What does a Bible-believing conservative Christian read if that person wishes to better understand “progressive Christianity”? The answer I received from one of my theologically more liberal friends was to read Convictions: How I Learned What Matters Most by Marcus Borg. Here’s my review.
Written on the occasion of Borg’s 70th birthday, Convictions has been hailed as “A Manifesto for Progressive Christians,” so my friend’s challenge was one I accepted. And with this post, I want to offer my review.
Much of what I write in this review will be critical of Convictions, but I sincerely appreciate — and even agree with — some of Borg’s critique of what he terms “conservative” and/or “fundamentalist” Christianity.
Indeed, were it not for some of the abuse, corruption, ignorance (sometimes intentional), and unnecessary (and painful) drama often evident in traditional or conservative Christian circles, a book like this probably wouldn’t have been published and wouldn’t be nearly as popular as it is.
Those of us who embrace biblical Christianity must accept some responsibility for the problems within Christianity and we must appreciate why many people have been hurt and are turning away.
For those of you who may not know, Marcus J. Borg was a New Testament scholar and theologian. He passed away in 2015. He was a major voice in historical Jesus scholarship. A prolific author and lecturer, and a fellow with the Jesus Seminar, Borg was widely respected by and influential within progressive Christian circles.
One of the tasks Borg undertakes in his book is to define his terms. Indeed, Socrates once said, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” A lot of confusion and controversy surrounds HOW to define and understand differences within Christian circles. I appreciate Borg’s effort to examine history and offer a helpful road map in how the Christian world reached the point it has today.
In the past, division within the Christian world could be measured along regional, political, organizational, and institutional lines: East vs. West, Catholic vs. Protestant, and so forth. Today, the picture is different.
Today, Borg writes, the differences and divisions in American Christianity “are not primarily denominational.” He points out, for example, that mainline Protestant denominations today cooperate much more than they disagree – some even sharing clergy!
Borg offers “five categories for naming the divisions in American Christianity today.” They are: “conservative,” “conventional,” “uncertain,” “former,” and “progressive Christians.” I find these categorizations largely helpful, and Borg is absolutely correct to point out that “in somewhat different forms, these kinds of Christians are found among both Protestants and Catholics.”
Indeed, as Borg explains, as Christians have gravitated toward and rallied within these various categories, traditional denominational differences have become less relevant, even (in some cases) obselete. As Borg puts it (again, correctly): “The great divide is between conservative and progressive Christianity, which form opposite ends of the spectrum of American Christianity.”
As Borg explains, “conservative Christians” believe “in the absolute authority of divine revelation.” For conservative Protestants, that revelation “comes from th Bible, which they understand to be the infallible, literal, and absolute Word of God.” For conservative Catholics, “divine authority is grounded in the teaching of the church hierarchy, with its apex in papal infalliblity.”
Such conservatives, according to Borg, place an “emphasis on the afterlife” and consider “sin” as the “central issue in our life with God” and “the obstacle to going to heaven.” Conservatives believe that “Jesus died to pay for our sins so that we can be forgiven” and “the way to eternal life…is through believing in Jesus and his saving death.”
By contrast, “progressive Christianity…rejects biblical inerrancy, literal interpretation [of the Bible], and the beliefs that Jesus died to pay for our sins and that Christianity is the only way of salvation.”
According to Borg, the Bible is “Christian sacred scripture,” but “it is neither inerrant nor to be interpreted literally.” Rather, he says, “it is to be interpreted historically (which means putting its ancient texts in their ancient historic contexts) and metaphorically (which means focusing on its more-than-literal meanings).”
This depiction, on Borg’s part, creates a false choice. Most intelligent Christian conservatives that I know readily accept — and fully embrace — the need to study and understand biblical passages “in their ancient historic contexts.” Conservative Christianity doesn’t divorce Scripture from its context. On the contrary, conservatives believe we should understand what the biblical passage in question MEANT before we can understand what it MEANS.
Borg offers up his more progressive understanding of Scripture as a “positive alternative to seeing the Bible as the infallible, inerrant, and absolute revelation of the Word of God.”
According to Borg, the Bible is “the product of our religious ancestors in two ancient communities.” Borg explains: “The Old Testament comes to us from our ancestors in biblical Israel. The New Testament comes to us from our ancestors in early Christian communities. As such, the Bible is a human product: it tells us how our religious ancestors saw things, not how God sees things.”
How about this, Professor Borg? The Bible is indeed the “product of our religious ancestors in two ancient communities” as you described. But this is only half of the truth.
The other half is explained by the apostle Paul who wrote 2000 years ago that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (II Timothy 3:16).
God worked through human authors to give us the Scriptures. The Scriptures are both human-written AND divinely inspired.
So when Borg wrote that the Bible is a “human product” which “tells us how our religious ancestors saw things,” he’s right. But these scriptural writings penned by our “religious ancestors” also tell us how GOD “sees things” AND how He communicated with our “religious ancestors.”
Just as the Bible teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully Man, so we believe the Bible is written by human beings while also being inspired by the Hand of Almighty God! It’s not either-or, Dr. Borg. It’s both-and.
Perhaps most seriously, Borg accuses conservatives of being tied to a “literal interpretation” of the Bible, but doesn’t offer any fair description of what that means.
It’s true that some Christians have adopted an unfortunate, knee-jerk, and superficial “literal” reading of Scripture. But most conservatives understand that certain parts of the Bible need to be understood metaphorically.
For example, Jesus refers to Himself as “the Door.” I don’t know of ANY Christian who imagines Jesus thought of Himself as an actual, physical door with hinges! Conservative Christianity believes the biblical text should be taken SERIOUSLY. And that a given biblical passage should be interpreted ACCORDING TO AUTHOR INTENT.
If the author writes in metaphor, then we should understand said passage as metaphoric. If the author is writing a wisdom saying, we should treat it as such. If the author is writing a letter, then we should understand it as a letter. And so forth. Treat the text seriously. And interpret it NOT according to your personal wishes or agenda, but according to AUTHOR INTENT.
One can probably surmise why Borg doesn’t put much emphasis on author intent, when he writes: “[B]eing Christian is not having an intellectually correct theology.”
There’s often some truth mixed in with falsehood. According to the Bible, our relationship with God is based on God’s grace and our putting our faith in Him. In THAT sense, it’s true that ticking off certain boxes as if we’re taking a cosmic test isn’t the way of salvation. But…
Certain beliefs in the Bible ARE emphasized as being vitally important, including a belief in the Deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, and so forth). Borg, however, discounts the importance of believing “right things.”
The irony here is frustrating. Borg criticizes conservative Christians for insisting that Christians believe the “right things,” but he spent decades writing, preaching, and teaching how people should (from his point of view) think and believe in relation to religion.
Now, I personally have no problem with someone offering up an alternative view for consideration. I believe in the legal and political freedom of thought, speech, and religion.
What irks me is the lack of self-awareness (at best) or the hypocrisy (at worst) in many who offer such alternative views while sanctimoniously judging those with whom they disagree as not being as tolerant, open-minded, or sophisticated in their thinking.
This dynamic is most seen among those who debate the nature of religion itself, with many pointing the finger at conservative Christians and accusing us of narrow-minded, fundamentalist bigotry for saying Jesus is the “only way” or that Christianity is uniquely true. In his excellent book The Reason For God, Timothy Keller writes: “It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely that all are equal) is right. We are all exclusive in our beliefs about religion, but in different ways.”
Another example of a false binary is Borg’s statement that “some Christians” (by clear implication, he’s suggesting these are the “conservative Christians”) reject “modern critical thinking” because it is “corrosive of conventional religious beliefs.”
Borg explains that the result of this rejection of critical thinking and serious scholarship is “fundamentalism and much of conservative Christianity, which holds that regardless of the claims of modern knowledge, the Bible and Christianity are true – and not just true, but factually true.”
Wow.
Just “Wow.”
It seems to completely escape Borg’s attention or notice that there are many – MANY! – conservative Christians who fully and completely embrace scholarship and critical thinking AND who have come to the conclusion (based not on some kind of naive, knee-jerk faith but on careful study and serious thought) that God is real, Jesus died and rose from the dead, and the Bible is true.
Borg dismisses this possibility, I believe, because it would undercut his entire narrative.
Borg presents the entire book in the context of a doubt-filled seeker coming to a deeper realization of God and Nature. But as Keller points out: “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs.” This dynamic is most evident in Borg’s life and testimony. Anyone reading Borg with an open and intellectually robust mind should see this.
For example, Borg repeatedly criticizes conservative Christians for their truth claims. And paints himself as the more open-minded seeker of DEEPER truth, but as Keller points out: “Skeptics beleive that any exclusive claims to a superior knowledge of spiritual reality cannot be true. But this objection is itself a religious belief.”
The issue is not (or at least SHOULD not be) our feelings or our perspective. The issue is real simple: Does God exist?
And, if so, what does said God have to say to us?
Anyone who appreciates the importance of basing their life on solid ground, instead of slippery sand, should want to pursue what is REAL and not simply what makes us feel good.
I appreciate the desire for more love, more inclusivity, and a moving away from the abuses, the corruption, and the violence often associated with past, more “traditional” approaches to Christianity. I get it. I really do. And I appreciate how many of Borg’s readers and admirers desire this.
Likewise, I appreciate how many conservative Christians have grossly mishandled and misunderstood Scripture – and hurt many people because of it. And I accept that approaching the Bible with honest questions and a desire to (as Paul writes) “test” or “prove” truth claims is healthy.
But gutting Christianity of its historical truth and supernatural power is not the solution to the problems or abuses within Christian circles.
In a sympathetic, but critical, review of Borg’s legacy in The Christian Century, Thomas Long writes: “Borg knew the way out of authoritarian faith. But did he know the way home?” The answer, sadly, is “No” – at least as of the writing of Convictions.
One can only hope that Marcus Borg found the way home before his passing in 2015 (two years after writing Convictions).
