Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time

The title words of today's entry are to be attributed to Marcus J. Borg, a theological Professor and member of the historical Jesus movement, The Jesus Seminar. These words were the title of a book of his which I have just read and felt moved and challenged by.

The book is one I would recommend to anyone who, like me, may have grown up with an image of Jesus as God's Son sent to earth to bear the punishment for my sins, to be sacrificed for my sake. If you are, or have the suspicion you may soon be, at the stage where the notions of sin and hell and judgement and Jesus bearing God's wrath become either stale, or tasteless, or no longer concepts to which you can relate, this book is most definitely for you.

Far from being what many conservative Christians would consider liberal theology to be - watering down scripture, removing what is significant from the heart of the Christian faith and leaving you with nothing of any meaning - in Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time Marcus Borg focuses on truths about who Jesus was which are so often neglected by the church and modern Christians in favour of one specific strand of theology which is actually based on a very small amount of the comparatively large New Testament Gospels, and upon only one of the three most significant stories of the Old Testament (which, for Borg, are the Exodus from Egypt, the exile to Babylon and the Priestly Story; the dominant doctrines of salvation, atonement, etc. are purely based on the latter of the three, and pay no attention whatsoever to the former two).

As I have probably made quite clear by now (!) I thoroughly recommend this book. You may not agree with everything Borg thinks (I myself don't, either), but there is compelling truth in this book that presents Jesus in a way which is far removed from the almost cringeworthy picture which is proclaimed ad nauseam by evangelical Christianity.

I conclude with some words from Marcus Borg himself:
For those of us who grew up in the church, believing in Jesus was important. For me...that phrase used to mean...'believing things about Jesus'. To believe in Jesus meant to believe what the gospels and the church said about Jesus. That was easy when I was a child, and became more and more difficult as I grew older...
Believe did not originally mean believing a set of doctrines or teachings; in both Greek and Latin its roots mean 'to give one's heart to'. The 'heart' is the self at its deepest level...Believing in Jesus does not mean believing doctrines about him. Rather, it means to...give one's self at its deepest level, to the post-Easter Jesus who is the living Lord, the side of God turned toward us, the face of God, the Lord who is also the Spirit'.

As a friend of mine frequently says, 'amen to that, brother!'.

Challenge to Beliefs? - God Forbid!

In my random wanderings of the delightful destroyer of privacy and "permission to nose" granter, Facebook, I discovered a group which asks that its members "Plz condemn" a new book which has been discovered that, in the words of the group's title: "CHALLENGES" a particular religion's holy book. (I shan't say which because the point I'm making could be applied to any religion.)

Oh dear. Note how it does not say "mocks" a god, "insults massively" a belief system, or is "abusive" to believers of a particular faith. No, it says "challenges".

Are we really at the stage now where people are so insecure about their faith that any challenge to it is a humongous threat sent from the pits of hell which must be destroyed as fast as possible?

To amuse (or perhaps irritate) myself further I browsed through the discussion board in this particular group. I was indeed irritated, though not at all surprised, to see that one member had merely suggested that others might want to obtain and read this book, to discover for themselves the extent of the "damage" to their faith, and had, as a result, sparked outrage. This is perhaps even more disturbing - it is the role of a believer to not only condemn any challenge to their faith vehemently, but to do so without even examining or looking into the item in question.

Most religious believers are, of course, guilty of this at some point or another. But it is such ignorance and foolishness that creates unnecessary conflict. A religious belief or doctrine system is, by nature, opinion - it is faith, and not, therefore, fact. As a result, it will inevitably face challenege. To suggest that any challenge ought to be condemned is simply preposterous.

However, I will let such groups and such opinions speak for themselves. After all, if believers of a certain faith react with panic and outrage to a mere questioning of their beliefs, does that send positive signals about their security?

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Hmmm...

This slogan could soon be found on many London buses.

Interesting, if not unoriginal, argument. The slogan COULD be deemed offensive to believers, and might initially make a firm believer in God cringe. But after a little thought I actually agree with those who have supported the publishing of this slogan for promoting debate about the existence of God.

It is indeed a very good point that religious groups do get to advertise on buses, so atheists should not be exempt from this. I am not one who subscribes to the view that religious believers should attempt to supress any attempts to contradict them, or doctrines which are not coherent with their own faith. It is my belief that if one is strong enough in their faith, they should remain untroubled by opposing views. So, on the whole, my opinion on this issue is that it's given me the excuse for an extra blog entry!

Except for one minor criticism. The opinions of Richard Dawkins in relation to this new campaign include these words: ""Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride - automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children." Now, call it paranoia, but why do I get the feeling that Dawkins is using the word "religion" here as a term to disguise the true word he means, "Christianity". Because if he does, he is very much mistaken. The faith no longer has state funding, is heavily mocked in the media, and has long been an acceptable target of criticism (whilst other faiths have the right not to be offended).

Think on, Dawkins. I think you're the one who's been getting the free ride.

Make Me a Christian

This morning in Church the vicar preaching made regular reference to the recent Channel 4 reality show "Make me a Christian". If he will forgive me I will make reference to a few of his own comments about the show and collaborate them with my own ideas.

His immediate response, with which I agree entirely, was to the title: "Make me a Christian". Immediately the antennae of the sceptic will be aroused by this phrase, one which implies that becoming a Christian, or indeed a believer in any faith, involves coercion and passivity rather than making an active, conscious decision entirely of one's own accord. 1-0 to the secularist sceptic.

Next the producers cleverly chose four religious leaders who behaved more like Victorian schoolmasters. So the view of Christianity as being about coercion is thus edified; the Christian life according to the image created by the programme involves a constant monitoring of one's activities (with, yet again, a particular emphasis on sex: does no-one care about lying, hatred or violence any more?). 2-0 to the secularist sceptic.

The show then proceeded to show the Christian attitude towards anyone who questions the faith. In a meeting a particularly vocal sceptic of the faith raised questions about the authenticity of the Bible; a fair, if not age-old, issue. And how did the Christian minister in charge of the meeting respond? By effectively telling him to put his hand down, be quiet and do as he was told. What a fantastic testimony to the Christian faith, because after all, all Christians avoid and refuse to answer questions or engage in healthy debate, don't we? We are all ignorant, arrogant and bigoted. (Note the sarcasm). And, guess what, it's 3-0 to the secularist sceptic.

So it's not looking good so far. The image of the Christian life and faith is one of ignorance, arrogance, harsh rules, non-flexibility, bullying, judgement and a judgemental attitude, and coercion.

I may as well give up now...

But HOLD ON A MINUTE...there is a glimmer of hope. This glimmer came in a clip that lasted literally about 2 minutes, but that 2 minutes reflected for me what the entire series should have been like, and summarised for me what Christianity truly is. It was a moment when the otherwise bullying vicar questioned one of the female contestants about her life. And as he began to refer to the words Jesus spoke over 2000 years ago, there was a poignant moment in which the viewers could clearly see the change as the girl gradually become more and more tearful, and the messages and the issues addressed really hit home, and hit personal troubles, experiences and issues in this girl's life.

And THAT is what Christianity, indeed any faith, is about. It's not about rule-making or enforcing, or passing judgement, or coercion. It's about taking a person who is vulnerable (and, let's face it, we're all vulnerable at times), and showing them that the issues in their life can be addressed in a way that surpasses all Earthly methods.

For these methods call upon a force than which nothing greater exists: almighty God.