I am planning to have a class handout. Could you help me to prepare some useful notes? I have dated this because I plan to add to it and edit it.
INTRODUCTION
We are planning to discuss the book The Meaning of Jesus by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright this coming year and a reasonable question is why. In a nutshell, Jesus is, or should be, the central figure in any Christian’s life. While it is something of a cliche, the question “What would Jesus do?” is an important one in our lives and one that we really should be asking ourselves at every turn. Would Jesus have invaded Iraq? Would Jesus support the death penalty? Would Jesus tithe? Would Jesus have been an accountant? Or a lawyer?
The answers to these sorts of questions depend very much on how we see Jesus. Was he “meek and mild” as the famous children’s hymn suggests? Or is he the general in charge of “Christian Soldiers” as another famous hymn would suggest? Should we follow his words in forgiving others seventy times seven or should we follow his actions in cursing a fig tree that was not carrying figs out of season? Just who was the man called Jesus? What can we glean from the gospels about this figure so central to our lives as Christians?
In other words, the main purpose of this year-long study is to bring us back to our roots as Christians and to challenge our understanding of our faith and our response in our daily walk in living out our faith. Who is Jesus and what is his meaning for our lives?
THE AUTHORS
The book is a conversation between two great theologians. N.T. (Tom) Wright is an internationally recognized biblical scholar. He is currently the Bishop of Durham and a leader in the Anglican Church worldwide. Marcus Borg is a leading New Testament scholar and a member of the somewhat controversial Jesus Seminar. Wright is more conservative; Borg is more liberal; both are passionate, dedicated Christians.
We have met Borg several times in class and mostly in connection with his vision of “thin places.” He believes that God is close at hand, here if you will, and not a Santa who lives up “there.” He sees religion as a story of how we come into contact with God. Much of the time our lives are so busy and we are so wrapped up in the things of this world that a thick wall separates us from experiencing God. But then there are the moments that we sometimes describe as mountain-top moments when a sense of God rushes in on us. This happens for some at a quiet, beautiful spot in nature; for others it happens in a church service maybe during a challenging sermon or an uplifting hymn or anthem; and for yet others it happens when listening to beautiful music or standing before a painting by a great artist. For Moses, it was a burning bush. For Borg, Jesus was a man who lived almost constantly in a thin place. In other words, Jesus was constantly in touch with God. Borg uses the phrase “God intoxicated” to describe Jesus. Borg believes that it is important for us to remember that Jesus, during his life on earth, was a real man, an ordinary human being like us in many ways, but a man who walked with God. If we bear this image of thin places and of a man who lived constantly in a thin place, then the rest of Borg’s theology falls into place. Clearly, Borg would urge each of us to find more thin places in our own lives if we are to be more like Jesus.
Wright’s vision of Jesus is more traditional and, probably, closer to the image that most of us carry of Jesus. His Jesus is conscious of himself as the Messiah and as someone who “came to earth” to fulfill a particular mission namely to bring in the Kingdom of God. Wright roots his Jesus deep into the Jewish tradition. Key to understanding Wright’s vision is his eschatology, that part of theology that deals with the end times. Israel looked back to King David and fretted miserably under the Romans. They looked to a time when the (political) kingdom would be restored and Roman rule would be overthrown. The kingdom that they longed for was not a heavenly state, as we would have it, but a real political state run by a new king, one like David. The one who was to bring this new kingdom about was called the Messiah. Jesus, says Wright, saw himself as the one who would restore the glories of the old kingdom.
Our goal
The point of studying the conversation between these two theologians is NOT to get you to vote for either side. This is not intended to be a debate in which we vote at the end on who has the better argument. Our hope is that as we hear the views of two highly-respected theologians, it will stimulate and challenge our own thinking. The ultimate question, and the only one that matters, is whether we will allow Jesus to speak to us in our own lives and, in hearing, to follow his call for us. As Albert Schweitzer put it:
Jesus comes to us as one unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lakeside, he came to those men who did not know who he was. He says the same words, “Follow me!”, and sets us to those tasks which he must fulfil in our time. He commands. And to those who hearken to him whether wise or unwise, he will reveal himself in the peace, the labours, the conflicts and the suffering that they may experience in his fellowship, and as an ineffable mystery they will learn who he is . . . (Quest for the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer, page 487)
3 responses so far ↓
Bob C // July 31, 2008 at 5:32 pm |
I’m not sure this format works as well as just an email chain. With email, or a word document, you can interline comments and/or suggested wording changes.
Adding comments at the end of this kind of thread seems harder to work with, because most of my comments would be specific to certain things said. Having said this, however, I will venture into my first “reaction/response.”
When I proposed the study, I had in mind something different from what the committee has decided. This book is I believe worthy of study in a systematic way and because of the issues it raises, that seemed to me to be in a 3 or 4 week time period in which the separate issues could be combined and built upon. Specifically, the issues discussed in the book are the core princhttp://mondayfaith.wordpress.com iples of historical Christianity, at least from a traditional point of view. The underlying (but substantially unasked) question is whether there are certain basic beliefs that are essential to one claiming the name Christian. In other words, given their disagreement on most of the core principles, can both Borg and Wright claim to be Christian? Secondary to the first question, is the attempt to determine which core principles, if any, are essential. Can one be a Christian and not believe in 1) the virgin birth; 2) Christ as the son of God; 3) the crucifixion; 4) the resurrection (bodily); 5) the ascension; 6) the second coming; 7) heaven/hell? If one can pick and chose among core principles, is Christianity really a religion or just a body of philosophical thought?
The problem I see with a handout or an introduction of why the study or who the authors are, is that it may either stir the pot I have described above so quickly and so much, that people will have formed their basic opinions too early and thus positioned themselves so quickly that they will have less interest in the follow-up lessons down the calendar. As I told Judy (I think), I’m not sure that most people in our class will want to study the question of whether there was a virgin birth during advent or whether there was a resurrection during lent or at Easter. In those times, even most of the contrarians like the “feeling of the season.”
The draft handout starts with a basic assumption that I think the authors actually go behind — they are for the most part trying to answer the underlying question of “who is Jesus” before getting to the question of “what would Jesus do.” Their purpose is, I think, to explore whether the question “what would Jesus do” is one we even have to answer, by re-looking at the same concerns that were debated in connection with the Apostles Creed. The handout slides over (somewhat) the issue of whether Jesus was all man, only man, man/God, or all God (although the last is I think substantially ignored today and in the authors’ writings).
On a more specific level, I would not describe Borg or the Jesus seminar as “notorious”. I would leave out the characterization. I would also say that Wright is a scholar. You might list some of the books that both have written, although my guess is that most of the class will not be familiar with Wright’s books.
I’m sure I will have more comments, but will stop for now to see if this generates any response or comments from others. I may try to export your draft into a word document so I can revise and comment in context.
Claudia // July 31, 2008 at 9:46 pm |
I was all set to try this blog format and learn something new, Bob!:-)
It seems that some of your concerns (questions) about the handout so far might be handled in the questions written that should serve as a springboard for discussion. It might be that if everything was spelled out in the handout, there might be less openness to explore and discuss some of the varieties of answers.
I do share the concern that some will have their “fears” (minds made up) heightened by the book…not sure how many, but I know of one person who has no interest in what Borg might have to say. But there will always be some who do want to hear another perspective and be challenged by a new insight.:-) (Not me, never, of course!:-)) Doing it all in one 4-5 week study, although admirable, might really turn off those who are not so favorably inclined to Borg and might be more receptive to it spread out over the year.
I am one who does like the “feeling of the season,” as you so aptly put it, but Advent is a long season and so is Lent. Using one Sunday to look at the two visions would add a new depth of study about these holy seasons–it would depend on the placement within the season, of course. I remembered that Rowan Williams used the Apostles Creed (and Nicene Creed) for a series of talks during Holy Week to a group of new Christians to be baptized on Easter… and these talks later served as the foundation of his beautiful recent book, “Tokens of Trust.” So it all depends on how it’s done.
I do think a list of books written by both men would be an excellent inclusion.
I have more reactions about being called a “Christian,” but I’ll save that for another post.
cb
(Did I do this right, Michael?)
mondayfaith // July 31, 2008 at 10:50 pm |
It might be worth reminding those comfortable with Wright but not with Borg that the former was not invited to the recent Jerusalem gathering of Anglicans because he (Wright) was perceived as too liberal. Leaders of the Wright is not right include the bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth. In short, there are many in our own community who have “no interest in what Wright might have to say.”