Crossan and Borg Proclaim New Jesus Message

Historical ‘Search’ has unambiguous motive and message at Eden Convocation

By Michael Curran and Dr. John J. Hartmann

Historic Christian faith assumes the four Gospels reflect the accurate testimony of men Jesus appointed to be eyewitnesses of His miracles, teachings, and (most importantly) His resurrection, a view recently given firm historical footing in Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

Not so for John Dominic Crossan (professor emeritus, DePaul University) and Marcus Borg (professor emeritus, Oregon State University). These well-published authors have both been key players in the “Jesus Seminar,” a bi-annual meeting of carefully selected liberal scholars who reject the historical accuracy of much that is recorded in the Canonical Gospels and claim that one must “go behind the text” to discover “the real historical Jesus.” Crossan and Borg assume the Gospels fail to convey accurately the ‘real’ Jesus and His message, which can only be found when their methods of extraction, elimination and interpretation are applied to the texts. The subsequent fruit of this so-called ‘objective’ historical quest is a Jesus whose message turns out to be one of ‘social and personal transformation rather than individual salvation and a guide to a heavenly afterlife.’

Crossan and Borg elaborated these views in four lectures given on April 14th and 15th at Eden Theological Seminary, 475 East Lockwood Ave. in Webster Groves, MO. The theme of these sessions, which constituted the center-piece of this year's convocation of the liberal-leaning United Church of Christ Seminary, was “Jesus in the First and Twenty-First Centuries.” The usual convocation attendance of 300 was nearly doubled as students, faculty and staff watched the lectures from nearby classrooms on closed-circuit television supplementing the capacity-filled Chapel.

The goal of their work is not purely academic, but aims to make the Gospel palpable to our contemporary world and to facilitate responsiveness to the Jesus message. As Borg states “…a widespread way of understanding Christianity that was common until a generation or two ago has become unpersuasive to millions of people in our time. This earlier understanding is what many of us grew up with and is still dominant among most conservative-evangelical Christians.”

The agenda of these authors thus is clear: their view of Jesus is meant to shape the thinking and proclamation of the Church in the 21th Century, in order to make the Jesus message acceptable and persuasive to a post-modern audience.

We proceed with the four lectures as titled by the presenters, an interim review of prior ‘Jesus Quests,’ followed by an assessment and practical application for our conclusion.

Lecture 1: “Sources & Matrix: The Nature of the Gospels and their Historical Context”

The first lecture commenced with a prayer by Borg attributed to Augustine: "O Thou, from whom to be turned is to fall, and to whom to be turned is to rise, and in whom to stand is to abide forever; grant us in all our duties thy help, in all our perplexities thy guidance, in all our dangers thy protection, and in all our sorrows thy peace."

What followed can hardly be described as Augustinian or Armenian.

“Adult theological re-education is a crucial need within Congregations today,” Borg proclaimed. He then proceeded to illuminate the audience on how to teach and present the Crossan-Borg message in church settings.

Initially for Borg, the four traditional images of Jesus -- ‘the ways of telling His story’ -- all need to be forgotten and replaced: l. A substitutionary sacrifice for sin, 2. The mystery of Christ’s humanity/divinity, 3. Christ as a Judge at His Second Coming – the ‘killer Jesus’ Borg stated, and 4. Jesus as a Great Teacher.

The pithy overview which followed each of the four preceding traditional images did not accurately represent standard aspects of traditional Christian thought. Further, their true meaning was distorted through catchwords that set up the “straw man” Borg assumed to knock down with his own views. But the straw man seemed to remain standing, as Borg or Crossan at no point attempted to critique these views by way of a fair analysis of Biblical texts generally associated with each view.

For example, a selective quote of John 3:16a, emphasizing that “God so loved the world,” supposedly laid to rest any thought about a judging God, even though the very same chapter of John's gospel speaks of condemnation and wrath for those who do not turn from wicked deeds and believe the Gospel. Perhaps it would be fair to ask which parts of the 3rd chapter of John's Gospel represent the “historical Jesus” and which do not.

Crossan and Borg know two things must necessarily be addressed if the enormous remake of Christianity they propose is to be 'legitimately' pursued or even attempted.

First, regarding current and recent scholarship which holds contrary views, you simply dismiss it and deny its existence. Borg described the new Mainstream: “the kind that is not determined by specifically Christian convictions…. Mainstream scholarship does not include scholars committed to the inerrancy or infallibility of the Gospels and the Bible and their literal-factual interpretation – thus it does not include fundamentalist or the majority of evangelical Christian scholars.”

Second, you follow a first-century model of transmission – whilst denying other models even have equal legitimate existence – which is amicable to creating the gospel tradition needed. Borg and Crossan were asked concerning Bauckham’s highly respected work and Crossan stated, “There were never four Gospels. Paul would have never accepted the notion of four Gospels…Richard knows that.” For Crossan apparently, authors publish books they do not hold true? (Is he referring to himself or Bauckham?)

Then too for Crossan, perhaps the debates engaged with N. T. Wright (Townsend, 2009) and William Lane Craig (Copan, 1998) show future efforts are unnecessary. But a reading of the debates hardly conveys Crossan as refuting the errors in his ‘false gospel.’

Nevertheless, with the Gospels remade for them and any receptive audience, the work and message of Jesus is open for the reconstruction presented in lecture two.

Lecture 2: “The Kingdom and the Way: The Message and Activity of Jesus”

For Crossan and Borg the Gospels reflect a developing oral tradition that contains both early layers (“Pre-Easter Memory” – they undoubtedly say Easter as both scholars deny a bodily resurrection) and later layers coming from early Christian communities (“Post-Easter Development”).

Crossan has explained how the layers developed in previous debates and similarly in response to an interview question “Well, I have two other presuppositions – first, that Mark was used by Matthew and Luke; and second, that there are three layers of tradition.” (Copan, 1998, page 40).

The Gospels are not the historically reliable testimony of Jesus' chosen eyewitnesses, but the testimony that early and later Christian communities give “to the meaning and significance that Jesus had come to have in their lives.” They thus tell the Jesus story by means of both memory and metaphor.

For example, Jesus did make a final journey to Jerusalem (memory) and the story then becomes an example of what it means to follow Him (metaphor). In other cases, all we have is metaphor: while Jesus was really born, the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are not meant to recount facts about Jesus' birth, but provide rather a metaphorical narrative that brings meaning to the story.

Two conclusions were drawn from the first two lectures: 1) Jesus' message was not about His identity or the saving significance of His death as a way to heaven; 2) designations of Jesus as “Lord,” “Son of God” and “Messiah” are all post-Easter interpretations of the Christian communities that claimed to believe in and follow Him.

Jesus Quests: Three and Counting?

First, let us remember the “quest” for the so-called “historical Jesus” is not new, having its roots in the epistemology and Deistic moral philosophy of the late 18th century movement now called the Enlightenment.

Early in the 20th century, Albert Schweitzer, in his magisterial Quest for the Historical Jesus, incisively critiqued the first “quest” (primarily an enterprise of German scholarship) running from Reimarus (1780's) to Wrede (1901), which he judged a failure, since it revealed not the historical Jesus but the prejudices of His interpreters, who continually re-created Him in their own image.

Schweitzer argued that the historical Jesus must be understood from within the matrix of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology and its expectation for the kingdom of God. Jesus was a prophet who initially announced the imminent coming of the kingdom, but who then came to understand that He must vicariously suffer the “pre-messianic woes” for those predestined to inherit the kingdom (the purpose of His death), after which He would rise again and return as the Son of Man, who in the standard expectation of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology would be the bringer of the kingdom of God.

While there are problems with specifics of Schweitzer's thesis, the attempt to understand Jesus from within the matrix of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology remains in these reviewers opinion the best way forward to a clearer understanding of the Jesus of the Canonical Gospels.

The radical skepticism of Jesus scholarship after Schweitzer came to definitive expression in Rudolf Bultmann's highly influential work The History of the Synoptic Tradition, which claims that a high percentage of materials found in the Gospels are the product, not of eyewitness testimony, but of an evolving oral tradition (with few controls) that came to literary expression at a much later date, so that the Gospels reflect not the Jesus of history but the particular views and needs of the church communities that created them. The ‘Jesus Seminar’ in which Borg and Crossan have participated builds on Bultmann's radical skepticism about the historical veracity of the Canonical Gospels.

Further, the Jesus Seminar view of the historical Jesus is not the only scholarly proposal on offer, though it strangely receives pride of place in popular discussions of Jesus on the History Channel. Scholars like N. T Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God), operating up front with a more positive view of the historicity of the Gospel accounts, have sought to bring Schweitzer's eschatological view of Jesus into better historical focus: Jesus was indeed a prophet who announced the imminent coming of God's kingdom, Who, in accordance with God's plan, died and rose again in triumph as Israel's messianic representative, who will in due time come again as the bearer of the kingdom.

As Wright says, “Jesus interpreted His coming death and the vindication He expected after that death, as the defeat of evil; but on the first Easter Monday, evil still stalked the earth from Jerusalem to Gibraltar and beyond, and stalks it still.” (Wright, page 659). Thus, we still face the eschatological question first century Jews and Christians faced: a realized eschatology, apocalyptic eschatology or a measure of both? (Macaskill, 2007).

Lecture 3: “Execution and Resurrection: Good Friday and Easter”

For Borg, Mark 1:1-15: reveals the Gospel is about “the Way” and “the Kingdom.” The “Way” is not about going to heaven but “a path of transformation this side of death” in which “centering on God” and “following Jesus to Jerusalem” lead to confrontation with domination systems (death) and vindication by God (resurrection).

The “Kingdom of God” is a political term that envisions God's rule replacing all other domination systems. As such it is “a religious-political metaphor…that speaks about God and life in this world” Borg stated. It is a life on Earth in which God's rule brings justice, which for Borg means “distributive economic justice,” (i.e., read Marxism) as well as “non-violence and peace.”

Borg maintains that Jesus died at the hands of the Roman (imperial) and Jewish (ecclesiastical) authorities because He was a radical critic of these domination systems and had begun to attract a following. While the post-Easter (resurrection) proclamation of “Christ crucified” and “raised by God” was central for His followers, they did not view His death as a substitutionary atonement for sin, an idea allegedly popularized in the later writings of Anselm (1097), which Crossan labels as “obscene.”

Instead, for both Crossan and Borg, the New Testament teaches that Jesus' death and resurrection are: 1) God's “no” to the powers (domination systems) that killed Jesus and His “yes” to Jesus, i.e., His vindication by God, 2) a revelation of “the Way,” the path of personal transformation seen in the metaphor of dying and rising with Christ, 3) the revelation of the depth of God's love. Jesus' death is not about God's punitive justice, but reveals His passion for personal and cosmic transformation.

Lecture 4: “Following Jesus Today: Being Christian in a Time of Empire”

In the final lecture, Crossan — who focused much of his message on violence and nonviolence — contrasted the route to peace offered by the Roman Empire (religion-war-victory-peace) and that offered by Christianity (religion-nonviolence-justice-peace.)

Christianity for Borg is to be aware of the perils and dangers of empire; renunciation of our ‘right’ to pre-emptive war; avoidance of domination systems which includes racism, sexism, heterosexism and of course, domination of nature. There is no special interest group left-out of the Crossan-Borg message.

“God’s passion – and the passion of Jesus – is transformation – our transformation and the transformation of the world. As Christians, we are called to participate in this passion – this is participatory atonement and participatory eschatology. Love God, and change the world – for the world matters to God,” Borg proclaimed to conclude his final lecture.

And for both of them, Christians today follow Jesus in a time of (American) “empire,” which involves standing against imperial authority/practice and standing for an alternative vision grounded in God's dream of how things can be, His kingdom.

This includes opposing our present war policies and cultural domination system of economic injustice. Christians should live for realization of “God's dream” of personal transformation and transformation of the world, a participatory kind of atonement and eschatology in which God without us will not, and we without God cannot. In a final word Borg proclaimed, “Love God, and change the world - for the world matters to God.”

Jesus and His Newest Interpreters: Assessment and Application

Assessment

In stark contrast to Christian tradition, the Borg-Crossan understanding of Jesus and the Gospel downplays the future eschatological dimension of Jesus' message which, on the contrary looks for a future kingdom that one must enter via repentance, humility, and a righteous life.

The proclamation of the good news of the kingdom was an eschatological message, as seen in Mark 1:14-15: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel.” The same urgency is found in John the Baptist's proclamation: “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2), and in the message Jesus gave the twelve (Matthew 10:7).

The “time” had to do with fulfillment of those things foretold by the Old Testament prophets being at hand, which would involve both salvation and judgment. This is spelled out in passages like Isaiah 35 and 61, and both ideas are present in the message of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-12) and the message of Jesus (Luke 4:18-19; Matthew 16:27). The Jesus of the Canonical Gospels spoke about entering a future kingdom and the Jesus of the Gospels clearly spells out the requirements for entering it: one must repent, humble one's self as a child, follow Jesus in the path of obedience to God's will, and live a righteous life that surpasses that of the religious hypocrites.

Our lecturers took offense at the idea of Jesus dying vicariously, as a substitutionary sacrifice for sin. But this “obscene” notion has a rich theological background in the Old Testament and is explained in such terms throughout the New Testament (N.T.) in passages like Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2; 4:10 (Christ dies as a “propitiation” for sin, turning away God's wrath and providing forgiveness for the sinner).

How one could deny the NT teaches forgiveness is based on the shedding of Christ's blood is hard to understand, unless there is some other theological pre-judgment standing in the way. The NT teaches that “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22), to which may be added Christ's own words at the Last Supper: “this is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for many unto forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26: 46; Luke 22:20 I Cor. 11:25).

In summary, Richard Bauckham’s assessment of historical ‘Jesus Quests’ is pertinent: “...the historical Jesus comes to mean, not the Jesus of the Gospels, but the allegedly real Jesus behind the Gospels, the Jesus the historian must reconstruct by subjecting the Gospels to ruthlessly objective (so it is claimed) scrutiny…among the current historical Jesuses on offer, there is the Jesus of John Dominic Crossan, the Jesus of Marcus Borg....” (Bauckham, pages 2-3). ‘Thanks’ but ‘no thanks’ for the offer ‘por favor.’

Finally, it appears Borg and Crossan, in fulfillment of Schweitzer’s historical review, may have revealed much of themselves: “There is no historical task which so reveals a man’s true self as the writing of a Life of Jesus...for hate as well as love can write a Life of Jesus, and the greatest of them are written with hate...” (Schweitzer, page 4).

Application

We observed earlier how the Borg-Crossan ‘Jesus Quest’ has transpired within a long history of historical searches still in great supply today. So too, their pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, (we cannot understand the idolatry for anti-war posturing upon the heels of infant slaughter), anti-war promulgation does not occur in a theological vacuum either.

In the background -- the ‘matrix’ to use Crossan’s term – are presuppostions (but unstated of course!) upon a host of themes: freedom, authority, tradition, scripture, hermeneutics, bibliology, ecclesiology and eschatology to mention some of them.

For example, regardless of the quantity of individuals or states which assert freedom represents the ability for two men, or two women to wed (as Crossan and Borg clearly teach in clear, direct opposition to Scripture), from whence comes the assertion the desire is ‘right’ and represents freedom upon the attaintment? If they do not like Romans (or most of the Bible for that matter!) as is, why the need for any version? Is authority intrinsic or acquired (cf. Jude 9)?

Also, is the Crossan-Borg claim to objectivity any different from what we find Aaron alleging in a similar ‘golden calf’ creation? “So I told them, ‘Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it in the fire, and out came this calf!” Exodus 32:24.

Blessed Aaron the goldsmith: the responsible parties for the golden calf were those who contributed jewelry and the fire which smelted it. Aaron was pure and innocent as the wind-driven snow in the detestable debacle. Moses and the Lord saw otherwise. We easily discern similarly with Crossan and Borg and their creation, but there is something more pressing, more pertinent to address.

Their endeavor unquestionably dismisses the role of the Holy Spirit in the formation of God’s precious Word primarily and presumes a method of interpretation you simply cannot find within the text unless it is rewritten.

Time and space currently restrict, but perhaps soon, the occasion to address these themes and others will occur: “The Apostolic Faith: A Postmodern, Emergent Encounter with Freedom, Authority, Tradition and Scripture.” Such are the times we live in and such is a pressing need. “And God permitting, we will do so.” (Hebrews 6:3). Maranatha!

Sources and recommended reading:

Bauckham, R. (2007). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Copan, P. (1998). Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

Macaskill, G. (2007). Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity . Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.

Schweitzer, A. (1911). The Quest of the Historical Jesus. London: Adam & Charles Black.

Stewart, R. B. (2006). The Resurrection of Jesus, John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue. The Crossan-Wright Dialogue (p. 219). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Townsend, T. (2009, April 18). Borg-and-Crossan Show sets record for Eden convocation. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from stl today: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/keepthefaith/story

Wright, N. T. (1996). Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Michael Curran, M. Litt. St. Andrews, Scotland. Michael and Mary and their five children Shannon, Ryan, Rebekah, Rachel and Brendan live in St. Louis. He has lived and served as pastor in South Africa, preached the gospel in numerous countries – Austria, Botswana, England, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, Kenya, Zimbabwe -- and smuggled Bibles into the previous communist block countries of Eastern Europe.

Dr. John Hartmann, Ph.D, Cambridge University, England. Dr. Hartmann, father of four children, has served as pastor in several churches and taught New Testament Greek at both Cambridge University and Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, MO. He currently is the pastor-teacher of Living Word Christian Fellowship, a non-denominational church in Oakville, MO.