Marcus Borg said one other thing in his
lectures that revolutionized the way I think about language for Jesus. It was in his lecture about reclaiming Christian language, and it should be noted that this was by no means my first exposure to ideas like this; it’s just the time I got this particular point. In fact, I’m sure that had I been able to
(
Read more... )
Comments 9
Reply
I usually avoid using language of atonement and sin in relationship to Jesus' death becuase I don't want to lend any credence to the blood sacrifice thing. Now I have some tools to use there. Thanks goodness for Borg! Glad you liked his insight, too.
And, by the way, you read that all very quickly, since I just posted it not too long ago. Is someone procrastinating?
Reply
Of course, I'm replying to this from home. Where the paper is waiting for me. So yes, I'm procrastinating.
(This paper really, really, really sucks.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The "Jesus is Lord" thing was something that Borg said in his lecture, but it is by no means unique to him. The place I first heard it was from John Dominic Crossan, in one of his books (maybe Jesus: a Revolutionary Biography?, which was far too progressive for me when I read it, but maybe I could give it another shot). I've let go of most of my dogmatic beliefs, including (mostly) virgin conception, but I still believe that *something* happened between good friday and easter morning. The tomb was empty one way or another! Borg takes that pretty much all metaphorically, but his point is that metaphor is broader than historical factuality. Whether or not Jesus factually rose from the dead is an interesting question to Borg (more than that to me), but his point is that it is *more* important to assert that Jesus is alive now than to assert that he was alive on easter morning 2000 years ago.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
Reply
I also can't stand the "Blood was needed as a sacrifice" thing.
Although in the Narnia series, I thought that Edmund was Judas, not Everyman. Although I can certainly see your case for him as Everyman. That said, I don't think I ever absorbed any theology from the Narnia books (though I didn't read all of them until just recently). It's been my experience that stuff that is SO OBVIOUS to me as an adult went right over my head as a kid. I don't think kids really get symbolism. Aslan isn't Jesus, he's a lion. Although if vacation bible school does Narnia (like my church's did), that may not apply.
My husband says he thinks Narnia is an unintentional metaphor for Christianity. Of course, he has never read it, and doesn't know how religious C.S. Lewis is.
Reply
Oh, I think your hubby would see that Narnia is intentional if he read it. Lewis was a bit religious *coughcough* just a bit. And did you read the last one? Where they all fit inside a stable and Lucy says something about "a stable that holds the most important thing in the world"? Of course, the ones that fit in the stable go through to the pretty garden while everyone else has to go to purgatory or something. *shudder*
Again, I was far too old (and in seminary) when I read them for the symbolism to go over my head; mostly it got stuck in my throat. ;)
Reply
Leave a comment