Spirituality for the Alienated

Struggling with the Spirit in todays world is a daunting ch everyenge. Most fail. This is because the mainline coating holds that the living of the Spirit is actually a flavour of the mind, a life of the emotions somewhat distorted by older, discredited system of spirituality and life. Burgs project, however, is non so much denying this rather dogmatic approach, but in reconstructing it so that the upstarts can come to the life of the spirit with few doubts and hassles. However, Borg tattles to me for several reasons first, my love of the easterly tradition stresses delivery boy as Tao, as the path, rather than as a dogmatic set of beliefs.It is not so much that dogma is a enigmaas it merely asserts things as truebut these propositions neer exist in themselves, they exist as part of a broader whole, a repugn with myself and the ripe world (Damascene, 1999). This struggle is round integration the integration of a tradition, a set of beliefs held propositionally, but in a ddition its integration within a culture that is lots hostile, and thatit seemsseeks to constantly throw roadblocks in the way of ones struggle. This paper, then, will gather in my own struggle by dint of the methods Borg uses to reconnect Christianity to modern life.The basic thesis present is integration taking the insights from all relevant communities to construct a reasonable and useful understanding of deliverer and his mission. For Borgs (1995) work, the real struggle is twofold first, the struggle between the communal understanding of Christ and his historical essence, and second, the struggle with integrating modern scholarship with ones life of true faith. This struggle is precise real, but for Borg, his uncritical acceptance of modern scholarship as a set of infallible oracles who have no agenda or ulterior motives rag his approach weak and compliant.Nevertheless, the insights taken from this approach cannot be ignored. The basic historical approach Borg takes is hi ghly problematic Christ did not say what is attributed to him, this existed as an oral examination tradition prior to being written down, hence unreliable, and lastly, that these oral ideas were written down by a community that had already set reveald Christ and hence, itself is by and large personal and cultural (Borg, 1995). Unfortunately, he refuses to deal with the large body of work that disowns these theses, such as McDowell (2006), Strobel (1998), Siciliano (2001) and so many others.His assumption that the modernist scholarship is true (rather than as an ideological construct) shows his criticism to be poorly developed if the Christ of the ancient world is an ideological construct of the community (and hence unreliable), why is the modern academic, also part of a community, not guilty of the same crime? The fact that Borg is a part of this community might help in answering that problem. If I am to hold that Christ is the creation of an ideologi vociferatey motivated commu nity, then there is no reason why the modern scholarship on this wonder is not also an ideologically motivated community.Nevertheless, it is the case that struggles against the modern idea are real, and some of their insights cannot be cast out of hand, as this community does to what they call the fundamentalists. There are several issues Borg takes the reader though that are full of insight and use for the modern Christian buffeted by the modern mentality. In Borgs Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time (1995), he stresses that images of Jesus are important for ones development as a Christian. There are several images that he identifiesJesus as Savior likely the about common image. Christ came to earth to save man frm sin, to take his human nature and link it to the divine, hence cleansing it, and bringing it through the realm of death, hence conquering it. Second, Jesus as teacher, Jesus came to earth to in the first put down teach a set of doctrines about Himself, the world and the Christians relation to it. Third, Jesus as the king of creation, the stern judge and teacher of righteousness. Fourth, Jesus as moralist, that Jesus came to earth to primary teach an ethical system.And lastly, Jesus as a liturgical figure, the Jesus whose beauty is such that normal quarrel cannot describe it, but it can moreover be understood in poetry and the symbolism of liturgy (Borg, 2-5). This is an important approach. All of these, to one extent or another, are a part of each Christians life, but some are more significant than others. Borg seems to hold that the real problem for modern Christians is the propositional nature of faith. That faith, for him, is the assent to a serial (literally a list) of propositions Christ is the Son of graven image, Christ walked on water, etc.The problem is that the modern person lives in a purchase order that lives by its own dogmas that such things cannot happen because they violate the laws of nature. Of course, this assume s that Christ is not their author. He does have a solution, one that I find personally strong that there are two Christs (though not literally), the Christ that existed prior to the resurrection, and the Christ that came after. The latter is the Christ that should motivate the modern reader, and this is the Christ that motivated the archaean Christian community to write the scriptures.The assumption is that this community made up a series of stories and held to it. The fact that the resurrection and crucifixion made no sense to the surrounding Jewish or pagan world is not considered. In other words, that no real religious interest was served by creating these stories, since the concept of a crucified God was repulsive to both communities. Nevertheless, he holds that the motivation of writing the Gospels come from the resurrection, which Borg takes as true from the testimony of the Scriptures that he does not trust (Borg, 1995). Nevertheless, Borg, spot inconsistent, is involved with a similar struggle to my own.Being from a secular household, the concept of Christ and his miracles was remote to me. No different, really, than a cartoon superhero. It was so easy to reject them, so serious to accept them. But this was not a bet of assent and intellectual life, but rather socially. To preach Christ to anyone other than the converted is to lose a great deal of social capital. This I felt powerfully. But intellectually, I never had a problem science, or rather, the scientific establishment, tells me that the infinitely complex life of DNA came into existence by chance.If this was true, then how strange was it to believe that God came to earth to teach men about Himself? I never thought it strange that Christ was God, while my friends believed that Eric Clapton was God. What I did find strange was the mentality of belief as propositions. In other words, that one could hold to the list of accepted beliefs about God and Christ, but the integration of these idea s into the world about them was the real challenge. Borgs other famed work, The Heart of Christianity Rediscovering the life of Faith, has helped me put this problem into a break-dance perspective.In fact, it is precisely the statement of the problem that makes the most sense, just as much as the solution itself. In other words, the context of the problem suggests its own answer. Borg writes that Christ should be seen as a way of life rather than as a set of beliefs (Borg, 2004, 25). However, the problem is that Borg seems to say this so as to relieve himself of the stuff of believing things that modern scholarship has decided are false. This, as I have already said, is the great weak spot of this series of books. But it helps to place it like thisDogma This is an intellectual approach to God and Christ. It holds to a set of beliefs both as reflecting the historical world of facts, and at the same time, demands a body among the propositions believed. This is fair enough. But the real issue is that it is a matter of the head. If Christianity was to be a strictly rational, empirical religion, then why did Christ not speak in this way? Christ, rather than public speaking as a metaphysician, talk in parables, He spoke in aphorisms, He spoke in stories of only a few sentences. He seems to preach by example as much as by words.Way Christ preached by example, by the words and actions that he integrated within himself for a short span of three years. He struggles with non-belief, the arrogance of the Pharisees, and incomprehension of the Romans. But this is precisely our condition our modern Pharisees, our modern secular flock consistently give us trouble. Christ is a way of struggle rather than as a set of dogmatic beliefs (Damascene, 1999). Borg (2004, 28-37) does one better he reduces the struggle this way Christ and the Christian mission in the modern world can be reduced to four specific approaches(1) Assensus this is a matter of rational assent. This is th e problem, at least when such assent is separated from the community. One can hold that Borg is really trying to minimize conflicts, to minimize the dogmatic division of Christ so as to lower the threshold of belief more and more can come to Christ if they do not need to lane the belief test. At the same time, Borg can also be said to hold this because either he does not believe the dogmatic pronouncements about Christ, or his community (i. e. the academic community) does not, and he does not want to be left out, or attacked as a fundamentalist. (2) Fidelity this is the matter is personal relationship. This is not so much a matter of a-dogmatism, but goes beyond it love is stronger than intellectual assent. One follows Christ not because he has given assent to a series of dogmas, but rather, because Christ is a man worthy of being followed. A man that exudes love in the strongest sense of the world. (3) Vision the approach where faith in Christ makes sense out of the whole the wo rld, the community even of religion. While it is is true that Christ preached the coming of his Church, he did not speak of it all that much.Christ spoke of a life of struggle, of virtue, of a personal relationship through faith. The apostles had this, and still could not keep Judas. The vision is to bring the whole into integration with Christs teachings, the real basis of this paper and the basis of my personal life. One cannot run from the world, but one can infuse it with Christ and his teachings. But this is difficult with so many teachings about Christ, one does not know which image to pick,. This is the problem, and many have rejected Him alto ruleher because fo the disagreements. This many be the real potentiality of Borg and his approach.(4) Trust this seems to synthesize all the above. One trusts in the message of Jesus, but a message that might not be literally true, but is the experience of God in and by the community. If one approaches scriptures in this manner, then o ne can get over the belief threshold and see the Scriptures as a response to God, rather than a historical record. On a more personal note, the most satisfying part of Borgs work is in his multiple basis of the Christian life in the modern era. Id like to make this the conclusion, and the real central element of my personal response to practice Borg.In his (2004) work, Borg holds that the modern mission of Christianity can be reduced to three elements (1) The deposition of the reality of God. Now this can be done two ways first, through intellectual arguments, but also as a set of experiences. Borg prefers the latter. Nevertheless, in my own history, it was the former that led me to the latter. In my younger years of obligatory doubt, it was not the experience of God, it was the understanding of him. Once I understood him, I could feel and experience him. But my understanding came in the form of a series of negations I could not believe that DNA ever came into existence by chance .DNA is the great proof of the intelligence of God, the very nature of His creative power (at least that which is give to human observation). I could not believe that matter was eternal. Even in my younger years, while I could not articulate such an idea, I most certainly believed it. Materialism holds that matter is God, in the sense that all things, including life, came from it. It is also eternal and hence, all powerful. Once I realized this set of ideas that must be held by materialism, I realized that the life of the spirit was for me. Life cannot come from death, since something cannot give what it does not have.Consciousness does not come from chance. I saw these as the affirmation of the dogmatic and ideological community of modern scholarship and science, I saw it as the worst and crudest form of obscurantism (2) The centrality of Jesus. While I have no problem with this concept, I can not imagine that Borg can say the same. Jesus? But if one holds that the Jesus of Script ure is deliberately falsified, then what is he speaking of here? He never says. Jesus seems to become an archetype rather than a person. If one holds that the New Testament is falsified (a concept I hold as fantastic) then Christ can never be central.In other words, unless one holds to certain things as historically true (i. e. dogma), then Christ can never be the central part of ones life. (3) Lastly, the centrality of the scriptures. There are two ways of viewing this first, the scriptures as historically true, which Borg rejects, and the scriptures as reflecting, in words, the early communitys experience with God. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive, but the latter does more accurately reflect out situation. We do experience God in our lives. What we write about this comes out as vague and poetic.It is not history, but at best, psychology. It does not mean that the experiences are false, but that there are only so many ways that such experiences can be expressed. The fina l expression cannot, however, be called history. I commend Borg for trying, but he ultimately, fails. He cannot have it both ways to reject scripture (as his community does) but still hold Jesus as central. Jesus cannot be central if his life is falsified. Borg is ultimately a sloppy writer that seems to want to pleas everyone, and make Christianity an easy religion for all to approach.Whatever he likes about the Scriptures he uses, whatever will get him made fun of by his colleagues, he rejects. This is dishonest, and says more about the academic community than the early Christian community. Basically Borg is trying to rescue Christianity from the attacks of the modern critics, while affirming that everything that those critics say about the Bible is true. Nevertheless, we have all experienced the doubt, the pressure of the outside world. It is all the matter of context and expression how we approach God in a materialistic world. That, Borg can do nicely. BibliographyBorg, Marcus (1995) Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. HarperOne. ___. (2004) The Heart of Christianity Rediscovering the Life of Faith. HarperOne Damascene, Fr. (1999) Christ the Eternal Tao. St. Hermans Press. Fr. Damascenes book strongly takes the approach advocated by Borg. He holds that Christ as a relational entity (so to speak) leads to believing in Christ as the Way, a method, a path to Enlightenment and truth. McDowell, Josh. (2006). Evidence for Christianity. Thomas Nelson Publishers. Strobel, Leo. (1998). The Case for Christ. Zondervan. Siciliano, Terry. (2001) Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Evidence for Christianity.Truth Press. These are three major works that refute the thesis that Christs message was falsified. There are many means to do this, but the most impressive one is that the message that came out in the Scriptures is repugnant to both the Jewish and Pagan mentality rising from the dead, execution like a common criminal, no military force, etc. were all highly disagreeable to the environment in which the Scriptures were first written and disseminated. Hence, they must be true. If one was going to invent a series of events, the last series one would invent at the time was that which was actually written.