurturing, and focuses on relational rather than propositional truth. Rather than focusing on eternal rewards, Borg suggests that the kingdom of God is here and now around us, and can be visible, if we are willing to look through spiritual eyes.

Surprisingly (for a book primarily about theology) Borg looks cross-culturally to find a number of useful techniques for enhancing one's sense of God being present in personal way to each believer. Borg gives each traditional notion of worship, prayer, and evangelism a helpful tweak when he recommends "sounds in creating an opening to the sacred", "talking to God", and "the dream of God", respectively. According to Borg, spiritual senses need to be practiced and developed because we are used to thinking purely in terms of our physical senses and material reality.

The only glaring critique I have of Borg's book is that it tends to oversimplify the broad range of Christian understanding existing both today and throughout history. Because he uses the Lutheranism of his childhood as the metaphor for a traditional understanding of Christianity, he builds a false dualism--an "either/or" scenario in which it feels like Borg is saying "this is the way Christianity was traditionally conceived...and this is my new conception of it." The footnotes are a helpful corrective, where it becomes apparent that there are myriad positions that can be taken in between these two views. Some passages, however, still feel like Borg is attacking a straw man. More so than in other books, I would recommend reading the footnotes (located at the end of each chapter.) All of the scriptural references are in the footnotes, and since Borg often looks at parts of the Bible that are traditionally underemphasized, you may be as surprised as I was at what is actually in the Bible. Finally, the footnotes provide additional reading sources should you be interested in a particular topic Borg mentions only briefly.

The God We Never Knew is a very useful book on many levels. If you are seeking a way to reconcile modernism and religion, or if you are seeking a readable synopsis of contemporary theology, or if you are interested in reading about one person's spiritual struggle, Borg's book will speak to you.

PUBLISHER: Harper San Francisco; ISBN: 0060610352; Reprint edition (June 1998)