John Shelby Spong...

[Michie]

I was curious what people here thought of Spong. I am not a fan by any stretch of the imagination.

He denies all the central points of Christianity.

* Jesus was not born of a virgin;

* His father Joseph was a literary construct, as was Judas;

* His family thought he was out of his mind;

* There were probably not 12 disciples;

* There were no miraculous healings, no crown of thorns, no tomb, no angel; and

* Jesus did not rise from the dead.

His latest book, Jesus for the Non-Religious is full of these claims.

I don't understand why he bothers.

[Avatar]

I don't know this guy but I wonder what he bases the bullet points you list on. Does he have access to ancient texts the rest of us don't?

[Michie]

I don't know this guy but I wonder what he bases the bullet points you list on. Does he have access to ancient texts the rest of us don't?

:)

You probably know as much as I do as far as where he gets his info.

I'll keep my sarcastic comments on his pontifications to myself. It never turns out well. ^_^

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

He's a complete hack, laughable within the scholarly community. He has absolutely no academic credentials as a historian of the life and times of Jesus, and does little other than pontificate based on personal opinion.

I'm willing to dialogue with serious scholars who deny quite a bit about Christ (Crossan, Sanders, Vermes, Horsley, Theissen), but he's not a scholar. Just some guy with opinions whose status as a (former) bishop in Episcopal Church USA gets him air time and shock value.

[Izdaari]

Spong is beyond liberal and well into apostasy, and not really a scholar as has been observed... but I have found some of his other opinions to be interesting and worth the time to read.

[Albion]

Spong is beyond liberal and well into apostasy, and not really a scholar as has been observed... but I have found some of his other opinions to be interesting and worth the time to read.

It's true. Bishop Spong is more than a "hack" and he does present his beliefs in a readable and intelligent way. The main thing though, other than that he outraged most of the members of his Church with this "Progressive Christianity," is that there's nothing new in his writings. This has all been advanced before.

To that extent, I'd agree that he thrives on being shocking.

[Joykins]

I personally think he goes too far. I think there are flaws in his assumptions.

I think he has a clear ethical vision - not necessarily a Christian one, but one nonetheless-- but it is obvious he delights in pushing buttons.

[Criada]

Never heard of him...but he has some very odd ideas!

[RobNJ]

Here's the "shrine" to him, that his old diocese has about him.

http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/

[SumTinWong]

He needs our prayers and I am sure we should stick to praying for him rather than calling him names. What he says is without merit (for the most part as I am sure not eerything he says is heretical) so attack what he says witht he truth and it will stand on its own.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It's true. Bishop Spong is more than a "hack" and he does present his beliefs in a readable and intelligent way. The main thing though, other than that he outraged most of the members of his Church with this "Progressive Christianity," is that there's nothing new in his writings. This has all been advanced before.

To that extent, I'd agree that he thrives on being shocking.
He presents his views like they're the result of serious historical study, but has he ever published a single article in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal? No, of course not. He has no academic credentials as a historian.

[Michie]

I agree that we should pray for the guy. But at the same time I do not think it right that nothing should be said concerning his teachings. There are too many gullible believers out there that tend to let others do their homework for them.

What he teaches is not Christianity by any stretch. You cannot seperate the supernatural aspects of Christianity & still call it Christianity. Christianity will not die as Spong claims. But he is trying to kill it himself with these ideas of his.

What he is doing makes Christianity no different than any other group. The supernatural & miraculous aspects of Christianity as well as who Jesus said He was is what makes it unique from all other religions/belief systems.

If it was no different then I might as well go follow a guru somewhere or just do what is right in my own eyes.

As I asked earlier concerning Spong...why bother then?

And as far as he views concerning Christianity, why would I bother?

Bottomline, I probably wouldn't.

[SumTinWong]

I agree that we should pray for the guy. But at the same time I do not think it right that nothing should be said concerning his teachings. There are too many gullible believers out there that tend to let others do their homework for them.
I agree with your post, there is no reason however that people should resort to un-Christian like attacks on the man, while attacking his un-Christian theology

[Albion]

He presents his views like they're the result of serious historical study, but has he ever published a single article in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal? No, of course not. He has no academic credentials as a historian.

I understand. He is not a historian, and his highest earned degree is an M. Div. He's been criticised severely by many Anglican and other Christian spokesmen and scholars, but I'd reserve a word like "hack" for the many authors who are far less intellectual than Bp. Spong. And that doesn't mean I find anything in his "Progressive Christian" concepts to agree with, nor do I find any of it original.

[DailyBlessings]

I find his questions interesting. It's good to closely examine your core beliefs, and Spong forces us to do this. Then, too, his writings are mostly not for those who are already Christian, but for those who are searching or have fallen away, and need to hear the Gospel in a way they can understand it. I'm not one to try and place people under every letter of a law or doctrine, I think there is a lot of wiggle room in what is acceptable to God- because salvation, for me, is something that occurs through faith, not perfection under the law. And faith can take many forms.

[Michie]

Problem is, I see no faith.

Only tearing down the foundational points of Christianity. What makes it what it is.

[DailyBlessings]

Problem is, I see no faith.

Only tearing down the foundational points of Christianity. What makes it what it is.

What you see is what you get. Have you read his books?

[Michie]

What you see is what you get. Have you read his books?
Yes I have. Infact, I get his newletters in e-mail.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I cannot see your POV in this.

But I told you, I'm not a fan. :)

[Michie]

I agree with your post, there is no reason however that people should resort to un-Christian like attacks on the man, while attacking his un-Christian theology
I don't believe I did that.

[DailyBlessings]

Yes I have. Infact, I get his newletters in e-mail.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I cannot see your POV in this.

But I told you, I'm not a fan. :)Oh, just wondered. He's never given me the impression of faithlessness, but actually, you've clearly read more of his work than I have, so I'll be happy to weight your opinion on the matter above mine.

[kiwimac]

A lot of what he says is very old news in scholarly circles. Even though I have issues with some of what he says, he's an ok guy in my book. Having met hm a couple of times here in NZ, what comes across is his compassion for others.

[Michie]

Oh, just wondered. He's never given me the impression of faithlessness, but actually, you've clearly read more of his work than I have, so I'll be happy to weight your opinion on the matter above mine.
Nah. No need for that. Scripture & Christian history is a good starting point though. I'm not saying he is not nice as a human being. I just don't see him doing anything but sow seeds of confusion within the Body of Christ. And I have to admit that his title to his book- 'Christianity Must Change or Die' really got under my skin.

Things like that bother me. I'll be honest. ;)

[Michie]

A lot of what he says is very old news in scholarly circles. Even though I have issues with some of what he says, he's an ok guy in my book. Having met hm a couple of times here in NZ, what comes across is his compassion for others.
Hey!

Long time no see kiwimac.

Feeling better?

[Joykins]

Nah. No need for that. Scripture & Christian history is a good starting point though. I'm not saying he is not nice as a human being. I just don't see him doing anything but sow seeds of confusion within the Body of Christ. And I have to admit that his title to his book- 'Christianity Must Change or Die' really got under my skin.

Things like that bother me. I'll be honest. ;)

Me too. Christianity should change the world, not vice versa.

One of the issues I have with Spong's work is that he is talking to people who are basically like him--people who have a certain education, background, and worldview. Outside of that background, I don't think people appreciate his views very much. For example, I don't believe that miracles are impossible, I do believe somewhat in the supernatural, and I don't think evolutionary science should inform our *moral* thinking. These are assumptions I don't share with Spong so of course I can't agree with his conclusions. Also if he were correct, fundamentalism would be nearly dead but instead it is alive and well and growing.

[kiwimac]

Hey!

Long time no see kiwimac.

Feeling better?
Michie,

A little better, still coughing, still feel like death warmed slightly but that's an improvement to feeling worse than death! :D

[Michie]

Me too. Christianity should change the world, not vice versa.

One of the issues I have with Spong's work is that he is talking to people who are basically like him--people who have a certain education, background, and worldview. Outside of that background, I don't think people appreciate his views very much. For example, I don't believe that miracles are impossible, I do believe somewhat in the supernatural, and I don't think evolutionary science should inform our *moral* thinking. These are assumptions I don't share with Spong so of course I can't agree with his conclusions. Also if he were correct, fundamentalism would be nearly dead but instead it is alive and well and growing.
Good points. I agree.

There have been people throughout history that have somehow tried to change the key points in Christianity. It has never worked.

My concern is for those that tend to believe whatever they read or hear without looking into the issues themselves. Some simply are not able to.

We are to look out for one another & be the salt & light. While I agree Spong may be a nice guy in his way & we should pray for him it by no way means we should endorse his views.

I just feel it is my right & my duty as a Christian to say I believe his teachings are simply not the normative view in Christianity & to encourage others to know why they believe as they do.

So far, I'm not exactly sure why Spong believes as he does except that he believes Christianity should conform with the world & put away its key foundational beliefs.

It is not the way it works.

As you said, Christianity is to change the world, not the other way around.

[Michie]

Michie,

A little better, still coughing, still feel like death warmed slightly but that's an improvement to feeling worse than death! :D
Glad you're feeling better. Take your vitamins. Couldn't hurt!

[SumTinWong]

I don't believe I did that.
I do not believe you did either, but others have and usually do when this mans name is brought up.

[Speculative]

Spong's book Why Christianity Must Change or Die was a valuable asset to my faith and I'm glad to have read it. He caused me to examine my faith and ask questions that I otherwise might not have. He caused me to wrestle with my faith in God, and I think I've come out stronger because of it. Now, I decided to reject much of what he said, but I'm glad he said it so that I had a framework for examination of these issues.

And I agree with Spong that Christianity must change....just not in the way that he prescribes :)

[karen freeinchristman]

Spong's book Why Christianity Must Change or Die was a valuable asset to my faith and I'm glad to have read it. He caused me to examine my faith and ask questions that I otherwise might not have. He caused me to wrestle with my faith in God, and I think I've come out stronger because of it. Now, I decided to reject much of what he said, but I'm glad he said it so that I had a framework for examination of these issues.

And I agree with Spong that Christianity must change....just not in the way that he prescribes :)
:) This says a lot!

Nothing is wasted where God is concerned!

[stumpjumper]

I get his email newsletters.

Sometimes he makes some very good points especially when he confronts fundamentalism which I believe is just as damaging to further the Christian message in many ways.

In regards to his overall positions, though. I don't agree with much of them. I find he takes a far too Newtonian and deterministic take on the universe and that clouds a lot of his positions in his theses. I think his take on the Bible is far too critical, on the extreme end, and clouded by dogmatic skepticism.

However, I do see how he can reach those who are like him, though. I see him reaching out to atheists and other non-Christians. I think he could do so in a slightly different way and not be as much of a button pusher but I'll take him over Dawkins or Harris any day.

I've personally been getting into N.T Wright lately and I like his moderate approach to certain issues much more accurate than someone on the extreme end like Spong...

[stumpjumper]

Also, I just wanted to add, a lot of his views on the Bible and demythologization comes primarily from Rudolf Bultmann who was a well respected scholar in his field.

I don't think Bultmann was correct in all of his views either but that I believe is the source of much of what Spong is saying when he mythologizes aspects of the Gospels.

I believe Barth and Bultmann had their share of debates on this topic...

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I get his email newsletters.

Sometimes he makes some very good points especially when he confronts fundamentalism which I believe is just as damaging to further the Christian message in many ways.

In regards to his overall positions, though. I don't agree with much of them. I find he takes a far too Newtonian and deterministic take on the universe and that clouds a lot of his positions in his theses. I think his take on the Bible is far too critical, on the extreme end, and clouded by dogmatic skepticism.

However, I do see how he can reach those who are like him, though. I see him reaching out to atheists and other non-Christians. I think he could do so in a slightly different way and not be as much of a button pusher but I'll take him over Dawkins or Harris any day.

I've personally been getting into N.T Wright lately and I like his moderate approach to certain issues much more accurate than someone on the extreme end like Spong...
Well I certainly share the affinity for N.T. Wright.

But whatever 'reaching out' Sprong might do, it's not bringing anybody to the gospel.

And I think it's giving him too much credit to label him as a Bultmannian. Bultmann was also a neo-orthodox existentialist (albiet of a different character than Barth, Brunner, and Tillich) who would readily affirm the transcendent character of the divinity and resurrection of Christ, even if they couldn't be proven historically.

[stumpjumper]

But what about Bultmann's demythologization approach to the Gospel?

I really think what Spong is saying in regards to his approach to the "truth" claims of the Gospel is in line with some of what Bultmann had to say about the Gospel narratives...

I think they both follow a modernist approach, though. Bultmann (certainly) and Spong for the most part.

To a post-post-modernist like myself I tend to disagree with both of them on those aspects...

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But what about Bultmann's demythologization approach to the Gospel?

I really think what Spong is saying in regards to his approach to the "truth" claims of the Gospel is in line with some of what Bultmann had to say about the Gospel narratives...

I think they both follow a modernist approach, though. Bultmann (certainly) and Spong for the most part.

To a post-post-modernist like myself I tend to disagree with both of them on those aspects...
It seems to me, and this is just my reading of Bultmann, that the demythologization was an effort to remove the historical narratives of the divine and miraculous, and the perceived importance of historical truth-claims, in favor of a more transcendent, philosophical approach. While Sprong might be 'demythologizing,' in a sense, that isn't what he puts in its place- more to the tune of post-Enlightenment, late modernist claims about humanity, progress, etc.

And the idea of post-Enlightenment progress was certainly not in the mind of a neo-orthodox like Bultmann.

[dayhiker]

Its been years since I read a Spong book. I didn't agree much with him then and while I appreachiate mordern research into Bible times and text more than ever I still don't agree much with Spong.

It seems to me that fundamentalism was a reaction against German Higher critizism and Spong's writing are designed to shock those that have a fundamentalist presective. Thus as pointed out these points of view answer questions that people have in a modern world view. As more and more young people grow up and add to the postmodern world view these writings will mean less and less as post mordern are asking different questions.
One can view this as a sheet of paper with time going from the top of the page, premodern to mordern in the middle of the page and post mordern at the bottom of the page.
Spong I think would be of the left of the page in the mordern time period and Jerry Falwell would be on the right middle of the page.

Time goes on and often the debates of a time period don't find one answer, but the questions change and so the debate isn't of interest any more to the next generation.

That's how I'd put it all in context .... well in my mind anyways.

dayhiker