Comments on: N.T. Wright, Marcus Borg and A Too Generous Orthodoxy

By: Gman

Gman — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:23:05 +0000

I wonder if C. S. Lewis’ remarks in the beginning of Mere Christianity might apply here. Particularly how when words have subjective definitions they lose their meaning. Gentleman used to mean landowner – now it means “good” person, which is redundant because we already had words like “good”.

Perhaps it would be better to call Borg a confused and mistaken Christian, or a bad Christian, or even a heterodoxical or heretical Christian, than to quibble over whether he technically counts as a Christian.

By: graham

graham — Fri, 05 May 2006 15:25:18 +0000

Michael, this is one of the best posts on the topic that I’ve read.

I’m quite surprised at how quickly some folk have jumped on Wright, almost as if he himself is denying the resurrection. If we are at all thankful for the defence that his work has given to orthodox Christianity (explicitly in the area of the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection), I would expect us to consider his words – and our response – a little more carefully.

Nice one.

By: Jeremiah Lawson

Jeremiah Lawson — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:07:12 +0000

My opinion, for what little it’s worth, is that Wright’s call seems unfortunate primarily for his position as bishop. Obviously if he weren’t a bishop and hadn’t just written a massive volume on the resurrection no one would give a rip what he thinks about the professed Christianity of Marcus Borg. So even if I feel Wright made a bad call respective to his public position this call has significance on account of the celebrity of the two people involved. If you want to think your drunk womanizing cousin might still be a Christian or your atheist aunt isn’t completely atheist and still, deep down, believes in the risen Jesus then people aren’t going to rip you up and down the blogosphere. There are going to be Christians who think Bono, for instance, must be or must not be a Christian based solely on whether or not they WANT him to be. This is basically just the same error they’re attributing to Wright and there are passages in Scripture warning us about correcting people in a way that we can avoid falling into the same error.

And on the family subject, I know of any number of people who aren’t bishops, pastors, or priests, who hope that friends and family are really christians despite any evidence that they don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead. So while I personally find Wright’s equivocation unfortunate given his role as leader I think that if we’re going to scold him in cyberspace we should remember how susceptible we are to the exact same problem.

By: robertltjr

robertltjr — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:29:03 +0000

I’m not sure I fit the category of one “remarkably unaware” of the thousands of people admiring a dead Jesus. I do fit the categaory of one shocked at the idea that faith in a dead Jesus is a viable, distinctively Christian faith. Your post affirms this as your view as well (i.e., “if Christ is not raised, it all comes tumbling down.”).

But Borg’s quote from the PBS documentary is so confusing, I can’t tell WHAT he believes about a resurrection. “I think the resurrection of Jesus really happened, but I have no idea if it involves anything happening to his corpse … (it) doesn’t matter because the central meaning of the Easter experience or the resurrection of Jesus is that His followers continue to experience Him as a living reality, a living presence after His death.” As best I can tell, he agrees there was something odd going on, but is not satisfied with the NT passages that seem to go out of their way to affirm the bodily aspect of the resurrection. That’s for another post at another time.

Yet when I ask “what’s the point?” I am asking what kind of Christian faith … a faith of hope and new life … does passion for a dead Jesus give you? I understand it can give you zeal for life here, in the same way one might live for the teaching of Karl Barth or Jonathan Edwards. But there is no HOPE in that kind of admiration because they are dead. I suppose Borg might say something like, “There was a resurrection; it just wasn’t a bodily resurrection.” Can there be a Christian faith and hope in that kind of resurrection?

So, it’s not odd to me that Borg and others believe this. It’s odd to me that they have hope … and it would be even more odd to me that they have hope in a dead Jesus, unless they think a non-bodily resurrection can also bring the same kind of Christian hope those of us who profess a bodily resurrection brings.

I would be interested to read anything Borg has on Lazarus in John 11. John is relentless in his writing to make it a bodily resurrection.

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:46:36 +0000

The majority of people stirred up over this seem remarkably unaware that there are thousands of people who have admiration, etc for a dead or non-Christian Jesus. If all our response to Borg is “Gee. I can’t believe you aren’t an evangelical Christian. Can’t you read the Bible? Duh!” we aren’t listening. Borg doesn’t read the Bible as literally true. He’s like thousands of liberals who see Jesus as admirable, even one about whom a person could be passionate, but not one who was physically raised from the dead.

Why is this odd? I mean students every week who admire Jesus but don’t believe in the resurrection.

And as to “what’s the point?” aren’t you just saying “What’s the point of not being an evangelical Bible believer?” Well…ask the millions of people who aren’t!

By: robertltjr

robertltjr — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:30:52 +0000

What’s the point of loving and believing passionately in a DEAD Jesus? You might as well as just pick any dead person to be passionate about. The whole point of believing in Jesus is because He’s ALIVE and we will have the opportunity to enjoy Him and glorify Him forever. I’m no Borg or Wright enthusiast … but some things are just common sense.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:15:01 +0000

UGADAWG47:

VERY well said!!

By: UGADAWG47

UGADAWG47 — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:00:51 +0000

It is clear that Borg does not believe in the Jesus of the New Testament. The question is, “Is the Jesus of the New Testament the real Jesus?” I think Wright, as well as many others, have done a good job in presenting an affirmative answer to that question. We have a case here of people starting off from two different presuppositions. One that affirms the reliability of the New Testament narratives and one that denies it. Reaching out to those who deny the reliability of the NT narratives is going to require more work and effort on the part of evangelicals than just saying “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you life.” It well may require some intellectual effort, which is lacking in much of evangelicalism today because we want “our best purpose driven life now.” Many of us prefer more to be comforted than to be challenged. There are many in the church who have no idea how to defend the accuracy of the New Testament. I think it is time to start learning.

By: JamesG3

JamesG3 — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:13:17 +0000

That’ is the point. It’s not a matter of differing with my view of Scripture. It’s a matter of saying you believe in Jesus but not what Jesus said (not my interpretation of what he said, that’s a different matter).

The resurrection is core to belief in Christ. Otherwise, it’s like saying you believe in Joan Rivers, but you don’t believe she really had plastic surgery.

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:40:36 +0000

Sure. But Borg doesn’t share our view of the New Testament. He doesn’t believe they reflect history, but faith. It’s fine to assert the superiority of our view, but he doesn’t buy our view. He doesn’t love our Jesus. He loves HIS Jesus. Do you think Schweitzer wasn’t a passionate follower of an unresurrected Jesus, as he understood him?

You can fault anyone for being a heretic who doesn’t share your view of scripture. But what’s the point? I make a pretty bad Muslim. Allah’s really going to get me one of these days.