Twelve Theses

[Toney]

In 1998, Bishop John Spong published Why Christianity Must Change or Die (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060675365/102-8052080-6393736?v=glance) and called for a new reformation.

I tack the bishop's 12 theses to the community door and invite your discussion and/or additional theses. Please, liberal Christians only.

1. Theism as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.

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 the divinity of Christ, 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 a sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.

7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus 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 behaviour 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 for ever from the behaviour-control mentality of reward and punishment. The church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behaviour.

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.

To this list, I should like to tack on my own pet thesis:

13. Christianity must redefine itself as an appurtenance to the one, eternal, irrevocable covenant between God and His chosen people, the Jews, and must honour and share the universal mission to be a "Light to the Nations" with a Jewish remnant, thereby renouncing all notions of a New Covenant replacing an Old Covenant, or of a New Israel (the Church) replacing either Judaism or its God-given mission. Therefore, the Church (a Vatical Council) must affirm that the Jewish people already exist in a saving relationship with their Creator.

[Rev. Smith]

In 1998, Bishop John Spong published Why Christianity Must Change or Die (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060675365/102-8052080-6393736?v=glance)and called for a new reformation.

I tack the bishop's 12 theses to the community door and invite your discussion and/or additional theses. Please, liberal Christians only.

1. Theism as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.A favorite cannard of post modernists - the fact is that there is nothing inconsistant with any of our learning about the cosmos, evolution or physics that says anything one way or the other about the persona of God. Many synthasists seek to prove a transcendent God because that is the only way to meld the various religious streams of thought. Now I agree that questions concerning the dwelling place of God, and Hid purpose are very much in play, but the essence of God, I AM remains, despite the smug assertions of the post modernists.


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.
IF 1. were true, this would indeed follow - but in realty; Christ remains as vibrent, real and perfect presence in the World he made as always, and as always we must - through the dark glass - attempt to understand that splender. Simple denial will profit nothing.

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsenseYes, Geneses is a creation myth, written thousands of years after the events it purports to report; however post modernists risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater when they fail to grasp the essential truth in the revelation, not that it is a news account of creation - but that it is a revelation of God to Moses concerning our relationship with God, a creature of free will, made in his creative image and that we use that freewill often in a manner that displeases God, and thus denies us our devine spark, that can lead to perfect union with God,


4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.
Do you really propose that the ability to quicken an egg is beyond the reach of God?


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.
Why not?


6. The view of the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.
How sad, he clearly misses the entire point - Christ's ressurection is the ultimate revelation the perfect union of Man and God, allowing us to participate in His divinity even as he partook of our temporal and physical lives. Barbaric? The single greatest work of Love ever recorded hardly strikes me that way.


7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
again - Why not?


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.
I translate it just fine, perhaps there may be a flaw in your software.


9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in Scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behaviour for all time.
{Hefts his Bible } Sure there is, for those who accept it.


10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
Yes it can, people do it every day, everywwhere in hundreds of religions.


11. The hope for life after death must be separated for ever from the behaviour-control mentality of reward and punishment. The church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behaviour.
I agree, however nothing in this supposed thesis supports that notion. There is an argument in favor of this proposition, and that is that the dwelling in the spirit leads to purity - rather than act as behaiviousr controlers we as clergy should be leading people to the love and devotion to God, and then they themselves shall have His Love and Law writ on their hearts.


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.
Ok, there isn't a God - but we are made in his image? Pick one. I pick that there is a God, that we are made in his image (we think, know and create) - and concur that all are entitled to dignity, love and respect.


To this list, I should like to tack on my own pet thesis:

13. Christianity must redefine itself as an appurtenance to the one, eternal, irrevocable covenant between God and His chosen people, the Jews, and must honour and share the universal mission to be a "Light to the Nations" with a Jewish remnant, thereby renouncing all notions of a New Covenant replacing an Old Covenant, or of a New Israel (the Church) replacing either Judaism or its God-given mission. Therefore, the Church (a Vatical Council) must affirm that the Jewish people already exist in a saving relationship with their Creator.We could do that, but it would require us to reject a significant portion of Christ's and the Apostles teaching, tradition and theological understanding - so I think you'll need to make your case in detail :D

I do agree that we need to look to Jewish understanding of Torah to have a purer idea of how we are to relate to God, and I have been studying with a local Rabbi to that end - it becomes clearer that Greek Philosophy corrupted some of our understanding of the Law, and man's place in it.

Time will tell,

[Jason of Wyoming]

Im not going to tackle this with objections, but would like to add a couple of thoughts:

In 1998, Bishop John Spong published Why Christianity Must Change or Die (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060675365/102-8052080-6393736?v=glance)and called for a new reformation.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.
I suppose that depends on whether or not artificial insemination constitutes a violation of chastity?

6. The view of the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.
I used to think this too when I stopped believing in God. But I choose to look at it now with a different view. Since Jesus is God, then God subjected Himself to his own laws. (Im trying to avoid a modalist view of the trinity) By subjecting himself to his own laws, he cannot be considered a tyrant or cruel. Does that make sense?

11. The hope for life after death must be separated for ever from the behaviour-control mentality of reward and punishment. The church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behaviour.
Agreed. Guilt is a poor, though effective motivator.

[Treasure the Questions]

There's a lot I disagree with, but no.6 is one I have some sympathy with, and is the topic of debate between Steve Chalke and some affronted evangelicals in the UK. I certainly agree with Steve's comments here http://www.church.co.uk/ (click on study and then redeeming the cross).

Karin

[apenman]

In 1998, Bishop John Spong published Why Christianity Must Change or Die (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060675365/102-8052080-6393736?v=glance)and called for a new reformation.

I tack the bishop's 12 theses to the community door and invite your discussion and/or additional theses. Please, liberal Christians only.



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

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.

I can see these two, the rest are just nonsense.

[Toney]

I don't know if Spong is on the right track or not. I do, however, believe that a new metanarrative, an overreaching story, is sorely needed or our civilization is going to come unglued. Imagining such a new metanarrative is, almost by definition, Postmodernism.

We believers often fail to grasp that much (most) of the Modern world (Western Civilization) has no universal spiritual narrative binding it together. Rather, it has Freud, Locke and Darwin, et al. I think this concern is the catalyst of Spong's thought. His questions are good questions; well worth asking.

The Premodern spiritual synthesis still operative today was articulated by Philo who melded Greek philosophy and Torah (monotheism). That synthesis informed the early Church Fathers and produced this version of Christianity (quite different from the earlier version) that Spong seeks to reimagine.

There is another synthesis. Islam synthesizes Judaism and Christianity, according to some. My point (#13) is that Judaism and Christianity need to synthesize themselves. Yes, that means rejecting some of the "teachings and traditions" as nothing more than early apologetics and polemics when Christianity was fledgling and Judaism reigned. Have we not moved beyond those days?

We will feed on baby's milk, prideful and boastful, until we move beyond that. Christians and Jews need to make the hijacked Jewish epic a common epic -- more than just Judeo-Christian lip service. Christianity, IMO, needs to get over itself, as the saying goes. Our civilization is in grave danger from a competing synthesis grabbing at our heel (Gen 25:22-34)

[Polycarp1]

You're 40 days early, Toney! :D

I think it's important to realize that Spong is a thoroughgoing Tillichian, as I found out in a couple of local presentations by him that our church sponsored and in the Q&A that followed. Accordingly, he uses "theist" not in the common sense that opposes it to atheist, agnostic, and deist, but in Tillich's very specialized usage -- which postulates a supernatural entity violating the rules of the natural world, AFAICT. (Perhaps someone with background in Tillichian theology would care to comment further on the Tillichian use of the word.) Hence nearly every statement that he makes in which he "denies theism" does not mean what it appears to mean on first reading -- and, controversy-prone as he is, he doesn't tend to care about the confusion.

[Toney]

All I know about Tillich came via Peter Kreeft and doesn't amount to much. Either God is involved in His creation, or He is not. There is little debate among religious people on that point. How He is involved is a different story, of course. I believe Spong's points address "God the bellboy" and "God the puppet meister" conceptualizations (vs. God the watchmaker).

That reminds me of a good book on discernment by Fr Thomas Green titled Weeds Among the Wheat (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0877933189/102-8052080-6393736?v=glance). It teaches how God is involved in our lives, in His creation, in human history without violating the natural order.

I am slow on the uptake today, Poly. Forty days too early for what?

[Aduro Amnis]

Even I disagreed with that.

[CaDan]

You're 40 days early, Toney! :D


Depending on how you count, it's 40 days until All Saints.

[Polycarp1]

All I know about Tillich came via Peter Kreeft and doesn't amount to much. Either God is involved in His creation, or He is not. There is little debate among religious people on that point. How He is involved is a different story, of course. I believe Spong's points address "God the bellboy" and "God the puppet meister" conceptualizations (vs. God the watchmaker).
I have a great deal of problems with Tillich's annoying ability to reduce simple concepts to sequipedalian abstract obfuscations. (The sentence is self-defining ;)) So I'm hoping that someone with a good background in systematic theology can deal with what Tillich meant by "theism" better than I.

That reminds me of a good book on discernment by Fr Thomas Green titled Weeds Among the Wheat (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0877933189/102-8052080-6393736?v=glance). It teaches how God is involved in our lives, in His creation, in human history without violating the natural order.
Precisely -- I think! :)

I am slow on the uptake today, Poly. Forty days too early for what?
Well, our ELCA brethren would tell you that the proper day for posting theses for debate, especially when they call for a new reformation, is October 31! :D

[Toney]

Well, our ELCA brethren would tell you that the proper day for posting theses for debate, especially when they call for a new reformation, is October 31! :D

Uh-oh. Let us don sackcloth and ashes and hit the streets of Nineveh. ;)

[CaDan]

Well, our ELCA brethren would tell you that the proper day for posting theses for debate, especially when they call for a new reformation, is October 31! :D

...the sounds of the muted trumpet (badly recorded) version of "A Mighty Fortress" from "Davey and Goliath" start playing softly in the background...

"Gee, Davey. don't you think you better give Dad back his skis?"

Man, I loved that show. :)

[seebs]

I don't see why physics precludes violations of physics. If I am running a simulator, that does not preclude running it under a debugger...

[Im_A]

In 1998, Bishop John Spong published Why Christianity Must Change or Die (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060675365/102-8052080-6393736?v=glance)and called for a new reformation.

I tack the bishop's 12 theses to the community door and invite your discussion and/or additional theses. Please, liberal Christians only.

1. Theism as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.

i am confused on that point. i mean, if God is a supernatural being, than wouldn't that mean that He is up in heaven watching over us, and acting to enforce His Will for Humanity? i mean God must have done that to send His Only Son to die for the sins of humanity right? even though i do believe we have to find a new to speak of God, but at the same time, i think we must be careful to, to not deny truths about God.

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.

when has God ever been understood is my question. i mean how can we really understand an omnipotent God, whom is perfect in all ways, and even ways beyond OUR own understanding? isn't safe to say that there is something beyond what we humans can understand? or is life based on just everything we see and everything that we ourselves can understand? i ask that because of the statement of Christ's incarnation of a theistic deity. what is being proposed against that?

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.

again, i have another question with this. isn't it kind of obvious that we as humans have fallen? i mean confusion is not something of perfection. two, with all the different types of crime, ranging from all over the spectrum, isn't a safe assumption to say that human beings are fallen, yet can still make a choice to act good and right? isn't it a safe assumption that what we have today as the earth and what we deal with was not in God's intentions of a perfect and finished creation? couldn't it also be said that we are just discovering more things about his perfect and finished creation as time goes on?

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.

how is it impossible that God could do a miracle? miracle is defined as:

An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: “Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves” (Katherine Anne Porter).
One that excites admiring awe. See Synonyms at wonder (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wonder).
A miracle play
the link to the definition is here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=miracle
the source i used is The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


with that in mind, why is it unrealistic to say that a God beyond our comprehension, could do a miralce?

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.

the same response as to question 4.

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

how is it barbaric to accept the truth of what Christ went through for our sake? if the cross is a symbol of that, than i will truely hold to that symbol, because if it wasn't for that great sacrifice, my soul would inveitable be up for grabs by any spirit out there.

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

my questions with that are in several points. what about the claims of the people that followed Him? were they seeing hallucainations of their leader? and my question is the same as my response to thesis four, for resurection is a miracle.

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.

this one here, for myself, will need to have some explanation due to the fact i know nothing of post-copernican space age. and again i use my response to thesis four with this, due to the ascension being a miracle, because it defined human understand and laws.

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

this here i really don't know about. because to say that, means that the Bible is not the Divine Word of God, and that is something I have a hard time accepting. if this is referencing to acceptance of all the othe religions, then i must say that i see them as searching for God, but the reason why i still believe the Bible is the only Divine Word of God is because of the claims of Christ.

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

this here seem very difficult to accept. i mean, for a Christian to say that, is denying the positive effects that all the people in Bible had when they prayed to a theistic deity. Christ Himself made "prayer requests" to a theistic deity that we call as God. so why wouldn't specific prayer request to God be good?

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

now this here, i am totally with and totally agree with here. i totally agree, that our motivated behaviour should be seperated from fear and guilt of the eternal afterlife. if Christians truly believe that Christ's death is once and for all, then why worry about every little thing in this world, and just keep in the search for Truth, and live life the best we can and understand the best we can, till we are in His prescense?

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.

i agree with this also to most of its extent. there is no set appearance for Christians or religious folk. there is no gender or ethnicity either. the sexual orientation, i must say i question that part. if a Christian struggles with homosexual tendacies, and failes from time to time, but yet struggles to fight it, then i will believe that person is a Christian no matter what. for what difference is between that and a heterosexual struggling with sexual matters before marriage? none in the eys of God. but to say someone is deliberately having homosexual tendacies for no reason but to be defiant, i question that there. for homosexual, to me, is clearly stated in the Bible, but also outside of the scriptures, it breaks up the capability of creation, in the aspect of humanity. which both sides create a problem in my mind. now i know there is scientific studies studying this. but no matter what science figures out, is it really going to change most people's opinons? (now this is not to side track off from the 12 Thesis post. this is only my response to the 12th thesis.)

To this list, I should like to tack on my own pet thesis:

13. Christianity must redefine itself as an appurtenance to the one, eternal, irrevocable covenant between God and His chosen people, the Jews, and must honour and share the universal mission to be a "Light to the Nations" with a Jewish remnant, thereby renouncing all notions of a New Covenant replacing an Old Covenant, or of a New Israel (the Church) replacing either Judaism or its God-given mission. Therefore, the Church (a Vatical Council) must affirm that the Jewish people already exist in a saving relationship with their Creator.

this i agree with, and still have questions about, just due to the fact that i am very thankful to Toney for kindling a desire to know about this with a few posts i have talked with him about, and thankful to "Bon" on the Messianic Judaism thread i have talked to and the sight this person referenced me too, and also to the reaction from the Judaic Community on CF. is this statement basically saying that since Judaism was basically God's first way of eternal salvation, then it is still valid, even after Christ's death on the cross? would it be plausible with this statement to even address Christ's sacrifice on the cross for the Gentiles more so than the Jews? or is it safe to say that Christ fulfilled the Old Law, and in the end, the Jews are to come realize who their Savior is (or is that basically the same idea that the Replacement Theology proposes?) and by realizing this, they get salvation, because since the Old Law was fulfilled, that means it is void, which that to me, i don't understand based on the simplistic understanding of God's nature.

the bold part is my responses to the first post. i know Toney asked for Liberals only, and i don't know if i am a liberal or not, and really don't care if i am or not, for i consider myself a Christian and that is enough for me. i always want to be sure that these questions are not attacks, but they are just part of the discussion going, and i am asking and posing questions in response to the first post, nothing more. May God Bless you all! <><

[CaDan]

In 1998, Bishop John Spong published Why Christianity Must Change or Die (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060675365/102-8052080-6393736?v=glance) and called for a new reformation.

I tack the bishop's 12 theses to the community door and invite your discussion and/or additional theses. Please, liberal Christians only.

1. Theism as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.

No more Big Guy in the Sky God. OK.

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.

Christology prior to the consolidation under Constantine was a pretty speculative occupation. We can string together pretty words, but the words only hide the fact that we do not and never have really understood the Incarnation.

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.

Yup.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.

Virgin births were traditionally associated with the birth of gods in Mediterranean cultures. We need to penetrate behind the literal stories that only symbolize the specialness of Jesus.

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.

Depends on how you define "miracle" I guess.

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

Not so much primitive concepts of God, but different concepts of how the universe works. Sacrifices no longer make as much sense to us as they once did. At the time and in the place the NT was written, all religions had a sacrificial model. Now almost none do.

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

The problem is that the early Christians were very keen on making sure that they preached an actual resurrection.

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.

Duh!

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

Text critic powers . . . ACTIVATE!

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

Certainly not requests to the Big Guy in the Sky, but why not requests to God to do certain things? Can't hurt, might help!

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

If it's all about following a list of rules, include me OUT!

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.

Duh!

[Toney]

i know Toney asked for Liberals only, and i don't know if i am a liberal or not, and really don't care if i am or not, for i consider myself a Christian and that is enough for me.

Tatted, I posted that enjoinder yesterday when a confrontational Fundie was fishing the Board. Frankly, I wish that a few Fundies and catechism wielding Catholics would, on occasion, politely engage us rather than save us, as they are wont to do.

One of the byproducts of Replacement Theology is that once a "full measure" of Gentiles accept Jesus, God's gonna 'splain things to them hardhearted Jews who rejected their messiah.

Whether Jews will ever accept Jesus as messiah (Christ) packaged as a Christianized Jewish man-God is another question altogether and probably requires something more along the lines of an act of God rather than the bending of a rod than won't even bend to accomplish Christian unification.

[Im_A]

Tatted, I posted that enjoinder yesterday when a confrontational Fundie was fishing the Board. Frankly, I wish that a few Fundies and McCatholics would, on occasion, politely engage us rather than save us, as they are wont to do.

One of the byproducts of Replacement Theology is that once a "full measure" of Gentiles accept Jesus, God's gonna 'splain things to them hardhearted Jews who rejected their messiah.

Whether Jews will ever accept Jesus as messiah (Christ) packaged as a Christianized Jewish man-God is another question altogether and probably requires something more along the lines of an act of God rather than the bending of a rod than won't even bend to accomplish Christian unification.
i understand now why you posted the "liberal" part at the end. i was just tryingto stay along the lines of the thread you started, and hence i really don't know if i am liberal or not, and hope i can engage on the boards, even though i know i have been engaging more on this and the Liberal Theology board, more than probably the other theological boards. so please don't think i was trying to be offensive towards you. :)

i understand your arguments against the Replacement Theology. i also believe Jesus wasn't a Christian, He was a Jew. to say Jesus was a Christian is rather pointless, for it was the followers that started the terminology Christianity, based on the teachings of Christ. i do find it rather interesting that Christ was a Jew, yet Christians have alienated from the Judaic faith, or at least in the acceptance of it.

now in question with the Old and New Laws. Christ said the He didn't come to abolish the Old Law but fulfill it. now with the word fulfill means:

To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises.
To carry out (an order, for example).

To measure up to; satisfy. See Synonyms at perform (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perform). See Synonyms at satisfy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=satisfy).
To bring to an end; complete.
so with this in mind, are you saying that God's Old Covenant still exists with the Orthodox Jews? my only question is to that is, if Christ fulfilled it, or completed it, then wouldn't there be a need for a New Covenant and the Old Covenant would thus be done with, because it was completed? but again this conflicts with the nature of God. i mean His promise to Abraham was before christ's death. God is the same yesterday and today and forever. so there does lie a conflict, now that i think about it more. but is it really going against God's nature tho? Because if God's plan was to give Christ as the ultimate sacrifice for Jews and Gentiles alike, then wouldn't the completion of the Old Law thus be part of that promise He made to Abraham long ago?

sorry for the rambling there with questions, but i am trying to understand it some more myself. so if this isn't right in your opinion, then what exactly are you proposing?

[Toney]

Well, there are a lot of terms being bantered about: covenants, Law, etc.

The Law is the Torah and Jesus, its long promised messiah, came to fulfill Torah not to abolish it. So Jesus draws a distinction between fulfill and abolish.

Therefore, the Law has not been abolished, Torah has not been abolished, consequently the promises of Torah (covenant) have not been abolished. Christianity shamefully takes away the promises and leaves the curses.

The Jews have a unique mission and are not fossilized as a culture or as a religion.

[sculpturegirl]

If all of these things are true then what remains of Christianity and if anything, what is the point?

And that one about reward and punishment- sola fide, baby, sola fide!

[Rising Tree]

#10 really got me thinking.

It seems to validate a forgotten attribute of God: The Individuator.

[DailyBlessings]

I have a great deal of problems with Tillich's annoying ability to reduce simple concepts to sequipedalian abstract obfuscations. (The sentence is self-defining ;)) So I'm hoping that someone with a good background in systematic theology can deal with what Tillich meant by "theism" better than I.


Precisely -- I think! :)


Well, our ELCA brethren would tell you that the proper day for posting theses for debate, especially when they call for a new reformation, is October 31! :DFor all the saints!


I saw the man speak once, at a bookstore in Berkeley. There weren't any church doors handy, so he nailed his theses to a nearby bookcase. It was a great moment, as the mouth of librarian standing by opened wordlessly with shock, not willing to gainsay such an honored guest on the matter of puncturing the furniture.

[Izdaari]

I like 11 and 12, and I can go along with 9 maybe a third of the way, but the rest don't work for me. Perhaps if I understood Tillich and just what the heck he means by post-theism, then Spong would likely make more sense to me.

My basic problem with Spong is that he's liberal on precisely the things where I'm not. On basics of the faith, the beliefs common to pretty much all reasonably orthodox Christ followers, I'm very orthodox myself. Where I'm liberal is more on biblical exegesis, morality, social issues, etc.

[artybloke]

Although I don't entirely agree with Thesis 1, I do have some sympathy with it. Very often, the God people believe in is something close to an idol: I've even read here that some people think of God as some kind of "energy." Kind of like the Silver Surfer's "Power Cosmic". And the kind of God who goes around performing lots of shazam! type miracles just seems more like a cosmic David Copperfield (the magician) than a God of love.

So I can see where he's coming from.

[Abiel]

Another splendid revival thread!

What I find really really annoying with Bishop Spong, and this exemplifies is, is the way he takes away with out offering an alternative, even as a talking point. Maybe I shouldread Mr. Tillich. Where does an averagely bright person with a short attention span start with Tillich?

[progressivegal]

Another splendid revival thread!

What I find really really annoying with Bishop Spong, and this exemplifies is, is the way he takes away with out offering an alternative, even as a talking point. Maybe I shouldread Mr. Tillich. Where does an averagely bright person with a short attention span start with Tillich?
I know alot of people share that view. I have read very little of his work, what I have I like but I see the same problem you do. Outlining the problems without leaving us with hope. It kind of gives off a "yeah, we're screwed and that sucks vibe", which I'll take anyday over the "hooray we're screwed! It's teh rapture!!!!" vibe I get from the other side of the camp. But what I'm really looking for is "Things are bad. Here's why they're bad. Here's hope, and here's encouragement to DO something about it."

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

If we claim to understand God, we have made an idol. Spong seeks to un-learn god in order to find God. Sounds like a good plan to me ;)

[Izdaari]

If we claim to understand God, we have made an idol. Spong seeks to un-learn god in order to find God. Sounds like a good plan to me ;)
It might be, if that's what he's doing. I personally am not so sure he's in search of God at all. He seems much to me like a secular progressive in Christian trappings. But as I said, I don't understand Tillich's post-theism theory, which Spong apparently relies on, so maybe I'm missing something.

[BaLou]

I don't care for Spong. He is too out there for me.

~BaLou

[artybloke]

Seems to me that Spong sets up the questions and expects us all to go and answer them.

[progressivegal]

Seems to me that Spong sets up the questions and expects us all to go and answer them.
How dare he! ;)

[DailyBlessings]

Seems to me that Spong sets up the questions and expects us all to go and answer them.That can be a profitable exercise...

[Adammi]

That can be a profitable exercise...
*refer to my current signature.

[Adammi]

In 1998, Bishop John Spong published Why Christianity Must Change or Die (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060675365/102-8052080-6393736?v=glance) and called for a new reformation.

I tack the bishop's 12 theses to the community door and invite your discussion and/or additional theses. Please, liberal Christians only.

1. Theism as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.

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 the divinity of Christ, 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 a sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.

7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus 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 behaviour 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 for ever from the behaviour-control mentality of reward and punishment. The church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behaviour.

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.

To this list, I should like to tack on my own pet thesis:

13. Christianity must redefine itself as an appurtenance to the one, eternal, irrevocable covenant between God and His chosen people, the Jews, and must honour and share the universal mission to be a "Light to the Nations" with a Jewish remnant, thereby renouncing all notions of a New Covenant replacing an Old Covenant, or of a New Israel (the Church) replacing either Judaism or its God-given mission. Therefore, the Church (a Vatical Council) must affirm that the Jewish people already exist in a saving relationship with their Creator.
**

[Protinus]

I don't know why I have never responded to this thread before today, but I must say that I disagree with your 13th thesis more so than I disagree with any of the others.

The one thing that I find invigorating Adammi is that you can disagree here and find solace that there is much more to reveal by offering opinion rather than discounting or negating other opinions. I have problems with these theses...but I will fall on a knife to allow discourse and sharing in theology.:thumbsup:

[Tinker Grey]

Amen, Protinus.

[Adammi]

The one thing that I find invigorating Adammi is that you can disagree here and find solace that there is much more to reveal by offering opinion rather than discounting or negating other opinions. I have problems with these theses...but I will fall on a knife to allow discourse and sharing in theology.:thumbsup:
I know that this is true, and hearing you say it to me makes me feel like I was just impaled.

Thanks for that, I needed it.

[Protinus]

I know that this is true, and hearing you say it to me makes me feel like I was just impaled.

Thanks for that, I needed it.


But I am quite jealous that I was not asking questions like you when I was at your station. This makes regret...but I am uplifted at the hope that you will bring to this world. No, sheer joy is mine when I would bet on your future!!