(no subject)

Apr 18, 2008 13:41

i wanted to write this as a response to disjecta's comments, but i thought that it would do better as a post on its own, not just as a response, but also as a summary of my thoughts on the matter.

marcus borg put it very succinctly in his book jesus - that there are two paradigms for telling the story of jesus. "one is the belief-centered; it emphasises the importance of holding Christian beliefs about Jesus, God, and the Bible. the second is way-centered; it emphasises that Christianity is about following Jesus on a path, a path of transformation. the first emphasises the literal meaning of Christian language, including the Bible; the second emphasises the more-than-literal meaning of Christian language."

the concept that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God which is inerrant and it is the literal truth is a modern construct. there are 27 books in the New Testament; the 4 Gospels, and 23 other books. of the 23, 21 are letters / epistles.

did the early Christians believe that these letters were inerrant? or did they see them as letters from early Christian leaders instructing their community, just like letters / writings from Christian leaders instructing their communities today?

it is important that we understand what is the basis of a lot of Christian beliefs today, and examine how they come about. are they really fundamentally "Christian"? is the concept of substitutionary sacrifice essential to "Christianity"? is it even "Christian"? what did the writer mean by the "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven"? was it referring to the afterlife, or was it referring to bringing about justice, mercy and righteousness to the world in the present?

borg pointed out very importantly that the verb "believe" had a very different meaning within Christianity as well as in popular usage prior to about the year 1600. "it did not mean believing statements to be true; the object of the verb is always a person, not a statement. this is the difference between believing that and believing in. to believe in a person is quite different from believing that a series of statements about the person are true. in premodern english, believing meant believing in and thus a relationship of trust, loyalty and love. most simply, to believe meant to belove."

perhaps disjecta echoes Bishop Spong - "why Christianity must change or die", but i don't quite agree. i think we should make a distinction between Christianity as an organised religion today, and Christianity as following Jesus on a path of transformation. yeah, i agree with margaret cho - if Jesus is here today, He would say "that's not what I meant!"

i guess that's why it is said in matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

ah! again, what is the will of God? :)

christianity

Previous post Next post
Up
[]