Guy,
Let me take a slightly different tack on our discussion, one
which we have touched on occasionally and which I think
underlies many issues, but which we haven't really brought to the fore.
One way to gauge a theological viewpoint is to see what kind of
fruit it bears. That is, what kind of life does the teaching
lead to? I gather that in addition to your intellectual
objections, your preference for "Borgian" or "liberal" theology
comes from a belief that it is more life-giving than
traditional theology, which leads to cliquishness and lifelessness.
In response to this I would certainly agree that there are
certainly many conservative churches that are guilty of this
charge. I will send you by snail mail the first chapter of the
book "No Condemnation," by Michael Eaton, which describes the
author's personal spiritual journey. An important part of that
journey was Eaton's growing realization that the Calvinism that
he had grown up with was, despite its verbal affirmations of
grace, producing lifelessness.
I will also say, however, that if you survey churches in the
U.S., you will find that mainline churches also suffer from
lifelessness. Having little to offer beyond general principles
of living that people can get from other sources, their reason
for existing as *churches* becomes unclear. They have a
tendency to turn into community centers or social action
committees or self-help groups. There is nothing wrong with
these things, but since there is nothing specifically
*religious* about these activities, there is a sense of
hollowness. The churches typically retain a certain religious
facade---they continue to recite the familiar creeds and sing
the familiar hymns---but many of the members don't believe the
words coming out of their mouths. The cleverer ones, like
Borg, have figured out how to redefine all the words so that
instead of meaning what most people (including the authors of
the words) mean by them, the words mean something metaphorical
that Borg is comfortable affirming. Mental gymnastics like
this are tiring though, and I for one can't perform them
without feeling like a hypocrite.
Despite their obvious differences, I would say that the
lifeless conservative churches and the lifeless liberal
churches that I have just described are, at bottom, suffering
from the same problem. Namely, both of them look to the law
(broadly construed) for a solution. I was struck by your
comment that in Galatians, Paul was writing to "liberal
theologians." In fact, Paul was writing to conservatives---"Judaizers"
who wanted to stick to the traditional Jewish system. So what
made you think that Paul was talking to liberals? Simply put,
both the Judaizers and your "liberal theologians" were/are
legalists. And Paul is saying no, the answer lies not in
principles or practices. The answer lies in a *person*, namely
the person of Jesus Christ. Paul preaches Christ crucified;
Paul does not preach principles that he illustrates with
stories about Jesus that may or may not be factual.
In his book, Eaton explains that when he turned to
Galatians---and he really studied the book thoroughly for many
years, reading all the commentaries he could find---it totally
transformed his life.
As I see it, the primary question in religion is whether there
is something radically beyond what we can see. When people
enter ecstatic trances, are they getting a glimpse of that
"something beyond"? Do miraculous events such as Jesus'
Resurrection give a glimpse of that "something beyond"? In
terms of practical consequences, it is clear that those who are
most passionately gripped with religious fire are those who
have had powerful personal experiences of that "something beyond" and
*know* that it exists. They might be deluded, of course. But
if they are right, and there *is* something beyond, then that
*must* be the primary concern of religion.
Now what if there isn't a "something beyond"? Personally, I
would agree with Calvin's tiger-friend Hobbes, whose answer is,
"Oh, what the heck---I'll take it anyway." Unlike some
Christian apologists, I don't think that nihilism is the only
option in this scenario. On the other hand, I do think that in
this scenario, it doesn't matter too much whether you choose to
be a "liberal Christian" or a "secular humanist" or whatever.
Principles are available to anyone, and there's no particular
need to cling to a specific religion. If anything, I would say
that in this scenario, it is better for your mental health to
distance yourself from the religion you grew up with.
Otherwise you will have a strong tendency to cling to certain
symbols and ideas for no better reason than that they are
comfortable and familiar, and you will be perpetually flirting
with hypocrisy. But again, if there is no "something beyond,"
then I don't see such choices as being all that big a deal.
Tim
