What is the heart of Christianity?

This was the title of a recent socratic club debate I went to between Dr.'s Gary Ferngren and Marcus Borg. Both professors at Oregon State University.

Dr. Ferngren, arguing for traditional evangelical Christianity, argued five major points make up the heart of Christianity. These points are: A diagnosis of what is wrong with the world: sin, The story of God’s love and his provision for the human race, The confession that Jesus Christ is the son of God and savior of the world, a promise that there is life after death, Christianity is a living faith that speaks to our hearts as well as our heads.

Dr. Borg, arguing as a member of the Jesus Seminar for the historical Jesus point of view argued that at the core of what he calls Christianity lie three basic premises: At the heart of Christianity is a robust affirmation of the reality of God, the reality of the sacred, the reality of the spirit. At the heart of Christianity lies the Bible and Jesus, these are the two primary sources of revelation for Christians, simply disclosure or epiphany of the sacred. At the heart of Christianity is following Jesus. Finally, at the heart of Christianity is the transformation of the heart.

On the outset Dr. Borg's arguments look all well and good, it isn't until the question and answer session that Dr. Borg's true beliefs came out. In the debate Dr. Borg made it clear that he did not take the bible literally. When asked abou the experiences of the apostles after Jesus rose from the dead he said, "I think some of the followers of Jesus had experiences of him after his death. Some of these experiences were visual, visions – seeing the form of Jesus, some experiences were similar to Paul’s." In other words, Dr. Borg believes when Jesus died, he really died, no resurrection involved whatsoever. Therefore, the apostles affirmation that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead Dr. Borg says is nothing more than visions, experiential claims.

These are not the whole of what Dr. Borg has rejected in the Bible. Dr. Borg went on in another question to say that all religions will eventually lead to heaven. "I have no interest in making a claim that Christianity is superior to all other religions. All religions are legitimate paths of transformation and transformation and salvation are synonymous terms." The huge problem with this statement lies in the fact scripture very clearly states "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the father except through me." Jesus very clearly says he is the only way to heaven. There are no other options.

Dr. Borg goes on further to completely deny the intervention of God in the world. What Dr. Borg deals with here is the problem of miracles. I have invested interest in this particular debate as I have experienced miraculous healing. Dr. Borg says that the supernatural things that do occur in the world are nothing more than coincedences saying "it's not a matter of what God can do, it's a matter of what God does do." In otherwords, Dr. Borg has come up against an issue he can't explain, so what does he do with it? Dr. Borg completely denies it's existence.

What Dr. Borg has done is chosen the things in Christianity he can explain, and completely thrown out the things he can't. What you get is something other than Christianity, what you get is pane theism. The notion that an omnipresent God is every where, in everything. The difference between this and pantheism is very slight, in pantheism it is nature that is in and through everything. Therefore I think it is safe to say that Dr. Borg reduces Christianity down to a feel good religion, it's all about loving people for Dr. Borg. As far as jesus goes, he reduces Jesus Christ to nothing more than a political revolutionary. Finally, as far as the religion itself goes Dr. Borg picks and chooses so much that it's difficult to see Christianity in the religion Dr. Borg has created.

Follow up to emotions

Previously I wrote a blog wondering what the purpose of emotions was. I think I may have an answer to that. Emotions are what makes man human. God himself has emotions, we see this many times in scripture where the motions of God are described. We, humans, are made in the image of God, Genesis affirms this fact. As image bearers man therefore feels emotions. Without these emotions, man would not be man, man would be simply a robot, going through the motions of life. Without emotions man would not be able to love, laugh, to cry, to feel sorrow. I relate to the movie Equilibrium because in many ways I feel like the main character, John Preston. In the movie, Preston relearns feelings, using the senses, relearns passion. I relate to this because in many ways I feel as though I have my own difficulties with passionate emotions. I know this sounds trite, but these emotions are what bring us closer to God. Without emotions, we could have no knowledge of the cross. There would be no passion without these emotions. In short, emotions can aid in the chief end of man. The Westminster Shorter Catechism says the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, without emotions glorifying God and enjoying him forever would be impossible.
P. S. While you're at it you should go to www.scificatholic.com and check out the review I posted of the movie Equilibrium.

Thoughts on Single Awareness Day

So after posting something about Valentine's Day and having many people tell me Happy Single Awareness Day I decided to post something about Single Awareness Day. I have several problems with SAD. My biggest problem with having a Single Awareness Day is stated in the name itself. Every single that I know is fully aware of the fact that they are indeed single. As a friend of mine said it is simply an attempt on the part of the greeting card industry to make singles everywhere feel good about themselves. Most singles I know already feel pretty good about themselves and really don't need a day set aside to remember that they are singles.
Seriously now, if you think about it the fact our society needs a day set aside for the sole purpose of showing love and appreciation to someone is pretty sad. However, if we need a day in which we acknowledge our peers who are not in a relationship, that's equally sad. I seriously wonder how much the world would be turned around if we simply looked arund and showed support for someone we normally wouldn't do that for.
Think about the famous holidays that don't have a religious connotation to them, President's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Veteran's Day, they all commemorate something. President's Day, commemorating George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr. Day - that's obvious. Verteran's Day, the soldiers who have fought and died for this country. What is it that Valentine's day commemorates? Initially it was supposed to commemorate a reverred Saint, but the greeting card industry, and our over sexed society have made it into a holiday commemorating love. Not phileo love, the kind of love C. S. Lewis says is between friends, but eros love, romantic love, love that our culture has made synonymous with sex. This is perhaps the main reason I am so against Valentine's Day. It no longer commemorates love, it is supposed to, but that's not what it has become. It has become a means of celebrating sex, and I will not comemmorate something a promiscuous society says I should support. Rather I would support a day dedicated to making those in our lives who don't normally feel it, feel appreciated.

Valentine's Day

How come on a Holiday when we're supposed to honor a revered saint it becomes an excuse for an already sex crazed culture to delve further into their sex crazed addiction? Seriously, personally I hate Valentine's Day. It has become a good excuse for couples to rub every single person's face in the fact that they are single. When did Valentine's Day start being about relationships and not about loving other people? I wonder what would happen if our culture actually started to love, and by love I don't mean mushy love, I mean care for the other person love, the other person.
You can say I'm just bitter because I don't have a boyfriend or whatever and you'd be partially correct. But that still does not give you the right to rub your boyfriend in my face. I am so tired of everyone else around me getting acknowledged because they are beautiful, or whatever and I get the leftovers. What about taking the time to acknowledge the girl sitting right next to you with downcast eyes? If Valentine's day is truly about making someone feel special, what about taking the opportunity to make someone you see everyday, but don't acknowledge feel special?
Growing up if I was invited to a Valentine's day party, my mom used to make me give Valentine's to everyone at the party, not just the people I liked. I wonder how we would turn the world around if we started doing something like this. What I mean is go out of your way to acknowledge a person you don't usually acknowledge. Not just an acknowledgement of who they are, or the fact that they're human, but an acknolwedgement of the fact that they are human with a need to feel special. If more people actually took time out to make another human feel special, I wonder where that would take our culture.