I was asked to review this for the Gospel and our Culture network. Once it’s been published in their magazine I’ll put the text up here. You can guess my take on it though, especially given the title of the review: “On the Christian duty to boycott Tesco”….
Stimulating and interesting. Borg isn’t as much of a liberal as I have previously supposed, although I still find Wright more persuasive on most points. Borg makes a telling point about Wright’s methodology being ‘flat’, ie Wright pays no systematic attention to the high probability that Matthew (and Luke to a lesser extent) used Mark, and that therefore some of the material in Matthew or Luke is less historically reliable. I think that there are ways to respond to that, particularly for theological purposes, but historically Wright’s stance seems problematic. I have his more substantial books on my shelf, as yet unread, so he may not be vulnerable to that criticism.
In any case I’d happily recommend this book to someone just starting to engage with the issues. It’s pretty clear and it gives a good feel for the shape of most of the debates.
A strange mixture of common sense and hysteria. Not sure I’d recommend it to anyone.
The winds, the rains, the head and the heart
The earth, the roots, the leaves and the bark
Very good indeed: sound script, excellent acting, unobtrusive direction (imagine what it would have been like if someone like Scorsese had made it) and running beneath it all a yearning for what was lost and might yet be. There was a spirit of mercy about it that was most affecting and attractive. 4 1/2 out of 5.
I want to redescribe what it means to say ‘Jesus is God’ today.
Great fun. 3 out of 5.
Really good date movie with an excellent script – so 4 out of 5.
Quite suitable for my brain-dead state. One or two interesting set-pieces, and Ray Liotta was good, but not much else. 3 out of 5 – just.
Having spent most of today asleep in bed – and deciding to give in to this lurgi/flu/sinusitis/Vogon infection rather than keep suppressing it by force of will (also known as accepting Mrs Rev Sam’s advice) – I’m having a quick potter around some blogs, and discover that my old tutor Stephen thinks that I am a heretic for saying that Jesus (when incarnate) was not “God, as such”. What I have in mind is a kenotic Christology: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross” (Phil 2, NIV)
In other words, whilst the logos is wholly God as such, coinherent etc, Jesus of Nazareth, as the incarnation of the logos, did not possess all the attributes of the Godhead (eg omnipotence, omniscience and so on). You could say: it was only the second person who became incarnate, not all three (though I’m aware that is problematic in other ways). So far as I’m aware, that is the mainstream Christian understanding (and is how it is possible to reconcile Jesus’ divinity with his humanity) – but am I wrong? I’d be most grateful to know what other people believe on this (because if I AM a heretic on this one then I’ve got some soul-searching to do!!!).
When I feel better I’ll write up a long post on the incarnation, because it’s been brewing all the while through my stuff on the VB. Not today though.