So what've we got?

T.S. Eliot said, "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." That's how I feel about the concept of being 'born again' (or better, 'born from above' as I explored in an earlier post).

Jesus made clear to Nicodemus that being safe in God's grace (Filled with his goodness, lost in his love, as hymn-writer Fanny Crosby so beautifully put it) has nothing to do with birthright, ethnic derivation, human attainments--it is all God's work, and his alone. In fact, it is as it has always been with God's people from the earliest passages of the Old Testament: God made a covenant, took all the initiative in doing so, was constantly faithful in keeping it, and made it clear that the covenantal people had two choices: stay in or opt out. But there was nothing that could make God opt out. St. Paul said confidently, Nothing can separate us from the love of God.

[A study of Old Testament covenants would be useful here. I'll leave this to your research.]

The Israelites of the Old Testament, and the Jews of the New, had made the mistake of thinking that God's love and providential care applied only to them. Rather than seeing their status as God's people as a means to God's end (see Galatians chap. 3, especially verses 8-9: Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.), they somehow concluded that they deserved that special status as theirs and theirs alone, and that there was nothing more to be discussed (see my last post regarding complacency and Jesus' rather decisive negation of that notion). 

Being born from above is what God does in addressing the gap ("the great gulf fixed" of Luke 16) between God's glorious being and standards, and our human condition. Were it not for God's mending of our tattered spirits, we would be left completely to our own devices--not a good place to be.

Becoming a Christian is a whole other matter. We aren't born Christians, but rather as members of God's kingdom. Christianity is a religion, a belief system. It requires a conscious choice in my view (my baptismal regeneration and Calvinist friends' beliefs to the contrary notwithstanding). It's a choice that I have made. I have posted elsewhere that Christianity (for all the unfortunate baggage associated with that name) is the clearest expression of God's nature, will, and ways that we have. I would press my faith upon anyone. There's no better way to understand and to appreciate God, learn how and what to do right, and to protect oneself from "opting out" than to become a follower of Christ. It is a privilege without parallel. But it's not the same as being born again.

Now if I can just figure out who the elect are!

The 8th deadly sin

If I were to expand the traditional seven cardinal sins (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride) to eight, I would add complacency. It could be argued, I suppose, that sloth would include the idea of being complacent, but I'm digging out a nuanced difference. 

From the religious point of view, a slothful person is one who is spiritually lazy, who doesn't utilize the gifts with which s/he is bestowed by God. In Dante's Inferno, the penance for sloth was running continuously at high speed.

But I think of complacency more as obliviousness than laziness. Here is a typical dictionary definition: a feeling of quiet pleasure or security, often while unaware of some potential danger, defect, or the like; self-satisfaction or smug satisfaction with an existing situation, condition, etc.

Complacent people might still work very hard. Their problem is not inaction. The difficulty is that their minds are closed to new and better information. They have the world figured out to their satisfaction, and either reject out of hand, or don't even recognize, any disquieting facts to the contrary. Many influential people and organizations have floundered on the shoals of complacency (or, more crudely, have merrily circled the bowl until they sank out of sight for good).

No one was more complacent than a first-century Pharisee. He knew his place (a rather lofty one) in God's order, had appropriate belief and lifestyle worked out perfectly, and was quick to criticize anyone who moved off the blueprint. 

In Luke chap. 7 Jesus is being entertained, somewhat reluctantly, by a Pharisee named Simon. Jesus allowed a woman whom Simon immediately wrote off as “a sinner” to anoint him with expensive ointment, and even to kiss his feet.

Now when Pharisees were out and about among the regular Jewish folk, there was no telling whom they might encounter who was sufficiently in God’s bad books that they might defile a holy man by brushing up against him, making him ritually impure and unable to observe the Temple rituals. So the Pharisees, upon returning home, would have themselves baptized; i.e., a servant would pour purifying water over them to wash off anyone else’s sin. My goodness, just to be on the safe side they would baptize their eating utensils, even their beds. You can read about this in Mark chap. 7.

But Jesus was making no effort to avoid this official sinner in Simon’s home—quite the opposite. Simon’s attitude was that if Jesus were really a prophet of God as many alleged, he would know with whom he was dealing and behave in a much more acceptable manner.

Jesus just couldn’t catch a break with the Pharisees. He accepted the friendship of all the wrong people—tax collectors, drinkers, gluttons, Samaritans, women. He criticized the rich, whom most Jews believed, on the basis of their understanding of Deuteronomy, must be blessed by God. He worked on days he shouldn’t have, even if he was healing people at the time, such as we see in Luke chaps. 13 and 14. He ate when he shouldn’t. He spurned the popular leaders. In addition, he was a bad influence on his followers, who violated all the agreed norms constituting appropriate religious behaviour. 

As for who was in and who was out, from the point of view of Pharisees and most other Jews, one was surely in God's grace if one were born a Jew. A key biblical passage for the rabbis was Isaiah 60:21: Then all your people will be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendor.

That's not to say that the Pharisees were all bad--quite to the contrary.  The Pharisees were brotherhoods of laypeople with a good deal of education, a theology much like Jesus’s own, and a worldview that we might do well to emulate. For instance: 

1.  They were very popular with the common people because of their strong opposition to their Roman political and military masters, as well as to what they considered the corrupting influence of the prevailing Greek culture. Rather, they urged a unique Jewish ethic and lifestyle in keeping with their faith. As such, they were the spiritual heirs of Old Testament heroes like Ezra and Nehemiah.

2.  They were not nearly as literalistic in their handling of the scriptures as their priestly rivals, the Sadducees. They believed not only in the Law of Moses—the first five books of our Old Testament—but a system of traditional interpretations, passed down orally and forming a set of scholarly applications. In other words, they thought about the implications of their faith for daily living.

3.  The Pharisees took messianic prophecy very seriously, anxiously awaiting a coming deliverer who would usher in an era of world peace.

4.  Consistent with Jesus’ preaching, they believed in an afterlife, God’s assessment of our earthly choices, as well as in angels and demons--beliefs the Sadducees considered Persian perversions of the true faith.

5.  Rather than certain rituals and observances being restricted to the priests alone, Pharisees saw the Jews as a community of priests who could all participate in such practices as prayer, fasting, personal purity, and tithing.

6.  Finally, they believed in the importance of social justice. 

At their best, such as we see in Mark chap. 12, they earned Jesus’ warm approval. Nicodemus, a follower of Jesus who helped prepare his crucified body for burial, was a Pharisee. So was the great apostle Paul. There was, nevertheless, a rigidity about many of them, coupled with a great deal of judgmentalism, that constrained their potential for good.

Jesus, both in his conversation with Nicodemus that we have been considering for these last many posts and with others, is determined to knock these Jewish leaders out of their complacency. Consider his strong (and to his listeners, highly upsetting and even blasphemous) words recorded in John chapter 8:

³¹Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. ³² Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

³³ They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

³⁴ Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. ³⁵ Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. ³⁶ So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. ³⁷ I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. ³⁸ I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

³⁹ “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. ⁴⁰ As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. ⁴¹ You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

⁴² Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. ⁴³ Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. ⁴⁴ You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires.

Now Jesus was being hyperbolic here as he often was in his preaching, to attempt to knock down the walls of complacency and open up his listeners' minds to much greater vistas of belief and opportunity.  

Thus, when Nicodemus comes to him with built in assumptions about the basis for God's favour, Jesus cuts straight to the chase: Nicodemus, you must be born again.

What I think he meant comes next.

Making a list, checking it twice.

There's a story, apparently true, of a terrible accident involving an airplane attempting to land on a very wintery day and hitting a snow plow.  As the plane was approaching, the air traffic controller radioed to the snow plow operator to "Clear the runway". While to an air traffic controller that command meant one thing--"Get out of the way, a plane is about to land"--to a snow plow operator it connoted something very different; i.e., "Remove the snow." That confusion in the meaning of terms led to a very sad result.

We are well removed from Jesus' time on earth, the Jewish culture in which he lived and taught, and the worldview which his disciples and his listeners brought to the task of understanding events around them. Consequently there is a real danger of reading into concepts found in the Gospels the meanings that those words, metaphors, and ideas would have now, not necessarily what they would have meant to the original listeners. We are often like that air traffic controller, as we handle ancient writings, who did not appreciate what a term meant in a snow plow operator's context.

[Just in passing, I spent many years grinding my teeth in frustration while listening to so-called bible teachers telling groups of would-be bible students to interpret the Scriptures simply by deciding "what it means to you". Amazingly the students typically found whatever it was they wanted to find. Who needs knowledge of historical context, original meanings, and so on when one can find whatever one prefers by using nothing but modern cultural priorities and biases. But I digress.]

We are exploring the fundamental New Testament concept of being born again. But I had not until recently researched what the term mean to a first century AD Jew. What would have gone through Nicodemus' mind when Jesus told him not to be surprised that he (Nicodemus) would have to be born again?

Just before I give you this list, one observation about being born the first time. According to some Jewish sources I've consulted, "born of water" was simply a Jewish idiom for physical birth (a reference to amniotic fluid), and had nothing to do with baptism. Whatever those of the baptismal regeneration school of thought think of the matter, to Nicodemus Jesus' use of the term would have simply meant the physical birth of a baby.

To a Jew of that day, being born again could mean any of the following:

• The conversion of a non-Jew (or Gentile) to Judaism.
• Coming of age, the bar mitzvah celebrated when Jewish boys turn 13. The equivalent celebration for Jewish girls is called the bat mitzvah. 
  
• Getting married.
• Repentance. For a pious man like Nicodemus repentance was probably a regular practice, but every observant Jew would repent of his/her sins at least yearly at Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement).
• Baptism. Jewish people were very concerned about ritual cleanliness, so there were many immersions in Rabbinic Judaism. When they came out of the water they were ritually clean, and thus able to participate in religious rites. Remember how the Pharisees baptized not only themselves but even their dishes and their beds (Mark 7:1-4). 
• Ordination to become a rabbi, which Nicodemus, "a teacher of Israel", certainly was.
• Being crowned king. 

 I can just imagine Nicodemus running down the list as Jesus was telling him, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

"What the heck is Rabbi Jesus talking about" (however a pious 1st century Jew might phrase it)? I'm certainly here, so I was physically born once. I'm a Jew so there's no need for conversion. I'm well past 13. I'm married. I repent routinely. I practice ritual immersions as any good Pharisee would. I'm a rabbi myself. What's left--that I become the next king of Israel?"

Rather than answering in a confused fashion, Nicodemus might simply have been humouring Jesus when he replied, "How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

Jesus took no offense, but reiterated, "No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water (physical birth) and the Spirit (birth from above). Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

What was Jesus saying? Stay tuned.

When in doubt about the Gospels--ask a Jew

I have had very few Jewish friends and acquaintances in my life. There was only one fellow student in my undergraduate Commerce student days at Queen's whom I knew to be Jewish--Ted, I think he was called. I had an in-law for a time who had been a  European Jewish refugee. My wife taught with a Jewish woman from Montreal who was a great believer in the efficacy of chicken soup. One of my late father's best friends was Jewish. He also served as Dad's haberdasher. And just recently my wife and I have made a new friend here in Abbotsford who lost his grandparents in the Holocaust.

I did attend seminary in Chicago with a Jewish man from Brooklyn who had converted to Christianity well into his adult years. He had not been particularly observant religiously to that point. His description of the event was quite interesting. He said the moment that he decided to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah it was as if his mind opened and a wind rushed through.

That's about it. While I have enjoyed the writing, singing, and acting of many Jewish artists, and been blessed by the economic leadership of Jewish economists and businesspeople, and been enthralled by the wonderfully principled stands of certain Jewish thinkers and activists (the Hon. Irwin Cotler comes to mind), I have not had the good fortune of knowing many personally.

It came as a considerable surprise to me, then, that I had a breakthrough in my wrestling match with the concept of being born again through an encounter (admittedly via podcast) with a Jew. He was being interviewed in my son and daughter-in-law's church in Ontario. With respect to the concept of being born again, he mentioned that to Jews of Jesus' time, the notion was well established and had specific meanings (see http://www.themeetinghouse.com/teaching/archives/2013/one-church-2013/week-4-messianic-judaism-5479). This led me to much fruitful research.

I have to remind myself from time to time that Jesus was almost entirely immersed in the Jewish thought world. His encounters with non-Jews were few. His audiences would have been virtually 100% Jewish. When he spoke, he used metaphors and parables that could easily be identified by his audience as typical of their experience. When he referred to backup material, it was always the Jewish scriptures (with Deuteronomy being his first choice). No wonder that his disciple Peter balked at having to do something completely at odds with Old Testament teaching when commanded to eat "unclean" food (Acts 10:9-16). Jesus' brother James and other early church leaders was similarly scrupulous about following Jewish traditions (Acts 11:1-3).

So what did it mean to a Jew--and a very high ranking one at that--when Jesus said to him, "You should not be surprised at my saying, You must be born again."

That's next.

Locked and loaded

We're back from a wonderful month-long vacation to Ontario. We drove some 12,000 kms., traversing five provinces and six states. Our single most unique experience was to stumble across a virtually abandoned townsite called Ingomar, Montana. Twelve citizens are left from what was at one time a thriving little town with a major sheep-raising industry. We ate a delicious bean soup lunch in the restaurant, called the Jersey Lily, and had a great time chatting with the cook/server, Pam, and one of the customers, an outspoken old cowboy I'll call Wyatt.

Wyatt and another gentleman, wearing the obligatory stetsons, were having an intense time looking at a newspaper and discussing "g-dd-m cowardly sissies", which I gather referred to certain government folk, in very loud voices. A disparaging reference to former President Carter led me to ask if people in these parts were Republicans. "No, Wyatt replied, we're conservatives." At that point, I discarded any thought of raising gun control issues with him as a point of conversation.

My mind has gone back to that remarkable two hours in Ingomar many times in the days since we returned to beautiful British Columbia. My fundamentalist upbringing, which will always be a part of my makeup no matter how hard I try to shake it, made me want to dismiss the customers at the cafe as having any particular spiritual sensitivities, particularly given the language employed. I can just imagine what they might have said had I asked them if they were born again!

[As Ned Flanders' wife, Maude, said to Bart Simpson, "I went to bible camp to learn to be more judgmental."]

But I am trying to retain the good of my early Christian training (high view of Scripture, gratitude to God for his provision of salvation, a life of purpose and ethical/moral decision-making) with my newer conviction that one is a member of God's kingdom unless one ultimately chooses otherwise. In what way would someone for whom God's name is a convenient curse be born from above? Would he truly be a child of God in every sense that I like to think that I am?

That's what I have been struggling with for these last several posts. It would be a lot easier if I just bought into some established school of thought about who's in and who's out but, as I've indicated in earlier posts, I believe that would place God in a nice, tidy box that pretends to tie up all the loose ends while turning Him into a contradictory and arbitrary deity. British theologian J.B. Phillips penned the title Your God is Too Small for his best-selling book. I believe that he wrote better than he knew.

At any rate, we lumber on. My son was good enough to direct me to certain Jewish sources that might be of some help in sorting out what being born from above means. Let's see where they lead.

Perhaps I've fallen into a trap

Perhaps I've fallen into a trap....of my own making. When I hear the term 'born again' (which is probably better translated 'born from above'), particularly when it is compared in some fashion with natural birth (see the New Testament gospel of John 3:3-6), I think of a once for all experience.

One is only born once in the natural way. From there on the process of growth and development occurs in the usual fashions until one dies--all laid out in a timeline that we are all used to. It is our entree into the human race.

But if the term 'born again' is meant to be more metaphoric than we usually think, we get a new sense of the full import of the term.

For those who link being born again with being baptized, whether as an infant or at some later time in life, then being born again is a once forever event. I am not aware of any of the baptismal regeneration folks allowing for people to show up routinely to be re-baptized. There may be other aspects to spiritual growth (confirmation, communion, confession, penance, re-committal, etc.), but the baptism itself happens once, as far as I know.

For traditional evangelicals, being born again means accepting Christ as Saviour, confessing one's sins that stand between the person and God's forgiveness, and becoming a new creation--again a one-time experience. After that, evangelicals switch from terms like being born again, being redeemed, being justified, etc., and move on to a new set of experiences called by names such as sanctification, and so on. I don't think that even the Arminian Christians, some of whom believe that a person could fall from grace and then be restored (others don't accept the restored part) call the restoration a new birth.

What I'm trying to say is that the idea of being born again is understood pretty literally, whether linked to baptism or to repentance, whether infant or adult, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. That is not to say that growth in one's faith and practice is not expected, but the birth itself happens once, just like human birth. It is the way one becomes a Christian, and by extension, represents one's entree into the kingdom of God.

Could it be understood in a different way without doing violence to the biblical text? That's what I want to explore next. Just as soon as I can lift off this blasted trap.

Rub-a-dub-dub, born in a tub

Please pardon the irreverent title to this post. I'm just trying to get your attention, not to offend. What I am alluding to in this case is baptismal regeneration, or being born again by being baptized.

Catholics and many Protestants believe that the various references to being baptized by water and the Spirit (as in John 3:5) mean the rite of baptism; i.e., that a person is born again, born from above, or spiritually regenerated by being baptized, presumably by some suitably credentialed church official. A defense of this interpretation can be found at http://www.catholic.com/tracts/are-catholics-born-again.

I won't go into a lengthy critique of the Roman Catholic position, because I don't want to get into a nit-picking quarrel with Catholic readers. I'll simply revert to my 'theology from the ground up' approach and note the difficulties I have with it:

1. Many of the passages cited refer to both believing and being baptized. Other scriptures dealing with spiritual regeneration speak only of believing. I'm not sure how a newborn is supposed to exercise any genuine belief in something as profound as God's saving grace.
2. Water is used in so many metaphorical ways in both testaments of the Bible. It has long been a symbol of purification. But rites themselves (animal sacrifices, ablutions, etc.) are always dismissed in the Scriptures if there is not genuine belief present.
3. Many people have looked to God for forgiveness very much at the last minute; e.g., on their deathbed, in an accident where they subsequently succumb to their injuries, in situations where baptism might be impossible. Would God withhold his forgiveness and acceptance because there was no handy priest lurking nearby and suitably equipped? If not, then why is water baptism actually needed?
4. Some of the world's most infamous people were baptized as infants; e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Castro. While the individuals cited as examples eventually renounced their beliefs, others whose lives were very much at variance with their professed faith continued with the religious rites throughout their lives; e.g., Robert Mugabe, many prominent mafiosi, Joseph Kennedy. 

I'm not the first person to raise objections along these lines and I won't be the last. I'm sure that thoughtful Catholics have gone through them and found satisfying responses. My biggest problem is that God would insist on something as cumbersome and arbitrary as a religious rite in order to confer his love, forgiveness, and acceptance. Consider this from the Orthodox Church:

The Orthodox Church makes no judgment concerning the efficacy or validity of baptisms performed by other denominations, as regards people who are members of those respective denominations. The precise status and significance of such baptisms has not been revealed by God to the Orthodox Church; however, as a practical matter, they are treated as non-efficacious unless and until the person joins the Orthodox Church (see http://orthodoxwiki.org/Baptism).

Relying on a rite, done the proper way by the right church official, stacks the deck against too many people, just as does the evangelical insistence on specific knowledge of the salvation message. It still means that most of the world's inhabitants won't make it into the Kingdom for reasons completely beyond their control.

Tortoise theology

You know that story about the tortoise and the hare, with its famous ending--slow and steady wins the race? Forget it. I'd kill to be that hare!

It's great to be disciplined and to compensate for one's inherent challenges with perseverance. That's how I do theology--I plod.

Look at that blasted rabbit. All he needed was just the slightest bit of self-regulation, a little tamping down on the cocksureness, maybe a dram of Ritalin, and he had it made. Talent, lightening speed, and Bob's your uncle. The job is done with lots of time left for the Blue Jays game. 

It's never that way with me. I see this problem and that obstacle. I fret. I sweat. And worst of all, I bore everyone to sleep with my methodical, dry, academic approach. I'm nodding off as I type this.

If you don't like it--I don't either. So go read someone else's blog. 

Still hanging in there? Thanks Mom. Here's what I'm labouring with as regards this born from above business. Keep in mind my fundamental conviction that all of humankind is, by default, part of the Kingdom of God unless an individual decides to opt out of the relationship. I've explored this at length in earlier posts. But can I hold to that position with integrity as I study certain key biblical passages about spiritual re-birth?

In some cases, it sounds like being born from above (or born again) is meant only for those who make the decision to request it, such as we saw in Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus in John 3:  

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. ² He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” ³ Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” ⁴ “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” ⁵ Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. ⁶ Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. ⁷ You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’.......¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Sounds like a conscious decision, doesn't it. So does this from John 1:

¹⁰ [Jesus] was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. ¹¹ He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. ¹² Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— ¹³ children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

On the other hand, you get a very different take, by the same biblical author, in 1 John 4:7:   
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

Everyone who loves. Unless St. John means that only Christians are capable of loving, this passage has a much wider application that just those who have made a conscious decision to believe something.

All very confusing to this tortoise. Much more mulling needed.

Born again means---ahh--hmmm.

I grew up with a pretty strong belief in what it means to be born again. While a bit of a caricature, a Catholic web page I consulted recently summarizes it reasonably well:

For an Evangelical, becoming "born again" often happens like this: He goes to a crusade or a revival where a minister delivers a sermon telling him of his need to be "born again." 

 

"If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and believe he died for your sins, you’ll be born again!" says the preacher. So the gentleman makes "a decision for Christ" and at the altar call goes forward to be led in "the sinner’s prayer" by the minister. Then the minister tells all who prayed the sinner’s prayer that they have been saved—"born again."

That same source (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/are-catholics-born-again) then gives a very different explanation from the Roman Catholic point of view:

When a Catholic says that he has been "born again," he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. 

Why am I concerned about this? Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again. Nic was understandably disconcerted. As a leading member of the Pharisaic brotherhood, and a pious Jew, he doubtless assumed that his good standing before God was rooted in his heritage in the 'seed of Abraham'. Getting back into his mother's womb and starting over again seemed a bit over the top. 

He may have been amused at the suggestion, angry at having his time wasted by this strange preacher, or just plain bewildered at what Jesus could possibly mean. Jesus didn't elaborate on the subject but merely reiterated its importance (see the New Testament gospel of John 3:3-7).

So let's delve into this further. Its meaning is pretty important apparently. We can't see the kingdom of God without going through the process, as I noted in my previous post.

As is often the case, my first recourse is to that excellent resource Wikipedia. A quite comprehensive study of the term 'born again' can be found under 'Born again (Christianity)'. Of course, it does nothing to establish the exact meaning of the term, because there is a wide understanding of what being born again implies. But it is noted here (and elsewhere) that the original Greek word 'again' is better translated as 'from above'.

Jesus Christ used the "birth" analogy in tracing spiritual newness of life to a divine beginning. Contemporary Christian theologians have provided explanations for "born from above" being a more accurate translation of the original Greek word transliterated anōthen. Theologian Frank Stagg cites two reasons why the newer translation is significant:

1. The emphasis "from above" (implying "from Heaven") calls attention to the source of the "newness of life." Stagg writes that the word "again" does not include the source of the new kind of beginning
2. More than personal improvement is needed. "...a new destiny requires a new origin, and the new origin must be from God."

This is a good beginning. Whatever else it means, this experience originates with God alone and has to do with something new that is different from our physical start in life. And it certainly accords with related passages such as:

John 1:12-13 - Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 

1 John 4:7 - Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 

1 Peter 1:22-23 - Now that you’ve cleaned up your lives by following the truth, love one another as if your lives depended on it. Your new life is not like your old life. Your old birth came from mortal sperm; your new birth comes from God’s living Word. Just think: a life conceived by God himself!

Not just a fresh start, then. Not even an overhaul. It's what St. Paul called a new creation (Galatians 6:15). It doesn't come from being born into the right crowd, as Nicodemus believed. In fact, it has nothing to do with human birth at all, other than that we have to exist in order to be eligible. It can't be earned (Ephesians 2:8-9) or purchased (Acts 8:20), as the Bible makes clear again and again. It's a free gift from God. 

What else is it? 

Us born againers

I had recently moved to Illinois to attend Trinity Divinity School near Chicago. Having reached a fairly hirsute state about the ears, I repaired to a hairdressing establishment in the small town in which we were now residing. My barber, having determined my reason for moving to the area, immediately placed me in a pigeon hole of his choosing. He began to speak of 'us born againers'.

While I would not have employed the term in quite that way (particularly with the connotations it carries in the U.S. of the religious right), I did not object in principle to the notion that he and I shared a certain religious experience. I had long ago memorized scriptural passages emphasizing the need for some kind of birth from above in order to enter the kingdom of God. The best known involves a conversation between Jesus and a man named Nicodemus.

John 3:3-7 

³ Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” 

⁴ “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

⁵ Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. ⁶ Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. ⁷ You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’

On the face of it, this passage seems to be saying that entry into the kingdom of heaven (or kingdom of God) requires a spiritual renewal, literally a birth from above. As it is explained to Nicodemus, this appears to be a conscious choice rather than an automatic process. 

How do I reconcile the old evangelical emphasis on the necessity of consciously choosing to pursue spiritual renewal, and thus gain admission to God's kingdom, with my new conviction that kingdom membership is the default option for humankind unless an individual opts out?

I've lost contact with that barber--in fact, I barely need one now--so I'll have to go it alone. This may take a while, so please take that comfort break and recharge your glass while I work this out.