Seminary also introduced me to the historical study of Jesus and Christian origins. I learned from my professors and the readings they assigned that Jesus almost certainly was not born of a virgin, did not think of himself as the Son of God, and did not see his purpose as dying for the sins of the world… I also found the claim that Jesus and Christianity were the only way of salvation to be troublesome.Marcus Borg
Borg is one of those folks who identifies himself a Christian yet believes the opposite of virtually every essential of the faith. More on Borg here.
Speaking of theologically liberal foolishness, here’s another outrage at an apostate congregation in Canada. When putting Jesus Christ is Risen Today – Hallelujah in their Easter hymnal they replaced the words Jesus Christ with Glorious Hope.
Vosper says that the world has outgrown Jesus Christ and the church is finished unless it gives up God, Jesus, and pretty much the entire Bible, except possibly for the Sermon on the Mount.
Hmmmm . . . only believing the Sermon on the Mount . . . sound familiar? It is so beautifully ironic that the Sermon on the Mount closes with strong warnings against false teachers like this “pastor.” Apparently she hasn’t read that far or is so blind that she can’t see it.
How does someone like this graduate from seminary? And why would they want to go in the first place?
So they have stooped to being embarrassed about the name of Jesus. That’s liberal theology for you – intellectually bankrupt to the end.
The UCC in the U.S. is another example of rampant apostacy. One of their best known pastors recently graduated from seminary and regularly preaches from Gnostic gospels and disses the real Gospels. They seem proud and in-your-face with their heresies. It is no surprise that they are so supportive of Obama, what with his pro-partial-birth-abortion views, children are a punishment view, denial that Jesus is the only way to salvation, Rev. Wright, etc.
I respect their religious freedom and am glad they can believe whatever they like. We even have a name for people who hold views like Borg, the UCC pastor and the Canadian pastor: Non-Christians. I just wish they’d be more honest and call themselves New Agers or whatever it is they really believe.
If seminaries and mainstream denominations hadn’t been taken over by liberal theologians these people wouldn’t have been ordained.
Filed under: Bible, Christian worldview, False teachers | Tagged: Bible, Bible study, christianity, False teachers, God, heretics, Jesus, religion
Not to split hairs but Borg taught at a public university. Also, in my experience at seminary (I attended a UM seminary which has been called everything from conservative, middle of the road, to communist) which has been very positive, I encountered all sorts of students who had a tendency to come in with a certain religious conviction and regardless of what was taught, stayed true to his or her own viewpoint, for better or worse. And it didn’t really matter if they were conservative or liberal. Now, regarding taking Jesus Christ out of a hymn, that’s not necessarily liberal theology run amok but rather cultural conformity gone wild, a greater threat to the church which affects conservatives and liberals alike.
Well, having said that, I should head off to church now!
blessings,
Jeff
I understand that you are warning us of the ’slippery slide’ into cultural conformity (I agree with Jeff here) but I think that linking Borg to Vosper (whoever he is) is a bit of stretch. If you read Borg’s books you will see that he does not agree with everything he ‘learned’ at seminary. But he did learn how to look at faith a bit differently.
I notice that you are a Thinking Blogger Award winner. I find that interesting since this post lacks any logical reasoning. It’s just a lot of emotional hyperbolic rhetoric. And dead-wrong on the issues presented.
Hi Kip – thanks for stopping by. It should be noted that the criteria for Thinking Blogger awards are a bit subjective. I was glad to get one from fellow bloggers, but let’s just say I haven’t added it to my resume yet.
If you have any specific objections I’d be glad to address them. Or do you think that saying someone is “dead wrong” qualifies as reasoning?
Did I misquote anyone? Did I take their statements out of context? Does Borg, in fact, believe in orthodox Christian doctrines such as the authority of scripture, the exclusivity and divinity of Christ, etc.? Is Obama in favor of banning partial-birth abortions? Does he not deny the exclusivity of Christ for salvation? Please correct me if I got any of this wrong.
Hi Christian,
Actually, this was a near-non-sequitor because I merged the Borg / Vosper pieces. The Borg piece was specifically about liberal seminaries (not that he teaches at one, but that he was misled at one). Vosper may have had these bizarre views before attending seminary (if she even went to one). I just added the bit about her at the last minute.
I’ve been encouraged by our orthodox Associate pastor that these classical liberal theologians wouldn’t get ordained in the Texas Methodist conference. I hope he’s right.
I’ve read a book by Borg (the one he did with N.T. Wright) and fisked one of his online articles (the link is in the post). He looks at the faith differently, all right!
Such “theologians” WANT to believe that Christ never said He was here to die, that He was born of a virgin, that He is the only way to God. It makes all their other heresies that much easier to sell. It would be nice if they actually offered some less-than-laughable evidence to support their positions.
Neil, it constantly amazes me that there are people out there like this. Why on earth do these people call themselves Christians when they don’t even believe in the Christian faith??? It just makes my blood boil to think about all that harm these people are doing!!
Great post, Neil.
And to think that Rob Bell, a supposed shepherd, would direct people to read Borg!!!
Yikes! I’ve heard some very questionable things about Bell but not that. Nothing wrong with studying Borg, as long as someone is there to point out the egregious errors and bad thinking.
It wasn’t that Borg was misled by the seminaries, but rather he came to his own conclusions using faulty reasoning. And the media and book publishers eat it up because that is what sells. Again, Borg, in my mind, is more of a product of the greater culture. And reading him, or recommending him, does not make one a heretic. Some of this insights are very good, but as always you need to keep your guard (and/or BS detector) up when reading him (as with anyone).
Sure Bork at times goes too far. As does Crossan. And Sproul. And Willard, And Foster, And Barth. And Luther, Calvin, Aquinas, Augustine and Origen.
But they all have something to contribute. They can open up our eyes to things that we had not previously considered. Most of them have been hailed as being both prophetic as well as heretical.
What is, precisely the “Christian” faith? Is it Arminian, or Calvinist? Baptist or Roman Catholic? Pentecostal or Methodist? The (sad?) fact is that no one, including those of us on talking on this site, can agree on everything. One reason for this is that the Bible is so prone to metaphor, simile and parable that it is hard to nail things down in a very systematic way that everyone can agree upon (although we keep trying).
It’s almost as if God was deliberately obtuse about certain things, perhaps hoping that we would learn to just trust in Him and wait to get the answers later.
Hopefully we can agree with certainty on some of the things that Jesus tended to stress, especially when he was upbraiding the religious of his day.
I think that any denomination claiming to be the “one true church” is more likely to be a false church. I go to a Methodist church (with conservative pastors, or I’d be gone). One thing I like about the Methodists is that they don’t make the “one true church” claim. There are things we get right and things we disagree with. I think the same thing about Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.
I’ll be the first to concede some mystery on some topics (Arminian vs. Calvinism, modes / ages of baptism, the particulars of communion, etc.). But Borg, for example, specifically says the Bible is an entirely human product. All human, no divine. He states that with pride and teaches that to his students. (That was from his book with N.T. Wright.)
That’s kind of a big deal to me and no where close to what the Bible claims to be and to what Sproul, Luther, Calvin et al might say on their worst days.
Borg also denies Jesus’ exclusivity for salvation, despite 100 or so passages affirming that point.
Not getting the whole thing right is one thing (none of us will do that perfectly, especially me). But that is a lot different in my view than what the Jesus Seminar gang teaches. They are entitled to their views, of course, but I think they resemble authentic Christianity about as much as my views resemble authentic Islam.
I explored that a little more here – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/who-is-a-christian-who-is-a-muslim/
“Hopefully we can agree with certainty on some of the things that Jesus tended to stress, especially when he was upbraiding the religious of his day.”
My guess is that we agree on many, many things that Jesus tended to stress. But one thing Jesus stressed is that He believed the OT, including many of the most controversial passages (Adam and Eve, marriage for one man and one woman, Jonah, Noah, Sodom, etc.). And my question for Borg would be, “If the Bible is as unreliable as you say, why do you believe the teachings of Jesus? How do you know He said those things? And why don’t you believe all of them?”
I’ve actually read quite a few of Borg’s books. He was a fellow of the Jesus seminar but he parts company on them in a variety of different ways. Borg says that he does believe the Bible and he does believe that it is divinely inspired, though not ‘dictated’. He does not believe in it’s factual inerrency nor it’s infallibility outside of the spiritual. (Something that came into vogue in response to the threat that some believed Darwinism presented to the Bible.)
He claims that seeing the biblical metaphors for what they are illustrates more of the Bible’s truth than if it were literally accepted as always being fact (much like Jesus’ parables do).
He also believes that Jesus is the Son of God and that he has been resurrected and lives among us to this day. His way of seeing this though is a tad more esoteric than most Christians would be comfortable with. But he has done great things in helping me (at least) to see the importance of the historic contextual nature of Jesus’ life and teachings.This has allowed me to see more of Jesus the Messiah, not less.
That being said, Borg, just like all the other theologians and church leaders (conservative and liberal) are only men. Jesus must remain our focus. The problem is that, unless I can read Greek and Aramaic or have good understanding of 1st century Palestinian Jews then I rely upon the interpretation and doctrines developed by others. Therefore I think it best to get a broader perspective than most church goers do and see how it holds up to Scripture.
Hi Christian,
“Therefore I think it best to get a broader perspective than most church goers do and see how it holds up to Scripture.”
Kudos on testing things in light of scripture. Always the best plan. But again, my concern with these teachers is their errant views on scripture.
From Borg:
“I emphasize in particular that it [his perspective of biblical scholarship] does not see the Bible as divine in origin but as human, namely, as the product of two ancient communities. The Hebrew Bible is the product of ancient Israel, the Christian Testament is the product of the early Christian movement. As such, the Bible tells us not how God sees things, but how those two ancient communtiies saw things. It tells us about their life with God, as they saw it: about their convictions about God and about their understnading of the kind of life that flowed out of those convictions.
. . .
If we found the decisive revelation of God in the Torah or in the Koran, then we would be Jews or Muslims. . . . This affirmation can be made with one’s whole heart while still affirming that God is also known in other traditions.
. . .
What I am confident about is that Jesus as a Jewish mystic knew God.
. . .
If you think you’re the Messiah, you’re not. . . . I don’t think people like Jesus have an exalted perception of themselves.”
Marcus Borg, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions.”
Those quotes, along with a bunch of others, made it seem quite clear to me that he rejected divine inspiration in any general sense of the term. He also emphatically rejected Jesus’ exclusivity and deity.
He likes to “metaphorize” things – mostly miracles, not surprisingly – even though a plain reading of the text doesn’t even hint that that they are metaphors. Parables are parables, accounts of miracles are not.
He also completely misses the boat on what Jesus came for and why He was killed: “Indeed, Jesus’ passion for justice in the name of God was the cause of his death: he challenged and suffered the wrath of the powers.”
If you can make sense of what he wrote here I’d be interested in that! http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/09/01/false-teachers-in-action/
Neil, I went to that site and unfortunately the blogger’s running commentary makes it unnecessarily confusing, as he is at times taking Borg’s remarks out of context. He is also exaggerating some of his statements.
I would have no problem defending Borg on a variety of issues. I myself (no surprise here, I am sure) am not a Biblical literalist, do not think that everything in the Bible necessarily happened (although I have no problem with people who believe so) and am hesitant to use words like ’saved’ and ‘unsaved’ (although a few years ago I was quite the opposite – bumper stickers, tee-shirts, etc etc). I am even hesitant to identify myself as a “Christian” these days because of all the baggage that label carries, mostly due to those who have misrepresented the Gospel in Jesus’ name.
CS Lewis wrote a neat little essay you can find in Mere Christianity in which he says that, unlike cats and dogs, it is difficult to tell the Christian (saved) from the non-Christian (unsaved). Everyone is encountering Christ in different ways and different times in their lives. He even goes so far to suggest that there are pagans out there who are much closer to Christ than many who call themselves Christian. Not too different from some of the things Borg (and progressives like him) have been getting flack for. And Lewis remains so beloved of evangelicals.
If you are referring to the link in my previous comment, then I am that blogger and would be glad to address any of your concerns on that post. I used his whole article so it could hardly be taken out of context. It wasn’t a homework assignment, so don’t feel compelled to go back. But I stand behind the analysis 100%. Borg is illogical and incoherent, degrees and all.
Re. Lewis – it has been 10+ years since I read Mere Christianity, so your recollection may be better than mine, but I didn’t think his pagans / Christians comparison was about who was closer to Christ but who was “behaving better” by worldly standards – the point being that Christians who authentically trust in Christ are saved but may have a whole lot o’ sanctifying to do, and that by comparison a “nice” pagan may be unsaved yet appear better by comparison.
This is probably rhetorical, but if you aren’t sure what the Gospel is then how can you be bothered by those who allegedly misrepresent it in Jesus’ name? And if you are sure what the Gospel is, please share it along with why your version is the right one. I concede that many misrepresent it, but I’m glad to put forth my view of the Gospel and why I think it is the right one (1 Cor. 15, for starters).
Re. “saved” – it is a Biblical concept so I have no trouble referring to it. That said, I don’t run around declaring who is saved and who isn’t. Some people many be “saved and confused.” But I am comfortable calling out heresies when I see them.
I agree with you about the seminaries – full of teachers who were never preachers, and who don’t know what a parish actually is.
I wrote a blog today about this and preached to our congregation that those who don’t believe in the bodily Resurrection of Christ cannot call themselves Christians.
“mom”, I agree with you. However when I begin to get “amazed”, I reread the Book of Revelation.
“Some of this insights are very good, but as always you need to keep your guard (and/or BS detector) up when reading him (as with anyone).” I fail to see any value in reading such material, there is more good quality, non-questionable material out there than anyone can read. If the insights are that good they will surely be found other places.
I subscribe to the view of Jean Stratton Porter on reading material. I can’t really do justice to her views, anyone interested should find it for themselves.
Stushie, thanks for stopping by and commenting. Feel free to leave your blog link if you like. I’d like to read that post.
I understand that most people don’t have the time to read all the available material and it is very important to stick with those authors who you like best. However, given the popularity of such authors like Borg, I think it becomes necessary to read material which is influencing other people/Christians. It is vital that as a church leader you learn how to argue for or against those ideas being consumed. For instance, in the church I attended several people were reading the Left Behind series and had serious questions regarding the rapture. So, I read some of the books and was better able to have a discussion with them. Normally, I would never consider reading that series, but because of their popularity and the questions they raised, I went ahead and did it.
WARNING: RANT AHEAD. On a separate note, why all the hate on “liberal” seminaries? My encounters in seminary and with ther seminarians have tended to be positive and the overwhelming majority of seminary professors aren’t these ivory tower liberal pinheads bent on destroying the church. Yes, there are profs who teach questionable things, but I believe they are more in the minority than people realize. One of the reasons people perceive seminaries to be these bastions of pseudo-liberalism is because whereas 90% of professors teach mainstream Christian thoughts and ideas they rarely, if ever, get published by the major media outlets. That trend is changing somewhat (i.e. Ben Witherington) but the reason Borg is so well known is precisely because he’s controversial. And media savvy groups like the Jesus Seminar are perceived to represent mainstream scholarly thinking, when in reality quite the opposite is true.
END RANT, FOR NOW
I can see two reasons for concern here.
One reason to be concerned with liberal seminaries is the fact that (in the PCUSA) those who are ordained are allowed to vote in the various levels of church government. The problem with this is that one liberal seminary professors vote can offset the vote of the pastor who represents a congregation of 100’s of members. This is a significant reason for the direction of the PCUSA over the last several years.
The second reason to be concerned is, liberal seminaries churn out liberal pastors. Just take a look at the blogs of some of them who comment here regularly (or their comments here). Concern seems like an inadequate response.
Neil, sorry to offend. I shouldn’t have said out of context – what I meant was that breaking up the conversation with your analysis made it more difficult for me to follow Borg’s line of reasoning (with the time I had allowed).
I don’t think it is fair to say that Borg is illogical. If he does not believe in biblical innerancy nor does he take it literally then he most likely would find those who do so as illogical. I think, that when it comes to God, logic and reasoning can only go so far, just as I can’t logically explain the love I have for my wife. It just is.
Of course after disparaging logic I will share Lewis’ very logical thought on comparing Christians to “Non Christians”:
My guess is this is where post modernism in our churches has begun, in these kinds of seminaries.
Neil,
One point of correction. The “UCC” you are referring to in Canada is the United Church of Canada, not the United Church of Christ. It is apart of the “uniting” movement, but is not directly connected with the “American” UCC you are familiar with. The United Church of Canada is actually more progressive than the American United Church of Christ.
Just an FYI
Sarah – thanks for the clarification. More progressive than the American UCC? Wow!
Christian – no offense taken, really. Thanks for the Lewis quote. That is one of the rare times when I find Lewis to be unclear or even incorrect (not sure exactly what he means by “belong to Christ without knowing it”).
“I don’t think it is fair to say that Borg is illogical. If he does not believe in biblical innerancy nor does he take it literally then he most likely would find those who do so as illogical.”
I didn’t say he was illogical because he didn’t come to the same conclusions that I did. I said he was illogical because his reasoning was illogical. He makes truth claim after truth claim with no substantiation, yet offhandedly dismisses those who back their claims up. He has no foundation to work from other than his intuition, and no logical reasons why we should rely on his intuition.
For more info on the United Church of Canada here is a link to their homepage:
http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/overview
Can one belong to Christ without knowing it and be saved? That would be the distinction I think. I think that basically we all “belong” to Christ/God the Father, but that it doesn’t mean we are all saved. A conscious acceptance of Christ would be required, it seems to me.
Jeff P
You are right, of course. It is not usually productive to argue from a postion of ignorance. And I concede that I have been forced to read things I would have preferred to avoid, in order to be credible.
Still I don’t go out of my way to read those things.
“For instance, in the church I attended several people were reading the Left Behind series and had serious questions regarding the rapture. So, I read some of the books and was better able to have a discussion with them. Normally, I would never consider reading that series, but because of their popularity and the questions they raised, I went ahead and did it.”
Good example. I don’t think the Left Behind view of Revelation is accurate, but I don’t view it as a “divide” issue at all.
Neil,
You still haven’t corrected your mistakes in this post. Members of the United Church of Canada do not refer to themselves as either “UCC” or “United Church of Christ”. They call themselves “United Church”. The United Church of Canada was derived from mostly Presbyterian and Methodist congregations. This is quite different than the UCC in the USA, which came from Congregationalist roots. Very different (at least among mainline protestant denominations).
All fixed! Thanks for the reminder.
Why does anyone think that ‘modernism’ is preferable to ‘post-modernism’ or an improvement on what came before? It certainly didn’t start in the seminaries – in fact, when did it start? (Personally I think it began at the precise instant that the Andy Griffith Show went from black and white to color.)
I am pleased thst some of my own thoughts have been expressed by others in this thread yet have not been attacked, as if I had uttered them, which tends to confim my opinion that it’s me, and my way of expressing myself, that you react to, not my thoughts.
So, you’re saying that history didn’t happen…
Neil said: Straw man alert . . . when did I say that?
Marcus Borg realized by studying history that Christians used to believe a little more like he does.
Neil said: No, Borg found heretics who believed like he did. There have been false teachers from the beginning, which is why much of the NT was written.
Conservative Christianity is a newer way of thinking.
Neil said: I prefer “orthodox,” and it is not a new way of thinking. The Bible couldn’t be more explicit in claiming a physical resurrection (see the Gospels, Acts, 1 Cor. 15, etc.), that Jesus is the only way (100 passages!), that Jesus is God, etc. – all things that Borg clearly denies!
Jesus did say,
So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said:
This people honors me with their lips
But their hearts are far from me;
In vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.
Matthew 15:6-9
and also
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
Matthew 23:13-15
and to finish:
When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Matthew 22:34-40
So which view is more central to what was most important to Jesus? Which view is closer to what was at the heart of Jesus? Shouldn’t we listen to what was most important to Jesus? How is what Marcus Borg writes about stopping people from loving God and loving each other? Marcus Borg wrote that to love God is to love what God loves. I think we can all agree on what God loves.
Neil said: That is a nice list of verses, and ones that I would support as an orthodox Christian. And of course, they are verses that Borg says are just reflections of what earlier believers thought and not literally true. So anything Borg says about God, even when quoting the Bible, is just his opinion. He can’t claim it really speaks for God without contradicting himself.
Also, if you love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength you won’t deny that Jesus is God and the only way to salvation.
For God so loved the world
-John 3:16
And you should read the sources pages in his books. They are huge. I recommend his book “Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary” He has PLENTY of claims to back up what he’s saying. I’m not really sure that you do.
Neil said: I’ve read plenty of Borg to know that if words mean anything he is a false teacher and non-Christian.