Marcus Borg’s Neotraditional Christianity

[Joykins]

I have read _The Heart of Christianity_ and _The Meaning of Jesus_ .

I find Borg to be one of the theologians I can read and come out of it feeling like I understand God better on a gut level. However, I am a bit more traditional in my beliefs than Borg is--(I'm closer to the viewpoint of Wright in the Jesus book) and I'm fine with that.

 

[PaladinValer]

I beg to differ:
Luke 11:
28But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!

Referring to Himself, of course. Can't Jesus do that?

Mark 7:
12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.

Again, referring to Himself.

You've proven nothing.

 

[Beoga]

Again, referring to Himself.

You've proven nothing.

Christ is referring to the 10 Commandments, not himself:
Mark 7:9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'[d] and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[e] 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

 

[jfer45]

Let's stick to the topic. Borg represents a plethora of people who are discontent with conservative Christianity today. These people have either left Christianity or have found a more liberal sect that has worked for them. Borg's view on Christianity is compelling, but at the same time controversial. If possible, try to respond to Borg's Christianity and state the reasons for your disagreement or agreement.

One of his main messages, as I have pointed out, is that Christianity is not about believing "iffy statements to be true." It is not about giving one's mental assent to questionable statements.

And on Panentheism. Borg believes in this model of God because of his own mystical experiences and reading about other mystical experiences. His readings are not from Christianity alone, but from other cultures and religions. Also he does not believe in explicit divine intervention and questions the omnipotence of God.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Wrong.

He doesn't disbelieve in the ideas of Incarnation and Resurrection. That's a load of nonsense.

If Marcus Borg does believe in the Incarnation and the Resurrection, then he doesn't do so in any traditional sense of these terms. Heck, Marcus Borg doesn't even believe that an objective God exists! Here is what Borg says, in his own words,

"I realized that God does not refer to a supernatural being 'out there'... Rather God refers to the sacred at the center of existence, the holy mystery that is all around and within us." - Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1994), page 14.
​

Marcus Borg may appear to be Christian, but this merely shows that appearances can be deceiving. Remember, Satan himself can appear as an angel of light, and false teachers can sound like wonderfully profound Christians indeed.

 

[JJB]

Let's stick to the topic. Borg represents a plethora of people who are discontent with conservative Christianity today. These people have either left Christianity or have found a more liberal sect that has worked for them. Borg's view on Christianity is compelling, but at the same time controversial. If possible, try to respond to Borg's Christianity and state the reasons for your disagreement or agreement.

One of his main messages, as I have pointed out, is that Christianity is not about believing "iffy statements to be true." It is not about giving one's mental assent to questionable statements.

And on Panentheism. Borg believes in this model of God because of his own mystical experiences and reading about other mystical experiences. His readings are not from Christianity alone, but from other cultures and religions. Also he does not believe in explicit divine intervention and questions the omnipotence of God.

What is your point? Are you one of the plethora of disgruntled ppl, so you feel the need to follow Borg? Are you looking for affirmation of Borg?

Borg's view is compelling only insofar as it causes me to run from him. Very fast and very far.

 

[Joykins]

Word and word are different. But even then, no where does it say that the Bible is the Word (blasphemy) or word (wrong) of God. Christianity teaches that the Bible is the words of God. Note the plural.

To quote Crossan "the word of God became text..."

There are some places in the Bible that the promises of God, or the law, is referred to as God's word or the word of God.

 

[Joykins]

One of his main messages, as I have pointed out, is that Christianity is not about believing "iffy statements to be true." It is not about giving one's mental assent to questionable statements.

I absolutely believe this. Faith is so much more than assent to an assertion. It is living and moving and having your whole being in Christ. It is a life of seeking to grow closer to God and serve your fellow man.

And on Panentheism. Borg believes in this model of God because of his own mystical experiences and reading about other mystical experiences.

I think there's a good deal that can be learned from using the panentheistic approach.

His readings are not from Christianity alone, but from other cultures and religions.

I find this good for learning, although I do not find them authoritative.

Also he does not believe in explicit divine intervention and questions the omnipotence of God.

This is where Borg and I disagree. But I think he has a lot to offer those who are disillusioned with traditional Christianity, and much to expand the minds of those who are comfortable with it.

One thing I like about Borg's writing--and you having had him in a class will have more to offer about this--is that he charitably approaches those who disagree with him. I really enjoyed reading _The Meaning of Jesus_ for that reason--he was able to have a usefully informative, loving, and respectful dialogue with N.T. Wright (who I understand is also his friend) without any kind of "bashing". I've been reading Spong lately and he bashes traditional Christianity without restraint--it's tiresome really. Borg is much, much better than that, at least to read.

 

[BarbB]

Let's stick to the topic. Borg represents a plethora of people who are discontent with conservative Christianity today. These people have either left Christianity or have found a more liberal sect that has worked for them. Borg's view on Christianity is compelling, but at the same time controversial. If possible, try to respond to Borg's Christianity and state the reasons for your disagreement or agreement.

One of his main messages, as I have pointed out, is that Christianity is not about believing "iffy statements to be true." It is not about giving one's mental assent to questionable statements.

And on Panentheism. Borg believes in this model of God because of his own mystical experiences and reading about other mystical experiences. His readings are not from Christianity alone, but from other cultures and religions. Also he does not believe in explicit divine intervention and questions the omnipotence of God.

Well, I disagree with Borg's christianity because it's not a biblical christianity. Instead it's an intellectual christianity which is a head assent, not a heart assent. It's not a born-again assent, which Jesus said must happen to be saved. Thus I believe that Borg is allowing those who desire to follow Jesus and believe in him to think they are saved when they are far from it.

Sorry if that offends - just a fundamental Bible-believing charismatic Christian here.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

That's right; Borg's version of Christianity is not Biblical. I wouldn't even call it "head assent"; rather, his theology involves redefining the very nature of God, molding him into a deity of one's own choosing. It involves crafting God into our own image, rather than the other way around.

More about Marcus Borg and the reckless methodology of the Jesus Seminar can be found right here.

 

[Joykins]

Well, I disagree with Borg's christianity because it's not a biblical christianity. Instead it's an intellectual christianity which is a head assent, not a heart assent. It's not a born-again assent, which Jesus said must happen to be saved. Thus I believe that Borg is allowing those who desire to follow Jesus and believe in him to think they are saved when they are far from it.

Sorry if that offends - just a fundamental Bible-believing charismatic Christian here.

I did not find it that way; I found it more mystic and experiential than that.

 

[jfer45]

That's right; Borg's version of Christianity is not Biblical. I wouldn't even call it "head assent"; rather, his theology involves redefining the very nature of God, molding him into a deity of one's own choosing. It involves crafting God into our own image, rather than the other way around.

I think you misunderstand Borg. He doesn't believe giving his mental assent to certain aspects about God is important; trust in and loyalty to the relationship with God is much more important.

 

[jfer45]

What is your point? Are you one of the plethora of disgruntled ppl, so you feel the need to follow Borg? Are you looking for affirmation of Borg?

Borg's view is compelling only insofar as it causes me to run from him. Very fast and very far.

Well yes, yes I am. I do not follow Borg per se, but I do agree with much of what he has to say. Again, I am trying to bring out talk on Borg's theology not my own (even though, I admit, they are closely related).

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

In which case, you can't say that he believes in Christ's incarnation or resurrection. Both of those are purportedly historical events which go beyond mere "trust and loyalty."

Moreover, if he doesn't believe that "mental assent to certain aspects about God is important," then he is a false teacher. The Bible teaches that both faith and mental assent are vitally important. As the Apostle Paul himself said, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (1 Cor 15:17). It's not enough to merely have "faith" (whatever that may imply). One must also believe that Christ came, died on the cross and rose from the dead!

 

[Quick]

Borg, along with the other Jesus Seminar types, dislikes the Biblical doctrine of the atonement. In "Meeting Jesus again for the First Time," he describes it as nonsensical. His friend, John Dominic Crossan, also a Jesus Seminar scholar said this:

John Dominic Crossan, “Who is Jesus?”
"God sacrificed his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their own sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

But this is what God says:

1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (New International Version)
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

 

[jfer45]

In which case, you can't say that he believes in Christ's incarnation or resurrection. Both of those are purportedly historical events which go beyond mere "trust and loyalty."

Moreover, if he doesn't believe that "mental assent to certain aspects about God is important," then he is a false teacher. The Bible teaches that both faith and mental assent are vitally important. As the Apostle Paul himself said, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (1 Cor 15:17). It's not enough to merely have "faith" (whatever that may imply). One must also believe that Christ came, died on the cross and rose from the dead!

Well if Borg believes the Bible is a historical product than I would assume he does not believe Paul was inspired by God to write what God wanted to say.

 

[jfer45]

John Dominic Crossan, “Who is Jesus?”
"God sacrificed his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their own sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

Is some ways I agree with Crossan.

 

[Quick]

[/font]

Is some ways I agree with Crossan.

The Bible teaches that God enforces his violated law by destroying the wronger. The death of Christ propitiated the wrath of God. By believing this theology ("faith"), we will be pardoned of a divine curse of ruin ("justification"):

Hebrews 9:22 (New International Version)
The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

1 John 4:10 (King James Version)
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Romans 5:8-9 (New International Version)
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

​

A man's reaction to the Biblical doctrine of the atonement reveals the spiritual status of his innermost being. Is he fundamentally a rebel, an enemy who hates God and everything He stands for? A response of hostile unbelief (or of stubborn insistence on believing a gospel of his own making rather than the true Biblical Gospel) will make clear and absolutely manifest the fundamental hostility to God within his soul.

Philippians 3:18-19 (New International Version)
Many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things.
​

 

[Joykins]

In which case, you can't say that he believes in Christ's incarnation or resurrection. Both of those are purportedly historical events which go beyond mere "trust and loyalty."

Rather, they are historically unverifiable events.

From what I remember, Borg does believe in the resurrection but he believes it is spiritual and metaphorical rather than historical, but acknowledges that the disciples perceived it as happening (correct me if I'm wrong on this)--which he would call their experience of the post-Easter Jesus.

Moreover, if he doesn't believe that "mental assent to certain aspects about God is important," then he is a false teacher. The Bible teaches that both faith and mental assent are vitally important. As the Apostle Paul himself said, "And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" (1 Cor 15:17). It's not enough to merely have "faith" (whatever that may imply). One must also believe that Christ came, died on the cross and rose from the dead!

Isn't that backwards? I would think faith to be more important than assent. "Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief" and all that.

At any rate, Paul didn't say "if you don't believe the resurrection to be an historically verifiable event, you are still in your sins", did he?

 

[Quick]

Borg does believe in the resurrection but he believes it is spiritual and metaphorical rather than historical, but acknowledges that the disciples perceived it as happening (correct me if I'm wrong on this)--which he would call their experience of the post-Easter Jesus.

In other words:

Jesus, the physical, corporeal man, did not walk out of the grave after a resuscitation from physical death. But following his death the disciples experienced him as a living principle that sustains them with hope and joy.

​

How is this different from saying that the resurrection did not really happen as it was described and believed, and the disciples were mistaken when they thought it did? No one, not even Carl Sagan, can deny that Jesus is alive in the way Borg says Jesus was resurrected: We all know that the entire world has the name "Jesus" on their minds, inspiring hope and anxiety. But in that same way Muhammed, Buddha, and Abraham are alive and kicking (around peoples' skulls).

Either Jesus's liver, bones and hair rotted into dust in a grave, or it was all rekindled after all his tissues and mental processes had ceased functioning. This is what is meant by the word "Resurrection."