Faith as Visio

Larry,

Your disagreement with Borg's use of the word metaphor to describe faith in the emerging paradigm, challenges me to look more closely at what he said and how I quoted him. It made sense to me when I read it, but now I can't put into words what I understood as I read.

Still, this is an important concept, I'm convinced, for us Boomers to grip. We've straddled the wide blurry line between modernity and whatever comes next, and so we are the bridge between our modern cohorts and the younger generations. Since you're about as PMi as I am, I need to slow down and think about this some more.

But for the interim, I'll just say that I think that Borg is using “metaphor” to mean “a way of seeing.” Here's another quote:

My sense is that “metaphor” here is the human attempt to paint something that we barely understand. The PM mind is more likely to have a faith that sees traditions—and even doctrine—as earthly, human attempts at an ideal. And this is in stark contrast to the assensus view that sees every jot and tittle as the exact nuts and bolts of the Kingdom.

Is that OK?
bill

Bill,

I probably shouldn't try to shoot off a post during my lunch hour.

Here is the whole quote: "As a way of seeing, faith as visio connects to the emerging paradigm's emphasis upon metaphor. Metaphor has to do with “how we see.” For the emerging paradigm, the Bible and the Christian traditions are understood as a giant metaphor through which we see God. Christian faith is about living within the Christian traditions as a metaphor of God."

I agree that faith as visio, or a way of seeing, does connect well with the PMi emphasis on metaphor. And I think metaphors are critically important to our understanding of God - my mind probably can't comprehend him any other way.

Part of my disagreement with Borg on the last two sentences is that if this paradigm is truly still emerging, how can he say definitively how the paradigm understands the Bible and traditions? That may be one way of viewing it, but I think it is too early to make such pronouncements.

But what really prompted me to post at noon, was his last sentence. I think Jesus is our metaphor of God. It seems to me that living within the Christian traditions (which I equate to the institutional church) as a metaphor of God is a modern, rather than emergent, view.

Again, I was probably trying to do to much in too little time; and I may not disagree with Borg at all.

Help me understand, and thanks for being patient with me.

Larry,

I apologize if I sound condescending. What I meant by this: “Since you're about as PMi as I am, I need to slow down and think about this some more.”, is that I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

So, If you see it differently, I really want to get your perspective. Additionally, Marcus Borg puts his pants on the same as you and I, so we can disagree with him if we want.

Also, I'd like to get opinions from other readers.

bill

I read this book not too long ago, so I will see if I could add something to the discussion.

My impression of what Borg is trying to say is Christian traditions are tangible things that can be lived out as a metaphor for God. In other words, in his view social justice is a passion of God as expressed through the OT prophets and through Jesus (not to mention the other Axial age religions). Therefore social justice should be practiced, as it always has been to some extent, as part of Christianity.

Borg is a Jesus historian first and foremost. He completely dimisses the mythological setting the Jesus experience is communicated in by the gospels. For him, the unconventional wisdom and the practical effects of Jesus's life acting as an announcement of the coming "Kingdom of God" are the meat of the gospel not any of the supernatural aspects. In that sense, living inside the traditions of Christianity that encourage forgiveness, peace, mercy, and communion with our fellow man have real implications for life in the here and now. So, for him, acting out that tradition would move the world closer to the Kingdom of God ideal. Thus, belief in God and Jesus becomes less about intellectually agreeing with manmade creeds, and more about acting out that faith through discernible actions.

Does that make sense?

Brian,

You're right about Borg's perspective. I've come to just skim over the "historical Jesus" view, so I've neglected to bring that into the discussion. This historical view I find somewhat useful, but at the end of the day it's a bit hollow. {I added an update to the bottom of Faith as Visio, with a link about this writers perspective on Jesus.} After reading Crossan and Spong, Borg seems almost mystical.

Also, I think because Pagels brings both an historical view of the charismatics, and a personal faith (at least in her last book), and because I read her books simultaneously with Borg's, I forgot about Borg's perspective. It's interesting how we can choose what to accept and reject subconsciously.

Still, Borg seems to distance himself some from the Historical Jesus Project in his treatment of assenting faith verses trusting, faithfulness and vision. But I still have more of the book to read.

bill

Bill,

You are correct about Borg being more mystical than spong. That is why his writings have more impact on me than Spong's does. Practicality can be taken too far when discussing the essence of Christianity.

I have read several Borg books in the last few months, so perhaps my opinion of him was garnered from his other writings. I think Borg is very much a mystic. For example, he seems to think charismatic Christianity is not only legitimate but preferable to his own more subdued Lutheran tradition.

Borg's idea of God is profoundly different than the traditional view however. Panentheism as he calls it, really is nothing more than a form of mystical humanism. He and Armstrong discuss at length in various books about the subconsious and the "Something More" or "Ultimate Reality" being a part of that. Borg would probably say that "God does exist, but only to the extent He exists in our own minds." That is both reductive in reasoning but pardoxically true at the same time if you think about it.

Brian

Brian

This caught my attention...did you intend to?....

"...Borg's idea of God is profoundly different than the traditional view however. Panentheism as he calls it, really is nothing more than a form of mystical humanism. He and Armstrong discuss at length in various books about the subconsious and the "Something More" or "Ultimate Reality" being a part of that. Borg would probably say that "God does exist, but only to the extent He exists in our own minds.""

I couldn't tell if you were hinting that Borg was something of a panentheist (God through all, in all, above all)? As you know, this is an area that has interested me for some time. Although orthodox theologians make this view anathema because they feel it tramples their definitive Trinitarian beliefs, I find it lends itself to a less limiting view of the essence of the unnameable God.

Can you shed more light on whether you meant Borg and Armstrong were into this?

reido

Borg clearly calls himself a panentheist meaning he believes in a God who is not just outside of the universe but a part of its natural processes as well. However, I am a bit fuzzy on what he actually means because he completely dismisses theism. If you do that, it seems God is more of an idea pointing towards an Ultimate Reality.

Armstrong and Borg both believe in the experiences of mystics, but they both reject a superhuman or superbeing godhead. In my mind that takes the theism out of panentheism.

One illuminating aspect of Borg's and Armstrong's thinking is the idea that the Something More exists as part of our minds. The animals have no use for a god, but as human consiousness developed over many years, theorically round the same time all over the world in 700 to 500 B.C. (Axial Age), the idea of a higher power that demanded social justice came into being. Totally unprovable idea, but interesting.

Note: I could be confusing Spong, Armstrong, Borg, and Adrian B. Smith together because they all say similiar things.

BTW, I read a book a while back called Tomorrow's Christians by the afore mentioned Arian B. Smith. It is very good, but quite different than the other authors. He is a Catholic priest and so his focus is on the practical changes likely to happen to what remains of the Christian faith in the future not theology per se. You all might find it useful. I have been considering blogging about some of his ideas. Maybe I will get around to it.

Brian

Brian

I would like to know what he means also, so if any of you other folks have your own views, please chime in. This may be difficult to tie down because of what most consider a theist, or theism to be. Spinoza believed in God, but was a panentheist. Many theologians said he was an atheist because his concept of God did not fit their own view. Possibly then, he confesses that his view of God does not conform to the traditional.

If not at all theist, then I agree that it makes no sense.

reido

reido,

I mentioned Adrian B. Smith in my last post and I thought I would share his view of God written in Tomorrow's Christian. It is found in the chapter called "A Non-theistic Person...". Each chapter is titled as a description of what he expects future christians to look like. I found it interesting a practicing priest would have this opinion.

Anyway, here is an exercpt:

"We can experience God but we cannot know God. We can only know our own experience of God and the description of other people's experience of God. What Jesus said about God was not the last word. It was his experience within the background of his culture and times.

God is not a being, as against other beings, nor the Supreme Being. God is Being: a verb not a noun. and we consciously partake in the Being. Each of us is a human expression of Being: a human Being."

I would say that Borg would very much agree with the proceeding statement based on his writings I have read. Now, what theism has to do with the above statement I am not sure.

Brian

Brian

That has the ring of panentheism to it. To say God IS, or to say I AM, might be another.

Humanism, vitalism, naturalism are close kin to this -- the difference, as I see it, is very much a matter of choice of words (careful not to use the G word). But, then, a rose by any other name...

reido

All

Sincerely, I thank you all for being part of this. I know some are probably reading and shaking their heads, sure that this exploration represents the Dark Side.

The similarities of this walk to my own are astounding. The difference is the words I used to try to express these concepts were not the same -- which helps because it's like stereo compared to mono.

Here is what really struck me. Jesus used a kabbalistic expression when he spoke about the eye being single, and being light to the whole body. It sounds very close to Borg's "Way of Seeing." Buddhism tends to live in the moment. Some see this as an anti-God animalistic view, but I see it more as being a participant -- even more, part of the essence of life itself. In existentialism, there was this same concept of Being.

I passed a bus yesterday on the Xway that was billboarded with announcements of "Repent or Perish" with verse citations and holocaustal pictures plastered all over. The feeling that I got was the same feeling I get when having to take a dose of traditionalism. Possessed of a soul that is an integral part of all living things, it is very difficult to conceive of a life centered around the dictates of the prison guards who are holding the gate saying "Get inside."

reido

Welcome to the Borg Readers Club, Mark. :)

I'd love to get your perspective. Not just your perspective on Borg's book but what you think of the discussion.

bill