Two Kinds of Christians

There are Iron-Rod Christians and Liahona Christians. Or so one would think reading Marcus J. Borg's The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith (1989). He's a big-time Liahona Christian scholar, previously an active participant in the Jesus Seminar. Of course, he doesn't use those labels for his two kinds of Christians. He even rejects "conservative" and "liberal," instead opting to call the two approaches to Christian practice and doctrine the "earlier paradigm" and the "emerging paradigm." I'll summarize, then disagree.

No surprises. "The earlier paradigm sees Christianity as grounded in divine authority." "The earlier paradigm sees the Bible as a divine product," which comes in a hard form (inerrancy) and a softer form (God prevented serious errors from being incorporated in the Bible). And: "The earlier paradigm interprets the Bible literally." As for the approach to Christian life, the earlier paradigm stresses faith as believing; the centrality of the afterlife; and that the Christian life is about requirements and rewards (or, as Mormons would say, commandments and blessings).

Borg then describes the "emerging paradigm" as seeing the Bible as a historical product; as metaphorical ("It is not very much concerned with the historical factuality of the Bible's stories, but much more with their meanings."); and as sacramental, by which he means it functions as a vehicle for the Spirit to become present to the believer or reader. Christian life, for the emerging paradigm, is about relationship and transformation, and it affirms religious pluralism (Christianity vis-a-vis other major religions). All the quotes are from Chapter One.

Borg spends the rest of the book making a case for the emerging paradigm. In the first chapter, he's trying to carve out some space for it. He argues that "there is no single right way of understanding Christianity and no single right way of being Christian," citing historical differences of opinion such as Arian versus Athanasian, Monophysite versus non-Monophysite, predestination versus non-predestination Christians, infant baptism versus adult baptism Christians, and so forth.

So here are a couple of thought questions. First, is it also true that there is no single right way of understanding Mormonism and no single right way of being Mormon? Second (and here's where I disagree with his terminology), it is liberal religion which is in retreat and conservative evangelical Christianity, what Borg calls the "earlier paradigm," which is resurgent and "emerging" in terms of growth and confidence. What needs to be explained is why liberal religion is dying, not how it is "emerging."

Comments

[Dave]

And just so politics doesn't intrude on a friendly little religious discussion, I use "conservative" and "liberal" in reference to approaches to religious doctrine and practice, not in terms of political affiliation or philosophy. One can be a religious liberal but a political conservative, and vice versa. I'm not really concerned about the political labels, which get plenty of airtime at other blogs.

[Proud Daughter of Eve]

I'm a bit confused. You say the writer cited historical differences of opinion in his apparent attempt to make the case for the group he prefers. Did he ever cite Christ himself at all? "Straight is the way and narrow the gate?" I find it a sad development that even those trying to argue for Christianity avoid referencing their founder's words.

[endlessnegotiation]

PDoE,

If you're at all familiar with the work of the Jesus seminar you'll discover that the group thinks very few of the words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken or believed by Jesus. The specific reference you cited falls into their category of "He did not say it and did not think it." Borg also happens to be one of the more liberal thinkers in a group that is extremely liberal.

[Dave]

PDoE, there are two separate steps: First, he was citing historical differences to support his contention that there is not a single "right way" to approach Christian belief and practice. I think he does that to defend his "emerging paradigm" from conservative criticism that it is just an apostate modern approach to Christian belief.

Second, in the balance of the book, he argues in favor of his "emerging pardadigm," not as the single right way of believing or being Christian but as a defensible way of believing for people who are unhappy with or uninterested in the traditional approach to Christiainity. Obviously, I see some similarity between his approach and the way Mormon liberals try to carve out some space within Mormonism.

[Broz]

There are 2 kinds of people; people who think there are 2 kinds of people, and people who don't.

[Proud Daughter of Eve]

I'm not much of a scriptural scholar. I'm saying this so you know I'm not being snarky or facetious. Can someone please explain to me the point of Christian scholarship that starts by throwing the foundation out the window? He said and did these things or He didn't. If He didn't then what's the point of studying Christianity at all? (Other than from an anthropological viewpoint, I suppose.)

[Kullervo]

Emerging Christianity and Liberal Christianity are definitely not the same thing, as a quick wikipedia search will show.

Borg isn't actually just using new terms for old divisions, either (i.e., relabeling conservative and liberal Christianity, same old thing in a new package). Or if he is just using new terms for old divisions, then he doesn;t understand what the emerging conversation is actually about.

Also, the book you cited by Borg is pretty old in relation to the emerging movement/conversatio, so it's possible that things just didn;t "emerge" exactly the way Borg thought they would. Some of the things Borg mentions (the emphasis on Christianity as relational rather than propositional, the Bible as a narrative rather than as a book dictated by God), but some of the others, like the extent of pluralism, is just liberal Christianity repackaged.

Liberal Christianity has been around for awhile and is arguably on the retreat, so it can hardly be described as emerging. But like I said, the book you're reviewing is almost twenty years old, and most of what has happened in the emerging conversation has been since then.

For a much better view on what emerging Christianity is about, read Brian McLaren or Donald Miller.

[Dave]

PDoE, I think his response would be that there are different scholarly (and authentically Christian) views on what exactly the "foundation" of Christianity really is. It obviously wasn't the New Testament, which only came into being over a period of centuries. And Borg makes the point that what he calls the "earlier paradigm" was actually a product of the Englightenment's emphasis on historical, factual interpretation.

[Thomas Parkin]

"If you're at all familiar with the work of the Jesus seminar you'll discover that the group thinks very few of the words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken or believed by Jesus"

*church lady*

How.. con ... vinient.

*/church lady*

~