What do you think?
Rate this book
Speaking Christian: Why Christian Words Have Lost Their Meaning and Power—And How They Can Be Restored – A Guide to Language, Beliefs, Truth, and Hope
In Speaking Christian, acclaimed Bible scholar Marcus Borg, author of Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, argues that the very language Christians use has become dangerously distilled, distorted, and disconnected from the beliefs which once underpinned it.
Stating a case that will resonate with readers of N. T. Wright’s Simply Christian, Borg calls for a radical change to the language we use to invoke our beliefs—the only remedy that will allow the Church's words to once again ring with truth, power, and hope.
Stating a case that will resonate with readers of N. T. Wright’s Simply Christian, Borg calls for a radical change to the language we use to invoke our beliefs—the only remedy that will allow the Church's words to once again ring with truth, power, and hope.
258 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 23, 2011
151 people are currently reading
801 people want to read
About the author
Marcus J. Borg
48 books355 followersBorg was born into a Lutheran family of Swedish and Norwegian descent, the youngest of four children. He grew up in the 1940s in North Dakota and attended Concordia College, Moorhead, a small liberal arts school in Moorhead, Minnesota. While at Moorhead he was a columnist for the school paper and held forth as a conservative. After a close reading of the Book of Amos and its overt message of social equality he immediately began writing with an increasingly liberal stance and was eventually invited to discontinue writing his articles due to his new-found liberalism. He did graduate work at Union Theological Seminary and obtained masters and DPhil degrees at Oxford under G. B. Caird. Anglican bishop N.T. Wright had studied under the same professor and many years later Borg and Wright were to share in co-authoring The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, an amicable study in contrast. Following a period of religious questioning in his mid-thirties, and numinous experiences similar to those described by Rudolf Otto, Borg became active in the Episcopal Church, in which his wife, the Reverend Canon Marianne Wells-Borg, serves as a priest and directs a spiritual development program at the Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Portland, Oregon. On May 31, 2009, Borg was installed as the first canon theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral.
Marcus J. Borg is Canon Theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland, OR. Internationally known in both academic and church circles as a biblical and Jesus scholar, he was Hundere Chair of Religion and Culture in the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University until his retirement in 2007.
Described by The New York Times as "a leading figure in his generation of Jesus scholars," he has appeared on NBC's "Today Show" and “Dateline,” PBS's "Newshour," ABC’s “Evening News” and “Prime Time” with Peter Jennings, NPR’s “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross, and several National Geographic programs. A Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, he has been national chair of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature and co-chair of its International New Testament Program Committee, and is past president of the Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars. His work has been translated into eleven languages: German, Dutch, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian, Italian, Spanish, Portugese, Russian, and French. His doctor's degree is from Oxford University, and he has lectured widely overseas (England, Scotland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Hungary, Israel and South Africa) and in North America, including the Chautauqua and Smithsonian Institutions.
Marcus J. Borg is Canon Theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland, OR. Internationally known in both academic and church circles as a biblical and Jesus scholar, he was Hundere Chair of Religion and Culture in the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University until his retirement in 2007.
Described by The New York Times as "a leading figure in his generation of Jesus scholars," he has appeared on NBC's "Today Show" and “Dateline,” PBS's "Newshour," ABC’s “Evening News” and “Prime Time” with Peter Jennings, NPR’s “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross, and several National Geographic programs. A Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, he has been national chair of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature and co-chair of its International New Testament Program Committee, and is past president of the Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars. His work has been translated into eleven languages: German, Dutch, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian, Italian, Spanish, Portugese, Russian, and French. His doctor's degree is from Oxford University, and he has lectured widely overseas (England, Scotland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Hungary, Israel and South Africa) and in North America, including the Chautauqua and Smithsonian Institutions.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 155 reviews
March 2, 2013
What is meant by our Christian language? How do we understand words like “redemption”? Borg reflects on the difference in meaning between liberal and conservative Christian thinking, even though the language is identical. Borg is quite liberal, and he refuses to turn the meaning of words that are special and meaningful to him over to a Christianity that he feels has strayed from the original, radical, this-worldly message of the first Christians.
Early Christianity was not focused on heaven or hell. An emphasis on the afterlife has turned Christianity away from its roots, and consequently, many of the concepts of the Bible have been modernized. A lot of the meanings of words we use as Christians differ so severely from person to person that it renders some of us speechless. We simply don’t know how to say what we mean. At least in America, when liberal Christians speak of faith, resurrection, even God, the conservative interpretation is so popular that we often can’t be understood.
The problem words are numerous. Saved. Born again. Mercy. Sin. Belief. (Borg suggests that a proper synonym for "believing" is “beloving.”) I've struggled mightily with this problem on various online forums, to the point where it's tempting to simply give up on "speaking Christian." This makes Borg’s book especially timely for me. So serious is the problem that some have concluded that Christian language is beyond redemption and needs to be replaced by language that actually communicates what we want to communicate. But Borg encourages us to hang in there. If we avoid the language of our faith because of uncertainty about what it means, we grant a monopoly on it to those who are most certain about its meaning. That would be unfortunate, for the language is extraordinarily rich, wise, and transformative. Moreover, if we neglect or reject biblical and Christian language because of its common current-day meanings, a serious question arises: Can we be Christian without using the language of Christianity?
Borg says no. To abandon the language of Christianity would mean leaving behind something that has been profoundly nourishing. Religions are like language. Ceasing to speak French would mean no longer being French. Being Christian means "speaking Christian."
November 20, 2011
Speaking Christian: Why Christian Words Have Lost Their Meaning and Power - And How They Can Be Restored by Marcus J. Borg is a thoughtful and thought-provoking work. It addresses two of my biggest passions: language and faith.
As a Catholic, I found myself feeling extremely nervous at some of Borg's positions. At the same time, I resonated with what he holds up as the "essentials" of faith and the metaphorical meanings of Christian language and tenets. Many of the dilemmas I sometimes confront as a Catholic melt away when looked at through the Borg's lens. The more literally I try to take texts of faith, the more contorted I feel inside.
Borg starts from the premise that any group needs a common language to self-identify and to embody belief. Therefore, it is important that the words identified with Christian faith remain a common vocabulary to allow fruit interaction among members of the group as well as with those outside the group. However, language changes over time. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was created in a particular time and place (or times and places), it has a context, the words we use today were used then in often radically different ways. It is With this in mind that Borg examines a number of the "big" Christian words, such as sin, heaven, hell, redemption, salvation, and institutions such as the Eucharist.
Some of Borg's descriptions of the original meaning of words used commonly today were familiar to me, many were not. He positions two major perspectives on Christian faith: the Heaven and Hell framework and the historical-metaphorical. I was raised very much within the first and thought I lived now more in the second. However, this turns out to be only partially true. In fact, I often live in an uneasy combination of both.
Some of Borg's positions are (or seemed to me) radical to the point of shocking and I would be nervous to hear what Church hierarchy thought of him. At the same time, I found his theology to be both incredibly freeing and superbly focused: Christianity is belief in the possibility of transformation and centering our selves in God, as "decisively represented by Jesus."
This is a book that is worth reading and thinking about for anyone interested in language and faith (as well as the language of faith). I strongly recommend it. It is a work of passion of faith. It could be exhilarating or possibly enraging but it is always intelligent and alive. As I hope my faith life is.
As a Catholic, I found myself feeling extremely nervous at some of Borg's positions. At the same time, I resonated with what he holds up as the "essentials" of faith and the metaphorical meanings of Christian language and tenets. Many of the dilemmas I sometimes confront as a Catholic melt away when looked at through the Borg's lens. The more literally I try to take texts of faith, the more contorted I feel inside.
Borg starts from the premise that any group needs a common language to self-identify and to embody belief. Therefore, it is important that the words identified with Christian faith remain a common vocabulary to allow fruit interaction among members of the group as well as with those outside the group. However, language changes over time. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was created in a particular time and place (or times and places), it has a context, the words we use today were used then in often radically different ways. It is With this in mind that Borg examines a number of the "big" Christian words, such as sin, heaven, hell, redemption, salvation, and institutions such as the Eucharist.
Some of Borg's descriptions of the original meaning of words used commonly today were familiar to me, many were not. He positions two major perspectives on Christian faith: the Heaven and Hell framework and the historical-metaphorical. I was raised very much within the first and thought I lived now more in the second. However, this turns out to be only partially true. In fact, I often live in an uneasy combination of both.
Some of Borg's positions are (or seemed to me) radical to the point of shocking and I would be nervous to hear what Church hierarchy thought of him. At the same time, I found his theology to be both incredibly freeing and superbly focused: Christianity is belief in the possibility of transformation and centering our selves in God, as "decisively represented by Jesus."
This is a book that is worth reading and thinking about for anyone interested in language and faith (as well as the language of faith). I strongly recommend it. It is a work of passion of faith. It could be exhilarating or possibly enraging but it is always intelligent and alive. As I hope my faith life is.
April 25, 2011
This is a very nice exposition of the Progressive Christian worldview to which I am finding myself increasingly drawn. Borg argues for a Christianity that moves away from the Heaven/Hell Punishment/Reward structure that dominates most Christian Theology. This approach has always resonated with me (I blogged about it several months ago )http://www.faithwithinreason.com/?p=32 Borg's approach equates salvation with transformation of the individual and society in the here and now rather than defering to the afterlife. He advocates an Historical / Metaphorical approach to interpreting the New Testament and in fact all scripture. The idea is to look at the context in which the text under consideration was written and ask what it would have meant to its original audience and then build on that to determine what it can mean for us today in our social context. Beyond this the metaphorical nature of the text should be given due consideration. A literalist reading is flately rejected. Borg views the Bible unequivically as a human product, but no less sacred, valuable or valid for being so. He sees Jesus as the "decicive revelation of God" meaning "in him we see what can be seen of God in a human life.
While I agree with nearly everything Borg puts forward in this book, he does undermine himself a bit when he attributes his theology to the primative Church. He draws his argument from the New Testament texts themselves and in many cases builds a persuasive argument, but just as often he asserts an interpretation as THE original intent and interpretation with little evidence or argument to back it up.
Ultimately, this is a book well worth reading if for no other reason than it gives another way to look at Christianity other than the fear of punishment / hope for reward interpretation of the Gospels.
While I agree with nearly everything Borg puts forward in this book, he does undermine himself a bit when he attributes his theology to the primative Church. He draws his argument from the New Testament texts themselves and in many cases builds a persuasive argument, but just as often he asserts an interpretation as THE original intent and interpretation with little evidence or argument to back it up.
Ultimately, this is a book well worth reading if for no other reason than it gives another way to look at Christianity other than the fear of punishment / hope for reward interpretation of the Gospels.
July 13, 2011
knowing who borg was before reading, i had certain expectations . . and they were pretty much confirmed .. honestly, i don't see how he can be considered a "christian" in any nominal sense of the word . . sure, he'd argue that our understanding of "christian," nominally, is informed by what he's calling "heaven-and-hell christianity" . . the framework of that language . . and he'd be right . . the problem is, despite what he says, i think an honest reading of the NT gets you something *way* closer to that framework than he's admitting . . i'm giving 2 stars because i very much like and agree with how he's trying to expand our understandings of specific christian language, and with his doing so (generally) by giving cultural/historical context, or by arguing for meanings other than strictly literal ones . . right: heaven is more than just a future location . . right: salvation is more than just going to heaven . . right: Christ's resurrection is more than just a literal physical raised body . . but sorry: it's still a literal, physical raised body . . heaven is still, in some sense, a place where people go or not . . salvation is still only given through "one name under heaven," etc. . . i'm not a fundamentalist/strict literalist/whatever label he'd want to give, but i really think that--when allowed to speak for itself--the Bible does come down somewhere closer to both/and on these issues, not either/or, and certainly not *just* his take and *not* the more traditional/conservative . .
August 22, 2012
Reading this book confirms for me that Marcus Borg is possibly my favorite heretic. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he says anything particularly new; his theology is a blend of Schleiermacher subjectivity and Bultmann's de-mythologizing. He denies that Jesus was God pre-Easter (though there is a certain vagueness which makes me unsure if he is an Adoptionist), any substitutionary understanding of Christ's death, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Second Coming, the Trinity. And yet, he feels that his theological home is Christianity. You may be wondering, if he doesn't believe any of these things can he be called a Christian? Well to answer that question, he wrote a book where he redefines and appropriates Christian language.
Actually he makes some good points. Borg has two axes to grind here. One is the way in which he tries to redeem Christian language from two errors. First, there is the Heaven-and-Hell framework which construes Christianity to be about what happens to you when you die. The other is an overly literal interpretation of the Bible.
I think he is right that Christians have, quite often made the faith about believing the right stuff so that you go to heaven when you die, without enough emphasis on how you live now, so I appreciate the critique.
I disagree with his critique on the literal interpretation, precisely because what he means is that the supernatural elements of Jesus life (i.e. miracles, resurrection ,ascension) didn't happen, but that we must probe these events for what they mean. I agree with some of his evocative readings, but do not share his historical literal suspicion.
Where I think Borg is golden is in his description of lived faith. He appropriately probes the meaning of belief in the Christian sense as not merely assent to doctrine, but something more akin to 'I give my heart to.' He explores a full orbed meaning of salvation which includes wholeness, health and liberation and rescue. He examines the human condition and has some good words to say on the Lord's prayer.
So while I can't really endorse this book or offer my hearty recommendation, I enjoyed it and found it edifying (in pieces).
Actually he makes some good points. Borg has two axes to grind here. One is the way in which he tries to redeem Christian language from two errors. First, there is the Heaven-and-Hell framework which construes Christianity to be about what happens to you when you die. The other is an overly literal interpretation of the Bible.
I think he is right that Christians have, quite often made the faith about believing the right stuff so that you go to heaven when you die, without enough emphasis on how you live now, so I appreciate the critique.
I disagree with his critique on the literal interpretation, precisely because what he means is that the supernatural elements of Jesus life (i.e. miracles, resurrection ,ascension) didn't happen, but that we must probe these events for what they mean. I agree with some of his evocative readings, but do not share his historical literal suspicion.
Where I think Borg is golden is in his description of lived faith. He appropriately probes the meaning of belief in the Christian sense as not merely assent to doctrine, but something more akin to 'I give my heart to.' He explores a full orbed meaning of salvation which includes wholeness, health and liberation and rescue. He examines the human condition and has some good words to say on the Lord's prayer.
So while I can't really endorse this book or offer my hearty recommendation, I enjoyed it and found it edifying (in pieces).
June 3, 2011
Borg's text is required and appealing reading for religious teachers moderate to progressive, and anyone concerned with Biblical theology interpreted without context. The christianity explained in this volume isn't the religion of empire, but a religion of compassion, equity and justice. It isn't an introductory theological text - but it is a splendid one for launching faith exploration discussions based on certain key theological terms, how they're used in public discourse, what they mean to us, and what they meant to the people who first wrote them down.
For Unitarian Universalists, if you care about words and how people use them, or want to understand the disparity in meanings of terms that are rooted in Protestantism in common American political and cultural usage, you'll want to read _Speaking Christian_
For Unitarian Universalists, if you care about words and how people use them, or want to understand the disparity in meanings of terms that are rooted in Protestantism in common American political and cultural usage, you'll want to read _Speaking Christian_
April 7, 2013
As a person who has not read many Christian or theology books, I found this book very engaging and readable, even if there are parts which I struggle with and I did not agree with all Marcus Borg says.
Being a “cradle Catholic” I am like many who recite prayers and go through the motions of Mass and liturgy very often without thinking about real meanings of the words I am reciting, but recently have yearned for a deeper understanding of what it is I am doing/saying. This book is a good place to start. There is much that is challenging especially the way he seemed to skim over the resurrection, but overall reading this has helped me toward a more fulfilling understanding of the Bible and the readings I listen to each week at Mass
The book is split into several short chapters focussing on different key Christian words .Borg explains how these words were first understood and used at the times they were written and show that for some words we have drifted away from the true meanings as our language has developed and changed over the millennia.
There is much I got from this book and I am sure it will be one I will dip in and out of, but 2 things in particular stand out
The chapter on Believing and faith: Believe prior to about 1600 also meant “belove” (to hold dear) what a wonderful statement to make during the creed; I didn’t know that the word creed means “I give my heart to” We are encouraged to stop worrying about the “rules of faith”, that is the anxieties of believing the “right” things in the “right” way, but instead to focus on “beloving” God.
The final chapter “What’s at stake” where he encourages us to continue to speak the language of our faith (biblical and Christian language) because “being Christian includes speaking Christian”. By not speaking it we could allow others to hijack the true and rich meaning.
Finally the book sums it all up for me by this
“The Christian message reduced to its essentials is: love God (as known in Jesus) and change the world”
Being a “cradle Catholic” I am like many who recite prayers and go through the motions of Mass and liturgy very often without thinking about real meanings of the words I am reciting, but recently have yearned for a deeper understanding of what it is I am doing/saying. This book is a good place to start. There is much that is challenging especially the way he seemed to skim over the resurrection, but overall reading this has helped me toward a more fulfilling understanding of the Bible and the readings I listen to each week at Mass
The book is split into several short chapters focussing on different key Christian words .Borg explains how these words were first understood and used at the times they were written and show that for some words we have drifted away from the true meanings as our language has developed and changed over the millennia.
There is much I got from this book and I am sure it will be one I will dip in and out of, but 2 things in particular stand out
The chapter on Believing and faith: Believe prior to about 1600 also meant “belove” (to hold dear) what a wonderful statement to make during the creed; I didn’t know that the word creed means “I give my heart to” We are encouraged to stop worrying about the “rules of faith”, that is the anxieties of believing the “right” things in the “right” way, but instead to focus on “beloving” God.
The final chapter “What’s at stake” where he encourages us to continue to speak the language of our faith (biblical and Christian language) because “being Christian includes speaking Christian”. By not speaking it we could allow others to hijack the true and rich meaning.
Finally the book sums it all up for me by this
“The Christian message reduced to its essentials is: love God (as known in Jesus) and change the world”
December 27, 2018
In this book, Borg goes through a number of key Christian concepts and explains what they mean from a perspective that is not the heaven-and-hell Christianity that is so common today (especially in the US). The approach he takes to reading is to create a historical-metaphorical understanding of these key concepts. It's important to understand what this does and does not entail. This approach does not entail applying modern ideas or morals on top of Christian ideas. It does not entail watering down the Bible or reading it selectively.
Rather, what it entails is two-fold: first, Borg takes a historical perspective on these concepts. He asks the question, "What did these words mean in and for the ancient communities that used them? What did they mean for their 'then'?" and from this, he asks "Given what their words meant for their then, what might their meaning be for our now?" Key in this method of understanding the Bible is that what something means for "their then" need not be the same thing it means to "our now". However, we should not project the understanding of "our now" onto "their then".
Second, it is a metaphorical understanding. This is the fairly straightforward idea that much -- probably most -- of the language of the Bible was meant to be read metaphorically, not literally. Biblical literalism -- and the idea that most texts should be taken as bare factual "newspaper" writing -- is a modern invention which can interfere with our ability to read older texts such as the Bible.
From this foundation, Borg discusses many different concepts. He uses an almost formulaic 1 chapter per 1-2 concept organization. My one criticism of the book is that there are some obvious thematic elements throughout which Borg pulls together occasionally (including at the end) but which could be woven more strongly into a biblically sound progressive Christianity.
Instead of going through the many concepts discussed, I'll focus on that theme. The common theme throughout is that the language of the Bible, both Old Testament and New points toward societal transformation, not individual salvation. However one conceives of God, the message of the Christian language is that God's vision is for a world where there are distributional justice and peace.
If you're used to a heaven-and-hell Christianity, this may sound like a stretch. For example, didn't Jesus die for our sins? How is that not about individual salvation and the afterlife? One of the things that pleasantly surprised me about this book is that Borg was able to make the argument that the broad message of biblical Christianity and many of the specifics that seem to point toward individual salvation are all focused on societal concerns. While it's true that his job was made easier because he sees the Bible as the record of the one tradition's understanding of God rather than as a literal divine revelation, he still takes the Bible as the foundation of his definitions.
This book is an engaging read for anyone, Christian or not, who cares about the monopoly that literalistic Christianity has over moral discourse in the US.
Rather, what it entails is two-fold: first, Borg takes a historical perspective on these concepts. He asks the question, "What did these words mean in and for the ancient communities that used them? What did they mean for their 'then'?" and from this, he asks "Given what their words meant for their then, what might their meaning be for our now?" Key in this method of understanding the Bible is that what something means for "their then" need not be the same thing it means to "our now". However, we should not project the understanding of "our now" onto "their then".
Second, it is a metaphorical understanding. This is the fairly straightforward idea that much -- probably most -- of the language of the Bible was meant to be read metaphorically, not literally. Biblical literalism -- and the idea that most texts should be taken as bare factual "newspaper" writing -- is a modern invention which can interfere with our ability to read older texts such as the Bible.
From this foundation, Borg discusses many different concepts. He uses an almost formulaic 1 chapter per 1-2 concept organization. My one criticism of the book is that there are some obvious thematic elements throughout which Borg pulls together occasionally (including at the end) but which could be woven more strongly into a biblically sound progressive Christianity.
Instead of going through the many concepts discussed, I'll focus on that theme. The common theme throughout is that the language of the Bible, both Old Testament and New points toward societal transformation, not individual salvation. However one conceives of God, the message of the Christian language is that God's vision is for a world where there are distributional justice and peace.
If you're used to a heaven-and-hell Christianity, this may sound like a stretch. For example, didn't Jesus die for our sins? How is that not about individual salvation and the afterlife? One of the things that pleasantly surprised me about this book is that Borg was able to make the argument that the broad message of biblical Christianity and many of the specifics that seem to point toward individual salvation are all focused on societal concerns. While it's true that his job was made easier because he sees the Bible as the record of the one tradition's understanding of God rather than as a literal divine revelation, he still takes the Bible as the foundation of his definitions.
This book is an engaging read for anyone, Christian or not, who cares about the monopoly that literalistic Christianity has over moral discourse in the US.
May 31, 2012
Marcus Borg makes me uncomfortable, in a good way. His writing always challenges me, stretches me, and sometimes makes me want to throw my iPad across the room. Through that interaction with his writing, I solidify where I am on issues of faith, Jesus, theology, Church, and the like.
The core issue in Speaking Christian is a reclamation of Christian language from what Borg calls the "heaven-and-hell Christian framework." Borg contends that Christianity is about so much more than what bin you go in when you die, and there is where I agree with him. From his broadening of the word salvation to include Israel's salvation from slavery and many people's hopes of salvation from poverty, to his conversation about The Lord's Prayer being about God's kingdom coming "on earth as it is in heaven" are refreshing, although nothing one wouldn't get from reading N. T. Wright, one of my favorite authors.
My biggest problem with Speaking Christian is Borg's utter dismissal of the resurrection - not only of Jesus's resurrection, but of a general resurrection of the dead. For example, his discussions of Heaven and the Rapture never give even a nodding reference to the notion of a final resurrection. Also, while dismissing a "literal Easter" he never goes on to explain the then rise of Christianity or the early followers profession of Jesus having been raised from the dead.
At times, I believe Borg allows his faith affect his scholarship. For example, in his conversation about God he defends a version of panentheism using Acts 17:28, "the one in whom we lie and move and have our being" (68). That verse is Paul quoting a Greek poet. Thus Borg uses a Greek poet to support a Greek idea about who God is - not a Hebrew-based view that is more historically where the early Christians would have been.
Borg's conclusion though is wonderful. He concludes the book with this summary of Christianity: "The Christian message reduced to its essentials is: love God (as known in Jesus) and change the world" (237). I'm not sure I could agree more. We need to make Christianity more about changing the world than escaping it.
I would not recommend this book to those without a fairly firm understanding of their faith. Borg's reasoning is confusing, his assertions need to be checked out, and he rejects resurrection - a major tenet of Christian faith. For those who have a good background and want to get a little more, that is all you are going to get. There is nothing earth-shaking or ground-breaking here. At times it is even a bit pedantic - at one point even talking about the pre- and post-Easter Jesus. I would much more strongly recommend someone looking for similar conversation to see N. T. Wright's Simply Christian, Simply Jesus, or Surprised By Hope.
The core issue in Speaking Christian is a reclamation of Christian language from what Borg calls the "heaven-and-hell Christian framework." Borg contends that Christianity is about so much more than what bin you go in when you die, and there is where I agree with him. From his broadening of the word salvation to include Israel's salvation from slavery and many people's hopes of salvation from poverty, to his conversation about The Lord's Prayer being about God's kingdom coming "on earth as it is in heaven" are refreshing, although nothing one wouldn't get from reading N. T. Wright, one of my favorite authors.
My biggest problem with Speaking Christian is Borg's utter dismissal of the resurrection - not only of Jesus's resurrection, but of a general resurrection of the dead. For example, his discussions of Heaven and the Rapture never give even a nodding reference to the notion of a final resurrection. Also, while dismissing a "literal Easter" he never goes on to explain the then rise of Christianity or the early followers profession of Jesus having been raised from the dead.
At times, I believe Borg allows his faith affect his scholarship. For example, in his conversation about God he defends a version of panentheism using Acts 17:28, "the one in whom we lie and move and have our being" (68). That verse is Paul quoting a Greek poet. Thus Borg uses a Greek poet to support a Greek idea about who God is - not a Hebrew-based view that is more historically where the early Christians would have been.
Borg's conclusion though is wonderful. He concludes the book with this summary of Christianity: "The Christian message reduced to its essentials is: love God (as known in Jesus) and change the world" (237). I'm not sure I could agree more. We need to make Christianity more about changing the world than escaping it.
I would not recommend this book to those without a fairly firm understanding of their faith. Borg's reasoning is confusing, his assertions need to be checked out, and he rejects resurrection - a major tenet of Christian faith. For those who have a good background and want to get a little more, that is all you are going to get. There is nothing earth-shaking or ground-breaking here. At times it is even a bit pedantic - at one point even talking about the pre- and post-Easter Jesus. I would much more strongly recommend someone looking for similar conversation to see N. T. Wright's Simply Christian, Simply Jesus, or Surprised By Hope.
October 4, 2013
Borg makes some good points, but clearly is outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity, e.g., no bodily resurrection, Jesus not God etc etc (I confess I just skimmed the book, not something worth spending more than 1/2 hour on...
October 28, 2017
I'm pretty much the same sort of Christian as the author--post-enlightenment, humanistic liberal, who nevertheless thinks spirituality is essential and the Christian message, properly understood (!) is a key to the future of our species. So I pretty much agree with where Marcus Borg comes out on most of the words he analyzes here--scary words like repentance, sin, belief, grace, salvation. I gradually became somewhat irritated, though, at how he gets there, as he depends on what I consider to be anachronistic historical inferences. It seems to me that he lets his liberal American politics determine his reading of the Bible. Sometimes he flat-out makes mistakes in his excitement over a nugget that seems to support his narrative, as when he misspelled the Old English word leof, combined it with the particle be, claimed it is the source of our word believe (it isn't) and since it is similar to belove the two words must have been synonyms (they weren't and still aren't). My degree is in medieval English lit, so I write with some authority, and just to be sure I checked my memory against my Anglo Saxon dictionary (it hadn't seen the light of day in 30 years). I have no idea where he got this nonsense. It's like saying that bell, ball, bull, bowl, and bale are all similar and therefore they must be synonyms and come from the same etymological source. I agree with other Goodreads readers who think some of Borg's other books are better, particularly The Meaning of Jesus in which he wrote alternate chapters with N.T. Wright, each covering similar ground and each keeping the other from getting too carried away.
January 24, 2023
I really enjoyed this book. I have my degree In theology, and a friend provided this book to me. I wasn’t sure what to expect. As an academic, I wish there was a more exhaustive bibliography. Aside from that, I found this book very thoughtful. Though many Christians will probably disagree with some of his theology, the tone of the book isn’t overly forceful. Instead, I found it a nice invitation to look at the more “historical” view of Christianity. I think many Christians ought to thoughtfully consider some of his points.
November 9, 2022
Really good explanation of what different Christian beliefs and terms actually mean rather than how they have been interpreted over the centuries. Here’s one example from Marcus Borg’s thought-provoking book. He writes in the last chapter that when Christianity became allied with the dominant culture, it become “largely a religion of the afterlife and the post-mortem fate of us as individuals. It was no longer about changing the way the world is, for the world was now ruled by Christian authorities. Heaven-and-Hell Christianity domesticates—indeed eliminates—the political passion of the Bible.”
Borg emphasizes that Jesus’s message of compassion and justice, especially for the poor and oppressed, gets lost when the focus is instead on believing in Jesus so you will be saved (i.e. go to Heaven). This requires no sacrifice from us.
The author ends his book by saying that the Christian message reduced to its essentials is: love God (as known in Jesus) and help make the world a better place. This is something I can do!
Borg emphasizes that Jesus’s message of compassion and justice, especially for the poor and oppressed, gets lost when the focus is instead on believing in Jesus so you will be saved (i.e. go to Heaven). This requires no sacrifice from us.
The author ends his book by saying that the Christian message reduced to its essentials is: love God (as known in Jesus) and help make the world a better place. This is something I can do!
January 16, 2024
Essentially a dictionary/encyclopedia type approach to the foundational terms in Christianity looking at their entomology, metaphorical resonance, and historical context as a way of taking back Christianity from modern day literalism. While a few entries lag a bit more than others in their logos, overall an interesting and concise read.
April 11, 2022
This book was a misleading way for the author to reframe and deconstuct true biblical language.
June 15, 2024
I got the Norwegian translation of this book in 2017, the year of the Reformation anniversary, after it had been promoted by a Norwegian singer and Lutheran minister (Bjørn Eidsvåg). Yes, I am aware that it has taken me a long time to read it.
Let me begin with these words of William Lane Craig, from his debate with Marcus Borg in 2001: 'I hope that nobody ... will interpret my sharp disagreement with his [Borg's] position as in any way denigrating to his person.'
What amazed me about the book is how it manages to be both very right and very wrong. Borg's big idea is that people today often don't understand what Christian terminology originally meant, which is true. I am very much in favour of Borg's stated goal, that we should place Biblical language in its historical context and try to determine what the original authors meant.
Unfortunately, he often draws conclusions that are unmistakably modern and (I believe) would not have been recognised by the first Christians. This leads to the book being a somewhat confusing mix of truth and error.
As early as in the introduction, Borg states that 'salvation' originally meant freedom from slavery and captivity - which is true - but goes on to state that it does *not* mean to be saved from one's sins. This is a false dichotomy, since most Christians believe they are indeed set free from slavery and captivity - first and foremost slavery to sin.
Borg's statement also raises the question of what God saves from, in his view. Only literal, physical slavery and captivity? That would be surprising, given his emphasis on the importance of avoiding a 'literal' interpretation of Christian terminology.
False dichotomies appear throughout the book, and often led me to comment that we should see things as *both/and* - not either/or.
In chapter 1, Borg claims that salvation originally concerned change and transformation on this side of death - not so much to life after death. But it seems clear to me that it concerns both! On the very next page he asserts that 'conversion' does *not* mean to turn away from sins and live a better life, but to return from captivity and receive a new state of mind. It is difficult to see how this is not just the same thing expressed in two different sets of words.
Borg is right that 'faith' in Christianity does not mean merely intellectual adherence to a set of propositions. It also means to trust in, and love, the God who has revealed this to us. However, he seems to indicate that faith is *only* about a relationship with a person, and that it does not matter so much what we believe about Him. In fact, this is yet another example of a false dichotomy. We have to hold some things about another person to be true, in order to have any sort of relationship with him or her.
There are other types of mistakes as well, or perhaps I just fail to understand what Borg means to say. For instance, he claims that for 'most Catholics', it is not laid down in detail what needs to be believed. As a Catholic, I am unsure what this could mean. The creeds themselves are fairly detailed, but on top of that we have the Catechism - a collection of doctrinal statements from the Church's magisterium. If you want to find out what Catholics should believe, it is laid out there (in some level of detail).
In chapter 2, Borg claims that certain 'conservative' Protestants are different from Catholics and Orthodox Christians in that they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. However, he fails to mention that the Catholic Church also teaches the inerrancy of Scripture. In Dei Verbum, a dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council, we read:
'Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and *without error* that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation' (no. 11).
Borg also writes about those who have a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible. It should go without saying that 'inerrant' is not the same as 'literal'. As we know, truth can be communicated through myth and parable as well as through history and philosophy.
I am very puzzled by Borg's statement that Martin Luther could not have believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, because he thought that James and Revelation should be taken out of the New Testament. This is like saying I cannot believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, because I do not think we should bring The Lord of the Rings into the New Testament. It all depends on which books are regarded as divinely inspired, and which are not. If a book is not divinely inspired, any believer in inerrancy would tell you that it should not be included in the canon of Scripture.
Borg appears to cast doubt on the historical reliability not only of Noah's ark and the exodus from Egypt, but on the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead. Granted, he does not explicitly state that he does not believe these things - but he lumps those who believe them in with 'fundamentalists' and people who believe that women cannot be priests (a historical Christian doctrine with which he presumably disagrees). This is concerning.
Borg, in fact, called himself a 'progressive' Christian - that is not just something I have decided to call him - and this book is an instructive look at what the results of progressive Christianity are. If there is no limit to which parts of the Bible a Christian can dismiss, there seems to be little reason to regard it as any more divinely inspired than a secular poem or fantastical novel. We are free to use these texts as we wish, including by cherry picking them, but they hold no normative power over us.
In chapter 3, Borg states that 'salvation' has a *negative* connotation to many people, because it is thought to concern getting to heaven as opposed to going to hell. This is puzzling, because getting to heaven should be thought of as something positive. Borg is also concerned that some Christians make a distinction between people who are saved and people who are not, thus excluding them. But if no such distinction is made, what is the meaning of the term? If there was no distinction between people who are alive and people who are not, the term 'life' would be meaningless.
Later in the chapter, Borg seems to 'exclude' the dead by saying that we can become alive - and the sick by saying that we can be healed. In his own words, he thus creates an 'in-group' and an 'out-group'. Yes, I am aware that this is a cheap point - so was Borg's.
Borg seems at times to present rather obvious truths as if they were bold, new discoveries. For example, he states that salvation is *really* about personal transformation. Well, yes. That is precisely what being freed from sin and sanctified means. In the same sentence, he also says that salvation is about *political* transformation - and freedom from economic hardship - which is more concerning and can at times smell of liberation theology.
As St Paul puts it: 'If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied' (1 Cor 15:19).
Strangely enough, given his uncertainty about the historical reliability of the Exodus story, Borg chooses to interpret that story very literally - and does not seem to take seriously that God freeing the Israelites could also be an image or metaphor for God freeing us from our sins. Except that he does, later in the same chapter, by acknowledging that salvation means to be free from the Pharaoh within us (an interpretation which I believe goes back to the early Christians).
Borg claims that most of the Old Testament contains no concept of an afterlife. I wonder what he made of God's saying to Abraham that 'you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age' (Gen 15:15). Presumably, his 'fathers' were dead - and Abraham would go to them after his death, not before.
At the end of the chapter, Borg concludes that both personal transformation and transforming the world around us is important. I wholeheartedly agree with this, and I would hope most other Christians do as well. The fact that so many Christians volunteer their time, money and energy to helping the less fortunate would seem to indicate that this is the case. We should also keep in mind, however, the transformative power of prayer. The monks and nuns in their cells can also contribute to making this world a better place.
Borg gives an example of a good answer to the question 'Are you saved?' - an answer which he himself believes to be in accordance with the Bible. It is a very Catholic answer, I think: I have been saved (in the past) and I am being saved (in the present), but I have not yet been saved (in the future). Yes, thumbs up all around!
In chapter 4, Borg claims that many Christians neglect the Old Testament - quite a different tack from those progressives who think that 'conservative' or 'fundamentalist' Christians care too much about it! He does not do much in this chapter, other than picking apart the Protestant doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura' (by pointing out that the canon of Scripture was determined by councils of the Church). He ends by asserting that Jesus Christ is God's Word and the highest revelation of God - not the Bible. This is, of course, true. But I do not see why he would make this distinction - another false dichotomy - if he did not foresee the possibility that Jesus and the Bible could come into conflict with each other. Sadly, some people claim that their personal understanding of Jesus can trump whatever the Bible says.
In chapter 5, Borg argues against the anthropomorphic view of God as a being among other beings - not as Being itself (sometimes called 'theistic personalism' as opposed to 'classical theism'). I have no problem with this project, apart from the recurring tendency to portray something well known as something radically new. Strangely enough, Borg seems to include the real existence of God - an objective truth that can be argued and disagreed over - as part of the mistaken view about God. Does this mean that Borg does not believe that God really exists, or that God's existence is not something that arguments can be given for? This is not clearly stated.
In chapter 6, I have nothing to comment on - apart from Borg's indifference to learning the Ten Commandments by heart (as if they were not really that important to know).
In chapter 7, Borg makes another false dichotomy between the 'Jesus of history' - which he claims no longer exists! - and the 'Christ of faith'. But these are of course, according to historical Christian belief, the same person. Does Borg say they are not? Concerningly, he also states that 'some Christians' believe in the literal physical resurrection of Jesus Christ - as if he does not believe it himself. It should be known that this is a pretty basic Christian teaching. As St Paul writes, 'if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain' (1 Cor 15:14).
Borg indicates, strangely, that Jesus before the resurrection could not have been divine - because that would have made him 'more than human' and therefore not 'truly human'. This is a clear Christological heresy. If this is what Borg really believed, it is ironic that he rejects (by name) the opposite heresy of docetism in the very same paragraph. Let me be clear: If Borg believed that Jesus was only divine in the sense that He revealed 'that which can be seen of God in a human being' - any human being - then he was by most definitions a heretic. This is not a value judgment, but a statement of fact.
Borg sums up his view of Jesus by saying that He was not special because He was divine (Borg does not explicitly reject His divinity here). Rather, Jesus was a fantastic human being - like St Francis of Assisi with one exclamation mark after. Yes, that is really what he says. After this bombshell, chapter 8 seems boring and pointless. Oh, Jesus' death was a result of His rebellion against the imperialist power of Rome and that whole 'propitiatory sacrifice' thing is not so important? Why does Borg think I should care any more about the crucifixion of Jesus than about the crucifixion of Spartacus? Chapter 9 is also pretty boring, and it no longer comes as a surprise that Borg would sow doubt about the reality of the empty tomb.
In chapter 10, Borg reiterates the difference between 'belief that' and 'belief in' (a person) and underlines that Christian faith is about the latter. In fact, as stated above, there is no conflict between the two. Borg acknowledges this when he says that incorrect beliefs can come in the way of true faith - at which point it is hard to see that he is actually saying anything new or interesting.
In chapter 11, Borg makes a big deal out of his belief that God's 'mercy' should be understood as God's 'compassion'. Again, this is nothing new - the Latin word for mercy, 'misericordia', can be understood as having a heart (cors) for those in misery (miser). And which Christian does not believe this to be true, given that God sent His own Son to die for us?
In chapter 12, Borg claims that 'righteousness' has negative connotations - but did you know that it actually means 'justice'? Yes. That is the whole chapter. The rest of the book (chapters 13-24) are more or less on the same level as this.
There are other apparent errors or confusing statements in this book that I could have pointed out, along with multiple examples of kicking in open doors, but that would have made the review unbearably long (if it is not already).
P.S. I learned only after writing this review that Borg was a member of the progressive 'Jesus Seminar' along with John Dominic Crossan (to whom he often refers). That explains a lot. There are good reasons to be skeptical of the Jesus Seminar's skepticism. The aforementioned Dr Craig has called them 'the radical left-wing fringe of contemporary New Testament scholars'.
Let me begin with these words of William Lane Craig, from his debate with Marcus Borg in 2001: 'I hope that nobody ... will interpret my sharp disagreement with his [Borg's] position as in any way denigrating to his person.'
What amazed me about the book is how it manages to be both very right and very wrong. Borg's big idea is that people today often don't understand what Christian terminology originally meant, which is true. I am very much in favour of Borg's stated goal, that we should place Biblical language in its historical context and try to determine what the original authors meant.
Unfortunately, he often draws conclusions that are unmistakably modern and (I believe) would not have been recognised by the first Christians. This leads to the book being a somewhat confusing mix of truth and error.
As early as in the introduction, Borg states that 'salvation' originally meant freedom from slavery and captivity - which is true - but goes on to state that it does *not* mean to be saved from one's sins. This is a false dichotomy, since most Christians believe they are indeed set free from slavery and captivity - first and foremost slavery to sin.
Borg's statement also raises the question of what God saves from, in his view. Only literal, physical slavery and captivity? That would be surprising, given his emphasis on the importance of avoiding a 'literal' interpretation of Christian terminology.
False dichotomies appear throughout the book, and often led me to comment that we should see things as *both/and* - not either/or.
In chapter 1, Borg claims that salvation originally concerned change and transformation on this side of death - not so much to life after death. But it seems clear to me that it concerns both! On the very next page he asserts that 'conversion' does *not* mean to turn away from sins and live a better life, but to return from captivity and receive a new state of mind. It is difficult to see how this is not just the same thing expressed in two different sets of words.
Borg is right that 'faith' in Christianity does not mean merely intellectual adherence to a set of propositions. It also means to trust in, and love, the God who has revealed this to us. However, he seems to indicate that faith is *only* about a relationship with a person, and that it does not matter so much what we believe about Him. In fact, this is yet another example of a false dichotomy. We have to hold some things about another person to be true, in order to have any sort of relationship with him or her.
There are other types of mistakes as well, or perhaps I just fail to understand what Borg means to say. For instance, he claims that for 'most Catholics', it is not laid down in detail what needs to be believed. As a Catholic, I am unsure what this could mean. The creeds themselves are fairly detailed, but on top of that we have the Catechism - a collection of doctrinal statements from the Church's magisterium. If you want to find out what Catholics should believe, it is laid out there (in some level of detail).
In chapter 2, Borg claims that certain 'conservative' Protestants are different from Catholics and Orthodox Christians in that they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. However, he fails to mention that the Catholic Church also teaches the inerrancy of Scripture. In Dei Verbum, a dogmatic constitution of the Second Vatican Council, we read:
'Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and *without error* that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation' (no. 11).
Borg also writes about those who have a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible. It should go without saying that 'inerrant' is not the same as 'literal'. As we know, truth can be communicated through myth and parable as well as through history and philosophy.
I am very puzzled by Borg's statement that Martin Luther could not have believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, because he thought that James and Revelation should be taken out of the New Testament. This is like saying I cannot believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, because I do not think we should bring The Lord of the Rings into the New Testament. It all depends on which books are regarded as divinely inspired, and which are not. If a book is not divinely inspired, any believer in inerrancy would tell you that it should not be included in the canon of Scripture.
Borg appears to cast doubt on the historical reliability not only of Noah's ark and the exodus from Egypt, but on the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead. Granted, he does not explicitly state that he does not believe these things - but he lumps those who believe them in with 'fundamentalists' and people who believe that women cannot be priests (a historical Christian doctrine with which he presumably disagrees). This is concerning.
Borg, in fact, called himself a 'progressive' Christian - that is not just something I have decided to call him - and this book is an instructive look at what the results of progressive Christianity are. If there is no limit to which parts of the Bible a Christian can dismiss, there seems to be little reason to regard it as any more divinely inspired than a secular poem or fantastical novel. We are free to use these texts as we wish, including by cherry picking them, but they hold no normative power over us.
In chapter 3, Borg states that 'salvation' has a *negative* connotation to many people, because it is thought to concern getting to heaven as opposed to going to hell. This is puzzling, because getting to heaven should be thought of as something positive. Borg is also concerned that some Christians make a distinction between people who are saved and people who are not, thus excluding them. But if no such distinction is made, what is the meaning of the term? If there was no distinction between people who are alive and people who are not, the term 'life' would be meaningless.
Later in the chapter, Borg seems to 'exclude' the dead by saying that we can become alive - and the sick by saying that we can be healed. In his own words, he thus creates an 'in-group' and an 'out-group'. Yes, I am aware that this is a cheap point - so was Borg's.
Borg seems at times to present rather obvious truths as if they were bold, new discoveries. For example, he states that salvation is *really* about personal transformation. Well, yes. That is precisely what being freed from sin and sanctified means. In the same sentence, he also says that salvation is about *political* transformation - and freedom from economic hardship - which is more concerning and can at times smell of liberation theology.
As St Paul puts it: 'If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied' (1 Cor 15:19).
Strangely enough, given his uncertainty about the historical reliability of the Exodus story, Borg chooses to interpret that story very literally - and does not seem to take seriously that God freeing the Israelites could also be an image or metaphor for God freeing us from our sins. Except that he does, later in the same chapter, by acknowledging that salvation means to be free from the Pharaoh within us (an interpretation which I believe goes back to the early Christians).
Borg claims that most of the Old Testament contains no concept of an afterlife. I wonder what he made of God's saying to Abraham that 'you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age' (Gen 15:15). Presumably, his 'fathers' were dead - and Abraham would go to them after his death, not before.
At the end of the chapter, Borg concludes that both personal transformation and transforming the world around us is important. I wholeheartedly agree with this, and I would hope most other Christians do as well. The fact that so many Christians volunteer their time, money and energy to helping the less fortunate would seem to indicate that this is the case. We should also keep in mind, however, the transformative power of prayer. The monks and nuns in their cells can also contribute to making this world a better place.
Borg gives an example of a good answer to the question 'Are you saved?' - an answer which he himself believes to be in accordance with the Bible. It is a very Catholic answer, I think: I have been saved (in the past) and I am being saved (in the present), but I have not yet been saved (in the future). Yes, thumbs up all around!
In chapter 4, Borg claims that many Christians neglect the Old Testament - quite a different tack from those progressives who think that 'conservative' or 'fundamentalist' Christians care too much about it! He does not do much in this chapter, other than picking apart the Protestant doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura' (by pointing out that the canon of Scripture was determined by councils of the Church). He ends by asserting that Jesus Christ is God's Word and the highest revelation of God - not the Bible. This is, of course, true. But I do not see why he would make this distinction - another false dichotomy - if he did not foresee the possibility that Jesus and the Bible could come into conflict with each other. Sadly, some people claim that their personal understanding of Jesus can trump whatever the Bible says.
In chapter 5, Borg argues against the anthropomorphic view of God as a being among other beings - not as Being itself (sometimes called 'theistic personalism' as opposed to 'classical theism'). I have no problem with this project, apart from the recurring tendency to portray something well known as something radically new. Strangely enough, Borg seems to include the real existence of God - an objective truth that can be argued and disagreed over - as part of the mistaken view about God. Does this mean that Borg does not believe that God really exists, or that God's existence is not something that arguments can be given for? This is not clearly stated.
In chapter 6, I have nothing to comment on - apart from Borg's indifference to learning the Ten Commandments by heart (as if they were not really that important to know).
In chapter 7, Borg makes another false dichotomy between the 'Jesus of history' - which he claims no longer exists! - and the 'Christ of faith'. But these are of course, according to historical Christian belief, the same person. Does Borg say they are not? Concerningly, he also states that 'some Christians' believe in the literal physical resurrection of Jesus Christ - as if he does not believe it himself. It should be known that this is a pretty basic Christian teaching. As St Paul writes, 'if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain' (1 Cor 15:14).
Borg indicates, strangely, that Jesus before the resurrection could not have been divine - because that would have made him 'more than human' and therefore not 'truly human'. This is a clear Christological heresy. If this is what Borg really believed, it is ironic that he rejects (by name) the opposite heresy of docetism in the very same paragraph. Let me be clear: If Borg believed that Jesus was only divine in the sense that He revealed 'that which can be seen of God in a human being' - any human being - then he was by most definitions a heretic. This is not a value judgment, but a statement of fact.
Borg sums up his view of Jesus by saying that He was not special because He was divine (Borg does not explicitly reject His divinity here). Rather, Jesus was a fantastic human being - like St Francis of Assisi with one exclamation mark after. Yes, that is really what he says. After this bombshell, chapter 8 seems boring and pointless. Oh, Jesus' death was a result of His rebellion against the imperialist power of Rome and that whole 'propitiatory sacrifice' thing is not so important? Why does Borg think I should care any more about the crucifixion of Jesus than about the crucifixion of Spartacus? Chapter 9 is also pretty boring, and it no longer comes as a surprise that Borg would sow doubt about the reality of the empty tomb.
In chapter 10, Borg reiterates the difference between 'belief that' and 'belief in' (a person) and underlines that Christian faith is about the latter. In fact, as stated above, there is no conflict between the two. Borg acknowledges this when he says that incorrect beliefs can come in the way of true faith - at which point it is hard to see that he is actually saying anything new or interesting.
In chapter 11, Borg makes a big deal out of his belief that God's 'mercy' should be understood as God's 'compassion'. Again, this is nothing new - the Latin word for mercy, 'misericordia', can be understood as having a heart (cors) for those in misery (miser). And which Christian does not believe this to be true, given that God sent His own Son to die for us?
In chapter 12, Borg claims that 'righteousness' has negative connotations - but did you know that it actually means 'justice'? Yes. That is the whole chapter. The rest of the book (chapters 13-24) are more or less on the same level as this.
There are other apparent errors or confusing statements in this book that I could have pointed out, along with multiple examples of kicking in open doors, but that would have made the review unbearably long (if it is not already).
P.S. I learned only after writing this review that Borg was a member of the progressive 'Jesus Seminar' along with John Dominic Crossan (to whom he often refers). That explains a lot. There are good reasons to be skeptical of the Jesus Seminar's skepticism. The aforementioned Dr Craig has called them 'the radical left-wing fringe of contemporary New Testament scholars'.
October 26, 2011
In what many will think is a provocative book, Borg examines and explains words commonly used by Christians. He does this against the backdrop of what he calls "heaven and hell Christians" who read the the Bible literally (or at least claim they do.) Borg writes for those who struggle with the way much of American Christianity uses terminology, or as he suggests, he free's the words from the restrictive, or even wrong, meanings and power they have come to have in American culture.
One of the things I appreciated was his examination of how the meaning of the words we use in the English language have changed. I'm not qualified to comment about Greek or Hebrew, and perhaps maybe not even English, but I've lived long enough to know the meanings of common words have changed significantly in my life time. I found the chapter on "Believing and Faith" to be helpful as he explains the old word, "beloved." Focusing on "beloving" God rather than "believing" God, frees one to focus on God, rather than on wondering if I am getting all my beliefs correct, or if the guy sitting next to me has his beliefs correct.
Borg also examines words which in earlier centuries were not part of orthodox Christian teaching but have become important parts of the faith for many contemporary Christians. The example here is the word "rapture." According to Borg, "the rapture" as most people understand it was something introduced to American Christians in the 19th century. It wasn't long before groups predicting the return of Jesus, or the end of the world sprung up in the United States. Borg points out that many peoples views of heaven, end times and prophecy have been shaped more by recent best sellers on the fiction lists than on anything found in Scripture.
I picked up this book in the local town library which usually specializes in westerns, romances, mysteries and the occasional book from the best seller lists. I'm not sure how many others will pick it up. Those who have read Borg before may read it and find nothing really surprising. Those who fit his definition of "heaven and hell" Christians will likely think he has gone off the deep end and write him off as a guy who has spent to much time in his ivory tower.
I found the book to be thoughtful and helpful. He upheld orthodox beliefs, admitted when he wasn't sure about something, and was willing to explore a variety of meanings while being true to the language, the creeds, the church and scripture. At the same time I can understand why some would find his ideas or examination of Christian words to be scary, but I wish they would at least give this book a chance. It might just deepen everyone's faith.
One of the things I appreciated was his examination of how the meaning of the words we use in the English language have changed. I'm not qualified to comment about Greek or Hebrew, and perhaps maybe not even English, but I've lived long enough to know the meanings of common words have changed significantly in my life time. I found the chapter on "Believing and Faith" to be helpful as he explains the old word, "beloved." Focusing on "beloving" God rather than "believing" God, frees one to focus on God, rather than on wondering if I am getting all my beliefs correct, or if the guy sitting next to me has his beliefs correct.
Borg also examines words which in earlier centuries were not part of orthodox Christian teaching but have become important parts of the faith for many contemporary Christians. The example here is the word "rapture." According to Borg, "the rapture" as most people understand it was something introduced to American Christians in the 19th century. It wasn't long before groups predicting the return of Jesus, or the end of the world sprung up in the United States. Borg points out that many peoples views of heaven, end times and prophecy have been shaped more by recent best sellers on the fiction lists than on anything found in Scripture.
I picked up this book in the local town library which usually specializes in westerns, romances, mysteries and the occasional book from the best seller lists. I'm not sure how many others will pick it up. Those who have read Borg before may read it and find nothing really surprising. Those who fit his definition of "heaven and hell" Christians will likely think he has gone off the deep end and write him off as a guy who has spent to much time in his ivory tower.
I found the book to be thoughtful and helpful. He upheld orthodox beliefs, admitted when he wasn't sure about something, and was willing to explore a variety of meanings while being true to the language, the creeds, the church and scripture. At the same time I can understand why some would find his ideas or examination of Christian words to be scary, but I wish they would at least give this book a chance. It might just deepen everyone's faith.
January 19, 2012
As one who works hard to reclaim language, I liked this book a lot.
As one who teaches in a church and is constantly working against the cultural understandings of many of our important church words, I liked this book a lot.
As one who's read plenty of Marcus Borg before, this book was fine. There's not a lot new here--it's just organized differently and is more concise.
I appreciate the format--with a big word or concept per chapter. I appreciate the short chapters. I appreciate the simple language that will make this accessible for congregational study group use.
I didn't always appreciate the characterization of everyone-believes-this, though I recognize the characterizations from popular culture/media/politics/religious-right.
Part of me always wants to say to Marcus Borg, "you know, there are plenty of progressive mainline churches out there. We may not be the most vocal or the majority, but we do exist--just a little recognition once in a while would be nice..."
A humongous part of me wants to say, "please stop with the resurrection-isn't-real thing." go right ahead with it's-not-about-heaven and what Easter means, but denial of bodily resurrection isn't going to fly in most of our churches. And honestly, some of us super liberals still believe in it, but we aren't stupid or pre-modern or whatever. We like a little mystery and a little power-of-god every now and then.
I'm disappointed he didn't tackle the word "Evangelical." That word could use some serious redeeming!
Overall, a worthwhile read, if for nothing else than to brush up on some theology and to enjoy some ways we can explain things we believe. I do think it will be good for a small group or a class at church--people are often asking me about these concepts and now I have a resource to point toward (other than, you know, the Bible...LOL).
As one who teaches in a church and is constantly working against the cultural understandings of many of our important church words, I liked this book a lot.
As one who's read plenty of Marcus Borg before, this book was fine. There's not a lot new here--it's just organized differently and is more concise.
I appreciate the format--with a big word or concept per chapter. I appreciate the short chapters. I appreciate the simple language that will make this accessible for congregational study group use.
I didn't always appreciate the characterization of everyone-believes-this, though I recognize the characterizations from popular culture/media/politics/religious-right.
Part of me always wants to say to Marcus Borg, "you know, there are plenty of progressive mainline churches out there. We may not be the most vocal or the majority, but we do exist--just a little recognition once in a while would be nice..."
A humongous part of me wants to say, "please stop with the resurrection-isn't-real thing." go right ahead with it's-not-about-heaven and what Easter means, but denial of bodily resurrection isn't going to fly in most of our churches. And honestly, some of us super liberals still believe in it, but we aren't stupid or pre-modern or whatever. We like a little mystery and a little power-of-god every now and then.
I'm disappointed he didn't tackle the word "Evangelical." That word could use some serious redeeming!
Overall, a worthwhile read, if for nothing else than to brush up on some theology and to enjoy some ways we can explain things we believe. I do think it will be good for a small group or a class at church--people are often asking me about these concepts and now I have a resource to point toward (other than, you know, the Bible...LOL).
October 14, 2017
Marcus Borg may be a Biblical scholar but he is not a believer in the divinity of Christ. If you keep this in mind, you can see that this book is not a scholarly attempt to “reclaim” Christianity but rather it is Borg preaching his own ideology.
From the beginning Borg makes a lot of claims of what the Bible actually says yet no Biblical citation to back up that claim. He says that Christianity got it wrong. He says what he is writing is correct. But why? He cites nothing to back up his case. He forces the reader to trust him on all of his assumptions.
For me, the final straw came when he insisted that Jesus believed in education because he was clearly better educated than St Paul. Jesus, Borg claims, was better educated than Paul because he was more impressively able to argue the scriptures with the sages of the day. REALLY! That knowledge came from his local rabbinical upbringing?????? Christ knew the scriptures because he is the Word of God. HE WROTE THE SCRIPTURES. Of course he knows them. Borg betrays with this one anecdote (among many) he does not believe that Christ was divine. He was just another itinerant 1st century Rabbi who hit the publicity lottery and founded a religion.
In my opinion, Marcus Borg’s book is intellectually dishonest and not worth reading.
From the beginning Borg makes a lot of claims of what the Bible actually says yet no Biblical citation to back up that claim. He says that Christianity got it wrong. He says what he is writing is correct. But why? He cites nothing to back up his case. He forces the reader to trust him on all of his assumptions.
For me, the final straw came when he insisted that Jesus believed in education because he was clearly better educated than St Paul. Jesus, Borg claims, was better educated than Paul because he was more impressively able to argue the scriptures with the sages of the day. REALLY! That knowledge came from his local rabbinical upbringing?????? Christ knew the scriptures because he is the Word of God. HE WROTE THE SCRIPTURES. Of course he knows them. Borg betrays with this one anecdote (among many) he does not believe that Christ was divine. He was just another itinerant 1st century Rabbi who hit the publicity lottery and founded a religion.
In my opinion, Marcus Borg’s book is intellectually dishonest and not worth reading.
January 20, 2013
This book makes some very interesting points about how strongly the definitions of some words can affect meaning. For example, what does it mean if our use of "believe" in a religious context is wrong or has drifted away from the true meaning? This book offers this and other thought-provoking insights. Further, it encourages understanding the Bible as having deeper meanings than just the superficial, literal understanding of the stories. This is a viewpoint that I strongly identify with, being consistent with my (limited) understanding of the world.
The implication is that it is important to be precise in one's definitions, and to maintain reason and understanding in knowing one's relationship with God and the universe. This relationship has always intrigued me deeply, and it is wonderful to find books that encourage and inspire this type of pondering. I would recommend this book to anyone who feels the same.
The implication is that it is important to be precise in one's definitions, and to maintain reason and understanding in knowing one's relationship with God and the universe. This relationship has always intrigued me deeply, and it is wonderful to find books that encourage and inspire this type of pondering. I would recommend this book to anyone who feels the same.
June 26, 2012
Marcus Borg's "Speaking Christian" is a great collection of thoughts that help explain the language we use in church, and why it may not mean what we think it means many times. Part of growing up in a churched society is we take for granted some of these terms....I wonder how many are really aware that some of the concepts of salvation, righteousness, sin, being born again, the Crucifixion, and many others are very modern concepts, and the definitions we understand are often radically different than centuries of Christian scholarship and tradition.
Even if Borg may be a little too challenging to some folks in their belief, I think this is an easy book to read and understand, and unlike some of his books it is less about his opinion and more about the accepted scholarship. Highly recommended and thought provoking.
Even if Borg may be a little too challenging to some folks in their belief, I think this is an easy book to read and understand, and unlike some of his books it is less about his opinion and more about the accepted scholarship. Highly recommended and thought provoking.
August 17, 2011
Dr. Borg shows convincingly that many central Christian terms are no longer commonly interpreted according to their original or traditional meanings. He makes the case for a Christianity that's not centered on the afterlife and personal salvation from sin through a substitutionary sacrifice, which are relatively modern priorities, but on bringing about a transformed life and a just world that exemplifies God's will as expressed through the example of Jesus as well as the prophets and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. This book is worthwhile for non-Christians since it gives a broader vision of what usually seem very narrow, rigid and exclusive terms and ideas.
July 23, 2013
I read this book for a class at church. It is definitely controversial. Borg takes common terms in Christianity and investigates their meaning historically and culturally. His writing is very clear and easy to understand, but his interpretation probably would not be acceptable to some Christians. He points out the language that has made such a division in the Christian denominations today, but he is definitely on the progressive Christian side of the division. He appeals to readers with open minds and the desire to see things from different points of view.
September 4, 2012
Borg is stimulating. Agree with him or not he gets you to think about issues of importance. In tracing back Christian words and language to their meaning in earlier times he offers a refreshing counterpoint to the drone of Christian speak that so dominates popular American culture. His is a useful tool to move Christians beyond literalism, a move which must be made lest our faith drift even farther toward irrelevancy in this "post-modern" age.
March 1, 2012
Marcus Borg is extremely helpful at particular junctures in the Christian faith. I'm not at one of those junctures right now.
This book also confirmed what I've long suspected, that I am not a modernist but a post-modernist. Marcus Borg is super-duper modernist with modernist sprinkles on top.
This book also confirmed what I've long suspected, that I am not a modernist but a post-modernist. Marcus Borg is super-duper modernist with modernist sprinkles on top.
May 28, 2011
I owe ol' Marcus a big high five for this one. Makes christian language not only palatable but down right delicious.
March 8, 2022
This book is a thorough investigation of how a literal reading of the Bible and a “heaven-and-hell” Christianity has corrupted the religion's rich and powerful language. The alternative Borg explores is not necessarily creating and using new spiritual/religious language instead. As refreshing and sensitive as this might be at first for recovering fundamentalists (from experience I know it is), in the end, one still needs to be able to read the Bible and go to church – that is, one still needs Christian language. I mean, it’s OK to read some Rob Bell, but you don’t want to stay here (Borg did not bring up Rob Bell in the conversation – I just did 😃).
Instead, Borg rightly favors recovering the original meaning of biblical language by paying attention to the *actual story-line of the Bible and relying on historical-critical tools. Words and concepts like sin, salvation, righteousness, faith (and about a dozen more) all find a richer meaning when properly understood in light of God’s passion for the world – his plan to end humanity’s ongoing exile and bring about new creation realities (you can see some of the overlap here with his friend N.T. Wright). Having re-framed what the Bible and Christianity is all about, its rich and sacred words must now also similarly be re-placed within this larger narrative. Sin, for example, must now be understood as both personal destructive choices but also as cosmic distortions and oppositions against God’s will.
Where Borg goes astray is in largely dethroning a historical/literal understanding of Christianity by favoring the reconstructed theological agendas of the Biblical writers. History and theology do not need to be pitted against each other in this way. This is one big area where his overall helpful “both/and” approach should not have broken down. Relatedly, Borg claims to recover the pre-modern meanings of Biblical language. But he does not acknowledge that he does so only selectively; that over and over again this actually looks suspiciously like the latest mainstream scholarly consensus, which often times contradicts historic Christianity. For example, he cannot show that Christians in the past have thought of the Post-Easter Jesus as fundamentally the disciple’s imaginative creation based on the impression that the Pre-Easter Jesus made on them. It’s because they didn’t think like this. This is a relatively new story scholars tell themselves. For them as well as for Borg, Jesus was a remarkable human, like Francis of Assisi, “only with an exclamation mark” (p. 217). Of course. But…that’s it? For Borg, basically yes. Except, he will add, that he was so remarkable that he was the finest revelation of God…or so his disciples thought.
I totally see the value of historical-critical approaches, but wholesale embrace of its worldview, methodologies and practices is not needed and ultimately unsuccessful in giving us the Bible, or Jesus…or Christian language. This is where Borgs mission fails.
So in the end, this book is a mix bag. Borg acknowledges what more evangelicals need to acknowledge, namely, the many challenges of using ANE and first-century language in contemporary Christian contexts, and the need to rethink what we mean when we say certain words as well as the theological worldview these words evoke. I think overall he presents a richer Christianity than what he himself and many others grew up with, but also one that unfortunately is largely devoid of its historical rootedness.
Instead, Borg rightly favors recovering the original meaning of biblical language by paying attention to the *actual story-line of the Bible and relying on historical-critical tools. Words and concepts like sin, salvation, righteousness, faith (and about a dozen more) all find a richer meaning when properly understood in light of God’s passion for the world – his plan to end humanity’s ongoing exile and bring about new creation realities (you can see some of the overlap here with his friend N.T. Wright). Having re-framed what the Bible and Christianity is all about, its rich and sacred words must now also similarly be re-placed within this larger narrative. Sin, for example, must now be understood as both personal destructive choices but also as cosmic distortions and oppositions against God’s will.
Where Borg goes astray is in largely dethroning a historical/literal understanding of Christianity by favoring the reconstructed theological agendas of the Biblical writers. History and theology do not need to be pitted against each other in this way. This is one big area where his overall helpful “both/and” approach should not have broken down. Relatedly, Borg claims to recover the pre-modern meanings of Biblical language. But he does not acknowledge that he does so only selectively; that over and over again this actually looks suspiciously like the latest mainstream scholarly consensus, which often times contradicts historic Christianity. For example, he cannot show that Christians in the past have thought of the Post-Easter Jesus as fundamentally the disciple’s imaginative creation based on the impression that the Pre-Easter Jesus made on them. It’s because they didn’t think like this. This is a relatively new story scholars tell themselves. For them as well as for Borg, Jesus was a remarkable human, like Francis of Assisi, “only with an exclamation mark” (p. 217). Of course. But…that’s it? For Borg, basically yes. Except, he will add, that he was so remarkable that he was the finest revelation of God…or so his disciples thought.
I totally see the value of historical-critical approaches, but wholesale embrace of its worldview, methodologies and practices is not needed and ultimately unsuccessful in giving us the Bible, or Jesus…or Christian language. This is where Borgs mission fails.
So in the end, this book is a mix bag. Borg acknowledges what more evangelicals need to acknowledge, namely, the many challenges of using ANE and first-century language in contemporary Christian contexts, and the need to rethink what we mean when we say certain words as well as the theological worldview these words evoke. I think overall he presents a richer Christianity than what he himself and many others grew up with, but also one that unfortunately is largely devoid of its historical rootedness.
October 20, 2020
In Speaking Christian, Marcus Borg offers a new way to experience Christianity free from the strange and often misunderstood phrases that hide the meaning of stories from thousands of years ago. It is the kind of book that can help contemporary Christians appreciate ancient wisdom in a new light. And Speaking Christian can also help non-Christians understand the differences between Christian spirituality and more recent interpretations of old texts that ignore the metaphors of ancient texts.
Borg expresses concern about the misunderstandings conveyed by Christians who do not understand the historical texts. There are two languages spoken by Christians. One linguistic framework focuses on transforming people for the next world and the other focuses on transforming the world in which we live. Borg describes “heaven-and-hell” Christianity as having four components: the afterlife, sin and forgiveness, Jesus’ dying for sin, and the importance of belief. I think chapter two, “Beyond Literalism” helps understand what he is about. The “heaven-and-hell” linguistic framework rests on a foundation of literalism. In contrast, Borg presents the approach he has presented elsewhere—a historical-metaphorical understanding of biblical language and, by extension, the Christian concepts associated with that language.
In chapter 3, Salvation, Borg begins the process of analyzing the two ways of viewing Christian concepts. This continues through chapter 24 and includes concepts like God, Jesus, Easter, Believing and Faith, Sin, Born Again, and so forth. In his conclusion (chapter 25), Borg asserts that the language of Christianity is important to answering the question, “What is Christianity about?” He cites examples from history to show how Christians have been divided over beliefs. The varieties of these beliefs have created an unnecessary complexity. Instead of a focus on beliefs, Borg advocates a focus on loving God and what God loves. He sees God, as revealed in Jesus, as having a passion for transformed lives and a transformed world.
Borg expresses concern about the misunderstandings conveyed by Christians who do not understand the historical texts. There are two languages spoken by Christians. One linguistic framework focuses on transforming people for the next world and the other focuses on transforming the world in which we live. Borg describes “heaven-and-hell” Christianity as having four components: the afterlife, sin and forgiveness, Jesus’ dying for sin, and the importance of belief. I think chapter two, “Beyond Literalism” helps understand what he is about. The “heaven-and-hell” linguistic framework rests on a foundation of literalism. In contrast, Borg presents the approach he has presented elsewhere—a historical-metaphorical understanding of biblical language and, by extension, the Christian concepts associated with that language.
In chapter 3, Salvation, Borg begins the process of analyzing the two ways of viewing Christian concepts. This continues through chapter 24 and includes concepts like God, Jesus, Easter, Believing and Faith, Sin, Born Again, and so forth. In his conclusion (chapter 25), Borg asserts that the language of Christianity is important to answering the question, “What is Christianity about?” He cites examples from history to show how Christians have been divided over beliefs. The varieties of these beliefs have created an unnecessary complexity. Instead of a focus on beliefs, Borg advocates a focus on loving God and what God loves. He sees God, as revealed in Jesus, as having a passion for transformed lives and a transformed world.
January 3, 2020
The concept of the book is great and insightful. The fact that we should be defining biblical terms within their biblical and cultural context is crucial. Nevertheless, there are a few things I read that made me put the book down. Things that are not biblically correct. For example, on page 39 states that “in the old testament…the people of ancient Israel did not believe in an afterlife. It goes on to mention some of the books like Psalms, but that is incorrect. Psalms 9:17 “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” Psalms 16:10 “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell”. Jude 1:7 “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” Daniel 12:2 “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” And so forth. Then on page 42, there’s a sentence that read “the exile lasted for about 50 years…” Jeremiah 29:10 “For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.” The fact that these two basic concepts were wrong really made me nervous to continue to read, because there were new concepts being introduce and I didn’t want to learn something erroneous. If you read this book, I recommend to pick up your bible and examine the book’s words in the light of the bible.
December 9, 2021
This author makes some really common mistakes in this book that I see in a lot of other books written by Christians. His first glaringly obvious mistake is that he doesn't take the time to explain what sect of Christian he is, no does he describe a brief overview of his theology and how that might impact how he might define Christian words differently than other Christians, even if they were both raised religiously and both people are well-read when it comes to the bible and theology in general. If you are a have a theology based on some on Jim McClarty or John Calvin, you may have a different way of interpreting the bible than say if you based your theology off of Saint Augustine of Hippo or the current Pope. So unsurprisingly, when he defines "The Afterlife" as "the main reason for being a Christian", it ruffles my feathers a bit and I think that that's not really theologically accurate but many other Christian theologies may claim that's perfectly accurate. He also makes general statements without quoting scripture or encouraging people to crack open their bibles and turn to Hebrews, etc. to see that he's not just pulling definitions out of thin air. Also is this man a pastor? A bishop? Has he been to seminary or was he taught by a pastor? He doesn't say before he starts defining terms left and right, which is odd.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 155 reviews