Well, I suppose one should be grateful that a mainstream-media outlet like CNN is interested in what Christians believe over and above the desire to either mock or marginalize. But this video, which was featured as part of a nicely designed CNN.com homepage, does more harm than good, I think. At the very least, it does nothing but reconfirm the media’s already daft preconceptions about Christians’ — make that conservative or orthodox and certainly evangelical Christians’ — beliefs, which is to say, that even they are too ignorant to understand what their own faith really teaches.
Yes, what poses as an attempt to explain to non-Christians the “language” of Christianity, in all its many dialects — Roman Catholic, Baptist, and Jehovah’s Witness (we’ll let that go for the moment) — turns out to be a condescending lesson for poor, benighted, and historically illiterate evangelicals (the real target of this piece) about what Christianity is truly about and how they have distorted it.
What source did CNN’s Kirby Ferguson, the writer and director of this video, employ as the basis for this instruction? Marcus Borg. Borg, by all accounts, is an affable chap, and has all his academic ducks in a row. He is also a Jesus Seminar type who denies much of what the Faith has taught as dogma for much of its history.
For example, did you know that to “believe” in a biblical context means primarily to “belove” and has little to do with embracing specific doctrines? Did you know that “salvation” is primarily, if not exclusively, about the here and now and not about eternal life with God, and that it can be worked for? Did you know that if you really understood the Bible in its original context and came to terms with the philology and lexicology of biblical language, you’d be a mainline Protestant or a unitarian (which is certainly the implication of this video homily)?
What a way to start a Sunday. Listen up CNN and ABC and NBC and MSNBC and NPR and anybody out there in the secular wilderness who may desire to learn, never mind teach, what Christianity has historically believed, yes, even in all its many dialects: Next time, would you please contact someone from the masthead of this publication? I’m sure David Bentley Hart or Timothy George or, for that matter, the editor in chief would be delighted to give you a tutorial. And I promise, after your language lesson, you’ll be able to do more than just ask, “Why did the first woman pope write the Gospel of Thomas — and does it come with fries?”
July 31st, 2011 | 2:57 pm
Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults practice *love bombing* a tactic to indoctrinate new recruits into believing the wackiest absurdity,like JW with their 1914 ‘invisible return for Jesus’ dogma.
Jeannie Mills, survivor of the Jonestown Massacre, said, “When you meet the friendliest people you have ever known, who introduce you to the most loving group of people you’ve ever encountered, and you find the leader to be the most inspired, caring, compassionate and understanding person you’ve ever met, and then you learn that the cause of the group is something you never dared hope could be accomplished, and all of this sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true!”
Don’t be lured into an apocalyptic cult!
July 31st, 2011 | 4:06 pm
What, you mean things can’t just mean whatever you want them to mean?
(I believe that someday we will come to the apparently “advanced” idea that journalism owes its subject matter a certain level of respect. If and when this day comes, we might recover the idea of people trusting the media again.)
July 31st, 2011 | 5:11 pm
This is so bad. An all-too-common mix of ignorance, condescension and childishness from the intellectual (and secular) giants at CNN.
August 1st, 2011 | 7:14 am
I don’t see anything in the video that is fundamentally at odds with Catholicism.
August 1st, 2011 | 10:20 am
@David,
Apparently your Catholic education ended early. to Catholics Salvation means somewhat more than Mr. Borg thinks it does. And we Catholics do “believe” in a set of statements and say so at every Mass. It’s called the Nicene Creed. I also wonder why Borg thinks he knows what these words originally meant whereas so many others have gotten them so wrong over time. Does he have a Wayback machine? Like, at least, to the time the Nicene Creed was originally drafted?
August 1st, 2011 | 11:26 am
[...] For balance, read Anthony Sacramone’s “Why CNN Still Can’t Speak Christian.” [...]
August 1st, 2011 | 11:30 am
Wait a second, just because two English words look alike doesn’t mean that one came from the other? Believe did not etymologically come from beloved? I thought CNN came from “Canon” since both are inerrant.
I mean really, I would love to see how these guys get from peitho (Greek for “believe”) and agapao (“beloved”) linguistically. Talk about “mental gymnastics”.
August 1st, 2011 | 12:31 pm
Blake’s conclusion is true, and needs to be understood in order to make sense of such a condescending piece of “reporting”: Folks in the media, and many other secularized folks, do not have respect for Christianity (or religion in general) as a form of knowledge. They imagine they can scan a Wikipedia article, do a half-hour interview with an academic like Borg, and thereby master the subject matter.
This condescension, and an utter lack of genuine curiosity (wouldn’t you have liked, in the video, to have heard how a Greek-speeking Christian, e.g., understands the terms Believe, Salvation, and rapture?) accounts for the shallow and mindless quality of so much reporting on religious themes.
This particular vid is not much more than an ad for borg’s new book–and power to him for conning CNN into putting it out there. I have to say it’s well-produced–and rather easily produced, if you know the relevant programs. FT could be producing such things, highlighting its stable of writers, whetting public appetites for their books and articles, just as easily as CNN. Why aren’t you (the Creed vid notwithstanding)?
I expect CNN to give us a Borg’s-eye-view when they decide to toss a bone to Christianity. If we want something other than that, we should be prepared to provide it ourselves.
August 1st, 2011 | 2:31 pm
Apparently your Catholic education ended early.
Mike Melendez:
Don’t you think it would have been possible to disagree civilly without making a snide personal remark?
[T]o Catholics Salvation means somewhat more than Mr. Borg thinks it does.
If you go back and watch the video again, it is talking about what salvation means in the Bible. If you do a search for salvation in the Old Testament of the NIV, it comes up 74 times, and there was no belief in “going to heaven” in Old Testament times. It would be interesting to do an analysis of the meanings of salvation in the New Testament, but that would be a big task. Take one verse (Romans 11:11): Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. If salvation is a synonym for “going to heaven,” how can it come to people before they die?
And we Catholics do “believe” in a set of statements and say so at every Mass.
When the video talked about the meaning of believe, it was in reference to believing that the Bible was literally true. Whatever Borg or the author of the video may think about the Nicene Creed, there was nothing in the video that ruled out belief in a set of religious or doctrinal truths. Catholics don’t believe in the literal truth of the Bible. It is also true, as the video says, that the Rapture is not an ancient Christian belief. And of course Catholics do not believe in the Rapture.
I also wonder why Borg thinks he knows what these words originally meant whereas so many others have gotten them so wrong over time.
It is certainly not difficult to research what words and concepts meant in Biblical times or in first-century Palestine. And of course just because the meaning of a word changes over time doesn’t mean that those who use it in a later, different sense, are getting it wrong. It is quite clear that salvation doesn’t mean “going to heaven” in the Old Testament. If there are good reasons to believe at least some meanings in the New Testament do involve an afterlife in heaven, then salvation would mean one thing in the Old Testament and another in the New Testament, but that would not mean those in the New Testament were getting its meaning wrong.
August 1st, 2011 | 3:12 pm
“Wait a second, just because two English words look alike doesn’t mean that one came from the other?”
The words “believe” and “love” in English do, in fact, descend from the same root. The OED provides this etymology for “believe”:
Early Middle English bileven, < bi-, be- prefix + leven < Old English, Anglian léfan, short. < geléfan, West Saxon gelíefan, gelýfan, a Common Teutonic vb. (in Old Saxon gilôƀian, Dutch gelooven, Old High German gilouben, Middle High German gelouben, glöuben, modern German glauben (earlier glouben, Gothic galaubjan) < Old Teutonic *galauƀian to believe, probably, ‘to hold estimable, valuable, pleasing, or satisfactory, to be satisfied with,’ < galaub- ‘dear, pleasing’; compare Gothic liuban, lauf, lubum, lubans, Teutonic root *luƀ-, Aryan lubh-, to hold dear, to like, whence also love n.1.
August 1st, 2011 | 5:27 pm
“At the very least, it does nothing but reconfirm the media’s already daft preconceptions about Christians’ — make that conservative or orthodox and certainly evangelical Christians’ — beliefs, which is to say, that even they are too ignorant to understand what their own faith really teaches”
Borg is a Christian. The video represents his understanding of the faith and of the way he believes that most Christians have misunderstood their faith. I don’t see why Sacramone thinks the media is being daft here.
“a condescending lesson for poor, benighted, and historically illiterate evangelicals (the real target of this piece) about what Christianity is truly about and how they have distorted it”
I’ve seen a lot of comments from Roman Catholics and from Orthodox Christians on this site that also condescend to evangelicals as well as to mainline Christians about how they have distorted the faith.
“Listen up CNN and ABC and NBC and MSNBC and NPR and anybody out there in the secular wilderness who may desire to learn, never mind teach, what Christianity has historically believed, yes, even in all its many dialects: Next time, would you please contact someone from the masthead of this publication?”
Borg is a popular biblical historian among many mainline Christians. CNN might be reaching out not to secularists but to mainline Christians. In fact, it was perhaps a Christian on the staff who recommended that the station use Borg.
“And we Catholics do “believe” in a set of statements and say so at every Mass. It’s called the Nicene Creed.”
Borg is married to an Episcopal priest and was raised Lutheran. He probably recites the Nicene Creed every week.
“I also wonder why Borg thinks he knows what these words originally meant whereas so many others have gotten them so wrong over time. Does he have a Wayback machine?”
He’s a historian. To find answers to your questions, read his books.
“Folks in the media, and many other secularized folks, do not have respect for Christianity (or religion in general) as a form of knowledge. They imagine they can scan a Wikipedia article, do a half-hour interview with an academic like Borg, and thereby master the subject matter”
As you observe later, the video is probably drawn entirely from an interview/plug from Borg. Borg *does* understand Christianity as a “form of knowledge.” His understanding might be different from yours, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t respect Christianity.
August 1st, 2011 | 8:20 pm
@David Nickol,
I apologize for my incivility. I do get frustrated at your claims for the Catholicism you gave up.
Catholicism is not a solo scriptura faith. So any analysis limited to the text of the bible, either or both testaments will fall short. And in Catholicism, salvation is more than just “going to heaven”.
@ Michael,
You need to read a little better. My comment:
“And we Catholics do “believe” in a set of statements and say so at every Mass. It’s called the Nicene Creed.” was directed at David Nickol to contradict his claim that Catholicism would not disagree with Borg. Though if Borg believes CNN’s interpretation of what he wrote, one wonders what he thinks the Nicene Creed says, if he does proclaim belief.
“When the video talked about the meaning of believe, it was in reference to believing that the Bible was literally true.”
What I heard was that “believe” really meant “belove” as indicated by the helpful graphic with the emphasis on the misunderstood meaning. If CNN misunderstood Borg in their explication, then the original point of the posting is reinforced and they have done Borg a disservice.
“It is certainly not difficult to research what words and concepts meant in Biblical times or in first-century Palestine.”
What is suspect is the claim that so many others got the words wrong, as if they could not or did not do the research. To go beyond what others could do, one would need a Wayback machine.
August 1st, 2011 | 8:33 pm
LOL. Anthony. I think your instincts are good, you will never run out of material with these left liberals. They’re almost completely clueless (was it First Things that reported Henry Kissinger’s latest massive tome had in it 3 pages to do with religion?) and completely unequipped for political leadership in the 21st century, as Philip Jenkins showed, dominated as it will be by religion.
August 1st, 2011 | 11:12 pm
@Michael’s two posts:
Believe and beloved aren’t related in Hebrew or Greek. Jesus and Paul didn’t speak the king’s English, or any form of it for that matter. Whether believe and beloved are etymologically related in English is irrelevant in the extreme.
(Being well aware of those who rationally, but IMHO wrongly, try to draw distinctions and divisions between Paul and Christ, I speak of apostolic proclamation and Christ’s teachings as unified, not discordant. This is another subject for another day, but suffice it to state that I sat in on enough of Bart Ehrman giving his “after hours,” informal lectures to one of his UNC NT classes, that I’m neither impressed with nor swayed by common arguments about how Paul and Christ taught different religions, or about how Christ is errantly reported in the gospels — cultural studies seem to situate the Christ of testimony quite well in a Jewish cultural and historical context. Believing Jesus to be significantly different than reported in the canonical gospels may certainly be a rational endeavor, but it is neither more rational than, nor structurally/systematically superior to, accepting the canonical gospels as the most accurate sources about the real “Christ of history.”)
In fact, word meanings in general exist, and operate in their contexts, completely independently of etymological relations (or lack thereof). Not unfairly, one might expect that anyone stepping up on a soapbox about language and etymology should know this.
The “Christians” who followed Christ, followed teachings markedly different than Borg. If the apostles and gospel authors were correct, then Borg is at best someone who professes, “Lord, Lord, didn’t I … (fill in the blank).” To whom Christ responds, “I never knew you.”
To disbelieve the apostolic and canonical gospel accounts not only of Christ, but also of the doctrine He taught and embodied (as is the preferred pastime of “Jesus Seminar” types), is to simply insist that we can do history better — 2,000 yrs removed from the actual events — than those who were close enough to observe them firsthand.
The absurdity of this presumption seems to have completely escaped many modern “historians” who think they can do a fantastic job re-explaining and re-inventing “the (so-called) historical Jesus.” All while tainted by modern biases (erroneously and disingenuously painted as “objectivism”), which are actually very unique and trendy to the 20th and 21st centuries, and which irreparably cloud any reasonable ability to explain things we are incredibly distant from — chronologically, linguistically, culturally, geographically, and religiously.
In any other discipline, including modern studies of contemporary cultures and persona, such fantasies would be seen (rightly so) as immature, hilariously incapable of discerning their own limitations, wildly inaccurate and fraught with achilles heels, and unreliable in the extreme.
But for some reason, in Jesus Seminar circles, this nonsense passes for “scholarship.” This is not a credit to biblical scholarship, nor to intellectualism or historiographic study in general. It is an embarrassment.
Finally, if Christ as reported by eyewitnesses is indeed the Christ of testimony (Richard Bauckham’s aptly chosen words), then Borg is not “Christian” in the least.
Sure if we redefine “Christian” to mean someone who actually doesn’t believe the gospel, then Borg may indeed be one.
Then again, if we redefine “vegetarians” as “people who eat only veggies but also people who eat meat and veggies,” then everyone on this earth can be called “vegetarian” except for people who don’t eat food.
August 2nd, 2011 | 2:56 am
David Nickol
August 1st, 2011 | 7:14 am
I don’t see anything in the video that is fundamentally at odds with Catholicism.
==========
So how does Catholicism define salvation and how do Catholics think of and what do they believe about salvation?
========
Mike: Apparently your Catholic education ended early.
David: Don’t you think it would have been possible to disagree civilly without making a snide personal remark?
Was Mike wrong about your Catholic education on the subject? Why?
August 2nd, 2011 | 3:19 am
Blake
July 31st, 2011 | 4:06 pm
What, you mean things can’t just mean whatever you want them to mean?
=========
I intend to read at least one of Borg’s books; I’ve never read any. But even without doing so, from the little that was reported, I basically disagree with how he framed the differences between Christian split denominations.
Most fundamentally, I don’t think they are speaking different languages but are using different dictionaries to the same language.
Different denominations elaborate their own dictionary (interpretation and meaning) for the same language (text). So, yes, in that sense, each denomination establishes the meaning they want for anything in the Bible (and outside it) and words will mean whatever anyone wants them to mean.
Obviously, they also don’t use the same “language” (choice of vocabulary, metaphors, etc.) to communicate their beliefs and teachings, even if we consider all the denominations that in this country which all speak English, that is, the same language.
Borg: “In the 4th century, Christianity began to focus largely on the afterlife and the post-mortem fate of people. But Christianity’s initial focus was on compassion and God’s dream for a just and peaceful world in the here and now. ”
http://www.prweb.com/releases/borg/speakingchristian/prweb8295084.htm
I am not a religion historian and I have little idea how Christianity changed in the first centuries, but I certainly agree with Borg here. Many people have used whatever belief they have concocted in the afterlife as an excuse for running away from their responsibilities inherent to their lives on Earth, or in supporting or enabling harmful individuals or systems in society, while pretending to themselves that none of this really mattered because there was the afterlife to focus on.
August 2nd, 2011 | 7:40 am
“Borg: “In the 4th century, Christianity began to focus largely on the afterlife and the post-mortem fate of people. But Christianity’s initial focus was on compassion and God’s dream for a just and peaceful world in the here and now. ”
(1) This explains why the Catholic Church was not involved in many works of charity after the 4th Century.
(2) This also shows why it is so important to have modern biblical scholars like Borg. It is pretty clear that the writers of the New Testament and the pre-4th Century Church Fathers did not realize that “Christianity’s initial focus was on compassion and God’s dream for a just and peaceful world in the here and now.” It is gratifying to see that Borg and his friends in the Jesus Seminar were able to sort this out for them.
(3) God’s dream? Are you kidding me?
August 2nd, 2011 | 7:45 am
Catholicism is not a solo scriptura faith. So any analysis limited to the text of the bible, either or both testaments will fall short.
Mike Melendez,
It is perfectly legitimate for Marcus Borg, or any Biblical scholar, to discuss what salvation meant in the Bible and only in the Bible. Reading back 2000 years of Christian theology into the Bible is not Biblical scholarship. We’re discussing what was said in the video here, and my point is that what was said in the video is compatible with Catholicism.
I can understand why the video would upset Anthony Sacramone and Evangelicals, because the implication of the video is that the Bible is not to be interpreted as literally true, that the word Rapture is not in the Bible, and the concept of the Rapture is not two thousand years old, but a few hundred. But this is perfectly compatible with Catholic thought. If there is something objectionable to Catholics in the video, I would like to have it pointed out to me.
Certainly Marcus Borg himself is not a Catholic and no doubt has fundamental disagreements with Catholicism and I presume with mainstream Catholic Biblical scholars. But we’re discussing the video (which was not even made by Marcus Borg), and I really don’t see anything in it Catholics would object to.
August 2nd, 2011 | 7:49 am
People are also missing the main point of this piece, which is explained in the last paragraph.
Why is it that whenever the mainstream media wants to explore Christian beliefs, it goes to academics like Borg, Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossin, Elaine Pagels or Fr. McBrien?
August 2nd, 2011 | 12:07 pm
Mike,
“You need to read a little better. My comment:
“And we Catholics do “believe” in a set of statements and say so at every Mass. It’s called the Nicene Creed.” was directed at David Nickol to contradict his claim that Catholicism would not disagree with Borg.”
I’m doing the best I can. I see that your comment is directed at David, but it is not clear what you think I’ve missed in my reading. My point was that both Catholics and Episcopalians recite the Nicene Creed. It is thus likely that Borg believes in the Nicene Creed and that he doesn’t disagree with Roman Catholicism on that score. I thought my point directly responded to your discussion with David.
—
DinRL,
“Believe and beloved aren’t related in Hebrew or Greek.”
That’s true, and I understand that. I was responding to “Just some guy” who argued that “just because two English words look alike doesn’t mean that one came from the other.” Borg is a biblical historian. I’m sure he knows that etymologies in English often differ from those in Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. Borg’s point is that those Christians who read the Bible literally might be helped to view the Bible differently if they thought of reading the Bible as less than reading an instruction book and more like falling in love.
“But for some reason, in Jesus Seminar circles, this nonsense passes for “scholarship.” This is not a credit to biblical scholarship, nor to intellectualism or historiographic study in general. It is an embarrassment”
All good scholarship moves out of opposition and competition. The work of the Jesus Seminar has both produced and spurred better biblical scholarship. This friendly competition is evident in the book Borg and Wright produced together, where the presence of the other lifted the game of each writer. I find something wan in Borg’s writing, but I don’t dismiss it out of hand.
“Sure if we redefine “Christian” to mean someone who actually doesn’t believe the gospel, then Borg may indeed be one”
Do you really need to do this? Borg has devoted his life to Christianity and his career to understanding Jesus and the Bible. Do you really have to dismiss him in this way?
—
Brian,
“People are also missing the main point of this piece, which is explained in the last paragraph. Why is it that whenever the mainstream media wants to explore Christian beliefs, it goes to academics like Borg, Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossin, Elaine Pagels or Fr. McBrien”
As I say above, I’m betting that the Christians on the CNN staff recommended Borg’s book. Borg is popular among many mainline Christians.
August 2nd, 2011 | 3:34 pm
“As I say above, I’m betting that the Christians on the CNN staff recommended Borg’s book. Borg is popular among many mainline Christians.”
But doesn’t it tell you something that no one in these mainstream media organizations appears to be aware of people like Fr. Barron, or Peter Kreeft, or Scott Hahn, or Anthony Esolen?
August 2nd, 2011 | 4:54 pm
I’m sure that the Christians on the CNN staff are aware of many of these writers, but I’m sure that these writers don’t speak to the concerns most of those staffers have. Borg and the others you mention are popular for a certain set of Christians that is skeptical of orthodox claims but remain true to core moral and ethical teachings.
I’m cynical enough not to be surprised that when mainstream media decides to give five minutes of attention to Christianity it reaches for writers like Borg, though I am disappointed in the lack of diversity.
August 2nd, 2011 | 6:24 pm
Brian English,
Somebody knows about Fr. Barron:
August 3rd, 2011 | 6:23 am
Din: Sure if we redefine “Christian” to mean someone who actually doesn’t believe the gospel, then Borg may indeed be one.
============
Exactly. This is why people like Michael hurls insults and spews bile in every comment directed at people he doesn’t like, while defining himself as “Christian.”
See this thread right here:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/07/chaputrsquos-unconvincing-critics
especially his last comment (8.1.2011 | 9:44pm) where he justifies behaving like a cad towards people he personally dislikes for whatever reason he makes up that dislike to be.
It takes a very deformed view of Christianity to even begin to rationalize that his ignorant name-calling and distorted characterizations of people he doesn’t like are justified, and even more aberrant, some part of Christianity.
But, for someone like Michael, who likes to call other people crazy, that’s what he envisions as sanity.
So, another perfect example of a “vegetarian” who eats meat in his “religious” sphere.
August 3rd, 2011 | 7:26 am
The Catholicism series was created by Fr. Barron and his Word on Fire group. Fr. Barron went to the mainstream media group to broadcast the project; they didn’t come to him looking for an explanation of some aspect of Christianity, which is what this post is about.
August 3rd, 2011 | 10:42 am
This is why people like Michael hurls insults and spews bile in every comment directed at people he doesn’t like, while defining himself as “Christian.”
I see nothing in Alessandra’s message of August 3rd, 2011 | 6:23 am but a personal attack on Michael. What does “comments are moderated” mean? I appreciate that moderation is not done with a heavy hand, and it’s a thankless task, I am sure, but come on!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact