Reflections on Being "Born Again"

Born again. Have you ever been born again? Are you a born again Christian? Thanks to evangelical Christianity, this phrase has become a common part of American lingo. In 2005, Barna found that 45% of Americans classify themselves as "born again Christians." I'm sure that statistic has changed in recent years, but it remains quite astonishing that three years ago, almost 50% of the US population applied the phrase "born again" to their Christian faith.

So, what does "born again" mean, anyway? The Greek phrase translated "born again" is gennao anothen. It is interesting that despite its ubiquitous usage in evangelicalism as a metaphor for salvation, the phrase appears in only a few times in the New Testament and all of them in John 3:

"Now a certain man, a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish ruling council, came to Jesus at night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with him.' Jesus replied, 'I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is gennao anothen, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, You must all be gennao anothen. The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.'" - John 3:1-8 (NET)

Gennao is a fairly common word in the New Testament for birth, fathering, or conception. It can be used in a literal sense or in a metaphorical sense, neither of which is altogether unique in the Bible. But, the addition of the word anothen, which is used only 13 times in the NT, makes the phrase something quite special. Anothen has a double meaning, either "again" or "from above," which John purposefully plays on throughout his Gospel (see 3:3, 7; 3:31; 19;11, 23). Despite the fact that most English translations choose to translate gennao anothen, "born again," it is almost certain that the meaning intended in John 3 is "born from above."

As we read in John 3, Nicodemus apparently thought Jesus was speaking of literally being born again, or a second time. This explains his incredulous reply: “How can a man be born when he is old? He can’t enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” We know from study of John's Gospel that the author uses the technique of the “misunderstood question” often to bring out a particularly important point. That is to say, Jesus says something, which is misunderstood by the hearer, which then gives Jesus the opportunity to explain more fully and in more detail what he really meant.

I bring all this up because I have had opportunity in recent weeks to think more deeply about the metaphor of being "born from above." As I said previously, despite its common usage, "born again" is truly a special idea, unique to John's Gospel. I never want to make the mistake of assuming I understand a biblical concept, especially one that Jesus declares to be so important: "I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

So, let's consider the metaphor new birth--being born from above. It may be strange at first to consider it this way, but I would submit to you that this metaphor is a very earthy and feminine metaphor for salvation. Think about it. Birth--a natural, physical female process that has been occurring in various ways and circumstances for thousands of years.

How do I know that this was on Jesus' mind when he used the birth metaphor? I think Jesus explicitly references the physical birth process in vv. 5-6, when he speaks of the necessity of being "born of water," as well as "flesh" giving birth to "flesh."

Many commentators would argue that the "water" spoken of here is the water of baptism or even the water of the Spirit. I would say, however, that the rite of baptism is never paired with "birth" anywhere else in Scripture and such a reference would introduce an alien concept to the passage. Also, a reference to the "water of the Spirit" would be redundant in the context, for that would have Jesus saying, "You must be born of Spirit and Spirit."

I think it is more likely that Jesus is making a reference to the physical "water" of birth, the amniotic fluid which is released from every woman's body at the time of delivery. The meaning of Jesus' statement in v. 5 would be that every person must be born of woman and of the Spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of God. This makes sense in light of the fact that Nicodemus brings up the physical process of birth himself, asking the question, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?"

Now, of course, Jesus' point is that this physical, human birth is not enough in order to see the Kingdom of God. But, he sets the stage for the metaphor of new birth with a reference to physical birth, a uniquely female function (the last time I checked!).

So, what's the point? I don't think we appreciate the fact that Jesus uses a very earthy, messy metaphor to describe the way human beings are birthed into the Kingdom of God. He equates being "born from above" with being "born of the Spirit" (v. 8). In this word picture, the Spirit of God is a maternal figure giving birth to new believers in God's Kingdom.

Feminine metaphors are few and far between in the Bible, so I think it is important that we pay attention when God chooses to use one to describe himself and his ways. What does it mean that we must be birthed into the Kingdom of God by the Spirit of God? If we unpack that image and compare it to the experience of physical birth, I think we can appreciate the metaphor of new birth in a fresh and exciting way.

When a baby is born, gestation has been in process for many months. Nutrients have been flowing from mother to child, growing the baby from a being the size of a blueberry to a 6-10 pound human. Then, in the best case scenario, when the time is right, the baby is brought into a bright, loud, and cold new world. As we all know, this process is not easy, sometimes dangerous, and it doesn't look pretty, either.

But, when all is done, a good mother will then become the primary means of the baby's adjustment to life in the "outside world." As new sounds, sights, and experiences assault the child, the mother will guide them through the process of growth--feeding, clothing, comforting, and caring for them until they begin tentative steps toward independence.

In a similar way, when a new believer is born of the Spirit, a sort of spiritual gestation has been occurring for some time. God's Spirit has prepared the heart, mind, and soul of the person for new birth through a variety of possible "nutrients": the word of God, the people of God, and much more. This process of growth is what brings the new believer "across the line" of unbelief to belief. Still, like physical birth, it is almost always a messy process, one that is unique for every person and fraught with spiritual dangers.

There is no doubt that, upon entering the Kingdom of God, the new believer is like a baby absorbing all the new sensations of the "real world." They see and hear things they've never seen or heard before. They learn to recognize their family's voices and to discern between things that help or harm their person. Like a baby, the new believer is entirely dependent upon its "mother," God's Spirit, for survival, and it will take the care of other humans to assist with their growth and socialization, as well. And, the Spirt, like any good mother, guides the new believer through their new life, helping to provide the spiritual nourishment, comfort, and care they desperately need.

While I don't have the time or space to say much more than this, I think there are plenty of other observations about this unique metaphor that make up good "food for thought" for all of us. For example, it appears that being "born from above," is a process, not something that happens instantaneously. Also, being "born from above," is a truly messy endeavor, one fraught with difficulties and, yes, even ugliness. Being "born from above," is something under the power of the one doing the birthing: the Spirit of God. And, being "born from above," shows that God is not "above" using earthy, feminine metaphors to describe the mysteries of the Kingdom.

When politics and theology collide

OK, everyone, this will be my last post about Republican VP nominee, Governor Sarah Palin. I prefer not to "talk politics" on this blog, but this particular matter intersects with evangelical theology. The following article by Robert Parham first appeared on Ethics Daily yesterday, Sept 9. I recommend it to my readers as good "food for thought" about theological consistency and the trickier elements of applying the complementarian viewpoint in real life. Enjoy!

-----------------------------------------------
Politician Palin Forces Theological Revisionism

Robert Parham
09-09-08

The nomination of Sarah Palin changed Southern Baptist fundamentalism quicker than Eve tempted Adam to eat the apple in the Garden of Eden, metaphorically speaking. The Republican Party's first woman caused Republican Party's first-line male clergy to revise their theology about women, while claiming they never meant what they said earlier.

Only 10 years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention thumped the Bible and announced in Salt Lake City, of all places, that the woman's place was in the home. More exactly, they added a family paragraph to the Baptist Faith & Message statement, which said that a wife had the God-given responsibility to her husband "to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."

Their words were abundantly clear and literally interpreted. The wife had no other role, no other divine appointment, no other responsibility. No exceptions were made for women who work outside the home, either by necessity or vocational fulfillment. The woman was to be a household manager and to nurture children.

Their statement was economically unambiguous: the husband "has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family."

One of the two women on the Baptist Faith & Message committee, which wrote the family statement, said that women should never "be ashamed to be a worker in the home." She said that women were to be "helpers first of all to our husbands" and "homemakers are the backbone of our society."

The SBC president, who appointed that committee, would later say, "The wife should not be burdened with the necessity of working outside the home."

When he was chairman of the SBC's Council on Family Life in 2003, he said, "Particular attention should be given to the specific roles established in the Scripture for the husband and the wife in the areas of provision and management. The husband should be vocationally focused and able to provide for his family."

Now SBC leaders are reinterpreting their statement.

None does so more dishonestly that a seminary professor who wrote last week that "the Baptist Faith and Message does not address the question of women in secular leadership, only spiritual leadership."

Wow! Talk about mendacity.

All of a sudden their faith statement is about spiritual leadership. That's certainly not what the words say and what the leadership said. If they had meant to affirm women in the workplace, then they would have said so, which they did not, even in their interpretative document of their faith statement.

Another SBC official wrote that he saw no conflict between his denomination's statement on women and supporting Palin vice-presidential campaign. He said that men and women are "assigned different but complementary roles in the home" and "our confession of faith does not speak to the appropriateness of women serving in political office."

Well, no, the confession of faith doesn't speak literally to women running for office. But when his wife served on the committee that wrote the family statement, neither she nor he spoke up for women working outside the home.

In fact, when I said in June 1998 that Southern Baptist fundamentalists "hope to make June Cleaver the biblical model for motherhood, despite numerous biblical references to women who worked outside the home," fundamentalists responded with the claim they were only being faithful to the Bible.

Fundamentalists could have clarified that their statement was only about spiritual leadership and had nothing to do with women being employed outside the home. They could have said they valued and honored women pursuing their God-given talents in the workplace. Nope, they said their statement was all about the Bible.

So, why are SBC fundamentalists rushing towards theological revisionism?

Theological accommodation always arises in response to cultural change. Palin has changed the Republican culture, forcing SBC clergy either to say they can't support her because what she is doing counters biblical teaching or to shift their interpretation of the Bible. Their fear of being shut out of the White House, should she win, or blamed for Republican defeat in November necessitates their theological revisionism.

What the revisionist storm will wrought for Baptist women in church leadership and in family roles is unknown, except that it will not be what is was. And that's bad news for the patriarchal clergy of the Christian Right who hide behind the Bible in the pursuit of political power.

Robert Parham is executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics.

Your thoughts?

I know what I think about Voddie Baucham's recent statement that Gov. Sarah Palin is the "anti-family" Vice President pick for Sen. John McCain. What do you think? Check out the Ethics Daily article here and the original blog from Baucham here. And, please, as you make your comments, remember to "play nice."