I have a student finishing up his graduation requirements with an independent study reading two books. The first is Marcus Borg's Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. Here are some of my thoughts after reading through this book.
1. First, it is probably a book for more mature evangelicals rather than for the impressionable or of shaky faith. While Marcus Borg has a strong personal faith, it is not a traditional faith and certainly not an evangelical faith. Borg started out a fairly conservative Lutheran but found himself intellectually unable to maintain that faith in a traditional form the further he went in his studies.
The result is that he has continued in faith in the only way he knows how. This is a faith that embraces the human side of Christian faith without committing to an objective God or resurrected Christ in a traditional sense. He affirms Christian spirituality as real, just as he would affirm Buddhist or Jewish spirituality. If I remember correctly Ben Witherington characterized his Jesus as a new age Jesus.
Borg now refers to Jesus as a mystic. I read his Jesus: A New Vision back in the 90's in preparation to make some lectures in England on the historical Jesus. This is a great improvement on that book in many ways.
2. But this makes Borg a good read for someone who is about to throw the Christian towel in completely. Borg, like Bultmann before, is keenly interested in legitimating Christian faith. At several points in this book he says things like "Believe what you wish with regard to whether this happened historically or not, but do not miss the real point, which is the more-than-literal meaning of this story."
Borg will be attractive to many emergents, and he hopes to be helpful to them. His Jesus is a Jesus who appeals to the part of Jesus and Christianity that they see as the part most important and valuable in our current context. His message fits with themes like generous orthodoxy and explicitly mentions Jim Wallis' God's Politics with approval in his epilogue.
3. ... which of course means that opponents to the emerging and to the Sojourners movement will attempt to assassinate them by association. Let me say before anyone tries to do this that this is logically invalid. X advocates such and such and Y advocates such and such; therefore X is Y is an invalid argument--ticks me off when Christians make God look stupid. Don't be stupid--Wallis and McClaren don't agree with Borg's understanding of God or Christ.
4. For mature evangelicals, this book is a very convenient look "outside our bubble." Borg was a part of the famed Jesus Seminar. He considers the books of the Bible a human response to the sacred but clearly rejects any claim that it might be inerrant. He matter of factly says things like, "mainline scholars do not see the stories of Jesus' birth as historically factual reports" (62).
That is not to say that there is not a good deal of correct information here and historical insights. With a sensitive guide to walk with you through the book, a person can go a 1000 miles ahead in his or her understanding of the first century context in which Jesus walked. A fundamentalist will jump off Borg's boat soon, an evangelical at some point a little further. To remain orthodox, you will need to jump off a little further on the way.
But for some who were poised to leave Christianity all together, this book might convince you to stay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Ken, I haven't read that Borg book -- don't know if I will -- but I recall reading Jesus: New Vision and liking in more than I expected (than I should have?). Of course, there's a lot of presuppositional stuff that I don't buy, but at least Borg is not really a minimalist and sees room for a transcendent dimension to Jesus, even if not in tradition Christian theological categories. But that book got me to read his earlier (and more substantial) Politics, Holiness . . . a book which I found very stimulating. For whatever reason, I find Borg somewhat more helpful than many his counterparts. Funk had too much a chip on his shoulder. Crossan is all words and posturing to me.
I have to admit I didn't even read your post, I just read the title and my teenage love for Star Trek kicked in and I instantly pictured a Borg Jesus. I can't decide if it was hilarious or scary. I guess his designation would be "2 of 3".
I really appreciate some of the people that have commented on your blog site, as they seem informed and committend (as do you).
I am becoming informed, but, as of late, uncommitted.
I recognize that truth is something we formulate with the information we have at hand. I just resist (strongly) being "controlled"...and that is sometimes, on my part, a resistance, even when others are "just" trying to lead....
I believe wholeheardtedly in academic freedom, not indoctrination, or dogmatism...for the individual has to be committed to the "truth as he knows it", as an integrity issue. And integrity is committing to something that is most reasonable to you at a specified time. Even atheists have faith with integrity. That is why I respect them.
Perhaps I should say that I am coming to believe that the "mind" assembles the information given to the brain in complex ways and for reasons that are specifically unique. That is why reducing men to brain fucntionality is not understanding the complexity of the issues.
Does Borg consider himself a religious pluralist? His line of thought sounds on awful lot like Paul Knitter, who certainly considers himself a pluralist--albeit a "less robust" pluralism when compared to pluralists like John Hick.
What I find so interesting in the idea of "religion as moral transformation" is the emphasis on the cultural context of the subject--an "appropriate religious response" is gauged by the environment in which the response is made. If an appropriate religious response involves the context in which it is made, then religious truth-claims cannot (or do not) break through the boundaries in which they are made. Therefore, in principle, all religious adherents have equal epistemic justification in their particular claims and no one religous traditions should be held above the other.
However, this has problems:
1. "Truth" becomes strictly metaphorical or mythological, which boils down to self-contradiction.
2. How do we classify which systems of ideals actually count as institutionalized "religions" and which ones do not? Should Marxism count as religion? What about LeVayian Satanism?
3. If the end of religion is moral transformation, is a realist intent--the idea that there is a sacred, transcendent object behind religion--within religion necessary?
Point 3 is especially problematic, because a realist intent is necessary in order for pluralism to be a genuine option in the face of religious naturalism, but the realist intent cannot be SO robust that one religious tradition could be "more in touch" with sacred reality than another.
Sorry if my rant is off-topic. :)
Since the mind assimulates the information given in categories that are universal, then, can we ascertain that all seek to understand the numinous in different ways. The atheist only understands the numionous in one dimension, i.e. reason and self. While reason and self are useful in ascertaining "truth", they do not "see" the diversity of "meaning making"...that is for the anthropologist!
Jonathan, I so appreciate your comments. I was "sending" my last response as yours was being recieved. I understand that "moral transformation" is what religions are about (or should be). Is it necessary to believe in "God" to be moral? Yes, because morality, as I understand it is based on a "traditional" understanding of behavior (which you rightly identify), while ethics is based on a reasonable commitment to values. The question becomes what value then is most important...that "plays out" in our commitments.
Angie, I think you have grossly misunderstood what I was saying. My discussion was in the context of IF religion is about moral transformation THEN etc. etc. I was NOT stating that I believe that the goal of religion is moral transformation, in fact, I believe it is not the goal.
I DO think that morality is about behavior (what human beings actually do) but I don't see how God is necessary for behavior. That was the entire point of my discussion of the realist intent within religion, because a realist intent seems to conflict with the idea of religion being about moral transformation, because you can behave in a certain way without believing in an objective, sacred reality.
Ethics is about normative value (what human beings SHOULD do and WHY), which may or may not require an objective sacred reality. But that is a different subject entirely.
I had understood you to say that context was an important aspect to understand in "telling or saying the truth", but I misunderstood. The Gospel writers saw/experienced/understood something, the historical Jesus, and believed something about the Kingdom of God. It included them, that was the important thing to these unimportant people. But, after Jesus death, they ruminated about what "all this meant" and came up with their viewpoints, which were later written down.
As Ken said he didn't understand my responses to his blog entries, and I misunderstood your response, so it is with communication, written or oral that tries to "make sense of things". We do have a seive, our minds, which have certain understandings that we have been taught, or experienced, that serve as a filter in which we extrapolate or interpret "truth". We cannot get beyond the fact that we, as humans approaching any communicational form do integrate and/or critique the information we are given based on our own commitments of "mind" (experience and reason)...
That means that communal witness is necessary for a closer view to what really happened...such is our justice system (and Scriptures), where there needs to be two or three witnesses to confirm a "fact".
Therefore, I do believe that we have "reason to believe" in Scripture, but Scripture is not a propositional statement of truth.
Why can't we embrace the "other" religions, just as Jesus did with those who did not fit in politically or religiously? Those "other" religions do not fit in politically or religiously with evangelicalism. Christianity should be about universalism, not exclusive claims of objectified knowledge....
As to your comment on ethics, I believe that ethics IS the MOST important aspect of what I have just said. Traditional renditions determine boundaries or identificational factors...BUT, ethics is the commitment to something higher than the "traditional"...all social, religious or political reformers have stepped outside of place to bring change, by enlarging understanding from the "traditional" viewpoint. That is what transformation is all about...because behavior should be determined by the humame, not on understandings of "god"...and this indeed, was what Jesus did in his own time...
I've recommended Borg to some people who were searching in the waters of Crossan and Spong. I'd much rather them read Borg any day. In my mind, he's a better scholar and comes with less presuppositions than many of the Jesus Seminar people. That said, he still has presuppositions that I disagree with (like Garwood Anderson said above). I can get about 2/3 of the way down the river with him, but i have to jump off the boat when we come to the Resurrection.
I'd like to chime in on the idea that "Borg could be friendly to Emergent-minded folk." I'd say, yes and no. I listened to a podcast from last year's AAR that featured Tony Jones and Diana Butler Bass among others. Both are in the "emergent crowd", but seemed to disagree quite a bit on Borg's theology and methodology. Jones was more critical, Bass more sympathetic. Of course, Jones is also highly critical of the Mainline Church and is pessimistic about its survival, whereas Bass is thoroughly a Mainliner and takes a positive, renewal look at her own denomination.
So, yes and no. Depends on which Emergent. Most are much more "orthodox" than Borg. This includes Jones, McLaren, and others. Heck, McLaren just came out with an intro book on ancient spiritual practices. He's pretty old school for a "new Christian."
Woody, Mike, I completely agree with you that there is an aweful lot of Borg that is good (AJ, I can't bring myself even to picture Jesus in a Borg outfit!). I'm completely serious that he is an easy way, with some guidance, to lead a person from a rather naive reading of the gospels to one that has a good sense of reading them in context.
I agree I would much rather people read him than Spong and Crossan.
Mike, if we go with the emerging=orthodox, emergent=outside orthodoxy, I agree (and so does Bob Whitesell that the vast majority of those on this divide are "emerging" and orthodox.
Post a Comment