Bishop Spong?????

[Christsoldier]

Has anybody read any of John Shelby Spong's books? Presently, I am reading "Why Christianity Must Change Or Die".

While I agree, that man has, at times, placed God in a box, I feel Bishop Spong wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Basically, I feel that the abuses done by the hierarchy in religion is no reason to think the history of God needs to be rewritten.

His ideas that evolution is how God created and that the Virgin birth wasn't virgin and that the miracles didn't really take place leave me wondering just exactly what he leaves to worship.

Thoughts, comments???

edited for typo :D

[Christsoldier]

Ahem, hasn't anybody read this guy or heard of him so we can discuss the ideas he has raised?

I do not agree with the man, but we are going to be looking at his theses in Bible study and it would be great to bring other insights to this.

I believe he is one of the false teachers we are warned about in the end times. What makes it even scarier is the high position he holds in the church. I wonder how many others in the heirarchy of religion have been just as misled.

[Christsoldier]

To, hopefully, further more discussion on this, here are Bishop Spong's 12 theses:


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.

Pretty radical!!! Can we talk? :D

[VeraciousMaven]

All I have to say is that this man is against just about everything I believe.

And before I go debunking his theories, I would have to read his book. But man ... it's sad looking at something like that.

[Christsoldier]

I'm reading his book and I have to agree with you. His ideas go against everything I believe, too. It doesn't get any better in the book. : (

What really bothers me the most is this man is a Bishop in the episcopal church. It leaves me wondering how many others in the heirarchies of organized religions feel this way.

I was always under the impression that man is the one that has to change, not God. God's unchangingness is why we have the confidence we do. Right?

[girl4god]

Not only confidence, but hope for tomorrow. I pray that this man's influence is unmade by God himself, and that people who know enough to be appologetics to him bring him to a Saving knowledge of God, not a distorted belief to lead others astray. May our Savior save him!!

I have not read his book, but feel if I do, I would not like him, or his ideas at all. At least some people are still zealous for God and His unerring Truth. Amen to you Christsoldier. Please doo not hesitate to share how you feel with your group. You may just shed the light needed .

[Christsoldier]

Thanks, girl4god! One thing I think that is very important to remember is Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light and we have to be wary of false teachers, now more than ever.

While we're going to be discussing this man's theses in Bible study, I don't think I'll have to change anybody's mind there. But< I'm hoping it leads to a deeper study of how to defend one's faith. We need that more than anything now.

There are so many people out there who want to have nothing to do with the Gospel message and think they have all the answers. We need to be Jesus to them.

[girl4god]

You're welcome. I'll pray for your group to learn all it can. I know I need a BIT more practice myself in this area. It is very important, and I'm glad you are learning all you can. I will keep you in prayer to not lose heart, or faith when difficulties come your way for it. I know that it almost always means you will be rewarded for your perserverance, and hardship for God. You certain;y have taken up the right cross, and I applaud you!!

It is my promise to try to learn more also, to be a better witness in my walk.Thanks for the inspiration, to really be what God has called us to!

[Christsoldier]

For me, that's one of the most exciting things about being one of God's own. Letting Him be in charge and leading me places I wouldn't normally go and do things I wouldn't normally do. I think one of the most awesome things to be is the person God intends me to be to the fullest. Not what the world demands. :D

[Apologist]

Originally posted by Christsoldier
Has anybody read any of John Shelby Spong's books? Presently, I am reading "Why Christianity Must Change Or Die".

While I agree, that man has, at times, placed God in a box, I feel Bishop Spong wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Basically, I feel that the abuses done by the hierarchy in religion is no reason to think the history of God needs to be rewritten.

His ideas that evolution is how God created and that the Virgin birth wasn't virgin and that the miracles didn't really take place leave me wondering just exactly what he leaves to worship.

Thoughts, comments???

edited for typo :D

This guy is a heretic and I wouldn't even consider his blasphemous ideas.

Paul summed it up best in 1 Corinthians 1:18-25:

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
The New King James Version, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 1998, c1982.

[solo66 man]

What church is he a bishop of? Satans?

[Christsoldier]

LOL, that was my first thought, too. My second one was this guy would've never made it through the Spanish Inquisition!!!

I'm not considering his ideas at all, just reading the book so I can argue about it intelligently.

[Christsoldier]

solo66man,

He is a bishop of the episcopal church, retired now, I think.

I'm only halfway through his book, but it begs the question: What is left to worship?????

From the sounds of it, only ourselves.

Sad, isn't it? :(

[covenant914]

Not only have I read Spong but I credit his writing (along with Crossan, Pagels, Funk, etc) for allowing me to move back into Christianity with integrity.

The literal reading of the Bible is creating a problem in this post-Darwin world. Spong's major thesis is against this literal reading. No major church is addresing this - though most mainline seminaries do not teach "the literal view." Spong is challenging this misinformation.

Try reading him with an open mind - and ignore the deliberately inflammatory titles.

[JohnR7]

>>Pretty radical!!! Can we talk?

Talk about what? Why the Episcopal Church has not booted this guy right out of there? The argument in the Episcopal Church is that just because this diocese is apostate, does not mean the whole Episcopal Church is apostate. I am not so sure of that myself. The seminarys do a pretty good job of killing off whatever life maybe in a person who is in training for the priesthood. That is why they call it a cemetary instead of a seminary.

People with this sort of agenda do not represent God at all, and so listening to them is the same as listening to their father the devil. They have nothing to add or contribute to us. We need to warn as many people as we can, not to listen to this apostate teaching. According to the Bible, this is truely a time where the love of many is growing cold. The apostate church acts loving, but there is none of the love of God in them. We need to learn to discern the difference between man's love and God's love, before others are lead astray. Thanks, JohnR7

[Christsoldier]

Covenant,

Thanks for your thoughts. I really tried to read his book with an open mind, but, truthfully, I could almost the Holy Spirit warning me against the ideas in his book. I guess I'm left with the verse telling us not to add or take anything away from His word. And, I gotta tell ya', every time someone tries to reinterpret what God intended, we end up in trouble and quarreling over mere words, semantics.

[Christsoldier]

Covenant,

Thanks for your thoughts. I really tried to read his book with an open mind, but, truthfully, I could feel the Holy Spirit warning me against the ideas in his book. I guess I'm left with the verse telling us not to add or take anything away from His word. And, I gotta tell ya', every time someone tries to reinterpret what God intended, we end up in trouble and quarreling over mere words, semantics.

[BigEd]

I have just read the back cover of that book while browsing the book store.

to me it seems like false teaching, by a false teacher.

2Pe. 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as
there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign
Lord who bought them ? bringing swift destruction on themselves.

[Aikido7]

l. God is much more awesome than our idea of Him. More awesome than the atheists, the skeptics or the believers can fathom or articulate.

2. God is not reducible to the secular religious term "Christianity," and is therefore much greater than any human expression of Him. Jesus said "Why do you call me good? Only God is good," and "Call no man on earth your Father," and "God is greater than I."

3. Augustine, not Jesus, devised the "Doctrine of Original Sin" in the Fourth Century by proclaiming that sin is passed from person to person within male sperm.

4. "Born of a virgin" is a statement of faith. It speaks to the importance of Jesus, not to the biology of Mary.

5. Today a miracle refers to something as mundane as getting a new job or something as surprising and baffling as a spontaneous remission after a liver cancer diagnosis. Divine consistency mandates that the laws of physics are as constant today as they were in first-century Palestine. At Lourdes--a Catholic healing shrine in France--and in Turkey--a pagan healing shrine to the god Ascepsulus--one will find lots of cast-off crutches and wheelchairs. But no artificial limbs have been thrown away....

6. An atoning blood sacrifice is an understandable way of making sense of Jesus' terrible death. After all, the idea arose within a culture of temple sacrifice when animals were killed to appease the people's conception of God and to carry away their sins.

7. The resurrection was one way to express the disciples' experience that Jesus had been swept up into God's power and would soon return in their lifetime. Other terms preserved in the New Testament include God "glorifying his servant," "designating" him the agent of the coming eschaton, "entering heaven" and "appearing before God." There is no mention of a physical resusitation or resurrection. In the apocalyptic context of those times, resurrection did not necessarily mean that a dead person left his grave and came back to life.

8. The Ascention can be explained within the context of careful study and evaluation of the wide diversity in Judaism during the early Common Era and how the ancient mind regarded manifestations of the divine. There are a broad spectrum of different ways of apprehending visions and manifestations in the New Testament--theophanies (Acts 7:55) angelophanies (Luke 1:11), revelations (Galations 1:12) epiphanies of returning prophets (Mark 8:28) and visions of blinding light (Acts 9:3)--to name a few!

9. It is nice to think that law and standards can keep us always on our best behavior, but history shows us otherwise. Careful readers of the Bible can find a wealth of wisdom and ancient tribal codifications, out of which many believers seem to pick and choose which they will obey and which are no longer of use. Unfortunately, each generation has different ideas and opinions on which biblical standards to use.

10. Prayer should be a way to connect with the divine agenda, not to overpower God's plan. Unfortunately, both football teams have a pre-game petitionary prayer to the same God.

11. Threats and punishment don't work with animals, children and believers. The intention may be good, but it is results that matter. Cowering or agressive dogs, stifled or bullying kids and compliant "Branch Davidian"-type obedients or agressive televangelists seem to me to be the general outcome of scare tactics.

12. "In Christ there is no East or West, slave or free, male or female." Jesus was socially promiscuous; he ate with everyone. Jesus lived and died for a God who made "the sun shine on both the evil and the good and sends the rain on both the just and the unjust." Jesus' God was "an equal opportunity lover." If Jesus told the Parable of the Good Samaritan today (and it were to have the same shock value now as it did then) he would have to call it "the Parable of the Good Lesbian Buddhist."

[covenant914]

Spong is associated with this organization.

Christianity for the Third Millennium, Inc., seeks to offer an alternative that is both radically Christian and significantly non-traditional -- even non-religious. Our convictions involve these principles:

We believe that every human being reflects the image of God, is loved infinitely by God in and through Jesus the Christ and is called by the Holy Spirit into the fullest expression of humanity that is possible. In the service of this conviction we will seek to build an inclusive Christian church that tolerates no prejudices. We will live out the message of welcome to those exiles who have always lived on the edges of the traditional church's life -- the critical thinkers and visionaries and those who have been discriminated against on such bases as race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.
We believe that the ultimate task of Christianity is not to give religious security but to seek God's truth even when that is an uncomfortable truth.
We will attempt to create a community in Christ in which each person may live with confidence in the real world of expanding knowledge, even when that world relativizes every boundary by which God was once defined. We hold before the world a new paradigm for the church. We call believers into a journey into God rather than into the certainty of religious convictions.
We view the Bible as a road map that helps us know how our ancestors in faith understood the "holy", not as an inerrant document on which a faith test will be given.
We see the Creeds as human words that point to the truth of God, not as dogmatic words that somehow are supposed to have captured the truth of God.
We believe that our call to compassion is prior to our call to holiness and that the holiness we seek must be grounded first in love and acceptance, not in moral principles or righteousness.
We believe that what Christians have in the past called "orthodoxy" represents the point of view that "won" far more than it represents the point of view that is true, much less eternal.
We believe that any doctrinal system that is closed or that believes that it defines truth for all time is finally idolatrous. We dismiss all religious claims of infallibility or inerrancy. We seek to call the church into a new Reformation, one that will recast the essential experience that underlies the perceived truth of Christianity into the words and concepts of a new century and its emerging consciousness.
Christianity for the Third Millennium will seek to call this new paradigm of what the church means into being from among all branches of Christianity, indeed from among all the seekers of the truth of God in all the religious systems of the world. We will do this through mass media and through churches that are willing to be centers of exploration. We will employ in our efforts public lectures, printed journals, tape recordings, and videos with study guides to accomplish our goals. We will seek to provide those churches that want to join this journey with the resources necessary to bring the best teachers and the best knowledge available today in the great centers of religious learning directly into the pews of the humblest congregation, thus narrowing the enormous gap which exists today between academia and the typical congregation. We will reach out to people who are hungry for the truth of God, truth which will challenge their minds and still warm their hearts.

[Christsoldier]

Covenant,

The goals you seek to reach sound very commendable, almost utopian. But, what is truth? How do you define it? What are your guidelines?
I guess I have a problem with one who wants to deny the very deity of God. We worship an awesome God who cannot be defined by man. We get into trouble every time we try. By trying to explain miracles by man's realm of understanding just plain upsets me. We don't have God's perspective and we never will. So, why try to put Him in a box? Why try to explain Him? Just because we have no way of conceiving how He does things doesn't mean that He couldn't do them.

[covenant914]

Christsoldier - exactly.

Though I do not think we agree, you could say the very same thing and agree with Spong - and me. The whole idea that God is a "He" is limiting. Something you criticize - yet participate in. A god who has to come down (Tower of babel) or get angry or is jealous - is a limited God. Our definitions of GOd, our images of God, are limited by our use of the Bible as an inerrant document. Rather than a light that illuminates the truth - without becoming the truth. The Bible is a wounderful document(or several documents) that relate personal( or a peoples) relationships with God using the limiting tool of language to convey that message. The image of a "old man in heaven(up there?" denies members of the human race inclusion. Ever seen a painting of a black Yahweh? or a female?

An image(for lack of a better word) where God is the ultimate Ground of our being, the Creator of Life and the Originator of Love is much more inclusive and easier to believe in that the God who demands human sacrifice or condones genocide. These are human inventions and the image of God that they worship is also a human invention.

Jesus recoginzed the totality of GOd's presence when he spoke of the Kingdom of GOd - see Luke. He gave us a pretty good blue print on how to achieve the Kingdom of God - while here on Earth - again see Luke (not Matthew).

[Christsoldier]

Covenant,

While we can agree that, by trying to describe God in human terms, we, essentially put Him in a box, I see no harm by referring to Him as He, The Father. I have seen pictures of a black Yahweh, I am not offended. : ) However, I would have a problem with the portrayal of God as female. I think He is referred to as Father for a reason. His! Not mine!!! : )

While we may not agree with the way God is portrayed in the OT, that is the way it was done. Was it done for a reason? I think so. What is the reason? I don't know.

I will even go so far as to say, If Jesus walked inot our modern churches today, He would be horrified at what some people term "christianity". Does that mean we need a total rewrite? Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? NO!!! We each build our relationship with a personal God.

[covenant914]

An experiential relationship with God is the best, I agree. However, the idolatry of the Bible (as an inerrant document) or the Pope (infallibilty) interferes with the experiential relationship with GOd and makes man an observer, relying upon others, even "eyewitnesses" for validity. The post-Darwin, post-Newton, post-Einstein world that we currently live in denies the "historicity" of the Bible, thereby denying the major vehicle of most people's Christianity.
The mainline churches are refusing to address this, the conservatives ignore it (or combat it) and the liberals offer a watered down version that essentially becomes "shopping for God." Spong is challenging, essentially the mainline churches and the liberals to realize that a new paradigm is required.

God as a "he" is probably due to the writer's sex. The relationship that one forges with GOd is personal and should be comfortable. I believe that Jesus preferred "Abba" and not that it was the prerogative of the gospel writers - however - to teach that God is a man - with feet, eyes, etc is limiting.

[Christsoldier]

Covenant,

>>The post-Darwin, post-Newton, post-Einstein world that we currently live in denies the "historicity" of the Bible, thereby denying the major vehicle of most people's Christianity.<<

Could you expand on this thought a little more so I know where you're coming from? I think I do, but I want to be sure. Thanks.

[covenant914]

The stories of the 6 days of creation, the Tower of Babel and the flood; the three-tiered description of the earth (heaven, earth, hell) and the earth as the center of the heavens (Joshua and the sun standing still), the dating of the earth that denies the speed of light and what that tells us about the distance of the stars(and the time required for their light to reach earth), etc.

What we have in the Bible is the writers' understanding of their world. Not an inerrant document "inspired" by God. Inspired by God - certainly. Inerrant? No. The reliance on the Bible for science, history, astronomy, geology, physics, etc. is counter-productive and silly. It is also, in my opinion why half of the people in the United States do not attend church regularly - though 97% profess belief in God.

[bartleby]

covenant,
good post!
bb

[Christsoldier]

Covenant,

>>What we have in the Bible is the writers' understanding of their world. Not an inerrant document "inspired" by God. Inspired by God - certainly.<<

To me, this makes perfect sense. Why would God want them to expound on things they would have no understanding of? To expect them to have knowledge of a bigger world than their own makes perfect sense and, in my eyes, does not lessen the belief of any event written about in the Bible.

If one is not supposed to be limiting God, haven't you, yourself, done just that, by assuming God could not have created the world in six literal days or flooded it or made the sun stand still?

I think all manmade, led by man, and not by the leading of the Holy Spirit, is false. Remember what Revelations warns about: Do not add one word or take away from the Word of God. So, while you're running around looking for a kinder, gentler, more loveable god to worship(who, by the way, sounds like a wimp)I think I will stick to the God I know through Scripture. : )

If you believe in the Holy Spirit, I would ask that you pray for some guidance and conviction from Him. At the moment, I can't remember Spong's feeling on the Trinity, sorry.

[covenant914]

Careful reading of my posts reveal that I have not assumed anything about God - nor limited God in any way.

To be a bit picky, however - even if the sun had been commanded to stand still - the earth was not commanded to stop turning - and it would have still looked as if the sun was moving across the sky. Which only proves my point. If the Bible had been infallible - the writer of that story would have known that the earth's rotation was what caused the sun to appear to cross the sky - and the earth would have been commanded to stop turing on its axis.

The Bible is not infallible.

The God we know through scripture is not all powerful, not omniscient and is a racist. Not to mention an advocate of slavery, genocide and bigamy. This sounds too much like ancient mankind. Or current mankind. I prefer the God I experience - which you yourself advocated in an earlier post.

Trinity is not in the Bible. Spong will tell you that.

[Stephen]

>His ideas that evolution is how God created and that the Virgin birth wasn't virgin and that the miracles didn't really take place leave me wondering just exactly what he leaves to worship.

Thoughts, comments???<


Spot the baby?

Stephen

[covenant914]

We can, for simplicity sake, call all of your examples miracles. All religions have miracles. Lots of babies.

Miracles are not proof. If there were proof - there would be no need for faith. The miracle stories are - rather than being historical accounts - rather, theological statements. Jesus was called, by Josephus, a healer. Spong does not deny that. The miracel accounts - that are related by only Christians - written 30+ years after the cruxifiction - are mors likely statements of faith than statements of history. No eyewitnesses wrote anything down. But belief in Jesus brought healing to his believers. So a healing story. Jesus brought nourishment to their souls - so a feediong story.
Not to mention that Matt(paarticularly) felt the need to compare Jesus to Moses (coming out of Egypt, Pharoah/Herod parallels, feeding the multitudes/manna, Red Sea/walking on water, etc) so some stories were fabricated.

None of this denies the power that belief in Jesus had on the lives of his followers - or on Spong - who is a Christian. Spong has - somewhat - demoted Jesus from the Trinity and focuses on worshipping God - through the "way" of Jesus. Of course this argument goes back to Arius.

[Stephen]

covenant914

>Miracles are not proof.<

What are, or were, miracles for?

Stephen

[Aikido7]

Originally posted by Stephen
covenant914

&gt;Miracles are not proof.&lt;

What are, or were, miracles for?

Stephen

Stephen, it depends on what part of the New Testament you read. In the synoptics (Mark, Luke and Matthew), miracles are the result of faith ("trust").

In the Gospel of John, written about 30 years after the other accounts (according to an overwhelming consensus of scholarship), miracles are the impetus for faith claims.

All heroes of all faiths have miracle stories attatched to their lives. An infancy story of the Buddha has him being born and then immediately walking, talking and preaching!

[Stephen]

Aikido7

Broadly I would agree with you, but I think that the final purpose of Jesus' miracles, and that of the apostles' too, was to increase faith (as trust) OR to provide a reasonable basis for belief (intellectual), depending on the witness. It is true that miracles were often a result of faith, but they had the effect of increasing the faith of those who had a little faith, encouraging trust in those who were unsure, and proving Jesus' identity to those who had no belief. I don't think it is of much importance when John was written, as it makes no difference to e.g. the appeal of Jesus to Philip on the basis of miracles, which was already applicable to all witnesses.

Incidentally, there is a small but cogent group of scholars who believe that the NT could have been all wrapped up by about 60 AD, except for Revelation. I think the most relevant factor is that life expectancy for artisans in the 1st C. was probably well under 50, and estimates of authorship much after 60 AD are perhaps a shade unrealistic.

Stephen

[Aikido7]

Stephen--

I misunderstood you, thinking that you were seeking information.

When I was younger, I remember some adults asking me "Why did you eat that cookie?"

Looking back, it seems clear they did not really want to know why. They just wanted to let me know I was a heretical cookie eater.

Thank God my loving parents never talked this way to me when I was a child....

[Stephen]

>Thank God my loving parents never talked this way to me when I was a child....<

With all respect, aikido, it wasn't you who was being addressed. Anyway, I don't really think you'll mind being uncovered as a heretic if you are of the view that miracles are a common feature of sundry heroes or deities.

Stephen

[Christsoldier]

>>The Bible is not infallible.<<

But, man sure is! : )

>>Trinity is not in the Bible. Spong will tell you that.<<

Man is fallible.

>>If the Bible had been infallible - the writer of that story would have known that the earth's rotation was what caused the sun to appear to cross the sky - and the earth would have been commanded to stop turing on its axis.<<

Now why would an ancient writer understand science?

You say the OT portrays God as racist, a slaver, a bigamist and the author of genocide. Have you read the complete OT or just read the parts that back up your(Spong's?)belief system? The entire OT is the history of God's relationship with His chosen people. Their joys, their triumps, their defeats, their humiliation. God did what He had to do in order to get their attention, to chastise them and to bless them. Spong acts like God is sitting up there and reacting to events as they happen. God is not reactionary. He knows how it is all going to work out. We act like Jesus was an afterthought from God. You say Spong says the Trinity isn't in the Bible. I say the Trinity was there "In the Beginning......".

As far as God being an advocate of slavery, you do know that slavery in those times was not the slavery we witnessed in our own country(assuming you're from the US). Slavery, then, was a different institution. People voluntarily "bonded" themselves in order to pay the debts they couldn't pay otherwise. They also celebrated jubilee where, after a length of time, they were to be freed and all debts cancelled. Does that mean it was an altogether good system? Probably not, I would imagine there were abuses. There always are when one man sets himself up as master over another.

[Aikido7]

Even if the revelation contained in the Bible were infallible and inerrant, as some claim, how we understand it is not--unless, of course, particular interpreters on this board have been granted the only correct interpretation by divine right and light.

But if these interpreters have the only correct interpretation then they, too, must be equally inspired if their interpretations are to be infallible. And even if their interpretations are infallible, we must all share their inspiration, and hence their infalliblity, if we are to perfectly understand their interpretations.

This all suggests that we are then confronted with an endless sequence in which everyone who pretends to understand must participate in the original inspiration to be part of the chain.

Since being back-handedly judged a heretic on this board, I must admit that my own knowledge is always finite and open-ended and therefore subject to modification. All information I have acquired has been by toil--study and learning. If we could ALL admit to this common-sense fact, then we would all be on a level playing field and this would make a genuine exchange of ideas possible.

I realize how difficult and dangerous it is to tip over tables in the Temple. It is an effront to orthodoxy and is thus "heretical." When Jesus was crucified, Matthew's account says the curtian in the temple which separated the people from God was immediately torn in two. This means--on a literal level at least--that there was suddenly NOTHING separating the human from the divine. No inerrant Bible. No idolatrous superheroes. No divine inspiration. Nothing but the hazards and terror of standing before God and mankind's sudden new sense of freedom and maturity.

[Christsoldier]

When trying to interpret the Bible the thing that must be taken into consideration is does it uphold what has gone before and what comes after? Does it actually teach what God said we should do or does it contradict His will?

[Christsoldier]

Aikido,

I have come to understand that while one may know a lot about god, it is not the same as knowing God.

[Aikido7]

Jesus did not "believe in"
God. He knew God. This is an important difference.

[Christsoldier]

He was God in the flesh.

[Aikido7]

The heresy known as "docetism" comes from the Greek word dokeo, which means "to appear" or "seem." Docetism is the notion that though Jesus appeared to be human, he was really God.

So ironically, one of the earliest heresies in Christian tradition is still thought by many people--Christians and non-Christians alike--to be the orthodox Christian position.

[Christsoldier]

Let me ask you this: If Jesus wasn't God in the flesh, why were all the early Apostles so willing to die for a myth? Why has christianity stuck around as long as it has?

[Aikido7]

Martyrdom is not always an indication of Jesus being seen as "God in the flesh," as Jonestown, Waco and even the suicide hijackers of September 11th keep reminding us.

What we now call "Christianity" took root in first-century Palestine when it was still being called "the Way." It arose in the context of profound economic and social dislocation and was as much a political movement as it was a spiritual one. Jesus' "Kingdom of God" message resonated with a people suffering from Roman domination and tyranny. Paul's auditory message framed the Nazarean's parabolic message into a Greco-Roman Hellenistic theology which brought it to the far corners of the Roman empire. Mark's gospel was written some 20 years later and formed the basis for Matthew and Luke's accounts. The fact that the codex (small, book-like texts) began to replace the large and awkward scrolls around this time also ensured the gospel could (and would) be spread easily and economically.

Ironically, Jesus' vision of oppositional healing and sharing soon became wedded to the very government it once resisted after the Council of Nicea met in 325 AD. The Protestant Reformation at the end of the Middle Ages split the church and its message again and the continual splintering of denominations after Martin Luther continues to this day to over 350. Christianity in Europe is basically dead; churches are museums for tourists more than they are places of worship. The faith is spreading rapidly in Third World countries--particularly Africa and South America--but in the United States the fastest-growing group has been called "the unchurched"--those to whom the traditional orthodoxy and dogma no longer have any meaning for.

Humans are "hard-wired" for religion and, although we as Christians seem to be caught up in a time of incredible change, it is my view that "faith"--in one form or another--will survive. Faith in Jesus survived even after his crucifixion, and even among those who were unaware he had been killed (remember the two travellers at Emmaus?).

Bishop Spong upsets many believers because he is already ahead of the curve. He is not afraid to speak his mind and heart--even though the rest of us have not caught up yet. The reason we are left behind is because the church leadership has been seriously remiss in passing along the results of centuries of biblical scholarship to those of us in the pews. Those who know are just happy not to tell, and those who tell truly do not know. Biblical illiteracy is rampant. We do indeed stand on the edge of a "new Reformation," as Spong asserts. The first Reformation led by Martin Luther resulted in the Bible being taken from the province of the church's priestly authorities and finally made available to the average person.

The "new Reformation" demands no less, but on a deeper and more authentic level.

[seebs]

Originally posted by Christsoldier

His ideas that evolution is how God created and that the Virgin birth wasn't virgin and that the miracles didn't really take place leave me wondering just exactly what he leaves to worship.


Well... God? Forgiveness of sins?

Look at a sunset, and how can you possibly wonder what there is to worship?

I was raised Lutheran, but I never even *knew* that anyone thought creation was literal until high school or later; I always assumed everyone accepted the theory of evolution as the best going theory. I don't really care either way on the virgin birth issue; it doesn't seem important to me.

Miracles? I believe in miracles, but I don't care *how* God does them. If you tell me that the Red Sea parted because of an earthquake, well, I'm pretty impressed by a God who can arrange for an earthquake when His people need to cross the sea. I just don't see it as mattering. I think some of them sound like they were "just miracles", and I don't really care which are which.

I guess I come from a different background than a lot of people here. I've never been much concerned with the detailed explanations of history of two thousand years ago. Faith is about how we interact with the world *TODAY*. Next time a friend of yours is sick, call up, and volunteer to go shopping and bring medicine or easy to prepare food. *THAT* is a miracle.

[Christsoldier]

Aikido,

I think one of the things that most of us keep forgetting is worshiping God is about worshiping God. It's not about what "we" get out of it or what "we" experience.

We may be standing on the edge of another reformation, but I sure hope it's not one where we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Know what I mean? : ) Why must God be remade in order to be worshiped? While I do think there are a lot of people who need to rethink where they are with God, it's them that have to change. Not God.

[Aikido7]

I totally agree. Thanks for understanding! We have our work cut out for us. Amen!

[kiwimac]

Actually,

I both like and admire John Spong. He is not frightened of asking difficult questions. Frankly, I believe God is making use of this "vexatious man":)

Kiwimac

[Project 86]

"Trinity is not in the Bible. Spong will tell you that."

I wouldn't believe a thing Spong told me. He's a false teacher and his fruit shows it. He's just a sign of how corrupt Christianity is becoming.

[Aikido7]

First, let's talk FACT. "Trinity" is NOWHERE in the Bible.

Now we can talk BELIEF, OPINION and CONJECTURE. I have read Spong extensively. Much of what he talks about has been known by clergy trained in theological schools and seminaries for years. Biblical scholarship began in the early 1800s with Raimerus. All one has to do is read and study the New Testament in parallel (instead of reading the texts one after another) and the careful student can
see for him or herself how Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark in front of them when they wrote their accounts. Luke and Matthew aren't even primary sources, but VARIATIONS of Mark! Re-read the first few verses of Luke if you don't believe me.

It is a travesty how this fundamental knowledge of our sacred texts has been ignored or deliberately minimized by the clergy. It makes me think they must feel we are too ignorant or fragile on our own to read and understand our own truths!

The only thing that helps me put this in perspective is that it has only been about 450 years since the people have been allowed to read the Bible for themselves.
Before Martin Luther and the Reformation, only the clergy was allowed to read and interpret scripture for the masses.

"Bible Study" is actually "studying the Bible."

[kern]

That's going a bit too far -- Matthew and Luke are making use of traditions outside of Mark (including the Q source and the so-called M and L traditions), so they do add things Mark does not provide, and they are written from a different perspective.

-Chris

[Aikido7]

Chris,

Mainline scholars of biblical studies have known for decades that Matthew and Luke had totally different theologies which can be recognized whenever they are not following Mark. The Q source and proto-Luke and -Mark also reflect the theologies of different early Christian groups.

The gospels are deliberate interpretations of Jesus rather than a biography. By careful comparison and study, one can watch the development of inspiration through time.

For example, the letters of Paul--the earliest manuscripts in the New Testament canon--show Jesus becoming Son of God at the crucifixion. Later, Mark's gospel--the earliest of the four accounts of Jesus' words and deeds--has Jesus designated Son of God at his baptism. Luke and Matthew move the event even further back to his conception. John's gospel, which is probably the last to have been written, shows a very developed cristology: even Genesis is rewritten by John to show that Jesus was exhalted before the creation.

Matthew and Luke do add things not mentioned in Mark. They were different writers writing for different communities of believers facing different problems.

Why this common-sense idea is not taught in most churches today is regrettable, though understandable. The clergy who do know about this are probably more comfortable not talking about it and the clergy who don't know probably have no more curiousity to learn more. It is the average Christian in the pew who is the loser when "biblical literacy" is reduced to proof-texting and out-of-context homilies during church services.

[kern]

Well, it doesn't help that some people hold theories like this to impossible standards of proof -- i.e. if you cannot produce a copy of the document Q, then you have just imagined its existence and there is no proof whatsoever that it's not the work of a single author. Such opinions show a lot of contempt for the large amount of work done on Biblical criticism.

(Of course, it is probably the work of a single author working from multiple sources.)

-Chris

[covenant914]

aikido/kern,

I think you both right.&nbsp; "Q" seems to be a viable explanation for the common material in Matt/Luke that is not found in Mark - whil eboth&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; writers added their own perspective.

It is a shame that Bible scholarship is not taught in most churches - rather a "literal/historical/biographical" slant is either taught or assumed.

I have run into difficulties in my Sunday School class(I teach High School SS) by showing the chronology of writing and examining the texts against one another.

You should have&nbsp; seen the looks on the parishioners faces when I started Revelations - I told the kids that Tim LaHaye/Hal Lindsey were wrong.

&nbsp;

It was a hoot.

[Polycarp1]

FWIW, this thread was an Anglican "inheritance" from the old P/R/E forum. I thought it might be interesting to resurrect it for further discussion of Bp. Spong.

The man is highly controversial, and thrives on controversy -- his stance is one that fundamentalism works an injustice on the individual Christian, and hence he combats it with a very personal and highly controverted theology.

First, it's important to note that he is a Tillichian through and through -- much of the theology he does is done in a context that is very easy to misunderstand. For example, he condemns "theism" -- but what he means by it is not the dictionary definition of belief in an active God, but Tillich's specialized use of "theism" to describe belief in a supernatural entity where the Christian God is in some ways similar to Zeus or Brahma -- one entity "with an outside" -- as opposed to the fundamental ground of existence, the loving One who made all and who encompasses all.

And his stance has always been one of Christ and Christians for the outcast, the discriminated against, the rejected and pariah. In this he stands with historical Christian figures and with Christ himself.

However, he is a Dynamist in the sense that term was used to name a heresy in early theology -- Jesus, for Spong, was a man in whom the Christ-power indwelt, and after whose death the Christ-power lived on in the hearts and minds of His followers. This is of course contrary to Nicene-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, even taking the implications of I Corinthians 15 into account.