Tweet
I was going to put this in the “Scriptural Historicity” thread, but I think it deserves a thread of its own. I am reading a book called “The Heart of Christianity” by Marcus Borg. Outstanding book and I thought I would share a few thoughts here.
http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Christia...qid=1431493002
Borg is a world-renowned biblical scholar and in this book he makes a case for how Christianity become relevant and transformative again in an age where increasing numbers are abandoning faith (see Uncle Ted post on recent Pew study of dwindling numbers). Borg outlines a traditional approach to christianity that is failing and a new approach. He does not like the terms “liberal” and “conservative” so he prefers to call them “the earlier paradigm” and “the emerging paradigm” (he does a good job using language and expressions designed to unite rather than divide). The earlier paradigm is characterized by a literal view of scriptural accounts, a requirement to believe a set of truth claims, and a notion of only one truth religion or church or only one legitimate pathway to God. The emerging paradigm represents a less rigid approach to scripture, a more metaphorical approach to truth, and a tolerance for a broad number of ways to experience the divine.
In some ways, this book shares some similarities with a book I reviewed a month or two ago called “Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshipping Christ and Start Following Jesus” by Robin Meyers. Both books attempt to outline a modern approach to faith that is compatible with contemporary biblical scholarship and does not require believing things that are directly at odds with science and the post-enlightenment world. Meyers argues that we should drill down to find the actual teachings of the historical Jesus and follow those teachings and jettison all the mythical baggage (miracles, resurrection, jesus as god, etc) that was layered on in subsequent centuries by the believers. Borg seems less eager to jettison these elements. Rather he advocates a more metaphorical approach that utilizes a different definition of “truth” in a life of faith.
Borg argues that we have developed an unrealistically rigid definition of truth. If something is not historically factual, we classify it as a type of lie. He argues that this is a fairly recent way of thinking that has not been shared by most of humanity throughout history. He references an old saying that "Myth is something that never was, but always is.” He argues that we should stop thinking of religion as “science minus” and start thinking of it as “poetry plus”.
Borg outlines four types of faith (good summary here):
Faith as Assensus: This type of faith is agreeing that something is factual or “true” in the modern sense. He argues that this is only type of faith most people consider when they think of faith and belief, but he makes a compelling case that this is a way of viewing faith that has only been around for the last century or two.
Faith as Fiducia: This is faith as a form of trust. The opposite of this kind of faith is anxiety or worry.
Faith as Fidelitas: This is faith as allegiance or loyalty.
Faith as Visio: This if faith as a means of seeing the divine in the world. I.e. a Godly worldview.
Borg argues that all four definitions are valid and important and healthy, but most people are stuck with viewing faith solely as assensus where you have to mentally assent to certain truth claims in order to be considered a believer. He also argues that the ultimate foundation of our faith should be “love God and love your neighbor”.
Finally, Borg argues that we should stop viewing scripture as the word of God and start viewing it as the record of an ancient culture’s experience with the divine. Yes, it is the same God we worship, but it was their experience and it was perceived, interpreted, passed down, and eventually recorded through the unique lens of their culture and worldview. He argues that scripture is still sacred and incredibly powerful and important, but this change in approach makes a huge difference. For example when we encounter stories like tribal genocide in the OT, it is pointless to try to figure out or explain why God would do such a thing. Rather, we view these things as a set of stories and myths (which may have some element of factualness, but may not) developed by an ancient people as a mechanism for explaining their experience with the divine. And other cultures and other religions have their own experiences and traditions and it is all good because we all search for God.
Anyway, that is my quick and sloppy attempt at a review. I may share a few more thoughts as I go along if anyone is interested.
http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Christia...qid=1431493002
Borg is a world-renowned biblical scholar and in this book he makes a case for how Christianity become relevant and transformative again in an age where increasing numbers are abandoning faith (see Uncle Ted post on recent Pew study of dwindling numbers). Borg outlines a traditional approach to christianity that is failing and a new approach. He does not like the terms “liberal” and “conservative” so he prefers to call them “the earlier paradigm” and “the emerging paradigm” (he does a good job using language and expressions designed to unite rather than divide). The earlier paradigm is characterized by a literal view of scriptural accounts, a requirement to believe a set of truth claims, and a notion of only one truth religion or church or only one legitimate pathway to God. The emerging paradigm represents a less rigid approach to scripture, a more metaphorical approach to truth, and a tolerance for a broad number of ways to experience the divine.
In some ways, this book shares some similarities with a book I reviewed a month or two ago called “Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshipping Christ and Start Following Jesus” by Robin Meyers. Both books attempt to outline a modern approach to faith that is compatible with contemporary biblical scholarship and does not require believing things that are directly at odds with science and the post-enlightenment world. Meyers argues that we should drill down to find the actual teachings of the historical Jesus and follow those teachings and jettison all the mythical baggage (miracles, resurrection, jesus as god, etc) that was layered on in subsequent centuries by the believers. Borg seems less eager to jettison these elements. Rather he advocates a more metaphorical approach that utilizes a different definition of “truth” in a life of faith.
Borg argues that we have developed an unrealistically rigid definition of truth. If something is not historically factual, we classify it as a type of lie. He argues that this is a fairly recent way of thinking that has not been shared by most of humanity throughout history. He references an old saying that "Myth is something that never was, but always is.” He argues that we should stop thinking of religion as “science minus” and start thinking of it as “poetry plus”.
Borg outlines four types of faith (good summary here):
Faith as Assensus: This type of faith is agreeing that something is factual or “true” in the modern sense. He argues that this is only type of faith most people consider when they think of faith and belief, but he makes a compelling case that this is a way of viewing faith that has only been around for the last century or two.
Faith as Fiducia: This is faith as a form of trust. The opposite of this kind of faith is anxiety or worry.
Faith as Fidelitas: This is faith as allegiance or loyalty.
Faith as Visio: This if faith as a means of seeing the divine in the world. I.e. a Godly worldview.
Borg argues that all four definitions are valid and important and healthy, but most people are stuck with viewing faith solely as assensus where you have to mentally assent to certain truth claims in order to be considered a believer. He also argues that the ultimate foundation of our faith should be “love God and love your neighbor”.
Finally, Borg argues that we should stop viewing scripture as the word of God and start viewing it as the record of an ancient culture’s experience with the divine. Yes, it is the same God we worship, but it was their experience and it was perceived, interpreted, passed down, and eventually recorded through the unique lens of their culture and worldview. He argues that scripture is still sacred and incredibly powerful and important, but this change in approach makes a huge difference. For example when we encounter stories like tribal genocide in the OT, it is pointless to try to figure out or explain why God would do such a thing. Rather, we view these things as a set of stories and myths (which may have some element of factualness, but may not) developed by an ancient people as a mechanism for explaining their experience with the divine. And other cultures and other religions have their own experiences and traditions and it is all good because we all search for God.
Anyway, that is my quick and sloppy attempt at a review. I may share a few more thoughts as I go along if anyone is interested.
Comment