Marcus Borg has made inroads into popular mainline Protestantism in a way that few other writers have in recent decades. I remember when Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time came out. I was fascinated by this book. It was actually an important book in my spiritual development, not because of the conclusions that Borg draws, but because of the way in which it made me wrestle with my own ideas about the person and work of Jesus. At the end of the day, I disagree with Borg almost from top to bottom, but I certainly appreciate his irenic manner of debate and his remarkable ability to communicate complex ideas in ways that are accessible to non-specialists.
Part of why I disagree with Borg so thoroughly is that his theological and epistemological framework is essentially modernist, as are the assumptions of most “historical Jesus” scholars. According to Borg, the Christ of creed, the one whom the Church has confessed throughout the centuries, is not the historical Jesus who lived in Galilee in the first century. Rather, the creedal affirmations of the church are “exalted metaphors” that followers of Jesus attached to him after they came to believe that he was raised from the dead (also a metaphor). They tell us about the significance that Christians have attached to Jesus, but they tell us nothing about Jesus himself, except that he was the kind of person whom others would wish to exalt.
I find this view exceedingly problematic on multiple levels. I am thankful, then, that my friend Fred Schmidt has written a very helpful critique of Borg in the Journal of Preachers. Dr. Schmidt is an Episcopal priest who holds the Reuben P. Job Chair in Spiritual Formation at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. I strongly commend this article to you. Schmidt and Borg are friends, and they even studied under the same professor at Oxford, the outstanding biblical scholar G. B. Caird. Schmidt’s critique of Borg’s work is honest, penetrating, and straightforward, but it is delivered with courtesy and without malice. It is a fine example of the way in which Christians should engage one another in debate.
David F. Watson 
Fred Schmidt’s critique, it seems to me, never actually says that Marcus Borg is wrong about anything. If I understand Schmidt correctly, he essentially says he just doesn’t like Borg’s conclusions and their implications. Contrary to Schmidt’s assertion that Borg doesn’t critique modernity, he certainly does – especially today’s modern “traditional Church.” However, Schmidt doesn’t see it that way. Rather, he states that “the weight of Marc’s apologetic defends modernity, not the Gospel.”
So, instead of the term, “modernity,” wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “contemporary understanding of the world?” Weren’t the contemporary understandings of the Gospel writers reflected in their writings (belief in the supernatural, a flat earth, no democracy, etc.)? So why should we as readers discount that when seeking to understand and apply the Gospels today? In my opinion, Schmidt’s criticism that Borg: “reduces the Christian faith to a series of metaphors describing a largely political undertaking,” is a gross misunderstanding of Borg.
As I understand Marcus Borg, he’s striving to make Christianity accessible to people that are alienated by churches and Christians with simplistic answers. Specifically, those that aren’t open to critical thinking or questions, or at least place some questions out of bounds. Contrary to what Schmidt asserts, that isn’t a “small minority” of churches or Christians. Perhaps as Schmidt says, historically and globally that wasn’t/isn’t the case but outside of academia and some Christian institutions, that’s unknown to the lay audience. I think Borg targets his writing for the general public, not the Church.
Some critics might argue that Borg’s Christianity is watered-down Christianity. I would agree if Christianity means affirming the accuracy of the supernatural claims in The Apostle’s Creed and saving souls from the fires of Hell. That’s exciting stuff, while prayer, loving your enemies, and forgiving those who trespass against us is often boring, hard, and unappreciated. For some Christians, the latter is not enough.
Note: In the last paragraph of my prior post, “affirming the literalness” rather than “affirming the accuracy” in The Apostle’s Creed is a better choice of words. To some that might be a distinction without a difference. However, one can affirm supernatural claims to be metaphorically true rather than literally true, which is what I would suspect Marcus Borg might say.
David, I’m curious as to why you chose to bring up Fred Schmidt’s critique of Marcus Borg at this particular time, given that the publication date on Fred’s article is 2011. I’m unable to determine from your post why you felt it worthwhile to resurrect Fred’s analysis at this moment. Since Fred was my mentor and instructor in spiritual direction, and I have also met, heard and read Marcus Borg, I’d like to know more about your motivation for this post. Thank you.
Cynthia, I just became aware of the article–that’s all. No other motivations regarding the timing.
Cynthia, David…
FYI, the article appeared in the Pentecost volume 37. No. 4 for 2014.