In the above video, well-known "Christian" scholar Marcus Borg debates William Lane Craig about the resurrection of Jesus.
From the 17 min of the video (in Borg's opening speech), Borg explains what he understand by Easter. Let's write down his own words (although I ask you to watch the entire debate by yourself). Please, read carefully the following of Borg's words: "For me, whether the [Jesus] tomb was empty doesn't matter. Whether something happened to the corpse of Jesus doesn't matter. For I understand things, Easter is not primarily about something espectacular happening to Jesus on a particular day in the past. It is about the continuing experience of Jesus after his death. This in my judgment is the historical ground of Easter. And to relate this to the stories of Easter in the Gospels, I don't think of the stories of Easter as reporting of kinds of events that could been photographed or videotaped or seen by a desinterested observer who happened to be present. As seen them as metaphorical narratives expressing these kind of experiences and these convictions. Some other may reflect specific experiences, some other may be paraboles of the resurrection."
Some comments:
1-Borg's position represents the triumph of liberal ideology and personal convictions and opinions over factual evidence.
What kind of person would say that "it doesn't matter" whether Jesus' bodily resurrection (and its logical consequence, the empty tomb) was historical or not? Even an atheist, who for whatever reason would become convinced of Jesus' physical resurrection, would tend to revise his atheism and probably will become a theist and even a Christian.
Do you really (honestly) believe that Jesus' bodily resurrection, if historical, "doesn't matter"? Really? I doubt any honest and objective person would say that.
2-When Borg says that the stories of Easter don't report events that could be photographed or videotaped by "desinterested observers", he's saying that Jesus' resurrection is NOT an objective historical event. The reports would be only autobiographical (i.e. reports about the personal biography and psychological convictions of the "interested" people there, i.e. Christians).
I'm sure that most of my readers will agree with me about the obvious meaning of Borg's words. But if you disagree, let's use an analogy palatable for you:
Suppose that a world's leading Spiritualist, when asked for his interpretation of physical or materialization mediumship, tell you this: "Well, I don't think that the stories about materializations in the spiritualist literature report the kind of events which could be observed by desinterested observers, nor photographed nor videotaped. They're metaphorical narratives expressing the experiences of spiritualists, they report the "continuing experience" of deceased and dead persons among spiritualists and other believers in the spiritual world".
The above words sound more like a James Rand-like kind of assessment of the spirutalistic literature than the words of a convinced, serious spiritualist.
What would you think of such "spiritualist"? Evidently, such a person is claiming that the cases of physical or materialization mediumship are purely illusory or subjective, not objective events. Written stories about such evidence don't report any objective, physical afterlife materialization through a medium, but the subjective psychological "experiences" of "interested" parties, namely, spiritualists who believe in mediums and the world of spirits.
Would you take such a spiritualist seriously? Would you even consider him a TRUE spiritualist? Obviously not. He CLAIMS to be a spiritualist, but in FACT he is NOT. He doesn't believe in the objective existence of all of these events, but he uses the language of spiritualist in order to convey the impression that he is one of them.
3-Borg's comments tend to give a misleading impression to people unfamiliar with the evidence for the historical Jesus. When he calls Christians who had experiences of the risen Jesus as "interested", he bypasses the fact that the early Chrsitians were MONOTHEISTIC JEWS who had every predisposition AGAINST considering any person to be God or to be resurrected before the ends of times. What need to be explained is precisely WHY that profound change was produced in such a people.
Moreover, you cannot explain the purely subjective "continuing experience" of Jesus in people who weren't believers in Jesus (and hence, with no interest in favor of Jesus) like Paul.
Borg's position is not only without evidence. It is actually contrary to the evidence, which is common in many liberal scholars when addressing the teachings and resurrection of Jesus.
Borg's position is not only without evidence. It is actually contrary to the evidence, which is common in many liberal scholars when addressing the teachings and resurrection of Jesus.
4-Given all the above, we can ask: If Jesus' resurrection was merely metaphorical, not historical, then WHY IN THE WORLD DOES BORG CALL HIMSELF A CHRISTIAN? Why does he prefer (his idiosyncratic interpretation of) Christianity instead of Islam, or Buddhism, or contemporary revisionistic information from paranormal origin about Jesus in the Urantia Book, Conversations with God or A Course in Miracles? It is not clear why Borg buys into an anti-realistic view of the resurrection, but still insists in calling himself a Christian.
The answer (and the key to understand Borg's whole position) is RELIGIOUS PLURALISM. Watch the following lecture by Borg on religious pluralism:
5-After minute 18 of the above lecture, Borg continues speculating on the "meaning" of Easter. Please, notice carefully, how Borg uses the same TERMINOLOGY of Christianity, but with a wholly different meaning. For example, he says: "The second central truth claim of Easter (all of those based on the New Testament): God has vindicated Jesus. Easter is God "yes" to Jesus and God's "know" to that which crucified him".
Traditional Christians obviously claim that God vindicated Jesus, but in the sense that a PHYSICAL resurrection provided the ultimate objective proof that Jesus had an exclusive authority, an unique position among all other prophets, a special status regarding the kingdom of God, vindicating Jesus' exclusivistic and radical personal claims of being the Son of God and the only mediator between God and humans beings (claims which in the Jewish ears were clearly and straightfowardly blasphemous and eventually caused Jesus' crucifixion). The resurrection was the evidence that the blasphemous charge against Jesus was false, and that his claims implying divinity were, at the end, TRUE. This is the traditional understanding of Jesus in Christianity.
But note how Borg, while using the same phraseology, devoid it of any reasonable meaning and plausibility, in particular:
If the resurrection was not historical, but only subjective experiences of the believers in Jesus, how the hell does Borg know that such bunch of subjective experiences were God' "yes" to Jesus?
Believers in the Urantia Book have "experiences" of a new Jesus and a spiritual world which denies reincarnation, but this fact provide us with any evidence for thinking that such experiences imply God's "yes" to the Urantia Book and anti-reincarnation?
Followers of Neale Donald Walsh's Conversations with God have gained a new sense of spirituality and meaning of life. How the hell does such subjective feelings imply that God's "yes" to Walsh's teachings in favor of reincarnation (which, by the way, contradict the Urantia Book). Is God saying "yes" to mutually contradictory spiritual claims?
Finally, I don't want to seem too harsh against Borg. I've heard that he's a nice, very nice guy, and perhaps having a conversation with him while watching a basketball game or sharing a couple of beers would be fun.
My opposition is against his ideas, which I find extemely misleading, historically unreliable, philosophically objectionable and spiritually very dangerous.
In the fashion of New Age spiritualities, Borg tells what anti-Christians want to hear, what feels good to them, what is politically correct and palatable in a secular society which has undermined Christianity and other religions in such a way that discussing whether only one of them is true is politically incorrect, a secular society which only allows a room for religions in the context of religious pluralism in order to undermine them, making them equivalent and a matter of personal feelings, preferences and opinions (this secular and religious pluralist strategy astutely bypasses the most important and crucial point: if the claims of religions in question are true or false. This secularist strategy of promoting religious pluralism in order to make equivalent all the religions has caused a lot of spiritual damage and confusion and has to be exposed for what is: pure atheistic charlatanism and deception).
Borg's words are full of "inspirational" messages, emotionally nice words, refreshing positive feelings about the value of people's "experiences" and God's vindication of them (who would not like to having God validating and saying "yes" to our particular feelings and personal experiences, even if they're contradictory with other people's experiences and opinions?). You actually (and I include myself) will feel very good when hearing (and reading) Borg's inspirational lectures and scholarly work.
What is largely missing in Borg's words (and scholarly work) is convincing EVIDENCE to think that his opinions and speculations about the historical Jesus and Easter are likely to be true.
And this is the aspect of Borg's position which I find objectionable, misleading and spiritually dangerous.
0 comments:
Post a Comment