“In this compelling tale, we meet Kate—a popular religion professor at a liberal arts college. In the classroom, students ask for her views on Jesus, the Bible, and homosexuality, controversial topics that Kate candidly addresses.
Putting Away Childish Things is an engaging way for readers to learn about the important issues dividing Christians today. Along the way, we join with the characters to ask the hard questions such as what does the Bible really teach? Who is Jesus? What is the nature of faith today?”
On the heels of finishing my summer classes, I indulged my taste for fiction with Marcus Borg’s first fiction book, Putting Away Childish Things. The request to review this book coincided nicely with my 3-week summer break.
I have not read any of Borg’s other books (sorry Mr. Borg), but I recall his name coming up in controversial contexts. Rather than running a preliminary theological background check, I chose to encounter and consider Borg’s ideas as he presented them in this novel. Therefore my review will be limited to the ideas as presented in this book without consideration of Borg’s larger body of writing.
First, the story and writing were better than I expected, particularly for a first novel and a teaching novel. Conflict over Kate’s pending career decision kept the story engaging to the end. The other characters in the story are interesting, representing a spectrum of beliefs including fundamentally conservative Amy, progressively liberal Fiona, skeptical beret-wearing Andrew, and openly-searching Erin. Their differing perspectives are presented in conversations and in classroom discussions.
The teaching themes within the novel include how to understand the Bible, Adam and Eve and original sin, the Christmas stories, Jesus and the gospels, the Bible’s teachings about homosexuality, the meaning of “believe” and so forth. I can almost guarantee that you will find something you disagree with and possibly some things you do agree with. The ideas are not presented with a strongly persuasive tone which allowed for an examination of the issues that did not feel coercive or overbearing.
One of the things I really appreciated was the influence of liturgy throughout the book. It reminded me of how drawn I am to the grounding beauty of this daily practice. The other thing that I really liked was the emphasis on the experience of relationship with God. While there may be disagreement over interpretive issues regarding Scripture, there is common ground in a shared understanding of the importance of knowing God.
One of the things the book does well is present views of Scripture that are an alternative to a strident biblicism that insists on historical, factual inerrancy. Sincere, believing Christians can disagree about these things without leaving the foundation of truth or their love of Scripture. A few of the ideas discussed in the book that I did not agree with were the creation story as a metaphor, the story of Christ’s birth as a parable, and some questions raised about the interpretation of the gospels. However, in spite of my disagreement, the examination of a different perspective was interesting and challenging.
There must be room within faith to ask questions and explore our personal theology. The truth, significance, and reality of God’s story was never intended to be reduced to examination as a scientific document. If you are interested in these ideas, you would enjoy Putting Away Childish Things. Borg’s book does a good job of explaining the difference between truth and factuality.
“People often get fixated on factuality: either things happened this way, or these stories aren’t true. Stories can be important, meaningful, truth-filled, and truthful without being factual.”
What do you think of this?
How important is factual accuracy to your faith?
One man’s fact is another man’s myth!
Well, it depends on a lot on the text, I think. When a text is meant to be read factually, then factual accuracy is very important. But not all of the Bible is meant to be read as conveying factual events within a narrative. Jesus’ parables are the most obvious example. Some things don’t have to literally happen in order to be true.
That said, when the writer is clearly trying to describe facts, they need to be factually accurate. Speaking as a history student, if a writer cannot even accurately convey the bare bone facts of what happened, I’m very skeptical that they will be able to reasonably interpret the meaning of those facts or apply them in any meaningful way to contemporary questions.
So if there wasn’t an actual poor man named Lazarus who dined at the feet of a rich man… who cares? That’s not the point. But if there never was a riot in Ephesus over “the Way” then I think we do have a problem.
Of course many things can be meaningful, inspirational, encouraging and comforting without having to be factual. Fictional stories, good movies, poems etc. can impact us in very much the same way as a biblical text.
The importance of factuality comes in where we are struggling to discern man-made images of God from the true image. Without the factuality of incarnation, cross and resurrection we’d have no assurance whatsoever that God’s love and reconciliation of mankind are based on fact and not just wishful thinking.
I have come full circle in my beliefs about the historical inerrancy of scripture, while all along there were parts of scripture that are obviously not historical facts.
I agree that there are a few central truths that are factual that we base all of our faith on, but I also believe that our personal faith or belief in God’s “Truth” is largely experiential.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that for each of us our own experience is the “factual” truth that helps us mature and grow in our relationship with God.
That doesn’t make them “factual” for every one else.
I hold my interpretation of scripture much looser than I once did, so I honestly think that the factual accuracy of scripture is not nearly as important as coming to know the author himself.
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
Peace
There’s just a small chance that I might be cynical, but when someone concludes that most of the NT can be considered fiction, and they make their living talking about the NT, that they need to find some value (value $?) in the fiction.
As Josh said, the factuality of the incarnation, cross, and resurrection are vital to God’s story. I would also include creation and ascension on that list. This is why I reject the idea of creation as metaphor or Christ’s birth as a parable. The historical reality of each of these events is essential to the narrative of God’s plan of reconciliation and adoption. As far as creation, I don’t think the story was told in a way that gives us factual historical details. However I do believe it contains the essential truths that we need to know about creation and our Creator.
well said
I don’t think anything the Jesus Seminar attempts to peddle has cleared up any historical misconceptions of Jesus’ birth, life, death, resurrection. Their approach seems to create a caricature of Jesus that is anything but holy or divine or mysterious. You can paint Jesus in His humanity to the nth degree, but without His divinity & the unique circumstances that support this ‘fact’ the result is a character to be pitied above all men…
To be ‘factual’ I don’t believe Jesus was anything less than the most human of humans. There was no divine exemption clause that kept Him from living amongst us as a real person subject to all our humanity. But He could not be anything less than God in human flesh dwelling with us. We can compartmentalize, intellectualize, dissect, categorize, ignore, over emphasize, deflate, inflate, etc. aspects of this Jesus we acknowledge as significant for whatever personal reason we champion. “Who do you say I am?” is just as relevant today as it was then. One Jesus but a multitude of ideas about Him. If He does not make Himself known then we are at the mercy of those painting Him to be an object of selfish construct. Human pride would like to claim they have this Jesus guy all figured out whether historically, theologically, relationally, spiritually, ethnically, intellectually, religiously. Heck, just look at the myriad of Jesus’ one can select as their personal favorite. Buy those books. Attend their seminars. Go to the next ‘outpouring’. The fascination with Jesus still unabated after all these years. Had He not made a personal revealing to me I would still have this religious effigy etched in my mind subject to endless repositioning since I am a questioning sort. However, that Jesus would have been a mish-mash of concepts & so unlike the One I know of now. This Jesus has not made me a super power saint with miraculous powers I can summon at will. This Jesus has not revealed to me esoteric secrets I alone am privileged to fathom apart from the pedestrian masses. This Jesus has not been reduced to a curious historical figure largely mistaken for being equal with God or guilty of promulgating the religious myths built up around His life/mission. He is not an alien or an ascended master or a great teacher of eternal behavioral dynamics. He can be an enigma. He can be controversial. He can be hard to recognize in others let alone myself. But I do have a desire to keep on this journey of discovery & promised transformation as we share that part of Him we do know with others just as desirous of seeking Him as I do…
I think that my response to the book would have been very similar to yours Linda. I wrote about literalism a while back at http://sanctimonious.kansasbob.com/2009/12/two-views-of-literalism.html#TwoViews – you might even agree with my take on the topic. :)
Bob,
That is really interesting. Are you saying that the OT view of God is influenced and sometimes distorted by the limited understanding of OT writers, prophets, priests, and kings? I agree with your Jesus filter; it is through Jesus revealed that we understand the Father.
Possibly so Linda. It is why we need the Jesus filter. When you look at the image of God presented in some places in the OT it is diametrically opposed to the image of God that we see in the life, ministry and teachings of Jesus.
Bob, I kind of like where this is going but what does this do to your sense of being able to trust that the bible reveals God to us. Could the same be said for the NT authors? Do they also reveal a distorted God? I’ve been steeped in fundamentalism for too long: the options are a little threatening.
David, most of my Christian life I viewed the scriptures from a literal and black/white perspective. I think what attracted me to that view is the same thing that drew me to software in the 70s – a logical order and formulaic approach.
Sadly it took pain to begin to unravel that view.. the brain simply cannot deal with things like the death of my first wife. To heal (and it has taken many years to get here) I had to begin to embrace the colors in the scriptures.. I had to learn to back off from bibliolatry and the formulas that fed my spiritual pride. Consequentially I am finding renewed joy in my life and my walk with the Lord.
One other thing David. I think that the bible not only reveals God to us but in it we see ourselves. We see ourselves in Eden.. in the failings of spiritual giants.. in the prayers of the psalms. I find great comfort in these biblical things.
I so agree Bob,
Certain people in my life reject scripture as evidence of a good God based on the OT.
It’s only through Jesus that we Begin to understand the good will of the Father towards his creation.. or So I think