Book By Roy Robinson

[North]

One of the best introductions to the bible in terms of history, perspective, etc. The writer is from England and is recently retired from the URC.

 

Robinson makes a good case against fundamentalist interpretation and for common sense.

 

The book is entitled "Thoughtful Guide to the Bible".

 

After arming yourself with that and Spong's Book 'Rescuing the Bible from Fundamenatlism" you will be prepared for debate.

 

Of the two I like Robinsons better as it (IMHO) is well written and less biased. I like Spong but find some of his assertions to be bias laden and that leads him to hyperbole. Occasionaly he boldly asserts "no credible Biblical Scholar believes...xyz". And I will think "nonsense". So if I had to chose I would chose Robinson.

 

North

[des]

I really prefer Borg's "Reading the Bible again for the first time" as I don't think Borg has as much of an "agenda" for lack of a better word. Some people here prefer Crossan over both of them, but I haven't read him so I can't comment.

 

--des

[North]

I really prefer Borg's "Reading the Bible again for the first time" as I don't think Borg has as much of an "agenda" for lack of a better word. Some people here prefer Crossan over both of them, but I haven't read him so I can't comment.

 

--des

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have a couple of Borg's Books that are in my stack to read. They seem fascinating.

 

North

[des]

My favorite Borg book is "The Heart of Christianity".

 

--des

[FredP]

I do like both Crossan and Borg, but I think reading them too exclusively of any other type of Christian writing is going to give you a too narrow view of the field. (Not saying anyone suggested this, just putting it out there.) The problem is that they're coming from an angle of obsessive concern with the historical questions of Christian origins -- which is fine, and even appropriate to a historian's discipline, but not the only, or even necessarily most worthwhile, angle.

[wayfaring]

I haven't read any Crossan or Robison's books. More for my "to read soon" list.

 

But I've read a number of Borg's books and I find that his approach does make room and allowances for the non-historical Jesus (the Jesus of church history). Though a member of the Jesus Seminar (seeking the historical Jesus), Borg has a great deal to say about the post-resurrection view of Christ that I find meaningful. Some on the far left seem to suggest that it is only the historical Jesus (that we know very little about) that has any meaningful. I think Borg does a good job looking for "both" kinds of Jesus - the historical and the sacred. I find his balance refreshing. And I agree that "The Heart of Christianity" is his best book yet.

 

Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll look for it soon. It's ironic that none of the "Christian" bookstores carry my favorite authors.

 

- wayfaring

Edited August 1, 2005 by wayfaring

[North]

I haven't read any Crossan or Robison's books. More for my "to read soon" list. 

 

But I've read a number of Borg's books and I find that his approach does make room and allowances for the non-historical Jesus (the Jesus of church history). Though a member of the Jesus Seminar (seeking the historical Jesus), Borg has a great deal to say about the post-resurrection view of Christ that I find meaningful. Some on the far left seem to suggest that it is only the historical Jesus (that we know very little about) that has any meaningful. I think Borg does a good job looking for "both" kinds of Jesus - the historical and the sacred. I find his balance refreshing. And I agree that "The Heart of Christianity" is his best book yet.

 

Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll look for it soon. It's ironic that none of the "Christian" bookstores carry my favorite authors. 

 

- wayfaring

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I know you are joking about the book store but you are accurate. I did not pick up Robinson's book at the local Christian Book store (rather barnes & Noble). But similar issue with Gregory Boyd's Open Theism books. They only had one and that had to be ordered. He is an Evangelical Christian who supports womens ordination and is an articulate spokesman for Open Theism. His theoretical perspective got him branded as a heretic in some circles (lucid & scriptural arguments be darned).

 

That brings me to Fred's point and I agree. An intellectual development should include various perspectives (paradigms). In other words I want to read what liberal scholars have to say as well as conservative. I want to hear Jim Wallis as well as Albert Mohler. The worst thing developmentally is to hear only one paradigm and to come to assume that that is the only way to look at a subject be it conservative or liberal. That is where I take exception to Spong's assertions that "No credible scholar today believes XYZ". Utter nonsense. Sadly, if I were not intellectually curious and of liberal bent I might believe that. Same could be said for conservative theory. As I mentioned earlier, don't get me wrong as Spong makes some very interesting points. I have his NT through Jewish Eyes to read (examines Midrashic elements in the NT) and it looks very good.

 

North

[des]

BTW, I don't consider Jim Wallis "liberal" or "progressive". He has very progressive social justice concerns (and not obsessed by gay issues), but his theology is not esp. liberal or progressive. He considers himself an evangelical. From reading him I would say his views theologically are more "mainline", however he defies catagorization to some extent (like Campalo, McLaren, etc.).

 

I really like the book "God's Politics", but it isn't what I would call an easy read. It is redundant and a little wordy.

 

--des