Marcus Borg's Palliative Care Plan for the "Common Christians," or Why I Want Marcus Borg to Come to My Funeral

Because I want at least one person to be happy, or maybe because then, and only then, will I allow myself to be assimilated into the collective.

From the Washington Post:

"Q.1 What should pastors do if they no longer hold the defining beliefs of their denomination?"

This may not apply to the Episcopal church as it is hard to define the beliefs of the denomination.

"Q.2 Do clergy have a moral obligation not to challenge the sincere faith of their parishioners?"

I am trying to understand this question. I guess the problem the question is trying to address is where the clergy's notion of sincere faith is at variance with the parishioner's notions of sincere faith. For example, (which shall become clear later) if an enlightened theologian, bishop, priest, or deacon, say someone like retired Episcopal Bishop Spong, develops a sincere faith that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and that Jesus was not resurrected in a physical sense, does someone like Bishop Spong have a moral obligation to withhold these heretical ideas from simple believing pewsitters? All I can say is that if simple parishioners have a sincere faith, their clergy should remember Matthew 18:6,

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

That sounds like a moral warning which a pastor should have an obligation to obey.

The converse situation can be imagined as an orthodox preacher facing parishioners who are getting caught up in the latest unorthodox wave. Is there some sort of moral obligation to remain silent on the issues? I think not.

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2 Timothy 4:2-4 (King James Version))

Next question, please.

Q.3 "If this requires them to dissemble from the pulpit, doesn't this create systematic hypocrisy at the center of religion?"

We don't need any more systemic hypocrisy, but I think the questioner is leading the respondent to imagine a preacher who believes he has a superior grasp on things that those ignorant pew people could never understand and might cause alarm or flight if he preached the new thing from the pulpit. If the preacher hides his new knowledge, wouldn't he be giving his sermon with his fingers crossed behind his back? What about crossing his fingers while saying the creed? Should he cross them in the open or hidden so none of his congregants can see? The poor unorthodox pastor cannot maintain that charade and remain in good health. What is he to do?

My hypothetical orthodox preacher, on the other hand, when faced with doubts might turn to scripture and his spiritual advisor, but would not use the pulpit as either a vehicle to espouse radical new ideas or as a means to work the problem out.

Q.4 "What would you want your pastor to do with his or her personal doubts or loss of faith?"

Easy, don't preach about it until he has recovered, undergo counseling with an orthodox clergyman, recant those false doctrines, pray for understanding and forgiveness from the Lord, immerse themselves in Bible study and prayer, and continue to be mentored by an orthodox clergyman. Failing that, consider another line of work.

Now, I want you to come up with your own answers, and then read Marcus Borg's responses:

Borg: "If a pastor/priest loses his/her faith in the sense of agreeing with 'the new atheism' as expressed in the recent bestselling books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, then I think it would be hypocritical for them to continue in their professional role. Or they might give themselves a brief period of time to see if this is their settled opinion."

I think it would be beyond hypocritical, and might be better categorized as sinful for a new atheist to continue as a pastor/priest.

Borg: "But I don't think this is the issue that many clergy face. Rather, the issue is what they learned in divinity school versus what they think that many in their congregations think. Contemporary seminary education -mainline Protestant and Catholic - leads to a different understanding of what it means to be Christian than what much of 'common Christianity' affirms."

I get the distinct impression that what they are teaching in seminaries is superior to what "common Christianity" affirms. I am also afraid that Borg is creating a straw man named "Joe Common Christian" which he will proceed to define in the next few sentences.

Borg: "By 'common Christianity,' I mean what most Christians took-for-granted until a generation or two ago - and perhaps about half (or more) of American Christians still assume to be the heart of Christianity. This 'common understanding' sees the afterlife as the central issue that Christianity addresses. Our problem is that we are sinners and deserve to punished, indeed condemned. This is where Jesus comes in: his death was the payment for our sins, and those who believe this will be forgiven and thus go to heaven."

It probably would not make a difference to Marcus Borg because it is not out of the mouth of his historical Jesus, but 2 Corinthians 4:13-18 came up in the lectionary cycle as I was typing this post.

"But just as we have the same spirit of faith that is in accordance with scripture—‘I believed, and so I spoke’—we also believe, and so we speak, because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus, and will bring us with you into his presence. Yes, everything is for your sake, so that grace, as it extends to more and more people, may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

So we do not lose heart. Even though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, because we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen; for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal."

Common Christians just don't get it, but seminarians have been re-educated and enlightened.

Borg: "In most mainline Protestant and Catholic seminaries, with varying degrees of intensity and clarity, this understanding is undermined by what candidates for ordination learn about the Bible and the Christian tradition. Christianity is not primarily about the afterlife, despite the emphasis placed upon life after death by much of common Christianity. It is about transformation this side of death - the transformation of ourselves and of the world."

Transformation on this side of death is a visible sign of the power of, among other things, the resurrection and the promise of life beyond death. No cross, no crown. Transformation of the world comes about through the actions of these transformed, redeemed, and what common Christians would call "saved" souls. Transformation of our sinful world cannot be completed by creatures such as us by ourselves because, even though baptized, we are always falling into sin. We just can't get it right. We still have to pray, "Thy kingdom come," and not, "Thanks Lord for the baptism and all that, but we can take care of things from here."

Borg: "When clergy sense a difference between this understanding and what their congregation thinks, I encourage them to be discerning."

Please don't give any advice on how to be discerning...uh oh here it comes anyway,

Borg: "If their congregation is mostly elderly and unlikely to survive beyond the death of its members, and if their elderly flock is not using 'common Christianity' to judge and beat up on other people, then there may be no need to try to change them. Clergy in situations like this might see themselves as chaplains in an old folks home."

Great advice, "Humor the poor demented creatures." Or, "That generation will die and then we can be free of "common Christianity." That is what made me think that Borg might be happy at my passing. Why not just go ahead and euthanize the common Christians. Or maybe they are slowly poisoning us. I have a term for that, and I call it "Episcopathanasia."

Borg: "But if clergy are in intergenerational churches with a potential future, then I encourage a different approach. Seek to bring your understanding of Christianity into your congregation. This can be done in sermons, but especially in adult theological re-education."

Hey, we have heard some of those sermons right here in little ole Rock Hill! I call it "beating people up with uncommon Christianity." Spread the new thang! Open the re-education camps!

Borg: "It is a crucial need in our time, and there are resources: reading groups; video series groups, especially videos produced by 'Living the Questions.' Clergy can lead these, though they need not. Laity can also do so."

Oh yeah, "Living the Questions2" a $295 "resource" for the progressive church featuring guess who as a contributor? Marcus Borg of course. Way to work in a free plug Marcus. I am sure there are plenty of gullible lay people who will fall for Borg's uncommon Christianity and shell out the bucks for his books and DVDs, but common Christians should be able to find plenty of Bibles and resources provided for them free of charge by other common Christians.

Borg: "My impression: the timidity - apprehension, fearfulness - of some mainline Protestant and Catholic clergy to convey their richer understandings of the Bible and Christianity has contributed to the decline of Christianity in our time."

These so called "richer" understandings are the cause of the decline and fall of the Episcopal church. How much of those richer understandings came from Borg himself? Just look at the books he has published. Does anyone else see the intellectual snobbery showing? He goes on to isolate himself and his new Christianity further,

Borg: "There are millions of people who cannot accept the beliefs of 'common Christianity.' Let conservative Christianity have a monopoly on 'common Christianity.' But those of us who care about Christianity and its future should not imitate that." By Marcus Borg | March 16, 2010; 3:16 PM ET

I came away from reading Borg's words with the notion that, in his eyes, the church would be better off ridding itself of "common Christians" so that the enlightened Christians could get on with changing the world. I felt the presence of an intellectual snobbishness that was quite disturbing coming from someone whom the church has elevated to such an important position as Canon Theolgian. I for one am glad to be counted as someone who Borg would look down his nose upon. I am looking forward to being placed in the palliative care wing of his church. I sincerely want him to be happy at my passing. In fact, I would predict from his statements that when I go, he would have the biggest smile of anyone attending my funeral. I always wanted people to be happy at my send off, so I really need to invite Marcus Borg so he can help cheer people up.

I will pray for Marcus Borg, that he might come to love the common Christian and their understanding of the faith delivered to us by the witness of the Apostles. Since he is unlikely to listen to a lowly pewster, I will include the following quotation with his invitation to my funeral,

"There is nothing we cannot be made to believe or disbelieve. If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the gift of Faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth."

C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), p. 43.

Post Script:

I ran this post past a common Christian last week, and I asked him what he thought. He responded simply and frankly, "I think he (Borg) must have fallen on his head."

For those of you who are unfamiliar with him, Marcus J. Borg is Canon Theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland, OR. Here is a commentary on Marcus Borg from EarlyChristianWritings.com

"Borg makes two negative claims about the historical Jesus: he was nonmessianic, which means that he didn't claim to be the Messiah or have a message focused on his own identity, and he was noneschatological, which means that he did not expect "the supernatural coming of the Kingdom of God as a world-ending event in his own generation" (Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, p. 29). Borg summarizes his view of the historical Jesus in these words: "he was a spirit person, subversive sage, social prophet, and movement founder who invited his followers and hearers into a transforming relationship with the same Spirit that he himself knew, and into a community whose social vision was shaped by the core value of compassion" (op. cit., p. 119). By "spirit person," Borg means that Jesus was a "mediator of the sacred" for whom the Spirit or God was a reality that was experienced. Based on his experience of the sacred, for the historical Jesus compassion "was the central quality of God and the central moral quality of a life centered in God" (op. cit., p. 46). Jesus spoke against the purity system in sayings like "blessed are the pure in heart" and in parables like that of the Good Samaritan. The historical Jesus challenged the purity boundaries in touching lepers as well as hemorrhaging women, in driving the money changers out of the temple, and in table fellowship even with outcasts. Jesus replaced an emphasis on purity with an emphasis on compassion. The historical Jesus spoke an alternative wisdom in aphorisms and parables that controverted the conventional wisdom based upon rewards and punishments. The earliest Christology of the Christian movement viewed Jesus as the voice of the Sophia. The images of Jesus as the Son of God and the Wisdom of God are metaphorical, just as much as the images of Jesus as the Lamb of God and the Word of God.

Faith, Belief and This Week's Readings

This past Monday's (February 1, 2010) lectionary readings brought together a couple of lessons about faith and belief that I will pull out of context because they made me stop and reflect a little bit.

First we heard in Hebrews 11:1-12 :

"1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen...

...6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

Paul presents us with an excellent definition of faith in #1. I don't think that even the esteemed Merriam-Webster can do better. The online definition lists,

"1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

synonyms see belief"

It is interesting that Merriam-Webster presents only one synonym and that is "belief." Similar but not identical. If you ask Merriam Webster about belief, you do find an attempt to differentiate faith and belief.

"belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer . faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof "

Belief and faith are nouns, while to believe is a verb, and faith is listed as a transitive verb (after all nobody says "I faith in you").

I prefer Paul's definition of faith insofar as the scripture passages for Monday are concerned. Paul did not define belief in these passages, and it would have been interesting to see how he might compare and contrast the two. I have tried to digest scholarly discourses on the contrast between the two, but it all seemed too scholarly.

I am left wondering if there is a requirement for one to come before the other. Modern rationalists might find the following analogies helpful,

The first person to survive a marathon run had faith. All who follow in his footsteps have belief.

The Wright Brothers had faith. When I board a jet airplane, I believe it should fly.

I differ from the modern rationalist since I have faith that I will see Jesus if the plane crashes because I believe that God exists. Or is it the other way around? Do I believe that I will meet Jesus if the plane crashes because I have faith that God exists?

For me, faith, however ill defined, seems to have come first and has led me into belief. For many years I was in open denial of the existence of God. This is not something unique to the age of reason. Paul, in #6, shows (by noting the importance of believing that God exists) that there were those who argued against the existence of God back in Paul's day just as they do in the present age. When Paul was spreading the Gospel, did he lead those people into faith or belief, or both, and in what order? Perhaps it does not matter. Fortunately, God has a means to bring us from a state of disbelief or unbelief to belief through faith.

Some where, some when, Jesus was the means by which I was brought back to faith and belief. He spoke through the Gospels. For me, it was Luke's Gospel, but for others it might be the other reading from this Monday's lectionary John 6:27-40 :

28 Then they said to him, ‘What must we do to perform the works of God?’ 29 Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent...’

...35 Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away;...

...40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.’

Jesus recognized those in His presence who did not believe in Him (#36). I admit that I would probably have been one of them. Why should I or any other modern person listen to and believe in Him or His words and deeds as written in the Gospels? Why "have faith in Him" in the first place? You might think that this is a question only for the evangelist and the Christian apologist and not for oneself. I disagree. I think that the question of faith and belief are central to the problems of our age. What is certain these days? Love and death? Death and Taxes? Heaven and Earth? Who cares about all that religion and stuff when you have the Internet, cable TV, air conditioning, and a grocery store on every corner? In this day, when people can be "spiritual and not religious" without ever believing in anything, who needs faith?

When faith and belief are being tested by the zeitgeist at every opportunity, even in the church itself, it becomes of paramount importance for each and everyone of us to pray, to study, and to practice answering the question our self-centered world will ask us, and that is probably not the question of which came first, faith or belief, nor is it the question, "what do you believe," but instead,

"Why should I believe?"

When it comes time for me to hear that question, I have faith that God will provide the words to give an effective answer. At the same time, I believe that he wants me to keep studying and practicing in order to be ready for that time.

The Reality of the Resurrection

Yesterday I watched "I Married a Monster From Outer Space" (1958) on TCM. You may remember the story line. Aliens come to Earth seeking women and a new home, but oxygen is poison to them and they hide their bodies in human forms, mere shells that can be easily pushed over once the creature strips down to its original form.



What does this have to do with church?

Stay with me on this one.

This Sunday's sermon was delivered by the Rev. Mary Cat Young (she admits the new name will take some getting used to). After briefly touching on her collection of Jesus "Kitsch,"

(Available via link at Ship of Fools)

She based her homily on Luke 24:36-48.

"While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.’ And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, ‘Have you anything here to eat?’ They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence.
Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.'"

The reality of this event was clearly noted by Mary Cat. It is clear that she believes this and is a "witness" to us in the "congo." Her last question, "And what do you believe?" should be a signal to all of us to go back and read the testimony in the scriptures and decide once and for all if we believe in a physical Resurrection. And I'm not talking about the resurrection fern,



but in the hungry risen Lord, showing himself and asking for a bite to eat. Not a mere shell or outer covering as in the movie "I Married a Monster From Outer Space." The real event was terrifying, but comforting, startling, but true, and we are wedded to this resurrected Jesus.

Let me rephrase Mary Cat's final question to read, "What have we gotten ourselves into?"

Jesus Shaves (Also at Ship of Fools)

Does This Make Zense to You?

(Image From Ann Huey's website)

In the most recent case of Episcopalian strange bed fellows, the Diocese of Northern Michigan elected a man as Bishop who is both an Episcopal priest and a "lay ordained" Buddhist. There are also procedural questions about the election which our EDUSC Bishop and Executive Council have to consider before issuing a consent to the election.

I have read with interest the blogging going on about this story. Read Anglicat's take here, or the opinion of the rector of Trinity Episcopal Church in Pine Bluff Arkansas,

More to the point is the text of the Rev. Forrester's Trinity Sunday sermon that the people at StandFirm transcribed. Here is an illustrative sample,

“That’s what we heard today, right? All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Well, we could slightly rephrase that and keep it, keep its true meaning, I think, if we would say: Jesus realized that all that He is, He had received from God. Jesus is the one that realized all He is, “all I am, I have received from God.” And in response, we read in the gospels later on His response, to having received everything from God is that, “into Your hands I commend my spirit and Thy will be done.” He receives everything from God and He returns everything to God. That is what it means that everything has been given to Jesus, all the power. His very center, the center of His heart, of His body, of His mind, is the living God. All things come from the divine source for Jesus—who He is, His self identity, His soul, that just means His understanding of who He is, He has come to realize and it’s key in that baptismal moment, that He is the very presence of the living God. That is who He is. He is one who is unified with God. That’s what the Syrians are getting at. Jesus realizes that God dwells in His very being, He is one with God, and He is one with you and me. And because He is one, He is the lifegiver. He can show us the path of life, which is the path to realizing that we are one with God. We are one with one another.”

I named this "Buddhistic Adoptionism."

The same StandFirm post included the service Bulletin which had this interesting bit of information at the end,

AN UPDATE FROM THE EPISCOPAL MINISTRY DISCERNMENT TEAM
May 13, 2008
The discernment process is moving along on schedule. Our first few sessions were led by Marcia Franz, Kevin Thew Forrester, Fran Gardner and Hazel Satterly. Formation and team building were on the agenda for the first few meetings. Kevin led us through a brief oversight of the Enneagram showing us how our personality traits impact group process, how we receive and give information and how we make decisions.

So the Rev. Forrester was in on the discernment team for the next Bishop which may very well wind up being himself.

It will be interesting to see how our Executive Council and Bishop in Upper South Carolina handle this.

I advise all to write to Bishop Henderson and the members of D.E.C. and let them know your opinion.

As for me, I will meditate, and pray for the Diocese of Upper Michigan that they will find a clear minded Bishop who can lead them through the spiritual minefields ahead. I pray that they have also seen this video,

Faith...the nounverb problem

Noun: according to Bob Jones, Northside Bible Church, Jacksonville Florida
http://www.biblefood.com/form.html

Verb: is preferred according to Rev. Steven B. Smethers DD

Both (transitive verb and noun): Merriam-Webster and the Rev. Charlie Foss.

Today's sermon was on Faith. If you where not there, you will have to take it on faith that we heard a good sermon, 12 minutes in length, which brought in all the readings for today and an anecdotal story to boot. The only weakness was when Charlie said he didn't know if his story was a Christian one. I have faith that it was.

The story involved a spontaneous act of pastoral kindness occuring in a healing service at a Christian church. The pastor was moved to hug and cry along with a man who was in pain. Okay, the location, the people involved all sound like Christians. The act sounded a Christian response to me, but some might argue that it is a human response to another suffering human. This type of response may be an uncommon one as evidenced by this video of the old man struck by a car.



Most people did not rush to his side. Doesn't it take a leap of faith to forget yourself for a moment and care for another person. Does faith in God have anything to do with it? Does one have to be a Christian? Couldn't one be a Samaritan?

My question is this, if the Samaritan was a good neighbor, is the Samaritan saved?