Marcus Borg’s Neotraditional Christianity

[march56]

At College, one of my Religion professors was a member of the Jesus Seminar. One day, in his office, he said a very curious thing to me. He told me:

If the phrase "blood atonement" had never been attached to the name "Jesus" -- if, rather, the name "Jesus' was attached to the idea that God punishes always to reform and never to ruin its object, I don't think you would see nearly so many people rushing in to say things like:

"Jesus was not God incarnate!"
"Jesus did not rise from the dead!"


​

If Jesus came and taught of a wise and virtuous God who punishes non-believing humans only to correct them (and not to destroy them), and if his followers stuck with the story and did not explain his death in terms of divine revenge, then I think that people would be quite happy to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Why not? Such a story in that case would actually be good news.

As it is, behind the name of "Jesus" shall always lie a malignant and partisan deity whose touch spreads creeping death to sacrificial lambs and to the incredulous. Thus, the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus are just smaller parts of a larger whole which is a waking nightmare. We wish to deny the nightmare, and thus we wish to deny its parts, including the incarnation and resurrection.


​

When he told me this, the only thing I could think of was:

Romans 9:20-23 (New International Version)
Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory?


​

It's not surprising that a Prof. of religion would hold these views.
-M.C.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

To be technical, God is Substance. So therefore, what he says is true. And God is most certainly the center of existence, for existence exists because of Him.

Sorry, but this objection is false.

Before we accept your claim, can you tell us what it means to say "God is Substance"? Can you be more concrete, please?

Nobody has denied that God is the center of existence, so that part of your rebuttal is simply irrelevant.

 

[CaDan]

Before we accept your claim, can you tell us what it means to say "God is Substance"? Can you be more concrete, please?

Nobody has denied that God is the center of existence, so that part of your rebuttal is simply irrelevant.

Take cover!

 

[march56]

Do you mean to say that you believe the Bible is God? Do you honestly think that the Bible created the universe? Do you worship the Bible? I know that this is done in certain Protestant denominations in the Midwest, but I've never actually met someone with this theology until now.

I believe this verse does a good job at defending the authority and authorship of the Bible. However if you're not inclined to believe then no verse will do just as well.
-M.C.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Take cover!

A touchy subject, I take it?

Be that as it may, I think it's a necessary question. Before we accept the claim that "God is Substance," I think we should first hear what that supposedly means.

Furthermore, even if God is Substance, how does this lead to Marcus Borg's conclusion 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"?

Finally, even if all that were true, my point remains... Borg cannot claim to believe in the Incarnation in any meaningful sense of the term -- not if he denies the existence of an objectively and separately existing God. After all, the Incarnation denotes God becoming flesh, and that is predicated on his very existence. Similarly, Borg cannot claim to believe in the Resurrection, since if God was never incarnated, then he most certainly could not rise from the dead!

 

[Joykins]

I believe this verse does a good job at defending the authority and authorship of the Bible. However if you're not inclined to believe then no verse will do just as well.
-M.C.

Is anyone here really asserting that the "Word" of John 1:1 is intended to mean the Bible.



I have never seen it interpreted to mean anything but Jesus.

 

[Joykins]

Finally, even if all that were true, my point remains... Borg cannot claim to believe in the Incarnation in any meaningful sense of the term -- not if he denies the existence of an objectively and separately existing God. After all, the Incarnation denotes God becoming flesh, and that is predicated on his very existence.

Borg believes in God, but I think he describes an immanent rather than transcendent deity. Traditional Christianity believes in both immanence and transcendence. Certainly the Holy Spirit as traditionally described is immanent as it indwells believers.

Similarly, Borg cannot claim to believe in the Resurrection, since if God was never incarnated, then he most certainly could not rise from the dead!

Again, it's been months since I read any Borg, but I think he uses "incarnation" more in the sense of "embodiment" than any specialized sense. So he would say that Jesus is the incarnation (embodiment) of the divine Logos (idea / word / wisdom) of God.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Borg believes in God, but I think he describes an immanent rather than transcendent deity. Traditional Christianity believes in both immanence and transcendence. Certainly the Holy Spirit as traditionally described is immanent as it indwells believers.

Which does not disprove anything that I said. If anything, since you admit that Borg denies God's transcendence, then that proves my point. Borg's concept of God is not Biblical.

Again, it's been months since I read any Borg, but I think he uses "incarnation" more in the sense of "embodiment" than any specialized sense.

People can invent all sorts of ways to use words. Heck, I once met a person who used the word "vegetarian" in the sense of "doesn't eat a lot of meat." That doesn't make it right.

The Incarnation is not just "embodiment." It refers to God himself coming to earth and taking on flesh. As I said earlier, if Borg believes in the Incarnation, he's not using the term in any meaningful sense.

And even if we ignore that point, he most certainly does not believe in the Resurrection! Unless, of course, he has chosen to invent his own definition of that term as well.

 

[march56]

[

Again, it's been months since I read any Borg, but I think he uses "incarnation" more in the sense of "embodiment" than any specialized sense. So he would say that Jesus is the incarnation (embodiment) of the divine Logos (idea / word / wisdom) of God.

Became flesh.

 

[Joykins]

Which does not disprove anything that I said. If anything, since you admit that Borg denies God's transcendence, then that proves my point. Borg's concept of God is not Biblical.

I think it would probably be more accurate to say that Borg favors the concept of an immanent God, using the "God as lover" model (which is Biblical) over the concept of a transcendent king/judge God (which is also biblical); but he does not deny that this model is a useful one fo many traditional Christians.

THese models are not the essence of what God is, they are just our human ways of attempting to understand God.

People can invent all sorts of ways to use words. Heck, I once met a person who used the word "vegetarian" in the sense of "doesn't eat a lot of meat." That doesn't make it right.

Agreed. Read the 2nd part of my sig and ponder

The Incarnation is not just "embodiment." It refers to God himself coming to earth and taking on flesh. As I said earlier, if Borg believes in the Incarnation, he's not using the term in any meaningful sense.

If his definition--or understanding of a theological term--disagrees with yours, then it is meaningless? I don't see that. You might as well say that "baptism" is meaningless because Baptists and Catholics have such radically different understandings of what it is and how it works.

And even if we ignore that point, he most certainly does not believe in the Resurrection! Unless, of course, he has chosen to invent his own definition of that term as well.

I don't think its fair to Borg to say that he does not believe in the resurrection, or that his understanding of the concept is uniquely is his own. I would say that Borg's "definition" of resurrection is what many liberal Christians would call "demythed resurrection" or "resurrection, and not resuscitation." Certainly Borg goes less far than many liberal theologians who preceeded him.

 

[CaDan]

Which does not disprove anything that I said. If anything, since you admit that Borg denies God's transcendence, then that proves my point. Borg's concept of God is not Biblical.

The "biblical God" is many, many things.

Borg (following Tillich, mostly) concentrates on the God of Psalms 139

[bible]Psalm 139:7-16[/bible]

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

The "biblical God" is many, many things.

He is many things, but that does not mean that every description of God is correct. Borg's description is not.

This isn't hard to understand, folks.

 

[Joykins]

He is many things, but that does not mean that every description of God is correct. Borg's description is not.

This isn't hard to understand, folks.

How is a description of an immanent God incorrect, Biblically?

You might say it's incomplete but it is certainly true to many Biblical passages as CaDan demonstrates one example of above.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

I think it would probably be more accurate to say that Borg favors the concept of an immanent God, using the "God as lover" model (which is Biblical) over the concept of a transcendent king/judge God (which is also biblical); but he does not deny that this model is a useful one fo many traditional Christians.

Christianity isn't about what's "useful." It's about what's true. Borg's concept of God is both unbilbical and untrue.

THese models are not the essence of what God is, they are just our human ways of attempting to understand God.

That's not what Borg said, though. Borg said that God does not exist except within ourselves. That is objectively wrong.

If his definition--or understanding of a theological term--disagrees with yours, then it is meaningless? I don't see that.

The problem isn't that he disagrees with me. The problem is that his notion of God is incoherent. If God only exists as a human concept -- something within ourselves -- then that God cannot become flesh, much less rise from the dead.

And even if you disagree that his description of God is incoherent, it is still unbiblical.

I don't think its fair to Borg to say that he does not believe in the resurrection...

It is completely fair. A God that only exists within ourselves can be neither incarnated nor resurrected.

... or that his understanding of the concept is uniquely is his own.

I never said that it was. I'm sure that there are others who hold similar views. They are likewise in error.

 

[CaDan]

He is many things, but that does not mean that every description of God is correct. Borg's description is not.

This isn't hard to understand, folks.

Not hard to understand?



/me carefully takes his copy of "The Shaking of the Foundations" off the shelf.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

How is a description of an immanent God incorrect, Biblically?

It depends on what you mean by "immanent." If by that you mean "subjective," then it is unbiblical. The Bible clearly states that God existed before time, which means that his existence is not subjective.

Moreover, You seem to be under the impression that Borg only claimed that God is immanent. He didn't. Borg also claimed that God does not exist "out there" -- that he has no independent ontological status. That is both false and unbiblical.

You might say it's incomplete but it is certainly true to many Biblical passages as CaDan demonstrates one example of above.

He demonstrated no such thing. As I explictly said, God may be many things, but that does not mean that all descriptions of God are correct.

 

[CaDan]

Christianity isn't about what's "useful." It's about what's true. Borg's concept of God is both unbilbical and untrue.


That's not what Borg said, though. Borg said that God does not exist except within ourselves. That is objectively wrong.


The problem isn't that he disagrees with me. The problem is that his notion of God is incoherent. If God only exists as a human concept -- something within ourselves -- then that God cannot become flesh, much less rise from the dead.

And even if you disagree that his description of God is incoherent, it is still unbiblical.


It is completely fair. A God that only exists within ourselves can be neither incarnated nor resurrected.


I never said that it was. I'm sure that there are others who hold similar views. They are likewise in error.

So "unbiblical" is the trump card here? Because if we're playing "it's in the Bible!" Rules, I win with Psalm 139 for panentheism.

 

[Joykins]

I think you are profoundly misunderstanding Borg if you think he only believes that God is in ourselves. But why take my word for it?


Read the man's own words.

 

[CaDan]

I am uninterested in "Big Guy in the Sky" religion.

 

[CaDan]

I think you are profoundly misunderstanding Borg if you think he only believes that God is in ourselves. But why take my word for it?

Read the man's own words.

Your link is wacked.

But perhaps some Paul Tillich while we wait . . . .

In making God an object beside other objects, the existence and nature of which are matters of argument, theology supports the escape to atheism. It encourages those who are interested in denying the threatening Witness of their existence. The first step to atheism is always a theology which drags God down to the level of doubtful things. The game of the atheist is then very easy. For he is perfectly justified in denying such a phantom and all its ghostly qualities. And because the theoretical atheist is just in his destruction, the practical atheists (all of us) are willing to use his argument to support our own attempt to flee God.​

The Shaking of the Foundations, pp. 45-46.