Chester Street Uniting Earth Ministry Lacuna Group


Marcus Borg and Faith: A Brief Critique.

Posted: 15/07/2009




Space for God has recently been reviewing Marcus Borg's 'Heart of Christianity'- a book that seeks to rediscover the vital elements of the Christian faith in today's world. After each chapter is summarized we then discuss and critique it- in a loving way of course! What follows is my brief response to Borg's faith as assensus model. 

 

In the chapter dealing with faith, Borg identifies 4 key ways in which faith is comprehended and acted upon. Of these models, Borg believes that the faith as assensus view is the most dominant in our western context. We have inherited the enlightenment's emphasis on reason, thereby reducing faith to a matter of the head. Faith of this kind then means giving our intellectual assensus to propositional dogma, tradition and theology. For Borg, this view does not reflect the heart of faith, which he interprets as visio- a way of seeing the whole of what is. 

 

Whilst I agree with Borg to some extent, I have become wary of any view that seeks to propose a heart-over-head based approach to faith. Even in the absence of a formulated historical dogma or theology we will inevitably give our intellectual assensus to whatever thought or philosophy seeks to take its place. So we may not believe that the doctrine of predestination is right or even important (as I don't), but we are still giving our intellectual assensus to the fact that it is unimportant, a superfluous plaything of Calvin and others. We are making an intellectual value judgement in spite of our efforts to reclaim the perceived 'heart' of faith. Borg's argument here becomes circular and self-negating. Each critique of the assensus model carries with it an implied intellectual value system, whether obvious or not. 

 

What I think is a better option is to simply acknowledge the fact the the role of intellectual assent is woven into the very fabric of faith. Of course, faith is more than the intellect, but it cannot do without it. The polarizing of head and heart is perhaps the most devastating legacy of the enlightenment. A genuine faith, however, will understand the vital significance of both, not demonize them into conflicting categories.

 

Of course, it's not expected (or desirable) that people agree with me. I would love to hear any feedback about this as I feel it's an important topic.   

 

 

Got you thinking? Share your thoughts with the rest of us:

Click "preview" first,
then click "submit" to confirm.

  • I would like to comment on Borg’s view on faith from two rather different angles.

    Firstly, Borg defines ‘faith as assensus’ as giving one’s assent to a certain dogma or theology. However I would prefer to divide this ‘assensus’ into two, namely, submission and conviction. It is one thing to submit ourselves to authority (just as we are all expected to obey the laws of the land), however grudgingly; to convince our personal consciences that such words of authority are true and right and infallible is another matter altogether.

    Secondly, and at the other end of the spectrum, Borg talks about the three other forms of faith: fiducia (relationship of trust), fidelitas (fidelity), and visio (vision). According to Borg, these three are faith of our ‘hearts’. Contrary to Borg’s view that the ‘earlier paradigm’ focuses mostly on ‘assensus’, I would argue that certain sections of the ‘earlier paradigm’, notably the Pentecostal movement, stresses the ‘heart’ as much as ‘assensus’, if not more. Yet both kinds of faith somehow end up resulting in the same sort of Christianity based on blind faith.

    Perhaps Christianity needs to put more empasis on ‘logos’ (as in logic or reason)?


        — Miles the Penitent · Jul 21, 05:30 pm

Search

Search