Front PageA student of God
Submitted by bill on Sat, 04/23/2005 - 15:03. faith
The recurring question for Christians and those considering a life commitment to follow The Master is: am I accepted as I am, or must I earn salvation? And a second is like it: how do I know I'm saved?
In his book, The Heart of Christianity, Marcus Borg ends the chapter, God: The Heart of Reality, with this paragraph.
Borg, p77 wrote:
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 need 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.
The answer to the two thousand year old question lies not in us but in the character of God.
Borg, p76 wrote:
The God of love is also the God of justice. The two are related, for in the Bible justice is the social form of love. Thus the God of love is not simply “nice,” but has an edge, a passion for justice. God loves everybody and everything . . . To take the God of love and justice seriously means to take justice seriously and to be aware that prolonged injustice has consequences.The image of the Christian life that goes with this view of God's character is quite different from the requirements-and-rewards emphasis of the first way. The Christian is about a relationship with God that transforms us into more compassionate beings. The God of love and justice is the God of relationship and transformation.
The God of love punishes injustice to both avenge those he loves and to discipline them. Consider this advise in Proverbs: “My son, do not reject the discipline of the LORD or loathe His reproof, For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.” There are many similar lessons in the book of Proverbs. These passages paint an image of a loving parent teaching a child that success in life comes from accepting discipline and learning from admonishment. They speak of relationship; of teacher and student; of loving parent and attentive child.
But we are forever returning to law and works. We're wary of grace.
Borg wrote:
But radical grace has most often been too radical for most Christians. We most often put conditions on God's grace: God accepts you if. . . And whenever an “if” clause is added, grace becomes conditional and ceases to be grace.An important clarification: unconditional grace is not about how to get to heaven or who goes to heaven. The notion that salvation is primarily about “going to heaven” is a distortion; and when it is seen as primary, the notion of unconditional grace leads to the notion that everybody gets to go to heaven, regardless of their life and faith. However, unconditional grace is not about the afterlife, but the basis for our relationship with God in this life.
Unconditional grace here is like provisional acceptance into college. Everybody gets to try. But it's not graduation that counts. It's the lifelong commitment to learning—or, actually to justice. According to many proverbs, the failures are those who scoff at discipline and reject admonition. It's not how good a student you are. It's whether you're a student.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Grace distorted
Submitted by bill on Sat, 04/23/2005 - 16:46.
The distortion Borg speaks of is the distortion that grace is about getting into heaven. Grace is about relationship now
Here's another paragraph, from the same book, that I probably should have included.
Borg, p77 wrote:
Taking the God of love and justice and the God of grace seriously has immediate implications for the Christian message. It becomes: God loves us already and has from our very beginning. The Christian life is not about believing or doing what we need to believe or do so that we can be saved. Rather, it's about seeing what is already true—that God loves us already—and then beginning to live in this relationship. It is about becoming conscious of and intentional about a deepening relationship with God.
Many people, I think, place their bets on Christianity in hopes of winning big in the end. This is like buying lottery tickets with each paycheck instead of putting that money into savings. Redemption is not a retirement account, anyway. It's a way of life.
bill
» reply
Grace That Is Not Grace
Submitted by reido on Sun, 04/24/2005 - 10:25.
Bill
The subject header -- now that would be a distortion wouldn't it?
Let's suppose grace means God has forgiven my sins and I get to go to heaven. Those who do not appropriate the grace of God go to hell. Conditional Salvation. Is there a great deal missing from this that greatly distorts the main thing?
Well, first we should ask what is the main thing? Doesn't much of Scripture discuss the creative power of God to transform life? Jesus spoke of purpose to bring abundant life, Jn 10:10.
Now what is missing from the heaven/hell picture as the ultimate goal? Could it lie in the meaning of grace itself...charis...from which charismata (gifts) was derived? How does this gift manifest itself? Looking at the teaching of Jesus, I would say that it has less to do with heaven/hell and more to do with loving one another, forgiving one another, opening the doors to the temple so the oppressed are no longer the oppressed, enriching our existence by engaging in relationship with God and man.
Is this what Borg has in mind? Of course, you know he is a panentheist (God in all, thru all, above all). He defines it as literally "Everything is in God" (The God We Never Knew, Ch 2, p32).
reido
reido
» reply
Salvation from injustice
Submitted by bill on Sun, 04/24/2005 - 10:52.
Reido,
An idea that keeps coming to mind is that part of salvation is salvation from injustice. Although I've read nothing to point me in this direction, the thought just keeps popping up. Perhaps it's a personal issue that I need to get a grip on. Still, when I think of the end of Jesus' physical life I see a man at peace with gross injustice. It's the "silent lamb" concept.
With this in mind, grace becomes an internal, self generated redemption from hate and anger that otherwise doom me to misery in this life. And it's also lost to me if I merely wait for salvation/justice after life. So one distortion of "grace" and salvation is the teaching that we must suffer now for payback later. Of course we suffer, but is there a secret to suffering without suffering?
bill
» reply
Social Injustice
Submitted by reido on Sun, 04/24/2005 - 12:16.
Bill
I think you are onto something. Luke was very steeped in themes of social injustice -- he wrote, "Blessed are the poor" instead of "poor in spirit". Likely, he got his leanings from the suffering Savior himself. As we view the persecuted, prophets and such...they often had messages of concern for mistreatment of others.
reido
» reply
From Another Borg Book
Submitted by reido on Sun, 04/24/2005 - 17:45.
Bill
This is at the end of The God We Never Knew, ch 2, p 51:
"Moreover, thinking about God as both transcendent and immanent, as the beyond who is "right here", leads to a quite different image of the Christian life...I now see that the Christian life is not essentially about beliefs and requirements; it is not about believing in a God "out there" for the sake of an afterlife later. Rather, thinking about God panentheistically leads to a relational understanding of the Christian life, which is, I am convinced, both true and profoundly life-giving.
Put very simply...three central convictions:
God is real.
The Christian life is about entering into a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ.
That relationship can -- and will -- change your life."
His next chapter discusses the two image models of God: One is monarchical (King), the other is spiritual (Spirit). It amazes me again and again to read words that express much of my own journey, but in someone else's words.
I have steered clear of discussing exactly "how" a person becomes part of a church without walls -- for fear that too much too soon would be damaging to the outcome. Perhaps after some of you have read Borg's writing, you can comment on this: One cannot join a church without walls -- we are already part of it, as cwowi is only a metaphor for Living in God.
reido
» reply
cwow membership
Submitted by bill on Sun, 04/24/2005 - 18:14.
Reido,
I've thought of the Ekklesia much like your description: "cwowi is only a metaphor for Living in God." Now that you bring this up, I'm going to look again at Jesus' words to Peter after Peter answered the question: "who do you say I am."
Oh and an interesting point: in the Gospel of Thomas, Thomas gets to be the bright one with the right answer instead of Peter. And Thomas, after answering that his mouth can't describe the answer, gets taken off for a secret lesson from the Savoir. What intigues me most about these parallel passages is the contention between authors.
bill
» reply
Living in God
Submitted by reido on Mon, 04/25/2005 - 11:48.
Bill
The question that likely will come is, if we are already part of the metaphoric cwowi, then what is the point of it all? Is it possible to reject it? Is it possible to miss the point if there is one?
I ask this because the church as we have generally been taught is an extension of what Borg calls the Monarchical God who resides somewhere else. A great deal of effort is spent in declaring and sanctifying this body as "not of this world." Not that this isnt true,but the reified meaning of such phrases falls under the overall picture of the distant God who rules and dispenses punishment and reward based on performance.
To move away from this to an imminant God -- a God with us -- the meanings of sanctification, life in the ages, the justice of God...all change as they revolve around Living in God. I do believe that all are presently living in God if God is understood as above all, thru all, and in all (note that Borg qualifies by stating that God is indefinable). However, I believe there are different levels of awareness of the state of being in God. What I suggest is not a hierarchy as the nature of realization includes the reversal of carnal positions of power and control. It would in fact, be accurate to say that the possibility is ever present for the worst kind of individual to be totally transformed by the interaction of God in life.
Can this grace be missed? I agree with Borg when he states that the Monarchical way of thinking of God has been an effective means of communicating to many good people. It does tend to focus on the Transcendent God rather than the Transcendent and Immanent God. Is something missing there? If I did not believe so, I would not encourage a cwow.
Your thoughts, please?
reido
» reply
Feudal God
Submitted by bill on Mon, 04/25/2005 - 15:22.
Reido,
Is Borg's Monarchical God a Feudal God? Is a kingly God the picture he's painting?
The reason I ask is that authority is the main ingredient for belief systems. The believer needs authority to accept an assertion as fact (or truth). And until the end of World War I—very recent in historical terms—almost all of the people ever on this planet lived under an absolute power. Parts of western Europe lived under very centralized power until mid century while eastern Europe did until the 1980s.
Could it be that most people need an authority to tell them they are “saved?”
Could it be that the philosophical change sweeping the world today started rolling when the number of free thinking people reached critical mass.
bill
» reply
Monarchical
Submitted by reido on Mon, 04/25/2005 - 20:53.
Bill
He discusses two ways of thinking of God. Monarchical is as you described it. It centers on Kingship. Also on ruling from a throne that is in a place very different from where we are. We are as peasants to the king. He does comment on how society has modeled itself, even promoted itself at the expense of the peasants by convincing them that it was their responsibility to serve in this way. He also discusses the fact that this is very much a male God.
The other way of thinking of God, he calls the Spirit way. It perceives the universe as a place that God fills such that there is no place where He cannot be found. The governance, fatherhood, justice of God are seen as a loving parent towards a child.
reido
» reply
Contention
Submitted by bill on Mon, 04/25/2005 - 21:03.
Reido,
Although many will agree with the "above all, through all, in all" definition, there would still be a lot of contention over taking God off of our paternalistic throne.
BTW, how do you like the glossary filter. If you mouse over the little icon next to a glossary term like cwowi, you get a definition of the term. Cool, huh?
bill
» reply
Invitation to The Simple Message
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 04/26/2005 - 14:22.
Hi, nice site and interesting discussiions. I belive, we can learn from each other. I invite you all to visit my blog for a friendly, open and constructive discussion. http://thesimplemessage.blogspot.com
» reply
Re: Invitation to The Simple Message
Submitted by bill on Tue, 04/26/2005 - 15:48.
wrote:
Hi, nice site and interesting discussiions. I belive, we can learn from each other. I invite you all to visit my blog for a friendly, open and constructive discussion. http://thesimplemessage.blogspot.com
Welcome to FC, is it Kashif? Yes I agree, we can all learn from each other. I liked this paragraph in your April 22 post.
TheSimpleMessage wrote:
The ultimate destiny of man is to return to his Creator, Allah, and the Lord of the worlds, the Beneficent, the Merciful, to whom man belongs. The destiny of man in this world is to complete this short sojourn called al-hayat al-dunya, the life of this world, with constant remembrance of his Lord and Creator and in complete and full submission to His will. Out of the vast ocean of His Mercy and Grace, Allah, the Beneficent and Merciful (Al-Rahman and al-Raheem) has sent for the human kind, and shows man, innumerable of His signs in the created universe and in man himself so that man is enabled, through deciphering the Signs of God, to fulfill his destiny and achieve the true purpose of his creation.
Thanks for stopping by.
bill
» reply
The Borgian Alternative
Submitted by reido on Wed, 05/04/2005 - 16:01.
I have this article from opensourcetheology.net by Andrew Perriman in review of Marcus Borg's The Heart of Christianity:
God....
"The 'out there' / 'right here' distinction is another one of those stubborn dualisms that hamper the development of a post-modern theology. These dualisms become inevitable outside any concept of a covenantal relationship, at the level of Borg's 'wholesale God' (71); but the biblical God, in whatever manner he is encountered, worshipped, loved, feared, is a God who chooses, who instructs, who alters the course of events, and so on. This sort of covenantal theology, with its strong interest in the interweaving storylines of human history, does not readily resolve itself into some abstract, universal, philosophical notion of God. The problem with Borg's panentheism is, again, that it takes all the fun out of the relationship. By the time we get to statements like 'God is the name we use for "isness without limitations," "isness" without limits' (69), we have to wonder whether it is worth using the word 'God' at all."
A well written article that mentions the covenantal view, and even indicates that Borg may not align totally with the emerging church -- I would like to hear your thoughts on his review.
reido
» reply
Re: The Borgian Alternative
Submitted by bill on Wed, 05/04/2005 - 16:22.
reido wrote:
I have this article from opensourcetheology.net by Andrew Perriman in review of Marcus Borg's The Heart of Christianity:God....
"The 'out there' / 'right here' distinction is another one of those stubborn dualisms that hamper the development of a post-modern theology. These dualisms become inevitable outside any concept of a covenantal relationship, at the level of Borg's 'wholesale God' (71); but the biblical God, in whatever manner he is encountered, worshipped, loved, feared, is a God who chooses, who instructs, who alters the course of events, and so on. This sort of covenantal theology, with its strong interest in the interweaving storylines of human history, does not readily resolve itself into some abstract, universal, philosophical notion of God. The problem with Borg's panentheism is, again, that it takes all the fun out of the relationship. By the time we get to statements like 'God is the name we use for "isness without limitations," "isness" without limits' (69), we have to wonder whether it is worth using the word 'God' at all."
A well written article that mentions the covenantal view, and even indicates that Borg may not align totally with the emerging church -- I would like to hear your thoughts on his review.
reido
Reido,
Although I often read opensourcetheology, I missed this one—but I'm not sorry I did. Quite frankly, from the snippet you included, I'd say that Andrew missed the point.
I'm not taking up for Marcus Borg or panentheism. It just seems that Andrew missed the “God within you” point that I believe Jesus, John and Paul made. Perhaps he doesn't get metaphor?
So if, as Perriman says: “The 'out there' / 'right here' distinction is another one of those stubborn dualisms that hamper the development of a post-modern theology”, we should just dump the notion of developing a post-modern theology.
bill
» reply
Yes Bill, this is Kashif. Als
Submitted by Kashif (not verified) on Wed, 05/11/2005 - 08:01.
Yes Bill, this is Kashif. Also, thanks for stopping by my blog. The article mentioned is written by my father. It gives a comprehensive view of GOD and His signs (according to Islam).
» reply
Signs of God
Submitted by reido on Wed, 05/11/2005 - 11:50.
Kashif
I followed your link and read the article "Signs of God". The signs and their descriptions are very much in keeping with Torah and what Christians call the New Testament.
Your father makes application of the Koran as sacred scripture. I find it noteworthy that these ancient texts agree in suggesting the unity of all things created and their relationship to the Creator. Unfortunately for man, each takes his own message exclusive of all others.
Does it not reach a point where possession of Truth ends up violating the unity of God in all that it originally set out to teach?
reido
» reply
Re : Signs Of God
Submitted by Kashif (not verified) on Tue, 05/17/2005 - 14:08.
Hi reido,
Thanks for visiting my blog.
Yes, I agree that the signs are similar to the ones mentioned in the other scriptures. After all, they are from the same God. I know that some may disagree with that statement. But at least they are from the same Creator. Take this scenario for example. I believe that Whoever created me, also created you and everyone else. I am sure everyone who believes in some sort of God believes the same way, that is, Whoever created them also created everyone else. So essentially we believe in the same Creator. However, the way people perceive the signs and worship God has evolved over time are different for followers of those scriptures. Many people have been so overwhelmed and amazed by the signs that perhaps they forgot God and started worshipping the signs of God.
You wrote : "Unfortunately for man, each takes his own message exclusive of all others. "
I agree, as the Quran states ...
"By the Night as it conceals (the light);
By the Day as it appears in glory;
By (the mystery of) the creation of male and female;-
Verily, (the ends) ye strive for are diverse." (Al Quran 92:01-04)
That's the beauty of diversity. If everybody took the message the same way, there won't be any test in this world. Again as the Quran states ...
"To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah(God); it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute." (Al Quran 5:48)
You wrote : " Does it not reach a point where possession of Truth ends up violating the unity of God in all that it originally set out to teach? "
I would like to look at it from a different angle. God is The Truth and The Truth is from God. So there is only One Truth. We do not possess the Truth. We simply acknowledge and follow the Truth. Truth is not anyone's private property ;-) ... it is just One Truth. People might take different route to get to it but ultimately it has to be the same Truth without any distortion. If there exist any mediator/barrier between us and the Truth, then you cannot reach the Truth.
May God guide us all to the straight path so that we worship our Creator, the Lord, God alone. Truly, only He is worthy of worship. Peace...
Kashif
» reply
Distortion?
Bill
How does he mean distortion? Does he imply there is no such thing as eternal bliss, or is he saying that salvation is not about getting to go to heaven?
There is so much theology built around this distortion -- I am thinking now of obligatory patterned behavior (like preachments on going to church, bible study class, etc, where one can recieve all the instructions on the avoidance of the plague of being worldly) and its associated power structure.
reido