Marcus Borg is the author of the best-selling book The Heart of Christianity. Currently he is Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University. He was an active member of the Jesus Seminar when it focused on the historical Jesus. Some of his other books include: Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, The God We Never Knew, and The Last Week co-authored with John Dominic Crossan.
Borg's new book Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary was just published by HarperSanFrancisco. I reached him in Portland, Oregon.
Gerry McCarthy: In Jesus you write: "the Christian life is about personal transformation into the likeness of Christ (from one degree to another, as Paul put it); and it is about participation in God's passion for the kingdom of God. The personal and political are brought together in 'the way of the cross,' --an image of personal transformation and confrontation with the domination systems of this world." What are the domination systems you think Christians must first confront today?
Marcus Borg: Let me speak about the implications for American Christians, since this is the cultural context that I know best. From a Christian point of view, as I see things, there are three aspects of the American domination system that most need transformation.
First: Our present imperial foreign policy, especially our government's declared "right" to launch pre-emptive wars. This policy violates Jesus' affirmation of non-violent resistance to evil. And even if Christians conclude that pacifism is not a realistic policy, our government's present policy and actions violate the long tradition of Christian teaching about "just war." Just war teaching, reaching back to around 400 AD and the time of Augustine, explicitly forbids starting a war. War is justifiable only as a last resort of self-defence --one may not start a war. Thus, whether one affirms the non-violence of Jesus or the Christian tradition of teaching about "just wars," our country's stated policy is wrong. On purely pragmatic grounds, one can make a very strong case that our invasion of Iraq was wrong. And yet this is the way domination systems commonly behave: Unilaterally, and without an adequate realization of the limits of power. Pride goes before a fall; imperial hubris (pride) goes before a fall.
Secondly: Much of our domestic economic policy also reflects the worst aspects of a domination system: Namely, a system that inordinately rewards the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the majority. There is a consensus among economic experts that the gap between the very wealthy and the rest of our population has been dramatically increasing over the last 25 years; and the tax policies and proposals of the present administration have increased that gap. The goal need not be absolute economic equality --which is both impossible and undesirable. But a goal informed by the Bible's passion for economic justice would greatly improve the economic status of the bottom half of our population. Among developed and industrialized countries, the United States is perhaps the most difficult country in which to be in the bottom half. Keep in mind that median family income in the United States is about $41,000 a year --half of American families make less than that. Median taxpayer income in this country is about $28,000 a year --half of American taxpayers make less than that. And most of the people at the lower end of the economic scale do not receive benefits --neither health insurance nor a pension plan.
Finally: Our domination over nature, by which I mean our
indifference to the non-human world and to environmental developments like global warning, needs to be addressed. Once again, as a nation, we generally act unilaterally in this area, refusing to take part in international efforts to address these issues.
GM: In a recent article in The Washington Post, E.J. Dionne Jr. writes that "When Rick Warren, one of the nations' most popular evangelical pastors, faced down right-wing pressure and invited Senator Barack Obama to speak at a gathering at his Saddleback Valley Community Church about the AIDS crisis, he sent a signal: A significant group of theologically conservative Christians no longer wants to be treated as a cog in the Republican political machine." What do you make of this analysis? Is it significant?
MB: I am encouraged by this, even as I am aware that many of the most influential evangelical voices (James Dobson, James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and so forth) continue to advocate "values" issues that would not matter much to the major voices of the Bible, and that are very consistent with the conservative political movement.
I admire Rick Warren's efforts. My hope is that they will extend beyond charity to include a passion for justice as well.
GM: In your epilogue, you explain that membership in mainline denominations has declined sharply over the past 40 years. But you add that: "The 'good news' in this decline is that, very soon, the only people left in mainline congregations will be the ones who are there for intentional and not conventional reasons. This creates the possibility for the church once again to become an alternative community rather than a conventional community, living into a deepening relationship with a Lord other than the lords of culture. This is exciting." Can you talk to me about why you find this exciting?
MB: I see the movement around Jesus and early Christianity as a "counter-cultural" religious movement --one whose values sharply rejected the conventional values of the time. The alternative values were compassion, justice, non-violence, and much more egalitarian vision of life together. But for centuries now, at least in historically Christian lands, being Christian was part of "convention." And thus Christians for the most part did not call into question the dominant values of the lands in which they lived. Now this is changing, and the result could be a much more authentic and faithful form of Christianity.
GM: In the book you write that: "Most of us are familiar with the question, 'Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?' It is a crucially important question, for the lordship of Jesus is the path of personal transformation for Christians. But taking seriously the way of the cross means that there is an equally important question, identical except for one word: 'Do you accept Jesus Christ as your political Lord and Savior?'" Why do so many Christians struggle with the political dimension of their faith?
MB: For more than one reason. Many of us grew up thinking that religion and politics were to be kept separate --in part because of the political domestication of Christianity over the centuries, and in part because of a misunderstanding of the American tradition of "separation of church and state." Thus many Christians (and non-Christians) have seen Christianity as intrinsically non-political, despite the Bible's passion for justice and peace. Another reason is that the Bible's passion for justice is challenging. Its values are very different from the dominant values of contemporary American culture, which I have sometimes spoken of as "the three A's": Affluence, achievement, and appearance. To take the Bible seriously means, in Thoreau's phrase, to march to the beat of a different drummer. For many people, this is uncomfortable.
GM: In the book you write about an "emergent" and "emerging" Christianity. You explain that: "It is a movement beyond the hardened forms of much of evangelicalism to a place that might be called 'post-evangelicalism' --a position that brings evangelical passion and devotion with it, even as it seeks to move beyond the polarizing and 'conservative-liberal' conflicts of modernity." This is a particularly hopeful sign for you isn't it? Do you see more critical reflection on the polarizing conservative-liberal conflicts in the church?
MB: Yes I do. Within American evangelical Christianity, there are significant voices of self-criticism about both evangelical theology and evangelical values and politics. The titles of some recent books by evangelical authors suggest this. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll criticizes the anti-intellectualism of much of evangelicalism. A book by Ron Sider with a nearly identical title does the same thing for evangelical values: The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience. Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy is a marvellous treatment by an evangelical of what might be called post-evangelicalism. And, of course, the bestseller God's Politics by Jim Wallis is a powerful call to move beyond entrenched positions.
GM: In the book you mention that historical Jesus scholars (including yourself) have been severely critiqued by scholars like Luke Timothy Johnson. Do you think this criticism is unfair?
MB: Some criticisms are fair. Others are not. Historical Jesus scholarship (and biblical scholarship more generally) is an academic discipline, and so criticism of other positions is an essential part of it. The criticisms that strike me as unfair are those that misrepresent the positions of those being criticized. Though I admire and agree with most of Luke Timothy Johnson's books, I think much of his book on Jesus falls into the category of misrepresentation. More generally, the Jesus Seminar has been a lightning rod that has attracted sensationalistic criticism from many quarters.
Gerry McCarthy is Editor of The Social Edge.
for internet marketing, web site design, development, promotion, and maintenance.
