James Hudnut-Beumler Introduces Marcus J Borg
Dr. Marcus Borg lectures at the Vanderbilt Divinity School. This lecture is in a series of lectures called the Cole Lectures charged with the defense and advocacy of the Christian religion.
Introduced by the James Hudnut-Beumler, Dean of the Vanderbilt Divinity School, who mentions many of Marcus’s many accomplishments including his prolific career as an author on biblical topics and background as a Jesus scholar, he speaks of how Marcus is instrumental in allowing us to see Jesus in a new light.
Marcus starts this lecture by asking about the different religious backgrounds of the audience and about how many in the audience have read any of his books on Jesus. He then mentions that the topic of the talk will be the battle over Jesus today.
Public Interest in Historical Jesus
Marcus states that recently there has been a large public interest in historical Jesus scholarship including several books on historic Jesus making it to the New York Times bestselling list of religious books. This look at historical Jesus has also been controversial, much of the controversy, because of the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar was established to examine all of the words and stories attributed to Jesus and then to vote on which can be attributed to Jesus historically. This was taken very controversially by some including some members of the church.
The Battle in the Church
The battle of the church was ultimately over two things. This was a conflict between very different ways of seeing the bible. One older more traditional way of seeing the bible is in seeing it as a divine product that is truthful and accurate. This leads to the bible being infallible and, in that right, the quest for historical study threatens that. The other way of seeing the bible, gradually emerging from the mainline church, is that the bible is a product of humans. The bible is a response to the experience of God, a human response to the witness of God. Because the quest for the historical Jesus has become so public, it has become a lightning rod for the question of the bible and it’s authority. That’s the first dimension of the battle over Jesus in the church.
The second dimension is that it’s concerned with two very different ideas of the Christian life. On older idea of Christian life is grounded in an older idea of Jesus. There are four major elements in this literal look at Jesus from the bible. The first is the identity of Jesus. Was he the messiah, the son of God and knew himself to be? Second was the death of Jesus. Did he himself see the importance of his death? The third concern was Easter. Did he actually rise and was the tomb was empty on that third day? The fourth is that he himself is salvation and the only way to know salvation. These four points are a more traditional image of Jesus, believing that Jesus was who he said he was and that he died for our sins. Since the 17th and 18th century, this idea of believing these things arose, previous to that, it did not take faith to believe these things, they were taken for granted. Marcus points out that its odd, this idea of believing, it is a very modern idea. Believing something is actually quite powerless. You can still be quite miserable while believing all the right things. And it’s odd that we should be saved by our beliefs that the thing that God would be most concerned about is that we have our beliefs right.
Sin, guilt, forgiveness are the central point of the Christian life for many. This is part of all mainline denominations. Many even liberal church ceremonies revolve around starting off with confessing sin. Older images of the Christian life tend to emphasize the afterlife after being forgive of sin. The majority of biblical scholars don’t see that Jesus was concerned with his death. They see that it was a consequence of his life actions. This leads to a different image of the Christian life. The Christian life is about taking seriously what Jesus took seriously. This leads to becoming compassionate beings because of his teachings and what he stood for in life not by his death.
What was Jesus Like?
What was Jesus like? Borg briefly lists five main components of what Jesus was like as a person. First, Borg is persuaded historically that he was a Jewish mystic. He had experiences with God and that was the foundation of everything else he was. Second, was a healer and exorcist. There are more healing stories about him then just about any other Jewish mystic. Third, he was a wisdom teacher. Fourth, he was a social prophet of people who were passionate about systemic justice in the name of God. Fifth, he was a movement founder, focused on the revitalization of Judaism in that day. Showing a diversity in the question of itself there are also five spectrums of thought on this. The first spectrum, apocalyptic eschatology. Did Jesus expect the direct intervention of God in the very near future. One side, apocalyptic, the other side non-apocalyptic. Borg is on the non-apocalyptic side. The second spectrum is how much is historical, how much in the scripture can be taken to be actual historical fact? The two sides are maximum to minimalist. Borg is in the middle. Third spectrum, an interdisciplinary approach to the study of Jesus, not much use of cultural anthropology on one end and the other end is a lot of use of that. Borg is in the ‘a lot’ category. The fourth spectrum is politics. How political was Jesus? One end is apolitical, the other end significantly political. Borg puts himself in the very political end. The fifth spectrum is an emphasis upon religious experience, Jesus and the spirt, or Jesus as a Jewish mystic. The two ends are not much as a mystic which almost everyone is on this end of the spectrum. The other end is a lot of emphasis, Borg is on this end. Many scholars really don’t talk about this last spectrum. Perhaps they don’t know what to make of paranormal experiences of the spirit. But this shows the diversity of opinion about what he was like.
Does the historical study of Jesus matter?
Does the historical study of Jesus matter for theology and the church? There has been a tendency to treat this as an either-or question, either historical Jesus matters or the Christ of faith matters. Many mainline scholars have taken the approach that historical Jesus scholarship takes away from the Jesus of faith and that the historical study of Jesus is theologically irrelevant. Only the living Jesus matters, only the “real” Jesus matters. The Jesus we meet on the surface of the gospel and the new testament. If Jesus didn’t say it, it doesn’t matter, if Jesus didn’t do it, it doesn’t matter, this is fact fundamentalism. And if Jesus didn’t say it or do it, then it might as well cut it out of the bible. In order for the genesis stories to be true, they must be factual. This idea should be attacked. The metaphorical can be deeply important and thus Borg thinks that historical study matters.
Why does the historical study of Jesus matter?
The first reason is theological and with a practical consequence. Borg begins by putting the point negatively. Without the historical study of Jesus, we risk losing the radical, social, political vision of Jesus and, for that matter, of Moses and the prophets. Luke Timothy Johnson, a more conservative biblical scholar, said, “Jesus was one who in radical obedience to God, gave his life in loving service of others.” He says we are called to emulate that. That is an admiral ethical pattern. But, what’s missing from it? What’s missing from it, is the political and the passion for social justice. Without doing historical reconstruction, Jesus did not simply give his life, but was killed because he was a social prophet who challenged the domination system. We lose track of that if we retroject that he gave his life up and lose sight of what he was willing to be killed for. Jesus was willing to be killed because of his passion for social justice and because of his radical critique of the domination system of the time. It struck me recently that we as Christians live within the only major religion in the world whose founder was executed by established authority. Christianity is a vision that combines spirituality and politics and without the historical study of Jesus we risk losing track of that.
The second reason is pastoral. The historical approach to Jesus and Christian origins is providing many people with a way back into whole hearted involvement in the life of the church. Most of the historical Jesus books are bought by mainline Christians who can no longer be literalists. It is mattering practically for millions of people. The majority of people reading these books are laypeople. There is a massive de-lateralization going on in the mainline church that is irreversible. It leads to an openness to metaphor that leads to nourishment rather than the bible being an obstacle. What do you do when literalism becomes an obstacle to taking this stuff seriously. Sorry, God only accepts literalists? That seems wrong and weird. The historical and metaphorical approach to the study of the bible is allowing people to become whole heartedly involved in their own Christian journey. This leads to a relational understanding of the Christian life rather than a believing understanding.
The Vision of the Christian Life
Summarized in three brief statements. The vision of life that we see in Jesus if we take him seriously as a model for the path and for discipleship, is a path that is first radically centered in God, radically centered in the spirit. The way or the path of Jesus is a path of dying to an old way of being and being born into a new way of being that is the same as life and the spirit. The effect of all of that is a passion of compassion and justice in the world.