Anne Rice Quits Christianity
Ξ July 30th, 2010 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
*I’ve read this story several places. It is well-worth your time if you’ve not seen it
Two Paradigms for Seeing Jesus – Part 2
Ξ July 29th, 2010 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
Jesus Within an Emerging Christian Paradigm
"Emerging" may suggest to you a recent development or perhaps part of a new movement in post-modern Christianity. However, it originated in the same time period as the first paradigm and was the result of Christianity’s encounter with the Enlightenment. It started with a few intellectuals in the 16th century and spread to academia and theological circles by the 18th & 19th centuries. In the 20th century, it became the dominant understanding in divinity schools and seminaries of mainline (non-evangelical) churches, being familiar to clergy for several generations. However, it was not presented to laity at the grass-roots level until recently, and is still unknown to many.
Instead of a defensive rejection of Enlightenment knowledge, it involves a discerning integration of that knowledge, which comes from the human sciences. It takes seriously the growing awareness of religious pluralism, which makes it difficult to believe that only one religion is the true religion. The integration of modern knowledge needs to be done discerningly and to be done critically to avoid reductionism.
Rather than seeing the gospels as a "divine" product and therefore inerrant, and rather than interpreting them literally and factually, this paradigm sees them as human products that are to be read as a combination of historical memory and metaphorical narrative.
All texts to be studied need to be put into the historical context of the community and the time in which they were written. This was first applied to The Pentateuch of the Old Testament and later to The gospels. The gospels came to be understood as products of the early Christian communities where the author/authors resided. These communities were testifying to what Jesus had become in their lives in the decades after his historical life. The gospels tell us how the communities told the story of Jesus using both memory and testimony.
With this in mind, the Old Testament becomes Israel’s story of Israel, not God’s story of Israel. The gospels are not God’s story of Jesus, but early Christianity’s story of Jesus.
Seeing the Bible and the gospels as human products involves no denial of the reality of God or the presence of the Spirit in the process. There is within this paradigm a place for a robust affirmation of the reality of God. A Christianity without that robust affirmation of the sacred is of little importance to most who call themselves Christian.
This change in how the Bible and gospels are seen in this paradigm marks the birth of the modern historical study of Jesus (historical-critical).
The gospels are the result of a historical process, telling us what Jesus had become to his followers in the last third of the 1st century.
The gospels combine memory and testimony. Some of what they report is remembered. Some of what they report is a more fully developed understanding that came about in the decades between Jesus’ death and the writing of the gospels.
The gospels combine memory and metaphor, historical memory with metaphorical narrative.
There is a distinction between Jesus the teacher, social activist, healer, etc; and what Jesus became after his death. There are important differences between the two.
The result of this paradigm, this way of seeing Jesus leads to a way of telling the story of Jesus quite different from the most familiar ways of telling the story that many of us grew up with. This paradigm results in a sketch of Jesus that is persuasive, compelling, inviting and challenging.
*Information for this post is from Marcus Borg’s, "Jesus, Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary"
Two Paradigms for Seeing Jesus
Ξ July 28th, 2010 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
All Christians, as well as most "non-believers" would agree that Jesus was a teacher. Disagreement among Christians often comes on whether the focus should be on Jesus’ teaching role or his role as the "Son of God"and the "only way of salvation". Skeptics or non-believers in Jesus’ latter role, often affirm that the real importance of Jesus lies in his moral teaching.
These two ways of seeing Jesus led to two paradigms. These two paradigms have led to a broad division among American Christians today. There is a sharp conflict between the supporters of each paradigm, producing very different understandings of Jesus.
The first paradigm is an earlier one, the second is an emerging paradigm today.
The first paradigm is belief-centered; it emphasizes the importance of holding certain Christian beliefs about Jesus, God, and the Bible. The second paradigm is way-centered ; it emphasizes that Christianity is about following Jesus on a path, a path of transformation. The first emphasizes the literal meaning of Christian language, including the Bible; the second emphasizes the more-than-literal meaning of Christian language, the metaphorical meaning of Christian language.
The earlier paradigm sees Jesus through a Christian doctrinal lens. Jesus and his teachings are shaped by later Christian doctrine, especially the creeds of the fourth and fifth centuries; ie, "God’s only son, our Lord, the very God of God, one substance with God, etc; These ideas have become the regular "hearing" and "reading" of the gospels. Examples of the doctrinal understanding are: He’s God’s only son, both human and divine, died for the sins of the world, now one with God (coequal with God).
The earlier paradigm sees the gospels and Jesus within the framework of Biblical literalism (a concept that is only 200-300 hundred years old). Emphasizes: the Bible is a divine product that is to be taken (in most cases) literally. Included in this is inerrancy, both hard & soft. "soft" would limit the inerrancy to the "original autographs".
The earlier paradigm sees Jesus intrinsically linked to an afterlife (the promise of heaven and threat of hell).That is what Christianity is all about. It links Jesus’ teachings to "being saved" or "salvation". Jesus’ primary message is about heaven and how to get there. It concentrates on heaven and often does not fully recognize the importance of the "here & now". Often, in this paradigm, we hear about the kingdom of heaven (God) which is understood to be a part of "eternal" life. Eternal is a Greek term often mistranslated. Eternal is often equated with an afterlife. It generally is referring to: of the ages; into the ages. It doesn’t really appear to be referring to an afterlife, only a long time.
The earlier paradigm emphasizes believing. In one sense, there is nothing new about this. In early Christianity, believing in Jesus was affirmed. However, over the last 400 years, the word believe has undergone a radical change of meaning. The earlier meaning was literally a belief IN Jesus. Whereas the later definition involved belief THAT a series of statements are true that involve Jesus. Believing in involved a relationship of trust, loyalty, and love. The other, believing that a series of statements are true about Jesus (and God). Big difference!! This change of meaning came about because of the collision between Chritianity and the Enlightenment; the earth-centered universe theory in particular. Few Christians today would argue against this fact, but other scientific theories and facts that are well established from the time of the Enlightenment, are still rejected by many Christians. The Enlightenment worldview collided with the Christian worldview of what is possible and what is impossible. So the meaning of believing changed from trust and loyalty to believing that a set of statements about God, Jesus, and the Bible are true. The earlier paradigm’s understanding of believing as affirming Christian teachings to be true in spite of reasons for skepticism indicates that it is not ancient, but a product of the collision with the Enlightenment.
* Part 2 will discuss Jesus within an emerging Christian paradigm, a way-centered paradigm.
Horizontal and Vertical Obligations
Ξ July 22nd, 2010 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
Dr. Richard Beck, at Experimental Theology, has been blogging about The Psychology of Christianity , which is a chapter from an upcoming handbook for the APA on Psychology & Spirituality. Part 8 is a fascinating look into horizontal (God) and vertical (our fellow humans) obligations of the Christian. It also gives a reference to the thoughts of Walter Brueggeman, the Old Testament scholar, on how Christians approach the question of homosexuality in connection with those horizontal and vertical obligations . Good Stuff! Here’s the link to his 7/22 post.
Hell: An Excessive Punishment
Ξ July 22nd, 2010 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
* I borrowed this from Erusso’s blog, who I understand borrowed it from Andy’s blog. Thanks guys for finding this one!
Wise Words from the Dalai Lama
Ξ July 19th, 2010 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
"Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you’ll be able to enjoy it a second time."
-the Dalai Lama
Religion as a Source of Spiritual Error
Ξ July 15th, 2010 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
*This is a re-post from 2007 which is even truer today.
There are two possible sources of error stemming from traditional "true" religions. The first is simply misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the specific teachings of the original great teacher. Because the original listeners, or followers , were not themselves enlightened, the original teachings could have been contaminated by their egos. This then became magnified by subsequent translators and scribes down through the generations. The error often is due to the fact that the ego has a tendency to be literal in its hearing of the word rather than the spirit or essence of a teaching. Any translation that teaches anything other than peace or love just may be in error.
The second and more prevalent gross distortions are spiritual teachings which arise from what is usually referred to as "church doctrine". These regulations, often in the form of guilt-provoking prohibitions, were actually made up by church officials and supposed authorities who, in reality, had little or no claim to authority at all but instead had acquired political power in the structure of the institutions at the time.
There is no authentic or plausible reason to modify the precise teaching of an original great teacher for some ostensible gain. As obvious as it may seem, it has not been clear through the centuries that to be a Christian, for example, means simply to follow Christ’s teachings.
All the great teachers, Christ included of course, teach nonviolence, noncondemnation, and unconditional love. It is hard to see how alleged ecclesiastic authority could violate these basic truisms supposedly for "the good of the faith", or "the good of the church", or the "elimination of infidelities", or just wars.
There are many subjects not addressed in original spiritual teachings, thus creating the opportunity for fallacious religious elaborations. All kinds of ’sins’ have been invented over the centuries , with elaborate explanations and rationalizations which can only be described as sick manipulations of natural human affairs. Of course, if you believe in the "fall of man", that becomes a further justification for those ’sin’ creations. The harm that resulted was not only spiritual error but also psychological cruelty and the ’blanket’ guilt of humanity. This focus on guilt and sin further condemns human consciousness by reinforcing the dilemma of the opposites and the duality of perception. This latter destructive effect on human consciousness takes man farther away from God and creates a barrier that is transcended only by the very few who have to be almost spiritual geniuses in order to succeed in escaping the coercive trap of elaborate fallacies.
A further destructive effect of the pushing of some religious doctrines on the faithful is that it creates the very basis for terrible wars and persecutions. These are always based on religious differences which are exaggerated in importance in order to justify religiously sanctioned mayhem. These misinterpretations and deviations are especially noticable in the murky religious meddlings with sexuality, procreation, child-rearing, diet, details of daily living, customs, dress, and political power.
Wearing different kinds of clothing, hats, or facial hair is enough to fuel religious persecution or war. Circumcision, not eating meat on Fridays, saying grace before meals, and dates and details of religious holidays all become ammunition. Whether the Sabbath is Saturday or Sunday becomes more important than the truth. whether wearing a hat or no hat shows respect for God becomes the issue. By exploiting trivialities at the cost of ignoring the main thrust of spiritual truth, religions contribute to their own downfall and that of all humanity. Much that is revered as church doctrine is really the product of the ego. Those who see sin and evil everywhere are themselves the problem.
Much of what has traditionally been described as sin is really the guilt-ridden exaggerations held in the mind of some "emotionally disturbed" church authority. Adherence to the admonition, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," would silence all the misappropriations of spiritual truth.
Collectively, these distortions of spiritual truth have paradoxically condemned both God and human nature in the name of "divinity". To usurp that authority and make pronouncements in the name of God seems rather delusional. No one who ever experienced the absolute reality of the presence of God could ever make such distorted statements.
* some ideas and concepts adapted from: "The Eye of the I", Dr. David Hawkins
Calvin & Hobbs
Ξ July 12th, 2010 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
*My very favorite comic strip, which the artist has chosen to end, is Calvin & Hobbs. Here is a prime example:
The Founding Fathers
Ξ July 8th, 2010 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
*I found this "Letter to the Editor" in my local newspaper…..
Wrong Examples
In Sunday’s paper, three Christian retail stores placed a full-page ad featuring a Founding Fathers Foursome: Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin.
None of these men were believing Christians. Washington only kept a membership in the Anglican Church because if he did not he would not be eligible to vote or to hold public office in the colony, and later the state, of Virginia. John Adams was a Unitarian who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, virgin birth or the physical resurrection. Jefferson, also a fierce Unitarian, went so far as to write his own version of the New Testament removing all of what he considered to be the "mythology" about the Jewish teacher named Jesus. As for Franklin, he was at best an agnostic who, at times, seems to have been a very convinced and convincing advocate of the atheist viewpoint.
This is not to say there were not Founding Fathers who were convinced Christians. Many were. Just not the four men cited in the ad. When did we stop teaching history in this country?
*It doesn’t really matter how totally accurate the information is. The point is that these men are taken by the religious right as prime examples of what it means to have Christian Founding Fathers…. These men simply were not what the religious right said they were.
Meanings Change Over Time
Ξ July 6th, 2010 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
Through the passage of time, no piece of literature retains the complete, first-hand meaning or intention of the original author. This includes, and is especially true of religious literature because of its very nature. Although the work may create the impression that it contains unchangable truth or universal meaning, successive generations of readers will most likely glean from it a meaning somewhat different from that of the original. With each successive generation, the original intent of the author can change again and again. What does this say to us? I believe that we must approach any work of literature with an open mind. We must do our best, without any preconceived notions about the author’s purpose or meaning, to interpret the work on its on merit. This is not an easy thing to do. But, it is essential that we approach every work of literature that we choose to study in this way. The more we are able to distance ourselves from the conventionally accepted understanding, the more we will be able to see a fresh perspective that will perhaps lead to new interpretations. This approach may be in opposition to what many academics would say is the best course of action to follow when studying a piece of literature.
Stumble it!
