JSSpong

[gitlance]

Hey guys,

I have a question for all of you, but particularly for my fellow conservative Anglicans:

What do you think of John Shelby Spong? I was in the library reading some of his books the other day, and they are quite shocking and very unorthodox. Denying such things as Christ's working of miracles, the virgin birth... even saying that Paul was probably a repressed homosexual.

Not looking for a debate, just some knowledge and other opinions.

Christ's peace! :crossrc:

[RobNJ]

Well........ If he was still the Bishop around here, I might not have joined the Episcopal Church.




:wave:Greetings, from the "still-recovering" Newark Diocese

[Colabomb]

Hey guys,

I have a question for all of you, but particularly for my fellow conservative Anglicans:

What do you think of John Shelby Spong? I was in the library reading some of his books the other day, and they are quite shocking and very unorthodox. Denying such things as Christ's working of miracles, the virgin birth... even saying that Paul was probably a repressed homosexual.

Not looking for a debate, just some knowledge and other opinions.

Christ's peace! :crossrc:
Sounds like a Heretic.

[gtsecc]

Time to bring back burning?

[Iron Sun 254]

Well, the only book I've read of his was This Hebrew Lord and it was very good. It didn't question anything Jesus did or anything like that. All it did was discuss what Jesus did in light of the Jewish traditions at the time. I know a lot of what he's done and written is very controversial but this book at least was not.

[gitlance]

Time to bring back burning?

LOL! You guys are high-larious!

:D

Christ's peace!

[pmcleanj]

What do you think of John Shelby Spong?
To speak to, he is a man of gentle, gracious demeanor, soft-spoken and courteous. When lecturing, he speaks with clarity, with tremendous command of English, adapting his vocabularly and presentation to the audience he is adressing. His encouragement for acts of Christian love is solid: feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless being two he's encouraged in our inner city. In scholarship, he intrigues the student, proposing new questions and new ideas to examine and demanding why one hasn't wrestled with the question before. He faces empirical evidence fearlessly and without denial, yet with unshaken faith.

I have read opposite descriptions from people who have experienced him differently. So, he is also complex and mercurial, and perhaps unpredictable. And some more conservative scholars, who have listened carefully to what he is saying, for all that they may disagree, point out that his ideas are subtler and less heterodox than they appear at first glance. Desmond Tutu describes him as "someone who loves the church deeply and has been frequently misunderstood."

To intellectuals and modernists struggling to remain faithful to both their God-given intelligence and reason, and their God-given faith, he is a life-line that reassures them of their place in this Church. To non-Christian seekers who have discounted Christianity for its fundamentalism and legalism, he is a reason to reconsider. To people whose experience of the church has left them alienated and feeling rejected, he has offered an invitation and an open door to return to the Church and struggle with themselves *within* her arms, instead of outside of her embrace.

I don't thing +John was ever called to be a special gift to conservative, mainstream or orthodox Christians, just as Saint Paul was never called to be an apostle to the hebrew converts in Palestine. The apostles who reach out beyond the borders we have already defined, must communicate in a way that reaches the people who live outside those borders, and yes, the language they speak will sound heterodox to those who live safe within those borders.


But he's our complex, mercurial, unpredictable, heterodox-sounding misunderstood bishop!

[julian the apostate]

pmcleanj
good night! do you ever tire of being right?

i am not well read on them,, but i would encourage any conservative who doesnt think liberals have anything to offer to read just a bit by walter wink or marcus borg
you can almost feel them struggle,, succesfully to hold on to their faith
and they present the gospel in a straightforward graceful way, that even if you disagree with some of what they say, will at least serve as a reminder of the basic message we first received

[PaladinValer]

While I do not deny that much of what +Spong has written is highly questionable, I do not necessarily believe people usually focus on what he is really trying to say.

+Spong seeks to make Christians not make rash decisions but to think first. And it is something I agree with.

[Polycarp1]

To speak to, he is a man of gentle, gracious demeanor, soft-spoken and courteous. When lecturing, he speaks with clarity, with tremendous command of English, adapting his vocabularly and presentation to the audience he is adressing. His encouragement for acts of Christian love is solid: feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless being two he's encouraged in our inner city. In scholarship, he intrigues the student, proposing new questions and new ideas to examine and demanding why one hasn't wrestled with the question before. He faces empirical evidence fearlessly and without denial, yet with unshaken faith.

I have read opposite descriptions from people who have experienced him differently. So, he is also complex and mercurial, and perhaps unpredictable. And some more conservative scholars, who have listened carefully to what he is saying, for all that they may disagree, point out that his ideas are subtler and less heterodox than they appear at first glance. Desmond Tutu describes him as "someone who loves the church deeply and has been frequently misunderstood."

To intellectuals and modernists struggling to remain faithful to both their God-given intelligence and reason, and their God-given faith, he is a life-line that reassures them of their place in this Church. To non-Christian seekers who have discounted Christianity for its fundamentalism and legalism, he is a reason to reconsider. To people whose experience of the church has left them alienated and feeling rejected, he has offered an invitation and an open door to return to the Church and struggle with themselves *within* her arms, instead of outside of her embrace.

I don't thing +John was ever called to be a special gift to conservative, mainstream or orthodox Christians, just as Saint Paul was never called to be an apostle to the hebrew converts in Palestine. The apostles who reach out beyond the borders we have already defined, must communicate in a way that reaches the people who live outside those borders, and yes, the language they speak will sound heterodox to those who live safe within those borders.


But he's our complex, mercurial, unpredictable, heterodox-sounding misunderstood bishop!

:amen:


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to pmcleanj again.

[TomUK]

But he's our complex, mercurial, unpredictable, heterodox-sounding misunderstood bishop!

Really? I thought he was 'booted out'.

[pmcleanj]

Really? I thought he was 'booted out'.
He's retired.

[TomUK]

Was he a fully active bishop in the Anglican Communion when he retired?

[gitlance]

What does the "+" in front of Spong's name mean, Paladinvaler?

[TomUK]

Shorthand for Bishop

[pmcleanj]

Was he a fully active bishop in the Anglican Communion when he retired?
I never heard otherwise. His retirement date is 2000. I can't find any other reference to his change of status.

The Presentiment to remove Bishop Righter in 1996 made a big splash -- it comes up in a moment on a quick google, but nothing similar comes up for Spong. So I'm guessing, yes.

[PaladinValer]

Once a bishop, always a bishop, unless the Holy Spirit inspires a ecclesiastical court to remove him or her. Same goes for all priests a deacons; once a priest or deacon, always so.

Thus, there really isn't such thing as a "retired" bishop, priest, or deacon; just those who've no longer have certain obligations, though they can still practice them. A "retired" priest's absolution is still valid absolution and the vote of a "retired" bishop in the House of Bishop counts just as much as a vote from a "non-retired" bishop.

[pmcleanj]

Once a bishop, always a bishop, unless the Holy Spirit inspires a ecclesiastical court to remove him or her.
"What, does then the oil of Chrism wash off?"

It's not clear whther even a ruling of an eccliastical court can render a bishop "unconsecrated", though he or she can be banned from exercising the prerogatives and powers of a bishop.

Reason to choose our new Bishops with great care!

[PaladinValer]

"What, does then the oil of Chrism wash off?"

It's not clear whther even a ruling of an eccliastical court can render a bishop "unconsecrated", though he or she can be banned from exercising the prerogatives and powers of a bishop.

Reason to choose our new Bishops with great care!

I can only say :amen:

[Father Rick]

An old friend of mine (who dropped out of seminary)-- and his 2 male life-partners (they had some kind of 3 person 'commitment' ) were very active, accepted, members of Spong's church-- where the 3 of them would come together for Eucharist.

Since we can't discuss this issue in any detail here due to forum rules, let's just say I couldn't be part of such a congregation.

[TomUK]

And people wonder why the communion is in such a state. :sigh:

[PaladinValer]

A threesome? No thank you. I do not approve of polygamous groups either.

[gitlance]

One day these people are gonna wake up and realize just what "catholic orthodoxy" really means... but until then, may God have mercy.

Disclaimer: No debate is meant by this posting.

[Stormi]

I had heard of this controversy, but never knew who made it in the first place. Is he the originator of these things? Just curious. :confused:

[Mic]

Well........ If he was still the Bishop around here, I might not have joined the Episcopal Church.




:wave:Greetings, from the "still-recovering" Newark Diocese

Quite the opposite for me. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he believes, the fact that there is such a disparity of opinion accepted within ECUSA is the main reason I'm interested in it.

Mic

[Colabomb]

Quite the opposite for me. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he believes, the fact that there is such a disparity of opinion accepted within ECUSA is the main reason I'm interested in it.

Mic
We should abandon Christian Orthodoxy so we can have a "wide variety of opinions?"

[julian the apostate]

Quite the opposite for me. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he believes, the fact that there is such a disparity of opinion accepted within ECUSA is the main reason I'm interested in it.


amen mic
disparity of opinion in love is orthodox

re polygamy to paladin or fr rick or anyone:
what about certain christian communions in certain parts of the world who have certain bishops who meddle in certain other parts of the world and
whos said bishops are allowed to allow polygamy?

so even on that issue a certain christian communion allows polygamy

as did the early church,, btw

and now we know the rest of the story

[gitlance]

I would be very hesitant to say that the early church "allowed" polygamy. And even if the early church did, they were in direct opposition to the writings and teachings of both Paul and Christ, which to me would say that they abandonded Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture, and therefore catholic orthodoxy.

[pmcleanj]

Dear and gentle friends,

I am entering this thread with my moderator hat on this time.

You may not discuss homosexuality or polygamy in this thread. You may not aver that it was accepted by the early church, or deny that it was accepted by the early church, or aver or deny that it is or should be accepted by the current church. You must take that discussion either to an Anglican-specific debate thread in General Theology (and please check with the General Theology moderator first, due to a recent change in rule 4), or to one of the Philosophy & Morality, Liberal Theology or Christian Philosophy forums.

You must not misquote anyone or twist their words in responding to them. You must not read things into what they have said and then imply that they have said the things you infer. For example, rather than than to bluntly say in high dudgeon "So, how dare you say <<whatever it is you see the implications to be>>??!!!??", it would be better to ask "Does <<whatever it was they said>> not lead to <<whatever it is you see the implications to be>>?"

Thank-you all for listening to this interuption. Moderator hat off.

[julian the apostate]

i was unaware that polygamy was not allowed as a topic

oddly, i am rather grateful for that rule

[pmcleanj]

I have to admit, I appreciate the rules too, since they apply to both sides of the topics. Rule 4 in the rules link at the bottom of the page lists the offensive topics that are limited in this way. They are:

a. drug use.
b. gambling.
c. polygamy.
d. extramarital sexual activity.
e. abortion.
f. homosexuality.
g. transsexuality.

[Father Rick]

Sorry... didn't realize I was breaking any rules....

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa

[julian the apostate]

mea culpa
(you needed one more fr rick, for proper tridentine formula)

pounding chest for fr rick

[Father Rick]

I almost put the third one in... and got started looking for a smiley pounding chest... couldn't find one... considered:crossrc: ... decided it wasn't really proper..

Then decided to leave it incomplete... just to see if someone would 'fix' it...

I mean, I can't be the ONLY poster on CF with perfectionistic tendencies....:D

[julian the apostate]

ocd type scrupulosity to be specific

[Father Rick]

LOL... I had typed OCD tendencies, then changed that too so as not to be 'too harsh' or unintentionally offensive..... (as opposed to 'intentionally offensive', 'cause sometimes you just want to tick someone off)

[julian the apostate]

http://mission.liguori.org/newsletters/scrupanon.htm

the above link

i stumbled onto this site over a year ago

i had no idea that i was actually clinical !!!!!!!!!

[Polycarp1]

We should abandon Christian Orthodoxy so we can have a "wide variety of opinions?"

If we decided to get legalistic here, Colabomb, you and the church you belong to abandoned Christian Orthodoxy back in the 1870s and have persisted in a schismatic state ever since. Perhaps you're advocating that in the name of the preservation of orthodoxy, we demand, following the lead of OBOB, that you remove all the references to being "Anglican" and only fellowship in here, debating somewhere else if you're in the mood to argue!

(I am not seriously suggesting that anyone do that -- remember that I pushed for a definition of membership here that included REC, AMiA, and all their friends and relations. But that's just what you get when you turn the sort of argumentation you're making around and point it the other way. And while *I* certainly wouldn't dare to do so in actuality, it was our Lord who defined the Golden Rule.)

[Colabomb]

If we decided to get legalistic here, Colabomb, you and the church you belong to abandoned Christian Orthodoxy back in the 1870s and have persisted in a schismatic state ever since. Perhaps you're advocating that in the name of the preservation of orthodoxy, we demand, following the lead of OBOB, that you remove all the references to being "Anglican" and only fellowship in here, debating somewhere else if you're in the mood to argue!

(I am not seriously suggesting that anyone do that -- remember that I pushed for a definition of membership here that included REC, AMiA, and all their friends and relations. But that's just what you get when you turn the sort of argumentation you're making around and point it the other way. And while *I* certainly wouldn't dare to do so in actuality, it was our Lord who defined the Golden Rule.)
My Group left orthodoxy because it split with a group that has a loose connection with a Group that Split with Rome, which split with the Eastern Christians in 1054?

[Polycarp1]

Read what I'm saying, there, Colabomb: From a strictly legalistic perspective regarding Anglicanism, you're part of a denomination that schismed from the American church of the Anglican Communion. From the original "Orthodox is in communion with an Orthodox bishop" stance, Spong is significantly more orthodox than you legally -- since he has not been prosecuted for heresy or any such, and is a bishop of that church. By being part of a schismatic church, you're automatically excluded from orthodoxy. Whatever may have been the genesis of the Anglican Communion and however unorthodox it may be in the eyes of others, you're disconnected from it.

My point was simply that when one casts that sort of aspersion, one opens oneself to the sort of retort that I've presented here, simply because none of us is in the sort of perfect state where we can afford to do so. It's not a slam at you personally, nor at your church, but at the idea of defining orthodoxy by doctrinal terms at the exclusion of others, which someone can use against (the generic) you just as easily as you did against them.

I disagree with a fair amount of Spong's thinking, agree with some of it, respect his willingness to take risks for those historically excluded and made second-class by the "upstanding Christians" who would condemn him, and, having made his acquaintance personally (fellow parishioners who were married by him early in his ministry and remain long-time friends introduced us to him personally when he visited), I have nothing but respect for his ability to minister to people.

[CSMR]

To speak to, he is a man of gentle, gracious demeanor, soft-spoken and courteous. When lecturing, he speaks with clarity, with tremendous command of English, adapting his vocabularly and presentation to the audience he is adressing. His encouragement for acts of Christian love is solid: feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless being two he's encouraged in our inner city. In scholarship, he intrigues the student, proposing new questions and new ideas to examine and demanding why one hasn't wrestled with the question before. He faces empirical evidence fearlessly and without denial, yet with unshaken faith.
So the man is nice much of the time, good at oratory, a persuasive ethicist, and a questioning scholar. He uses these skills to promote his faith, quite naturally. You are reminding us that we should not put ourselves above him? Certainly we should not.
The apostles who reach out beyond the borders we have already defined, must communicate in a way that reaches the people who live outside those borders, and yes, the language they speak will sound heterodox to those who live safe within those borders.
The apostles sound heterodox to the world. They do not sound heterodox to believers, except insofar as they are unfaithful.
If we defined borders prior to receiving the apostolic message, then shouldn't the apostles not reach beyond these borders but attack them and confront them with the truth? What are the borders that you are referring to?

[CSMR]

What do you think of John Shelby Spong? I was in the library reading some of his books the other day, and they are quite shocking and very unorthodox. Denying such things as Christ's working of miracles, the virgin birth... even saying that Paul was probably a repressed homosexual.
I don't believe that his statement that Paul was a repressed homosexual is anti-Christian. Paul does not claim to be a "saint", as "saint" is understood popularly! Nevertheless I think Spong is an enemy of the faith. He does not believe in original sin or in judgement, and therefore he doesn't believe in the atonement. He believes in the god of love, but not in the judging God; and therefore he understands grace as god's loving us despite, er, human judgement against us. So he rejects the fundamental miracle of forgiveness, and with it the miracle of the incarnation and the miracles that Christ performed.

Like Polycarp, I accept some of his thinking and reject some of it. Some of the points on which he chooses to criticise conservative churches are in fact weak points in popular conservative-Christian piety. The way in which he criticises is hardly right - by parody, stereotyping, and by posturing as intellectual. But I am sure that he truly perceives some flaws in this part of the church, which we should consider despite his apostasy.

[Father Rick]

I guess the question becomes....

What standard is applied by the Church with regards to a heretical bishop? (for those who may consider Spong's teachings to be heterodox at best and heretical at worst)

What of those in Tradition who are considered heretical in areas of their theology? Did their theology have an effect on their standing in the Church and if so how?

[CaDan]

Not-an-Anglican-but-rather-a-mongrel Christian wandering in . . . .

Two thoughts:

1. To a large degree, +Spong is a popularizer of the thoughts of other theologians. He attempts to apply the more abstract thoughts of Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Michael Goulder, and others to a pastoral setting.

2. His autobiography, "Here I Stand", is quite interesting.

Not-an-Anglican-but-rather-a-mongrel Christian wandering out . . . .

[Bulldog]

I'm not particulary conservative, but Spong is way too left of center. While he makes some interesting points about the modern-day church, his views on grace are sugar coated, and many of his teachings are, as Father Rick said, "heterdox and best."

[Bulldog]

While we certainly should be accepting to a certain extent, as there are minor theological issues that can be disagreed on without breaking unity, lines must be drawn. Like here:


1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination. (New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born, by John Shelby Spong)

[CSMR]

My views on the above:
1 to 2 are very ambiguous, but if theism is an understanding, then it cannot become meaningless over time.
3. The ‘bright sixth former’ (Rowan Williams) would have the right interpretation of a text change through time. We should be less bright, and more willing to understand rather than create.
4. Unclear what the grounds are for this comment.
5. There are many people who are learn Newton physics who do interpret miracle stories in this way. That we should be limited by the prevailing beliefs of the world is hardly an argument.
6. is profoundly heretical
7 and 10 are useful points, except the "raised into the meaning of God" is probabaly meaningless, ironically.
11 is good Protestantism
12. It is unclear what he means by rejection and discrimination. Observed actions are external descriptions, and so he is saying that observed actions cannot be used for "discrimination". This makes finding a good meaning of discrimination in this sentence difficult.

[CSMR]

1. To a large degree, +Spong is a popularizer of the thoughts of other theologians. He attempts to apply the more abstract thoughts of Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Michael Goulder, and others to a pastoral setting.
Then where are the Christian themes that run through Bonhoeffer and Tillich? Did they deny the incarnation, or the doctrine of original sin?

[CaDan]

Then where are the Christian themes that run through Bonhoeffer and Tillich? Did they deny the incarnation, or the doctrine of original sin?

Not-an-Anglican-but-rather-a-mongrel Christian wandering in . . .

Bonhoeffer indicates that that Christ is best understood as "the man for others" and not as the incarnation of an omnipotent deity. He points the way to a "religionless Christianity." (sound familiar?)

Tillich was one of the leading proponents of "God beyond God" and the end of a theistic understanding of God. (sound familiar?)

To a large extent, I think, they built on the work of Rudolf Bultmann in attempting to de-mythologize Christianity.

With respect to original sin, these thinkers have, I believe, attempted to get at what Paul meant in his writings in light of our knowledge of how life came to be on Earth. If there was no special creation and no Garden of Eden where the fruit of the tree was eaten, then how do we understand the human condition?

Not-an-Anglican-but-rather-a-mongrel Christian wandering out . . . .

[ahab]

Well the demons believed in Jesus and trembled.

I think that the Christian who doesnt believe we should help the poor or the Christian who doesn't believe in the miracles of Jesus is going to be deficient in the full revelation that God has for us. Jesus does after all send us to preach the good news of the Kingdom, heal the sick and feed the poor, but if JSSpong doesn't believe in the miracles then he is probably not receieving the full revelation from God, which makes one wonder whether those who have been alientated from the church are either. Maybe they have been alienated by the full gospel as much or as well as any lack of love by the church?

[Father Rick]

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
Now... for a sacrament to be valid, there must be INTENT for it to be that sacrament. I can dunk someone under water all day long, but unless there is an intent to baptize them, there is no sacrament-- the person just got wet.

Now, if JSS denies the divinity of Christ, denies the concept of sin/reconciliation, denies the need for an atoning work of the cross... then how can that person INTEND for a Eucharist to be the Body/Blood of Christ-- when he denies there was an atoning work in the first place? The same questions could be asked regarding his intent with regards to baptism (if there is no sinful nature to be changed/converted from), reconciliation ( if there is no sin to confess/repent of), and anointing of the sick (if there is no such thing as healings/miracles).

[julian the apostate]

csmr<<7 and 10 are useful points, except the "raised into the meaning of God" is probabaly meaningless, ironically.

except for the meaning of God part , i dont get the rest of this
can you elaborate,, sorry


also for cadan, it has been a long time since i read tilich, and he is not the easiest person for me to get a grasp on anyway,,
but didnt he try to do away with the idea of a personal God

[UberLutheran]

...that he makes me think and reflect on things I might take for granted.

Ditto Matthew Fox. And for that matter, Meister Eckhart.

It's WAY too easy to become complacent about theology, and end up accepting things because "that's the way we've always done it before" (which, incidentally, are the seven words where the Devil resides!).

I'm willing to consider why these people are saying the things they do -- and though sometimes the statements sound WAY unorthodox, the actual theology is VERY good!

I think what they say has to be examined on a case-by-case basis, pondered, chewed on, and thought through completely to see if there might be some truth in the statement.

[Iron Sun 254]

Yes! You need to take your faith out sometimes and look at it. If you blindly follow and never hold it up to other ideas, how can you be sure of how strong it is? If you can't think through an argument as to why something you hear is wrong, how can you be sure that you're right.

[Fish and Bread]

Now... for a sacrament to be valid, there must be INTENT for it to be that sacrament. I can dunk someone under water all day long, but unless there is an intent to baptize them, there is no sacrament-- the person just got wet.

Now, if JSS denies the divinity of Christ, denies the concept of sin/reconciliation, denies the need for an atoning work of the cross... then how can that person INTEND for a Eucharist to be the Body/Blood of Christ-- when he denies there was an atoning work in the first place? The same questions could be asked regarding his intent with regards to baptism (if there is no sinful nature to be changed/converted from), reconciliation ( if there is no sin to confess/repent of), and anointing of the sick (if there is no such thing as healings/miracles).

When we get into trying to discern what people are thinking as a criteria for valid intent, things become a little bit tricky. For example, if it were decided that baptisms done by Bishop Spong were invalid for the reasons you cite, then ít would logically follow that baptisms done by a parish priest who secretly held Spong's views would also be invalid. The same would hold true for ordinations, consecrations, and so forth. So it then becomes a situation where no one can ever fully be assured that the sacraments they're receiving are valid, because of the ever-present possibility that their adminstrators may be hiding heretical beliefs. I don't believe God would be that arbitrary. Afterall, what Father would give his child a stone when he asks for bread? I think it very likely that God is fairly liberal with his application of sacramental graces to those who seek them.

John

[Rising Eagle]

...that he makes me think and reflect on things I might take for granted.

Ditto Matthew Fox. And for that matter, Meister Eckhart.

It's WAY too easy to become complacent about theology, and end up accepting things because "that's the way we've always done it before" (which, incidentally, are the seven words where the Devil resides!).

I'm willing to consider why these people are saying the things they do -- and though sometimes the statements sound WAY unorthodox, the actual theology is VERY good!

I think what they say has to be examined on a case-by-case basis, pondered, chewed on, and thought through completely to see if there might be some truth in the statement.

Just a simple observation. A common question that the Devil asks (resides?) is, "Did God really say ...?"
It appears that this question often seems to be asked by liberal theologians and church leaders.

[pmcleanj]

Demonizing either liberal, or conservative -- or any other arbitrary or artificial dvision of Christianity -- by comparing them to the devil, is inappropriate.

[gitlance]

Demonizing either liberal, or conservative -- or any other arbitrary or artificial dvision of Christianity -- by comparing them to the devil, is inappropriate.

I hardly consider what he said to be comparing anybody to the devil. The fact of what he said is true: original sin stems from man questioning God's divine mandate. "Did God really say...?" If God did not really say, then we have a license to do whatever we please. However, if God did say, then we have no excuse. If we truly believe God spoke through the power of the Holy Spirit to the early Church in formulating the creeds, who are we to question them? Sure, we should have an answer to why we believe the way we do, but if somebody is denying the essentials of the orthodox Christian faith in the creeds, perhaps they should consider finding a religion that is more suitable to that sort of blatant disregard for the Truth.

[julian the apostate]

just a simple observation
without
"Did God really say ...?"

there would be no reformation, no anglican church no charismatic renewal


just cuz you heard a fundie preacher turn a phrase like
"Did God really say ...?"

on its ear once does not make it gospel

[pmcleanj]

I hardly consider what he said to be comparing anybody to the devil.

Drawing an analogy is indeed a form of comparison. The first statement in the analogy is debatable -- meaning it can be supported by some arguments, and undermined by other arguments. The second statement, though, perjorates an arbitrary group, and invites equally perjorative retaliatory analogies from people who identify with that group and feel attacked.

The proposition -- that questioning what God really said is a characteristic of the Devil -- is open for discussion. Your own observations above are appropriate expansions on that proposition, and I appreciate your contribution.

Turning the discussion into a liberals-versus-conservatives diatribe will decrease, not increase, the mutual understanding between Christians of different opinions on the subject, and detract from such good discussion as you are contributing.

[julian the apostate]

ps to rising eagle my post came off harsher than it shouldve
sorry
and there is nothing wrong with defending orthodoxy
my lines may just be a little broader than yours, but i sympathize with you

[trooper]

I'm sure a moderator will be kind enough to cut me off if necessary, I'm new to the rules....

The arguement about Spong seems to me to be important not because of what Mr. Spong, or Professor Spong, or author Spong has suggested, but because he suggests things as BISHOP. A title, which to me, infers a level of authority. And things get iffy from there.

[julian the apostate]

there must be heretics among you
st paul

[Father Rick]

there must be heretics among you
st paulActually... it says heresies, not heretics...

but I guess you can't have a heresy without a heretic

[Father Rick]

I'm sure a moderator will be kind enough to cut me off if necessary, I'm new to the rules....

The arguement about Spong seems to me to be important not because of what Mr. Spong, or Professor Spong, or author Spong has suggested, but because he suggests things as BISHOP. A title, which to me, infers a level of authority. And things get iffy from there.I think the issues is whether this is someone 'brain-storming' and working out issues, or someone proposing formal doctrine.

A bishop has the authority to establish doctrine for those under his jurisdiction.

[gitlance]

A bishop has the authority to establish doctrine for those under his jurisdiction.

What if the bishop's established doctrine contradicts official orthodoxy?

[pmcleanj]

What if the bishop's established doctrine contradicts official orthodoxy?
Official: 1. Of or pertaining to an office or post of authority.

What "office" exists that has the power and authority to contradict a bishop?

Answer from history: a duly constituted council of his brother and sister bishops.

It's rather like the kind of trials that get so broadly popularized in the press, to the point that we all know that O.J. did it, and can't imagine how the jury failed to come to the same conclusion. The jury have the authority to make the finding, and they are party to evidence and consultations that we are unaware of despite the best and worst efforts of the press, and they have delved deeply into the issue in a way that we with our passing engagement have not. So casual observers don't get to override the jury, and its hubris to think we know better than they.

Lay people are hardly "casual observers" of the Christian Faith. But we are secular observers of that Faith. Bishops have focussed their lives on the faith in the particular manner to which they are called by the Holy Spirit. They are usually superbely well educated in things theological. They consult with one another and with theological experts to a degree that most of us laity cannot approach. And they distinguish very clearly the fine details of theology: such as whether someone is proposing an issue for discussion, restating someone else's proposal for expansion, or defining doctrine.

So, when a duly constituted episcopal council finds a Bishop's established doctrine to be false or heterodox, then that council will also propose a means of dealing with it. The laity, however annoyed they may be with their Bishop (and at the level of the flesh, Bishops are not only mere human but often sadly annoying mere humans), are not entitled to flout their Bishop on their own authority.

[trooper]

Does ECUSA have any history of actually disciplining a bishop for heterodox views?

[Father Rick]

What if the bishop's established doctrine contradicts official orthodoxy?Each jurisdiction has different guidelines for handling this kind of situation.

[Fish and Bread]

Official: 1. Of or pertaining to an office or post of authority.
So, when a duly constituted episcopal council finds a Bishop's established doctrine to be false or heterodox, then that council will also propose a means of dealing with it. The laity, however annoyed they may be with their Bishop (and at the level of the flesh, Bishops are not only mere human but often sadly annoying mere humans), are not entitled to flout their Bishop on their own authority.

What if their bishop tells them to do something clearly immoral? I can't see the Jesus of the bible telling people they ought to break God's law to placate their bishop. In fact, Christ wasn't exactly what one might consider deferential to the religious authorities of his time.

I agree that people should follow their bishops on liturgical matters, the dates of feast days, and so forth. That's intrinsic to the nature of a (small e) episcopal church. I also don't think people should disobey their bishop based on his views on spirtual matters (Within reason), so long as he allows their parishes, their priests, and their laity to disagree with him on matters that he may be mistaken on. A line has to be drawn somewhere, though, else we'd all still be Roman Catholic. When a bishop steps over the line and tries to force false doctrine on local fellowships, leaving no room for dissent, I feel that's the appropriate and just time to make a break.

That said, I want to note that a lot of the folks who are currently making breaks with their ECUSA bishops over the homosexuality issue one way or the other (Some liberal parishes are dissatisfied with conservative bishops and some conservative parishes are dissatisfied with liberal bishops) are for the most part in my view unjustified in doing so. Few if any of these bishops are forcing local parishes or priests to espouse any particular view, and ECUSA parishes generally have a lot of latitude to select their own rectors. We should all me able to get along well enough to function in union with each other, in my opinion. This is not an issue that cuts to the heart of our faith.

John

[pmcleanj]

I also don't think people should disobey their bishop based on his views on spirtual matters (Within reason), so long as he allows their parishes, their priests, and their laity to disagree with him on matters that he may be mistaken on.

I entirely agree with you, and I considered going back and debating my own post -- but decided against it on the grounds that I had significant consultations to perform regarding the electrical load forecast, and anyway it's hubris to debate one's own posts.

But it is absolutely true that, while laity have no authority to flout their own bishops, they also have no solemn obligation of obedience to their bishops. All we, like sheep, have freedom not only to go astray, but to bleat manfully in discourse and debate over doctrine.

The fact is, that -- as you imply -- most annoying bishops are not promulgating doctrine. They are raising questions and expressing personal opinions or evoking consideration of startling ideas. They are (often) failing to enforce one interpretation of doctrine against another that we would like to have suppressed. Or closing parishes we would like to keep open, or supporting ministries we don't want supported. But many of these things are practical pastoral decisions, not doctrine.

Bishops need (and often appreciate) empowered laity who speak their minds. Even the intemperate, contentious laity have their role to play -- they are a specific against clericalism, for one thing. For a priest it is a little different. Unlike the laity, priests have made explicit vows, before God, of obedience to their Bishops. Their dissenting voices are legitimate, but outright defiance or undermining the Bishop's office is a violation of those vows.

[CSMR]

csmr<<7 and 10 are useful points, except the "raised into the meaning of God" is probabaly meaningless, ironically.

except for the meaning of God part , i dont get the rest of this
can you elaborate,, sorry


also for cadan, it has been a long time since i read tilich, and he is not the easiest person for me to get a grasp on anyway,,
but didnt he try to do away with the idea of a personal God
Sorry not to get back to you earlier; I've been too busy to log on over the last few days.
7. Resurrection...cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
Resurrection shouldn't be understood as a continuation of experienced existence because it involves a fundamental change in nature from somthing in the physical world an human history which is corruptible, under sin and death, into something quite different, something eternal.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
Sometimes in Christian groups we pray for particular things that we would like to happen; but what have these things to do with our relation to God? Of course they happen or do not happen by His power and we should recognise that - this recognition I wouldn't call a "request". What we really need before God is redemption and what we should wish is that he show his mercy to us and to others. That is not a wish for a particular action in the world but for a changed relation between the world and God.

My tentative opinions.

[CSMR]

Bonhoeffer indicates that that Christ is best understood as "the man for others" and not as the incarnation of an omnipotent deity. He points the way to a "religionless Christianity." (sound familiar?)
The first part sounds more like van Buren than Bonhoeffer to me. I don't know about "religionless Christianity" or whether whether or how Spong advocates it.
Tillich was one of the leading proponents of "God beyond God" and the end of a theistic understanding of God. (sound familiar?)
It is certainly true that God stands above all conceptions of Him. Perhaps he attacked a certain sort of theism, but his theism "beyond theism" is grounded in medaeval theology, so far from being able to claim with Spong that the theism of the ages "is bankrupt" he affirms this theism, which is "beyond theism".
To a large extent, I think, they built on the work of Rudolf Bultmann in attempting to de-mythologize Christianity.
I don't know much about Bultmann, but I don't think that historically Tillich or Bonhoeffer were dependent on him. I do recall that Tillich's criticicism of Bultmann was that Christian theology is necessarily mythological.
With respect to original sin, these thinkers have, I believe, attempted to get at what Paul meant in his writings in light of our knowledge of how life came to be on Earth. If there was no special creation and no Garden of Eden where the fruit of the tree was eaten, then how do we understand the human condition?
There is some implication of evolotion on doctrine of original sin, you are saying?

[CSMR]

I'm willing to consider why these people are saying the things they do -- and though sometimes the statements sound WAY unorthodox, the actual theology is VERY good!
You think the theology is very good? Or does the sometimes qualify that - unorthodox-sounding things sometimes are very good?

[CSMR]

Demonizing either liberal, or conservative -- or any other arbitrary or artificial dvision of Christianity -- by comparing them to the devil
Pmcleanj, how else are you supposed to deomonise something?

[CSMR]

So, when a duly constituted episcopal council finds a Bishop's established doctrine to be false or heterodox, then that council will also propose a means of dealing with it. The laity, however annoyed they may be with their Bishop (and at the level of the flesh, Bishops are not only mere human but often sadly annoying mere humans), are not entitled to flout their Bishop on their own authority.
What is this flouting, and where does the authority of God come into all this?