What is a Christian?

This is the question that I always thought had an easy answer. I was reminded of it Wednesday night during the debate with Marcus Borg. The first time I realized that my answer to this question was not universally acknowledged was a year ago during the first Socratic Club debate I ever attended. The question being debated was borrowed from Karl Marx, “Is religion the opiate of the masses?” Dr. Paul Metzger of Multnomah Biblical Seminary was debating Dr. Susan Shaw, professor of women’s studies at OSU. Dr. Shaw opened my eyes to a whole new vision of Jesus that exists in the world. Her view represents, of course, a small minority of Christians worldwide, but a growing number of people in academia.

You see, I had always assumed that the definition of a Christian was fairly objective (silly I know, Mr. Post-modern); that while there may be differences in doctrine among various denominations, or between Protestants and Catholics, ultimately there were certain essential beliefs that characterized Christians as a unique group of people. Apparently I was wrong. However, in order to see how I was wrong, let’s look at what (generally) defines a Christian.

I would define a Christian as someone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God (the God of Abraham and his descendents), sent to earth to die for our sins in order to reconcile our broken relationship God, and that through faith in Christ, we have the hope of eternal salvation. A Christian may also be rightly characterized as someone who believes in the trinity, that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A Christian believes that the Holy Bible is the word of God (or inspired word) and that no other documents may be regarded as scripture (Q, Gospel of Thomas, Book of Mormon, etc).

Truthfully, I do not know if this definition has any historical precedent. Perhaps there has always been a broader definition.

In contrast to this, the Jesus seminar, some progressive main line churches, and others believe something quite different. Dr. Borg and Dr. Shaw both call themselves Christians, but so far as I know, hold none of the above beliefs. They do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, nor do they believe that Jesus thought he was the Son of God, or even God in flesh. They do not believe he was sent by God to die for the redemption of our sins. Some do not even believe he was really crucified. Dr. Shaw explained that the crucifixion was an invention by the patriarchal culture’s male death obsession. They do not believe in the second coming, or they believe that it’s already happened. They do not see the gospels as accurate portrayals of Christ’s life, but rather as poetic and more often than not, metaphorical narratives.

This, of course, begs the question, “What do they believe? Unfortunately, it’s much easier to talk about what they don’t believe than what they do believe. Not only are their beliefs (in my opinion) complicated and vague, but there is virtually no universal agreement, even among the Jesus seminar folks themselves. Dr. Shaw describes Jesus as the ultimate example of human potential, and this made him holy. Borg sees God as “the encompassing Spirit in whom we live and move and have our being.” Jesus was fully human person who had a unique capacity to be filled with God’s spirit, and in him, “we see the incarnation of God.” These descriptions are only pieces of what they believe and do not ably describe the whole of their beliefs. Borg has authored a number of books that articulate his viewpoint, and that of the Jesus seminar.

So……what is a Christian? Is there a description that most people can agree on? Are there necessary characteristics that define Christians? Can people with such progressive and radical views of Jesus rightly be called Christians? Is it intolerant to say “no”? And finally, as we try to spread the gospel to a world with modern sensibilities, how broad of a position can we take for the sake of inclusiveness and still maintain our identity?

The Return of the Borg

Wednesday night (3/7) the OSU Socratic Club held debate/discussion between OSU professor Dr. Marcus Borg and Dr. Brad Harper of Multnomah Biblical Seminary. The topic discussed was “How different views of Jesus affect the church’s engagement of culture.” Harper holds an orthodox view of Jesus, whereas Borg has a more progressive view, as outlined by the Jesus Seminar. The debate was quite good and sometimes began to go over my head as they delved deep into a number of theological issues. This debate would have been very much at home with a room full of seminary students. However, if I had to distill their arguments into a few essential points, it would be that Borg believes that the traditional view of Jesus is too temporal and consequently results in his followers neglecting this world in favor of the next. In contrast, Harper, while acknowledging this point, found Borg’s more material view too lacking in its capacity to offer hope and redemption. The debate was far more substantive than I can justly communicate, but I believe this was the essence of the discussion.

Borg invoked images from the Left Behind novels to illustrate his point about traditional views of Jesus and the culture, citing “almost pornographic images of violence.” Borg describes this viewpoint as “warlike.” Essentially he is saying that if this world doesn’t matter, then why bother caring about the environment? Why try to end suffering? Why seek justice for the oppressed? He believes that the “Kingdom of God” was intended to be here on Earth rather than in Heaven. Harper admitted that the church has sometimes been neglectful in its zeal to save souls while ignoring their material needs, but that Borg’s view Jesus is too focused in the present (and in the material), not taking a long term view toward Jesus and that the consequences of this were important. As one might expect, they disagreed on the role of scripture in this subject; Borg favoring a looser interpretation, Harper a more literal interpretation.

There were two key points during the debate that offered good discussion. The first occurred as Harper was articulating the idea of God and Man in one person. Harper characterized this as “a mystery,” and that as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, it is not the “how” that matters, but the “who.” Borg responded to this with kind of a low blow, saying that he was biased against “unintelligible” views of Jesus. Harper countered by pointing out that the traditional view of Jesus was no more “unintelligible” than Borg’s view that Jesus is not God, but a fully human “spirit person,” in whom we see the incarnation of God.

The other good moment came toward the end of the debate when Borg tried to make Harper squirm by pressing him to acknowledge that evangelicals see Jesus as the only way to salvation. This is an unpopular view in the world today because it is seen as exclusionary and simple. Borg believes that there are many paths to God and/or salvation among what he calls the “enduring religions,” whether it be Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed. Harper handled Borg’s advance with class and conviction, not shying away from traditional Christian doctrine, but also acknowledging God’s sovereignty over our world and its people.

Despite Borg’s simplistic, generalized view of evangelicals, it seems to me that Harper represents a growing number of evangelicals, who acknowledge the good and bad of the church’s past, who do not demand a certain type of government or political point of view, and profess that living the gospel is as important as preaching the gospel