The question is how one decides. Even someone like Borg doesn't claim that all the Biblical miracles are metaphors. He, for instance, accepts many of Jesus' healings as having happened historically.

So, if we move from understanding all the biblical stories as "magical" we shouldn't immediately jump to "they must be all metaphorical." That keeps us in the Enlightenment/modern worldview that says, choose skepticism or fundamentalism.

It seems clear to me that Scripture combines literal and figurative language, history and history-like fiction, etc. Borg himself talks about both "history remembered" and "history metaphorized" in Scripture. I agree, but I disagree with him and you over which is which. And I think we have to develop MUCH better, less subjective, methods for distinguishing the two--and we must be prepared that some of what we would like to belong in one category may actually belong in the other.

I think I'm in agreement here with Michael W. There is a danger of moving from taking everything literally to taking everything metaphorically. Unlike Buddhism, which appears to be able to exist separately from the historicity of the Buddha, Christian faith is historically rooted in the person of Jesus -- a historical figure.

Borg likes to talk about taking the bible seriously but not literally. I think we need to modify that a bit and say taking the bible seriously but not necessarily literally. There is a happy medium between complete objectivism and subjectivism. The problem is finding that point.

Michael, If I was forced to choose between skepticism or fundamentalism then I would definately go with skepticism, BUT there are more than 2 choices.

The fear I mention in my post is this idea that if you slide a little too far you will fall off the edge of earth. I finally took that one more step and realized the "spritual world" is not flat. Of course I mean that metaphorically! I don't argue that Christiany must slide off the edge, but I would like to see it expand enough to allow people like myself to stay within the fold without comprimising my intelligence.

I appreciate both you guys for commenting here and value your opinions. I like the fact that different theological views can yeild the same attitudes and actions. The bigger questions here are not who is right and what is to be metaphor and what is to be literal. Here are the big questions: Will the emergering Christianity leave room for me? Traditionally, Christianity has a history of pushing people away based on this debate (Galileo, Thomas Jefferson, Darwin, the list is long). I hate that but I'd leave before I'd force myself into something that feels fake. Will Christianity be defined by a line in the sand of theological debate and anyone on the other side must go elsewhere. Can Christianity be broad enough to include anyone that choose to follow Jesus. I was about to go away, but people like Brian Mclaren and Marcus Borg gave me a glimpse of hope that the boundaries might be expanding.

Mike,

I think that there are fundamentalists on both right and left who are concerned about boundaries. They want to try to figure out who is in and who is not. I've come to the place of focusing on the center -- and you picked up what I feel is the center of Christianity. Does one follow Jesus -- and following Jesus is not simply saying the right things or believing the right things. It's living the way of Jesus (Mt. 25).

As far as I'm concerned you've defined yourself in, so that's good enough for me. It is interesting regarding Jefferson, is that there are many on the atheists/skeptics side that want to put him on the outside, but as far as I know, Jefferson never opted out (even if his theology wasn't exactly orthodox). Good challenge!

Galileo never left the faith, despite being excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Darwin WAS talked into giving up his faith, but many Christians, even in his day, accepted biological evolution without blinking. Jefferson was never more than a Deist.

Being "pushed away" because of fundamentalist insistence on flat earth views is one thing. Refusing to accept the heart of the faith, the resurrection, is quite another.

Borg is a fair biblical scholar, but a lousy theologian. His view of the resurrection, like his friend John Dominic Crossan, undercuts the living heart of Christianity--which is supposed to be his central concern.

Michael, is it fair then to say you see the "heart" or Christianity as belief in miraculous resurrection and anyone that doesn't believe that should drop the label of Christian?

You have a right to that view. I've considered dropping the label although I'd really like to keep it. I feel at home with the term and I'd like to stay "in the fold".

Obviously we disagree about Borg and about God. I think you are wrong to claim Jefferson was not "in the fold". It seems to me that through history there has never been a concensus about ontological/metaphysical theories. Is there only one theory that you can have and still be Christian. If so, very few of the great Christian theologian would be "in the fold". Few of them agreed on that issue.

This again points to the main issue here: Are you a Christian because of a descision to follow Jesus or because you believe the right things about him? It seems Bob and I choose the former and Michael choses the later.

Well, I leave it up to God as to who is in or out in any soteriological sense. But, as far as I can ascertain, the NT gives 2 non-negotiables in terms of "beliefs." In 1 Cor., Paul gives the Resurrection of Jesus as that without which "your faith is vain." In 1 John, we are told that those who deny the Incarnation (not the Virgin Birth, mind you, but that God took on flesh in the human Jesus, however this happened) are anti-Christ.

Christian faith is more about relationship than about beliefs, but we are a faith that makes certain claims about events happening in history, in space and time, so that not everything can be metaphorical or parabolic.

Now, dualists can have a purely metaphorical faith because everything important for them is in the realm of ideas, of "spirituality,"--which is why so many of them neglect the poor, etc. History doesn't matter to them, nor does work for justice and peace in this life--because it's all about heaven when you die. But Christianity is about a God who creates and then enters into God's own creation--risking everything--redeeming and liberating by being faithful unto death--and being bodily resurrected, vindicating that nonviolent approach.

Thanks for the response Michael. I agree that both Paul and the author(s) of John would agree with you. Of course I don't look to either of them to define my understanding of metaphysical things. They were both biased AND products of an anceint worldview.

I agree with you about dualism which is why I would not take that view. However I disagree with your misunderstanding of metaphorical treatment of scripture. I've seen its effect on lives and in my experience it increases activism and improves focus on peace and justice. It recognizes history because you need a clear view of history to understand the metaphors.

I have no problem with resurrection or incarnation, but I argue that literal interpretations of both are too narrow. There are plenty of metaphorical treatments of both these concepts that make everything very simple to understand and hold true to both scripture and my view of it.

I defintely agree with Michael. There are some beliefs that are unnegotiable: human depravity, divine judgement, the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross, justification by faith alone, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and the practical necessity of fruit in a life devoted to good deeds. Not all of these are beliefs, but still; how can a person have a relationship with Jesus if they do not know who he is? Since it is this relationship that is of the most importance, don't you think that we should atleast know the person with whom we have the relationship? How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? - Romans 11:14 Belief is central to being a Christian, and without belief a holy life will not follow.

Jeremiah, I fear that conversing with you may be like feeding a stray. I've seen your comments on other progressive faith sites and it seems obvious that you seek out conflict by visiting sites you disagree with hoping to "combat the heretics". At the risk of stepping in a pile of stray dog poop I will comment this time.

You said: "how can a person have a relationship with Jesus if they do not know who he is?"

That seems pretty obvious. You have relationship with Jesus, a person of history, by interacting with people in the present that embody his character (Christians). This is the meaning of what Paul describes as being the body of Christ. These theological problems are easy once you take off the literalist glasses.

You said: "without belief a holy life will not follow" - I guess this means you've never met or heard about anyone that lived a holy life that didn't believe the things on your list? If you leave the house once or twice a year and turn the channel off fox news once in a while you may find a few. Once you've done that you will realize your thesis is absolutely wrong.

Harsh Words,

Perhaps I have labeled myself as someone who gets on life to feel self-justified for trying to "combat the heretics" as you said. The reason I comment on emergentvillage.org is from a genuine concern about what many of the people believe.I'm sure it doesn't seem so.
As many Gandhis as there are, there a thousands of more Hitlers. I have not seen a person who exhibits Christ who is also not a faithful Christian (and understanding basic Christian doctrines). Perhaps this should be attributed to me "watching Fox News to much" - perhaps an allusion to my conservatism. However, I have to say that I have never seen such a person and therefore why should I believe something different? If there are people like this, I would like to see them. I would even better like to meet them.
However, I would like to say that much of that criticism against me is well-deserved and I will try to use it constructively.

Jerimiah, I find it interesting but sad that you would mention Hitler then make the statement:

"However, I have to say that I have never seen such a person and therefore why should I believe something different?"

That is the type of logic that has feed violent bigotry around the world for centruies.

You also said:

"I have not seen a person who exhibits Christ who is also not a faithful Christian (and understanding basic Christian doctrines)."

Is that a joke? What about Ghandi? What about Thich Naht Hahn? Do you realize how many people won the nobel peace prize that are not Christians? All of them in one way or another exhibited Christ to the world.

I know about Ghandi, I simply reject him as being Christ like. So many of these named saints are really not that much like Christ. Christ was concerned about how we treat the poor and needy - a sort of horizontal view of good deeds (good done to man/society). Jesus had a much broader understanding of what was good. He understood sin as being a trespass against God, not against man. Ghandi was solely concerned with men and not with God. For this reason he was not Christ like.

Furthermore, how can you suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize qualifies someone as being Christ-like? bla

Jeremiah,

You said some strange things, namely: "I know about Ghandi, I simply reject him as being Christ like"

"Ghandi was solely concerned with men and not with God"


Apparently you don't know much about either Gandhi or Christ. To help me understand you view can you give me an example of a person in history (or present) that is somehow more Christ-like than Ghandhi?

What God concerned about? If a person is concerned with God wouldn't that mean they focus on what God is concerned about? Isn't God passionately concerned about people?

If someone has done great things to further peace then they are certainly exhibiting Christ-likeness in that area of the life. Isn't it crazy to think any other way?

In your view, what must a person do to be "like" Christ? Look like him? Speak Aramaic? Wear a robe? Live in the 1st century? I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that Jesus wasn't concerned about peace and justice or do you see Christ a totally seperate concept from that of the historical Jesus and/or the Jesus in the Gospels?

If you can't say that certain aspects of Ghandhi are like Christ then I don't see how anyone has a chance in your eyes.

If Jesus had been concerned with peace and justice chiefly he would have established a system of government to prevent the abuses thereof. Instead, he was more concerned about people's spirituality and their eternal security than their immediate benefit.
If Jesus was mainly concerned with man's well-being than he wouldn't have died on the cross. He would have stayed around and helped us end poverty and the other tragedies of our fallen world.
However, he came to end the reign of sin in our lives and reconcile us with his Father.
I really don't see evidence that Ghandi was concerned with these spiritual issues, which seem to constitute the focus of the gospel and Christ's teaching.
So as this is the focus of Christ's purpose in this world, someone who would be Christ-like would be someone who would have the same concerns and focus in his life: Peter, Paul, Martin Luther, William Carry, Jim Elliot, Ajaya Crowther, Stan Dale, and countless other missionaries, pastors, and lay-persons.
Anyone who stands for peace, justice, equality, and the american dream can't be considered Christ-like. There is a much higher standard. Otherwise, you have to say people like Superman and Batman would be Christ-like.
I do think that some aspects of Ghandi were similar to some of those of Christ. But, as a whole, I do not think that you can say Ghandi was Christ-like. He didn't even believe in Jesus as Jesus claimed to be. Lastly, I think that there are none whom God would consider to be Christ-like in his eyes, unless Christ's righteousness is imputed upon him.

Jeremiah, You said:

"If Jesus had been concerned with peace and justice chiefly he would have established a system of government to prevent the abuses thereof.

How would a poor peasant establish a government when his entire nation couldn't even do that in the face of the Roman Empire?

then you said: "If Jesus was mainly concerned with man's well-being than he wouldn't have died on the cross."

He didn't choose to die. The Romans killed him because of his protest. He did continue to protest with the knowledge that it likely would get him killed. But if he could have choosen to not die and establish God's Kingdom then I feel certain he would have. He felt it was more important to demonstrate that the Kingdom of God is worth dying for and he knew that the message needed to stated on the public state.

Then you said: "I do think that some aspects of Ghandi were similar to some of those of Christ. But, as a whole, I do not think that you can say Ghandi was Christ-like. "

Then do you agree that Ghandi was like Christ in many ways? If not, then in what ways must you be like him in order to be considered Christ-like? 2 ways , 10 ways, appearance, dress, what? Why can't you recognize that Ghandhi did certain things like Jesus more than any other human since Jesus and he is a role model for being Christ-like in those areas.

Jeremiah,

you said:"You're assessment of Jesus being unable to establish a government if he so desired is un-biblical as is your denial of his willingness to die.

1. How could a poor Jewish carpenter in the 1st century establish a government in the midst of the Roman Empire? You can't just "establish a government" whenever you want. That was attempted many times before and after Jesus and it always ended in a blood bath for the Jews. He was arguing about a different way to establish a kingdom that had NO need for violence.

2. I never once said Jesus was "unwilling" to die. I said the opposite. I said he didn't choose to die, meaning that he didn't commit suicide. He did however choose to protest in spite of the insight that he would likely be arrested and killed for what he said.

You are also wrong about Ghandi. He started his career of non-violent protest against Empire in South Africa and his efforts worked to correct injustice on 3 continents.

I'm not sure why you want to belittle Ghandhi. I've never claimed any equal status with Christ. Likeness is not equalness, so I have not gone down that road. I've simple said that Ghandi was in many important ways "like" Christ. Even the most fundamentalist people I've met would agree with that. I'm not sure why that is a talking point for you. I said many more things that I would think trouble you, but the reference to Ghandi as very much like Christ shouldn't bother anyone.