Question:
<snip That’s for sure. But the whole project is a community one. It has nothing to do with me or Spong. But it does have a lot to do with the Christian community, Protestant and R. Catholic. I’m talking about the development of modern historical-critical theology. And I think Spong is passing on a lot of consensus among the historical-critical theologians (Tillich, Hans Kung, Tom Harpur etc.) The fundamentalists are involved in the sense of antithesis against thesis. and have a part in molding the modern theology even though it may be in a negative way.
I wonder to what extent Hans Kung would agree with the views of Bishop Spong. I know he has had problems with the Pope, but is he also a non-theist? It might be interesting to line up the Internet theses of Bishop Spong alongside what Hans Kung has said on each point. I also see a false dichotomy above between fundamentalist Christians on the one hand and radical theologians on the other hand (or more particularly Bishop Spong), when most of us who belong to the Episcopal church fall in neither group. People have a lot of different reasons for doing theology, and the reasons are reflected in the theology they do. There are a lot of people who spend a lot of time trying to escape from the commands of Jesus, for instance. I’ve come to have a suspicion of theology because, really, the message of the gospels is that you don’t need to do theology. It is sufficient to do justice, love mercy, and humbly walk with God. Ok. But why would you want to divorce that from doing good theology. One’s Christianity only puts the responsibility of cleansing irrationality from one’s faith. Does loving God mean putting your life and mind on autopilot and robot-like try to please the Big Guy upstairs? No way, Hosea.
There are many theologians and clergy who would disagree strongly with the views of Bishop Spong. <snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, you may be right. But Spong is trying to avoid a story, the Ascension, that many, many modern Christians, and non-believers,too, would find laughable. Let’s face it. What was good enough for Paul, David or 1st century Christians is not good enough for today’s followers of Jesus. Not the liberal ones anyway. It may be somehow in God’s wisdom the gospels are entirely the Absolute Truth of God. Nevertheless, many modern Christians are prepared to develop their own Gospel, in fellowship with God and other Christians. A new Gospel comprehensible to Christians who insist on the good news of Jesus of Nazareth related to the modern world view including psychology, history,….. even economics. God in his mercy no doubt as he has with millions and billions of other humans accept their limited efforts to know him and express their experiences of his modern acts. Why not? You must face reality. Just because a position is framed in scripture and backed by the Apostles does not make it kosher to many comtemporaries. Rather, a big turn off. Not on God but religion, no matter how good, true or beautiful.
Yes, indeed, many modern Christians are "prepared to develop their own Gospel." But I have to wonder, can there be coexistence within the Episcopal church between radically different theological views? I recall on Good Friday this year, the seminarian who delivered the homily at my church said she did not believe in the traditional doctrine that Christ died for our sins. I was surprised. As I followed her talk I tried to understand if she meant she did not believe in the traditional church doctrine on atonement, or if she simply did not believe that Christ died for our sins. As I left, I felt confused and wondered, maybe I don’t belong in this church. I was confirmed as an Episcopalian only two years ago. So now I am trying to find another Episcopal church which might be a tad more conservative in its theology and liturgy — not fundamentalist, but not denying the basic doctrines of Christianity either. If I lived in Bishop Spong’s diocese, I think it would be difficult to remain within the Episcopal church. The priest, and even more so the bishop, is supposed to unite the community of believers. But Bishop Spong comes across to me as more of a divisive force, not really interested in reconciling with Christians who are more conservative in their views. - Steve Denney
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – However, God dwells not in the heights. Rather in the depths of human life/souls. And what is your authority to say this? My should I believe you? I note in passing that scripture teaches that God is present everywhere. It does not teach that He is present *in*the*same*way* everywhere. Rather [Spong] is suggesting, really stating, the old classical theistic way is inadequate for modern humans and is passing away. But what is "not theistic" about his version? To say that God is not a man on a throne in the sky– that is no achievement at all, and one could come to any theologian, ancient or modern, for such edification. The issue is not whether God is thus-and-so, but whether the icons represent God "well". Spong is trying, among other things, to cut out all of the threatening aspects of God. I see no way to justify this, and the fact that he doesn’t like them is a condemnation of himself rather than of (say) the scriptural depiction.
It seems to me Spong wants to place all his money on the immanence of God. And represents a total rejection of "God out there" whatever is entailed in God on the great white throne far above humans in heaven. He also rejects, rightly the injecting model of theology where Jesus pops into the world from out there. And then gets himself lifted back there. Why hasn’t God constructed a celestial elevator long ago??? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Many moons ago a theological professor asked me "Do humans discover order in the universe and the world or is it all imposed order. Well, reading some quantum mechanics and theology, too, I wouldd think most if not all is as much imposed order. A map of reality. But maps can be right and wrong. I once lived on a street which the local maps generally showed as making a connection which simply wasn’t there. The map was wrong; the street was right. Order here cannot be imposed, but it can be teased out of what appears to be disorder. One simply cannot impose an arbitrary order, so that the power to impose order is so limited as to really merit another name. As to whether the order actually exists, this is, I think, an unjustifiably anthropocentric view of affairs. Occam’s Razor, if nothing else, would tend to imply that scientific models can be assumed to reflect natural behavior because the same (or sufficiently similar) ordering is really present in nature.
Maps can be right or wrong. OK. They, in the real changing world, can be described as accurate or outdated. I wish to suggest the ancient maps, gospels and creeds, are not God but point to God. The ancient maps are only maps. Spong, I think, is suggesting they be updated. Part of the updating is a paring and leaving behind. For example the Virgin Birth myth. And the creation myths of Genesis. Such is life in science, history, and especially theology. That’s why we DO theology. It’s not grabbed from the divine hand extended from heaven as per Moses and the 2 tablets of Mt. Sinai fame. Easy enough for you to say, but again, who should believe you?
That’s for sure. But the whole project is a community one. It has nothing to do with me or Spong. But it does have a lot to do with the Christian community, Protestant and R. Catholic. I’m talking about the development of modern historical-critical theology. And I think Spong is passing on a lot of consensus among the historical-critical theologians (Tillich, Hans Kung, Tom Harpur etc.) The fundamentalists are involved in the sense of antithesis against thesis. and have a part in molding the modern theology even though it may be in a negative way. People have a lot of different reasons for doing theology, and the reasons are reflected in the theology they do. There are a lot of people who spend a lot of time trying to escape from the commands of Jesus, for instance. I’ve come to have a suspicion of theology because, really, the message of the gospels is that you don’t need to do theology. It is sufficient to do justice, love mercy, and humbly walk with God.
Ok. But why would you want to divorce that from doing good theology. One’s Christianity only puts the responsibility of cleansing irrationality from one’s faith. Does loving God mean putting your life and mind on autopilot and robot-like try to please the Big Guy upstairs? No way, Hosea. If one is going to adopt thsi pseudoscientific approach, anyway, the psudoscientific" is here loaded and perjorative. Argue the argument and not the person. Spong is fairly well aquainted with current science, real science. You are the one arguing the person.
I’m actually arguing for the person, Spong. For, he is reasonably and cleary presents the case for modern rational, up-to-date theology. I don’t care about Spong’s qualifications (which are, in fact, slim) if they aren’t realized in cogent statements.
You are intitled to your opinion. But it is groundless. . It’s a tired example, but when he says that if Jesus were ascending at the speed of light, he wouldn’t have left the galaxy yet, that’s just a stupid, pseudoscientific remark. It doesn’t reflect the scriptural account, and it imputes to the ancients a belief that they would have found laughable.
Yes, you may be right. But Spong is trying to avoid a story, the Ascension, that many, many modern Christians, and non-believers,too, would find laughable. Let’s face it. What was good enough for Paul, David or 1st century Christians is not good enough for today’s followers of Jesus. Not the liberal ones anyway. It may be somehow in God’s wisdom the gospels are entirely the Absolute Truth of God. Nevertheless, many modern Christians are prepared to develop their own Gospel, in fellowship with God and other Christians. A new Gospel comprehensible to Christians who insist on the good news of Jesus of Nazareth related to the modern world view including psychology, history,….. even economics. God in his mercy no doubt as he has with millions and billions of other humans accept their limited efforts to know him and express their experiences of his modern acts. Why not? You must face reality. Just because a position is framed in scripture and backed by the Apostles does not make it kosher to many comtemporaries. Rather, a big turn off. Not on God but religion, no matter how good, true or beautiful. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -C. Wingate
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – However, God dwells not in the heights. Rather in the depths of human life/souls. And what is your authority to say this? My should I believe you? I note in passing that scripture teaches that God is present everywhere. It does not teach that He is present *in*the*same*way* everywhere. Rather [Spong] is suggesting, really stating, the old classical theistic way is inadequate for modern humans and is passing away. But what is "not theistic" about his version? To say that God is not a man on a throne in the sky– that is no achievement at all, and one could come to any theologian, ancient or modern, for such edification. The issue is not whether God is thus-and-so, but whether the icons represent God "well". Spong is trying, among other things, to cut out all of the threatening aspects of God. I see no way to justify this, and the fact that he doesn’t like them is a condemnation of himself rather than of (say) the scriptural depiction. Many moons ago a theological professor asked me "Do humans discover order in the universe and the world or is it all imposed order. Well, reading some quantum mechanics and theology, too, I wouldd think most if not all is as much imposed order. A map of reality. But maps can be right and wrong. I once lived on a street which the local maps generally showed as making a connection which simply wasn’t there. The map was wrong; the street was right. Order here cannot be imposed, but it can be teased out of what appears to be disorder. One simply cannot impose an arbitrary order, so that the power to impose order is so limited as to really merit another name. As to whether the order actually exists, this is, I think, an unjustifiably anthropocentric view of affairs. Occam’s Razor, if nothing else, would tend to imply that scientific models can be assumed to reflect natural behavior because the same (or sufficiently similar) ordering is really present in nature.
Maps can be right or wrong. OK. They, in the real changing world, can be described as accurate or outdated. I wish to suggest the ancient maps, gospels and creeds, are not God but point to God. The ancient maps are only maps. Spong, I think, is suggesting they be updated. Part of the updating is a paring and leaving behind. For example the Virgin Birth myth. And the creation myths of Genesis. Such is life in science, history, and especially theology. That’s why we DO theology. It’s not grabbed from the divine hand extended from heaven as per Moses and the 2 tablets of Mt. Sinai fame. Easy enough for you to say, but again, who should believe you?
That’s for sure. But the whole project is a community one. It has nothing to do with me or Spong. But it does have a lot to do with the Christian community, Protestant and R. Catholic. I’m talking about the development of modern historical-critical theology. And I think Spong is passing on a lot of consensus among the historical-critical theologians (Tillich, Hans Kung, Tom Harpur etc.) The fundamentalists are involved in the sense of antithesis against thesis. and have a part in molding the modern theology even though it may be in a negative way. People have a lot of different reasons for doing theology, and the reasons are reflected in the theology they do. There are a lot of people who spend a lot of time trying to escape from the commands of Jesus, for instance. I’ve come to have a suspicion of theology because, really, the message of the gospels is that you don’t need to do theology. It is sufficient to do justice, love mercy, and humbly walk with God.
Ok. But why would you want to divorce that from doing good theology. One’s Christianity only puts the responsibility of cleansing irrationality from one’s faith. Does loving God mean putting your life and mind on autopilot and robot-like try to please the Big Guy upstairs? No way, Hosea. If one is going to adopt thsi pseudoscientific approach, anyway, the psudoscientific" is here loaded and perjorative. Argue the argument and not the person. Spong is fairly well aquainted with current science, real science. You are the one arguing the person.
I’m actually arguing for the person, Spong. For, he is reasonably and cleary presents the case for modern rational, up-to-date theology. I don’t care about Spong’s qualifications (which are, in fact, slim) if they aren’t realized in cogent statements.
You are intitled to your opinion. But it is groundless. . It’s a tired example, but when he says that if Jesus were ascending at the speed of light, he wouldn’t have left the galaxy yet, that’s just a stupid, pseudoscientific remark. It doesn’t reflect the scriptural account, and it imputes to the ancients a belief that they would have found laughable.
Yes, you may be right. But Spong is trying to avoid a story, the Ascension, that many, many modern Christians, and non-believers,too, would find laughable. Let’s face it. What was good enough for Paul, David or 1st century Christians is not good enough for today’s followers of Jesus. Not the liberal ones anyway. It may be somehow in God’s wisdom the gospels are entirely the Absolute Truth of God. Nevertheless, many modern Christians are prepared to develop their own Gospel, in fellowship with God and other Christians. A new Gospel comprehensible to Christians who insist on the good news of Jesus of Nazareth related to the modern world view including psychology, history,….. even economics. God in his mercy no doubt as he has with millions and billions of other humans accept their limited efforts to know him and express their experiences of his modern acts. Why not? You must face reality. Just because a position is framed in scripture and backed by the Apostles does not make it kosher to many comtemporaries. Rather, a big turn off. Not on God but religion, no matter how good, true or beautiful. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -C. Wingate
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The significance of Spong is he pares the errors of theology and science from the gospels. I guess that amounts to deconstructing Christianity. But the Virgin Birth and Ascension are not central Christian ideas. Spong also suggests that theism is on its way out. An outdated conception of God that does not correspond to reality. So it too goes in file 13. So could you explain what is a non-theistic conception of God? To put it another way, what is your concept of God, since you seem share Bishop Spong’s views. No offense intended, I am just trying to understand.
No offence taken, Steve. In fact, though I’ve been reading Spong for several years, I was taken aback last year when Bishop Spong started telling the world theism as a way of conceptualizing God was on the way out – a spent force. Intellectually bankrupt. And for several months I too asked well adios theistic God, but how are we now to think of God. And it was only recently I found a passage where Spong addresses directly our question. I quote – ""But is theism the only way to understand God? I do not think so. Throughout western history a subterranean minority voice has always been part of Christianity which has never spoken of God in supernatural or theistic terms, as a superparent, or a divine Mr. Fix-it. That tradition is called mysticism. It sees God in the words of Rudolf Otto, as the "mysterium tremendum," the inexplicable presence, the symbol of transcendence, otherness, the emerging life force that produces an expanded consciousness. It portrays the deity in non-personalistic terms as the source of life, the source of love and the Ground of Being. It challenges that concept of God as a heavenly power relating to human beings as a parent relates to a child, creating passive dependency in the life of the worshiper. This mystical understanding of God calls its adherents out of childishness into a radical new maturity. It manifests itself in a human willingness to accept responsibility for our own actions, to see ourselves as lives through which the power of the divine can enter and shape human history. If one listens, one can hear echoes of this understanding of God even in the New Testament. Paul speaks of the God "in whom we live and move and have our being." The Johannine Christ is made to say "I have come that you might have life and that you might have it abundantly." Jesus is portrayed as arguing against a theistic understanding of God when he suggested that the people who perished when the tower of Siloam fell were not more guilty than those who survived. I believe that a case for the divinity of Christ can be made apart from the traditional supernatural framework of theism that defined Jesus as the incarnation of that external God who entered this world by way of a miraculous birth and departed by way of a cosmic ascension. The divinity of Jesus was first an experience which later was interpreted theistically. But the experience of God present in Jesus is not to be identified with supernatural myths that surrounded Jesus, but with the God experience that marked his existence. Jesus lived so fully that he revealed the Source of Life. He loved so completely that he revealed the Source of Love. He was so completely true to his own being in the way he lived out his own humanity that people saw in him the very Ground of all Being. That is why the ultimate Christian experience is captured in the Pauline exclamation "God was in Christ" that drives us to the meaning of the life of Jesus. Yes, I am convinced that there is a realm of spirit, transcendence and otherness beyond the limits of my physical existence. I use the word God to speak of this realm. I experience the inbreaking of this realm in those moments when life is expanded, when consciousness is enhanced and when eyes are opened to view dimensions of life beyond our normal boundaries. I do not expect a supernatural being from this realm to invade my world to accomplish some miraculous purpose. I do expect human life to make this realm known in the quality of our lives, in the wastefulness of our love and in the expansion of our being. I do believe that in this mysterious realm of the divine, our love and our caring can loose energy that embraces us, makes us whole, brings healing power, and invites us to share in that which is timeless. I further believe that those of us who know this reality are responsible for acting it out so that it impacts our world and transforms it, calling us into a new awareness of the holy. Finally, this is what leads me to say that I see God in Jesus of Nazareth; and he becomes Christ and Lord for me because he penetrated this realm as no one else has done and his life made clear what God as the Source of Life, the Source of Love and the Ground of Being really is. "" Bishop Spong What you have left is a vital Christianity with all its central ideas intact – the resurrected Jesus is alive evermore among humans as their main reference for the will and person of God. And folks like The Jesus Seminar are, at last, making clear what this great reference for God actually said and did. May I ask what you mean by "the resurrected Jesus"? In what sense was he resurrected and alive today?
I suggest that you read Bishop Spong’s Resurrection- Myth or Reality? HarperSanFrancisco. There is no Jesus as a physical being resurrected back from his death on the cross to time and space. Jesus has been raised into eternity and the very life of God, although Christians have imaged this as saying Jesus is seated at the right hand of God. In his resurrected power and life Jesus is still know to his followers as a spiritual presence assuring them God’s forgives their sins and has invited them too to share the new life of eternity. To me it is this living presence that is central to the shared meal of Christianity whether you call it Mass or Communion. And the assurance of sin forgiven is secondary to the party spirit and celebration of Him who has conquered death and made manifest immortality to the world. So you see, Spong supports the central beliefs of the Christian faith and merely trims doctrine of ancient outworn imagery (and theological error such as taking the Virgin Birth literally or thinking God is so upset by human sin he would even consider burning in hell anyone for a minute let alone an eternity. I recall in the sixties there was a "God is Dead" theological movement. I have not studied that but I wonder if some of the non-theistic ideas of Bishop Spong would be in some ways similar to this earlier movement. – Steve Denney
Again, Steve, the earlier moment is related to Spong’s work in that both the "God is Dead" and Spong theologians realize the game is over for a lot of the imagery and naive unscientific world view of the medieval church. That God is dead. And so is the theist God. Folk really can’t see what’s the big deal of Jesus born of a virgin. It merely, nowadays, undercuts a central affirmation of Christianity – Jesus whatever else he may be is truly and wholly man. And though humans thirst for fellowship with God, millions and millions do, they are not any longer interested in atonement with God through a blood sacrifice of some sacrificial lamb on a cross. That’s merely primitive religion and may have had its place one to impress less rational beings. But no more. The cross is still important because it defines Jesus and what kind of Christ/Messiah he was = the suffering servant. And the cross also assures us there is no limit to God’s love (as told in the parable of the Prodical Son and the lost coin and the one of the hundred sheep that strayed into the wilderness) But the cross is not tit for tat offering to God by God to appease or soften his wrath toward sinners. I don’t agree with everything St. Paul said. However, I do think he was right on when he in 2 Corinthians our knowledge and our prophesies (our theology) will pass away. For they like scientific knowledge often turn out incomplete or just plain misleading. Or they are often the basis, a building block, of a wider and more expansive view of reality. Our knowledge of God is no where as complete and perfect as that great bedrock and eternal reality of faith – love of God. After all our correcting, expansion and exploration involved in Christian thinking the one lasting thing for St. Paul, Augustine, Luter, ST Francis and Spong is the love of God – to know him and love him for eternity. Amen.
Response:
Apparently you don’t know Spong very well. He is no Christian. He speaks of himself as an "atheist who happens to be a good bishop." His own words not mine. A deconstructed Jesus and Christianity is no faith at all.
The significance of Spong is he pares the errors of theology and science from the gospels. I guess that amounts to deconstructing Christianity. But the Virgin Birth and Ascension are not central Christian ideas. Spong also suggests that theism is on its way out. An outdated conception of God that does not correspond to reality. So it too goes in file 13. What you have left is a vital Christianity with all its central ideas intact – the resurrected Jesus is alive evermore among humans as their main reference for the will and person of God. And folks like The Jesus Seminar are, at last, making clear what this great reference for God actually said and did. I suppose I’m talking about RECONSTRUCTED Christianity. And that where I’m putting my faith.
Response:
The significance of Spong is he pares the errors of theology and science from the gospels. I guess that amounts to deconstructing Christianity. But the Virgin Birth and Ascension are not central Christian ideas. Spong also suggests that theism is on its way out. An outdated conception of God that does not correspond to reality. So it too goes in file 13.
So could you explain what is a non-theistic conception of God? To put it another way, what is your concept of God, since you seem share Bishop Spong’s views. No offense intended, I am just trying to understand. What you have left is a vital Christianity with all its central ideas intact – the resurrected Jesus is alive evermore among humans as their main reference for the will and person of God. And folks like The Jesus Seminar are, at last, making clear what this great reference for God actually said and did.
May I ask what you mean by "the resurrected Jesus"? In what sense was he resurrected and alive today? I recall in the sixties there was a "God is Dead" theological movement. I have not studied that but I wonder if some of the non-theistic ideas of Bishop Spong would be in some ways similar to this earlier movement. - Steve Denney
Response:
Actually, Paul refers to Jesus life an enormous number of times in the epistles. The idea that Paul has little interest in the "real" Jesus (which is, incidentally, the resurrected one), is a falsehood. Ok. Where is the temptation, the sermon on the mount, the Lord’s Prayer, any live conversation with any of the original disciples, actual words to his enemies, choosing disciples, talking to Roman, quote of Jesus re Roman authority vs. God’s authority. If we had no gospels – if we knew absolutely nothing about Jesus except what was contained in Paul’s Epistles – we would know about the birth of Jesus, the death of Jesus,
the resurrection of Jesus, the two great commandments of Jesus, the institution of the Eucharist,
Institution of the eucharist may not be exactly as Paul says. Many scholars will accept a final simple meal and not ritual or the basis of what has become the mass or eucharist. his Jewishness, the fact that his ministry was to Jews, that he taught, that he taught against divorce in distinction to the laws of his time, that he called God "Father", that he died in Judea, that it was at the hands of both "the Jews" and "the earthly rulers," that it was before Pontius Pilate, that he had twelve disciples, and (above all) the self-sacrificial nature of his ministry. This can hardly be called "no interest" in Jesus life. The fact that he fails to mention certain other specifics is totally irrelevant.
This is not really a biography of the flesh and blood, historical Jesus. Most men are born and die. Paul does NOT follow the Gospels of Matt. and LUke as to the birth of Jesus, nor does he repeat the trial and crucifixion stories which are not historical fact anyway, and he does not mention the empty tomb, nor the physically resurrected Jesus. However, he is not centrally concerned with these matters . Jesus was born and died and raised to eternity. This resurrected Christ in whom God acted to reconcile the world is what Paul is really interested. That is his priority not the flesh and blood Jesus. And he states so explicitly. Trouble is when you lose the anchor – what the historical Jesus actually said and did – you can start turning Jesus the iconoclast into Jesus the religious icon and pretty well mold him to the point he become suspiciously like the roman Emperor in power and dignity. Paul jumps in with all authority is of God. Not exactly what Jesus said is it? "All authority is given to me in heaven and on eath" is from the Gospels, not the epistles.
It is not r eally gosple either. It is a later addition. And definitely not in the style of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus would probably regard the doctrine of the trinity as anathema. If you want to have a legitimate use of that word. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Jesus was forever talking bout the dangers of love of money and mammon. And "the love of money is root of all manner of evils" is from the epistles. Jesus generally had a postitive view of women. Paul is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his attitude toward women. Maybe feminists say that. Most scholars would disagree. Paul the Apostle had an egalitarian view of women that would have been rather astonishing to the people of his time. You will notice that there are an enormous number of women associated with his ministry – Phoebe, Chloe, Priscilla, etc. – and many seemed to have positions of authority (notice that Paul lists Priscilla’s name first, and her husband Aquila second). "There is neither man nor woman, but all are one in Christ Jesus" is Paul the Apostle’s statement.
I think Jesus was above the patriarchal garbage of ancient Jewish society. But Paul was still immersed in it. And his words show it. No doubt the spirit of Christ was leading him toward a more enlightened view of women and slaves compared to the norm of that ancient world. As on slavery Paul had a long way to go. Are you under the illusion that women in the Roman Empire had more authority than they had in the Christian church? They had far, far less, which is part of the reason why early Christianity attracted far more women than men.
I would side with you on this one. But it was the example and words of Jesus that mattered. Paul is forever talking about sin and redemption and saving one’s ass eternally. Jesus was centered on fear as mankind’s big enemy. Where does Jesus mention fear as mankind’s biggest enemy? Chapter and verse, please.
Look at what the angels say at his birth and resurrection. Myths that convey the essence, thank God, of Jesus’ person and ministry. Of course he did not endorse sin. But his message was often have faith and trust in God. The opposite of faith is not disbelief but fear. Healing or just straight teaching Jesus addressed the central need of man – trust God and put him at the centre of your life. That’s what "consider the lilies, the birds of the air, they spin not……. And then the great resurrection scenes. Again, fear not….. It’s all the central message of the Old Testament’s 23 Psalm repeated – though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil. For thou art with me…..
Response:
Where did you derive the idea that we currently have a record of the entirity of Paul’s teaching and ministry? What has come down to us are 7 letters (refabricated) for certain and a couple of others that he might, or might not, have written. Therefore, for one to argue that the "Jesus" that St. Paul references is not the "historic" Jesus is a weak argument. A reasonable alternative explaination is that St. Paul knew that his hearers were already familiar with the oral (and perhaps written) Gospel tradition, and therefore didn’t deem it pertinent to repeat in his epistles what the hearers could obtain from reliable and more direct sources.
Well, at the heart of modern New Testament scholarship is the idea that Paul’s epistles are the earlies New Testament writings. Then Mark and last in the ’90’s came the Gospel of John. So who is quoting whom? And Paul does not talk about an empty tomb. Nor a physically resurrected Jesus. So the central material in Paul is not an exact repetition of heart of the gospels the crucifixion and resurrection. repetition of exactly In any event, it’s a moot point for the Christian community. However interesting the discussion might be from an academic viewpoint, the Church has long accepted both the Gospels and Paul’s epistles as authoritative FOR OUR COMMUNITY OF FAITH. Any acedemic conclusions that might indicate to the contrary are moot at this juncture.
The academic conclusions are not new they go back to the brains and leaders of the first century. Including their subjective biases, errors and quaint scientific world view. . Paul is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his attitude toward women.<<< So What? Who cares? Feminists howl and scream over Clarence Thomas making an off hand remark about a pubic hair on a Coke can (sexual harrassment in the work place), but could care less about much more aggregous behaviors by a Former Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, and later President. Are you looking to the situation ethics of this handful of modern Americans to provide consistant and eternal moral values, by which to live? (IMHO) that alone would be significant evidence of poor moral judgment. Contrasting the teachings of Paul with that of Jesus forms an interesting academic excercise. But what are the significant implications for the community of faith today? Any at all?
It’s not really my central interest either. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I.e. - by the Palestinian Christians about AD 50 who are worried about that free thinker St. Paul who hardly references anything he writes to the historic "real" Jesus. Actually, Paul refers to Jesus life an enormous number of times in the epistles. The idea that Paul has little interest in the "real" Jesus (which is, incidentally, the resurrected one), is a falsehood. Ok. Where is the temptation, the sermon on the mount, the Lord’s Prayer, any live conversation with any of the original disciples, actual words to his enemies, choosing disciples, talking to Roman, quote of Jesus re Roman authority vs. God’s authority. Paul jumps in with all authority is of God. Not exactly what Jesus said is it? Jesus was forever talking bout the dangers of love of money and mammon. Jesus generally had a postitive view of women. Paul is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his attitude toward women. Paul is forever talking about sin and redemption and saving one’s ass eternally. Jesus was centered on fear as mankind’s big enemy. And Jesus was also big on the Kingdom of God and not personal redemption. However, both Paul and Jesus agreed on the need to trust and love God.
Response:
Where did you derive the idea that we currently have a record of the entirity of Paul’s teaching and ministry? What has come down to us are 7 letters (refabricated) for certain and a couple of others that he might, or might not, have written. Therefore, for one to argue that the "Jesus" that St. Paul references is not the "historic" Jesus is a weak argument. A reasonable alternative explaination is that St. Paul knew that his hearers were already familiar with the oral (and perhaps written) Gospel tradition, and therefore didn’t deem it pertinent to repeat in his epistles what the hearers could obtain from reliable and more direct sources. In any event, it’s a moot point for the Christian community. However interesting the discussion might be from an academic viewpoint, the Church has long accepted both the Gospels and Paul’s epistles as authoritative FOR OUR COMMUNITY OF FAITH. Any acedemic conclusions that might indicate to the contrary are moot at this juncture. . Paul is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his
attitude toward women.<<< So What? Who cares? Feminists howl and scream over Clarence Thomas making an off hand remark about a pubic hair on a Coke can (sexual harrassment in the work place), but could care less about much more aggregous behaviors by a Former Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, and later President. Are you looking to the situation ethics of this handful of modern Americans to provide consistant and eternal moral values, by which to live? (IMHO) that alone would be significant evidence of poor moral judgment. Contrasting the teachings of Paul with that of Jesus forms an interesting academic excercise. But what are the significant implications for the community of faith today? Any at all? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I.e. - by the Palestinian Christians about AD 50 who are worried about that free thinker St. Paul who hardly references anything he writes to the historic "real" Jesus. Actually, Paul refers to Jesus life an enormous number of times in the epistles. The idea that Paul has little interest in the "real" Jesus (which is, incidentally, the resurrected one), is a falsehood. Ok. Where is the temptation, the sermon on the mount, the Lord’s Prayer, any live conversation with any of the original disciples, actual words to his enemies, choosing disciples, talking to Roman, quote of Jesus re Roman authority vs. God’s authority. Paul jumps in with all authority is of God. Not exactly what Jesus said is it? Jesus was forever talking bout the dangers of love of money and mammon. Jesus generally had a postitive view of women. Paul is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his attitude toward women. Paul is forever talking about sin and redemption and saving one’s ass eternally. Jesus was centered on fear as mankind’s big enemy. And Jesus was also big on the Kingdom of God and not personal redemption. However, both Paul and Jesus agreed on the need to trust and love God.
Response:
Actually, Paul refers to Jesus life an enormous number of times in the epistles. The idea that Paul has little interest in the "real" Jesus (which is, incidentally, the resurrected one), is a falsehood. Ok. Where is the temptation, the sermon on the mount, the Lord’s Prayer, any live conversation with any of the original disciples, actual words to his enemies, choosing disciples, talking to Roman, quote of Jesus re Roman authority vs. God’s authority.
If we had no gospels – if we knew absolutely nothing about Jesus except what was contained in Paul’s Epistles – we would know about the birth of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the two great commandments of Jesus, the institution of the Eucharist, his Jewishness, the fact that his ministry was to Jews, that he taught, that he taught against divorce in distinction to the laws of his time, that he called God "Father", that he died in Judea, that it was at the hands of both "the Jews" and "the earthly rulers," that it was before Pontius Pilate, that he had twelve disciples, and (above all) the self-sacrificial nature of his ministry. This can hardly be called "no interest" in Jesus life. The fact that he fails to mention certain other specifics is totally irrelevant. Paul jumps in with all authority is of God. Not exactly what Jesus said is it?
"All authority is given to me in heaven and on eath" is from the Gospels, not the epistles. Jesus was forever talking bout the dangers of love of money and mammon.
And "the love of money is root of all manner of evils" is from the epistles. Jesus generally had a postitive view of women. Paul is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his attitude toward women.
Maybe feminists say that. Most scholars would disagree. Paul the Apostle had an egalitarian view of women that would have been rather astonishing to the people of his time. You will notice that there are an enormous number of women associated with his ministry – Phoebe, Chloe, Priscilla, etc. – and many seemed to have positions of authority (notice that Paul lists Priscilla’s name first, and her husband Aquila second). "There is neither man nor woman, but all are one in Christ Jesus" is Paul the Apostle’s statement. Are you under the illusion that women in the Roman Empire had more authority than they had in the Christian church? They had far, far less, which is part of the reason why early Christianity attracted far more women than men. Paul is forever talking about sin and redemption and saving one’s ass eternally. Jesus was centered on fear as mankind’s big enemy.
Where does Jesus mention fear as mankind’s biggest enemy? Chapter and verse, please.
Response:
However, God dwells not in the heights. Rather in the depths of human life/souls.
And what is your authority to say this? My should I believe you? I note in passing that scripture teaches that God is present everywhere. It does not teach that He is present *in*the*same*way* everywhere. Rather [Spong] is suggesting, really stating, the old classical theistic way is inadequate for modern humans and is passing away.
But what is "not theistic" about his version? To say that God is not a man on a throne in the sky– that is no achievement at all, and one could come to any theologian, ancient or modern, for such edification. The issue is not whether God is thus-and-so, but whether the icons represent God "well". Spong is trying, among other things, to cut out all of the threatening aspects of God. I see no way to justify this, and the fact that he doesn’t like them is a condemnation of himself rather than of (say) the scriptural depiction. Many moons ago a theological professor asked me "Do humans discover order in the universe and the world or is it all imposed order. Well, reading some quantum mechanics and theology, too, I wouldd think most if not all is as much imposed order. A map of reality.
But maps can be right and wrong. I once lived on a street which the local maps generally showed as making a connection which simply wasn’t there. The map was wrong; the street was right. Order here cannot be imposed, but it can be teased out of what appears to be disorder. One simply cannot impose an arbitrary order, so that the power to impose order is so limited as to really merit another name. As to whether the order actually exists, this is, I think, an unjustifiably anthropocentric view of affairs. Occam’s Razor, if nothing else, would tend to imply that scientific models can be assumed to reflect natural behavior because the same (or sufficiently similar) ordering is really present in nature. Such is life in science, history, and especially theology. That’s why we DO theology. It’s not grabbed from the divine hand extended from heaven as per Moses and the 2 tablets of Mt. Sinai fame.
Easy enough for you to say, but again, who should believe you? People have a lot of different reasons for doing theology, and the reasons are reflected in the theology they do. There are a lot of people who spend a lot of time trying to escape from the commands of Jesus, for instance. I’ve come to have a suspicion of theology because, really, the message of the gospels is that you don’t need to do theology. It is sufficient to do justice, love mercy, and humbly walk with God. If one is going to adopt thsi pseudoscientific approach, anyway, the psudoscientific" is here loaded and perjorative. Argue the argument and not the person. Spong is fairly well aquainted with current science, real science.
You are the one arguing the person. I don’t care about Spong’s qualifications (which are, in fact, slim) if they aren’t realized in cogent statements. It’s a tired example, but when he says that if Jesus were ascending at the speed of light, he wouldn’t have left the galaxy yet, that’s just a stupid, pseudoscientific remark. It doesn’t reflect the scriptural account, and it imputes to the ancients a belief that they would have found laughable. C. Wingate
Response:
non-theistic does not mean denial of God’s existence or, better, that He IS.
Wellllll, to take the word at face value, we must read it to mean *precisely* that. Spong no doubt suggests we do abandon certain New Testament ideas such as blood atonement, eternal Hell and Jesus born of a Virgin.
I’m not going to touch "blood atonement" or we’ll be here all night. The other two are dealt with pretty summarily. Let’s start with the Virgin Birth, every modernist’s bugaboo. My issue on this one against the modernists is that they cannot give me any good reasons why I should *not* believe in the doctrine. Appeals to science are simply not going to cut it; to do so is to violate the sense of what the miraculous is. It is science that makes the miraculous *possible*; miracles must have a natural order to violate. Hell presents a different issue. It offends Spong’s sense of the goodness of God. (One might very well ask where he *gets* that notion….) And it has a certain merit. But it isn’t as though the traditionalists haven’t been fighting with this for centuries. There are basically three approaches one can take: (1) Spong’s "man is the measure of all things" approach, in which his sense of the good is unquestioned and is used to cut back the bible wherever it offends him. (2) The opposite extreme which takes scripture uncritically and simply asserts that Spong’s sense of the good is corrupted and defective. (3) A more subtle approach which uses the discrepancy as a means to investigate the phenomenon of good and of sinfulness. Clearly one can combine these. I think flatly preferring (1) is foolish. And I’m sure John Spong is as keen as any preacher to preach atonement with God through the living power and presence of Jesus in our lives
Well, I can’t say that he is, because every time I come across him he is either pushing one of his books or serving the interests of some secular social cause. The only way Bishop Spong or his teachings are going away is if the whole edifice of modern Old and New Testament studies miraculously should now collapse. You know, two hundred years of good solid Christian thinking, Roman Catholic and Protestant, goes down the tube. No way, Hosea!
Well, its archaeological kindred is getting flushed down the tubes, so why is the repudiation of modernist theology so implausible? In biblical archaeology, the modernist viewpoint that there is no historical accuracy in the Bible is being hammered. Every year something new turns up which ties neatly into scripture. Just a few years back an ossuary was found which, it seems, contains the bones of Caiaphas. Modernist theology is similarly prejudiced and speculative. Sure, there will always be unitarians, but I canot see unitarianism having a bright future. C. WIngate
Response:
Apparently you don’t know Spong very well. He is no Christian. He speaks of himself as an "atheist who happens to be a good bishop." His own words not mine. A deconstructed Jesus and Christianity is no faith at all. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a suggestion: Most Episcopal churches have Rite I and Rite II services, to accomodate those who prefer one liturgical style over another. Implicit in the difference between these two forms of liturgy there may also be a different theological approach. Perhaps we should now have a Rite III service for those who share Bishop Spong’s belief that most of what we recite together in either Rite I or Rite II is bad theology at best and hogwash at worst. For example instead of the Prayer of Confession, Rite III participants could recite a general statement on man’s inhumanity to man and the surrounding environment. For the Nicene Creed, Rite III might substitute a kind of New Age statement in line with Bishop Spong’s non-theistic belief system on our relationship with the universe. Instead of three readings from the Bible — one from the Old Testament, one from the Epistles of the New Testament, and one from non-theistic does not mean denial of God’s existence or, better, that He IS. Spong no doubt suggests we do abandon certain New Testament ideas such as blood atonement, eternal Hell and Jesus born of a Virgin. However, this is far from a denial of God, or the Christ he has resurrected to eternity. And I’m sure John Spong is as keen as any preacher to preach atonement with God through the living power and presence of Jesus in our lives Look at it this way. We have everything classical Christianity offered the world from the beginning. Spong merely wants us to drop some superficial and superflous window dressing. Such as the Virgin Birth and a God who is know better by breaking the laws of nature than creating the mind boggling wonders of the univers. And its obvious right from t he first century the Church served up both a spiritual resurrection story and the physical resurrection ones. You can go either way but it ties your mind in fewer knots to see the physical resurrection stories as myths in a good cause. Besides they’re later and more elaborate. You know something like fish stories that get better with the passage of time. Just like the strands of the early Old Testament describing the "parting of the Red Sea." The only way Bishop Spong or his teachings are going away is if the whole edifice of modern Old and New Testament studies miraculously should now collapse. You know, two hundred years of good solid Christian thinking, Roman Catholic and Protestant, goes down the tube. No way, Hosea!
Response:
I.e. - by the Palestinian Christians about AD 50 who are worried about that free thinker St. Paul who hardly references anything he writes to the historic "real" Jesus. Actually, Paul refers to Jesus life an enormous number of times in the epistles. The idea that Paul has little interest in the "real" Jesus (which is, incidentally, the resurrected one), is a falsehood.
Ok. Where is the temptation, the sermon on the mount, the Lord’s Prayer, any live conversation with any of the original disciples, actual words to his enemies, choosing disciples, talking to Roman, quote of Jesus re Roman authority vs. God’s authority. Paul jumps in with all authority is of God. Not exactly what Jesus said is it? Jesus was forever talking bout the dangers of love of money and mammon. Jesus generally had a postitive view of women. Paul is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his attitude toward women. Paul is forever talking about sin and redemption and saving one’s ass eternally. Jesus was centered on fear as mankind’s big enemy. And Jesus was also big on the Kingdom of God and not personal redemption. However, both Paul and Jesus agreed on the need to trust and love God.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a suggestion: Most Episcopal churches have Rite I and Rite II services, to accomodate those who prefer one liturgical style over another. Implicit in the difference between these two forms of liturgy there may also be a different theological approach. Perhaps we should now have a Rite III service for those who share Bishop Spong’s belief that most of what we recite together in either Rite I or Rite II is bad theology at best and hogwash at worst. For example instead of the Prayer of Confession, Rite III participants could recite a general statement on man’s inhumanity to man and the surrounding environment. For the Nicene Creed, Rite III might substitute a kind of New Age statement in line with Bishop Spong’s non-theistic belief system on our relationship with the universe. Instead of three readings from the Bible — one from the Old Testament, one from the Epistles of the New Testament, and one from
non-theistic does not mean denial of God’s existence or, better, that He IS. Spong no doubt suggests we do abandon certain New Testament ideas such as blood atonement, eternal Hell and Jesus born of a Virgin. However, this is far from a denial of God, or the Christ he has resurrected to eternity. And I’m sure John Spong is as keen as any preacher to preach atonement with God through the living power and presence of Jesus in our lives Look at it this way. We have everything classical Christianity offered the world from the beginning. Spong merely wants us to drop some superficial and superflous window dressing. Such as the Virgin Birth and a God who is know better by breaking the laws of nature than creating the mind boggling wonders of the univers. And its obvious right from t he first century the Church served up both a spiritual resurrection story and the physical resurrection ones. You can go either way but it ties your mind in fewer knots to see the physical resurrection stories as myths in a good cause. Besides they’re later and more elaborate. You know something like fish stories that get better with the passage of time. Just like the strands of the early Old Testament describing the "parting of the Red Sea." The only way Bishop Spong or his teachings are going away is if the whole edifice of modern Old and New Testament studies miraculously should now collapse. You know, two hundred years of good solid Christian thinking, Roman Catholic and Protestant, goes down the tube. No way, Hosea!
Response:
I.e. - by the Palestinian Christians about AD 50 who are worried about that free thinker St. Paul who hardly references anything he writes to the historic "real" Jesus.
Actually, Paul refers to Jesus life an enormous number of times in the epistles. The idea that Paul has little interest in the "real" Jesus (which is, incidentally, the resurrected one), is a falsehood.
Response:
No doubt the author of the gospel of Mark would regard the writer of John’s gospel as a bit of a heretic and enticed=seduced from the way of the Lord by fashionable Greek philosophy.
How do you know that? Did you ask Mark?
Response:
I have a suggestion: Most Episcopal churches have Rite I and Rite II services, to accomodate those who prefer one liturgical style over another. Implicit in the difference between these two forms of liturgy there may also be a different theological approach. Perhaps we should now have a Rite III service for those who share Bishop Spong’s belief that most of what we recite together in either Rite I or Rite II is bad theology at best and hogwash at worst. For example instead of the Prayer of Confession, Rite III participants could recite a general statement on man’s inhumanity to man and the surrounding environment. For the Nicene Creed, Rite III might substitute a kind of New Age statement in line with Bishop Spong’s non-theistic belief system on our relationship with the universe. Instead of three readings from the Bible — one from the Old Testament, one from the Epistles of the New Testament, and one from the Gospel — which we do in Rite I and Rite II, Rite III might combine one or two readings from the Bible (depending on if the Biblical passage corresponds with our value system today) with a reading or two from the scripture of another religion or perhaps a statement of a great philosopher or intellectual. The "Prayers of the People" might also be reworded, in Rite III, so we are not actually praying to God but rather making a communal affirmation of our solidarity with each other and the planet. I imagine the taking of the Eucharist would also have to be revised, in line with Bishop Spong’s 13 theses. These are a few ideas for Rite III, so the "church alumni" can be brought back to the Episcopal church, while those of us not quite ready for the non-theistic "radical reformation" that Bishop Spong proposes can remain with Rite I or Rite II. I have not yet had the occasion to visit a Unitarian church so it may be that some of the above ideas I suggest for Rite III are already implemented there. - Steve Denney ;/)
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A long time Spong has been telling us theism isn’t going to last. Like a literal Virgin Birth, 6 day creation, the ascension and a physically resurrected Christ it ain’t long for this world. Adios and good-bye. Now Spong, at last, gives us a rough idea what the future holds for followers of Christ. The fruit of Spongiantity is already evident. If his is truly the way to a new, revitalized and reformed Christianity you would think that his Newark diocese would be spiritually healthy, vibrant and growing. But that is not the case. Since 1979, when he became bishop, the membership rolls have declined by 42% according to some some accounts. Others report a decline of more than 50%. Spong has killed his own diocese. The fruit of his Gnostic theology is poisonous. If the man had any personal integrity he would have exited the Episcopal Church long ago. When a person no longer believes in the foundational purposes and mission of an organization, company, church; for God’ sake GO! When he broke the vows of his ordination to "guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church" he ceased to be a bishop of the "One holy catholic and apostolic Church". He is no more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing, fleecing the flock. The flock he was entrusted with is dying.
This paragraph has been used, with minor variations, to castigate the progressives of the Church right from the beginning. I.e. - by the Palestinian Christians about AD 50 who are worried about that free thinker St. Paul who hardly references anything he writes to the historic "real" Jesus. Then in the 16th Century the conservatives were complaining about a "bull lose in the Lord’s vinyard." Namely Martin Luther. And on and on. No doubt the author of the gospel of Mark would regard the writer of John’s gospel as a bit of a heretic and enticed=seduced from the way of the Lord by fashionable Greek philosophy. Even within Christianity one man’s fine theology is another Christians heresy and work of the devil. Well, I blame God! If I’d been in charge of the universe I would have regarded job 1, when creating things, to establish a solid criterion for what is absolute religious truth. A criterion understood by even babes. And failing that one that smart religious folks could trot out to assess the likes of Bishop Spong and those of his liberal persuasion. Obviously, God is of a different mind on this criterion matter. Sure looks like he don’t mind fanaticism, bitter debate and a touch of hatred in the midst of his truth followers, liberal or conservative. I must add that God is supremely indifferent when it comes to a lot of human suffering – mental or physical. I’m not complaining. Just can’t see it any other way. Guess Spong’s diatribes contra "let’s pretend theology" has got to my inner soul! The way to a renewed and revived Episcopal Church is for the men who are still faithful Bishops to grow the spiritual balls to anathamatize every deacon, priest and bishop who have betrayed their vows and the historic, biblical, apostolic Christian Church. O Lord, raise up MEN in Your Church that will stand unashamedly for the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. Raise up MEN who will boldly defend the historic faith, given to our fathers, against all asaults of the enemy. Father revive and renew Your people again. Amen.
In the phrase "historic, biblical, apostolic Christian Church" there is only one key word - Christian. And I’m refer specifically to the Christ part of Christian at that. All other entities in the phrase are obviously subject in this world of change and decay to the voice of the everlasting one who speaks from eternity with the latest game plan and needful modification of "absolute" truth of yore. Thus, it is necessary to lay off, for a short season now and then the virpitudinous ? attacks on one’s fellow Christians, and listen to the voice of Him who sits at the right hand of God almighty. The latter image referring to the Resurrected Lord of God’s people.
Response:
A long time Spong has been telling us theism isn’t going to last. Like a literal Virgin Birth, 6 day creation, the ascension and a physically resurrected Christ it ain’t long for this world. Adios and good-bye. Now Spong, at last, gives us a rough idea what the future holds for followers of Christ.
The fruit of Spongiantity is already evident. If his is truly the way to a new, revitalized and reformed Christianity you would think that his Newark diocese would be spiritually healthy, vibrant and growing. But that is not the case. Since 1979, when he became bishop, the membership rolls have declined by 42% according to some some accounts. Others report a decline of more than 50%. Spong has killed his own diocese. The fruit of his Gnostic theology is poisonous. If the man had any personal integrity he would have exited the Episcopal Church long ago. When a person no longer believes in the foundational purposes and mission of an organization, company, church; for God’ sake GO! When he broke the vows of his ordination to "guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church" he ceased to be a bishop of the "One holy catholic and apostolic Church". He is no more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing, fleecing the flock. The flock he was entrusted with is dying. The way to a renewed and revived Episcopal Church is for the men who are still faithful Bishops to grow the spiritual balls to anathamatize every deacon, priest and bishop who have betrayed their vows and the historic, biblical, apostolic Christian Church. O Lord, raise up MEN in Your Church that will stand unashamedly for the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. Raise up MEN who will boldly defend the historic faith, given to our fathers, against all asaults of the enemy. Father revive and renew Your people again. Amen.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is, unfortunately for this argument, not true that the object of religious intention is necessarily personal. Pantheism is ever popular and does not require the divine to have any personality or will at all. The reality is Spong’s God is referenced to Jesus Christ as per classical Christianity from the beginning. And Jesus made it clear this Father does have both personality and will. However, God dwells not in the heights. Rather in the depths of human life/souls. However, as per classical Christianity no one is equating God with empirical reality or the "solid world." Remember one of the most important and authentic utterances of Jesus "the kingdom of God is among you." or in John "Where two or three are gathered in my name…" In my opinion Spong has not outline or proposed a new theology or way of looking at God. Rather he is suggesting, really stating, the old classical theistic way is inadequate for modern humans and is passing away. Spong is also hinting at some new ways of looking at God. Ways which are already implicit in the sayings of Jesus and other Church leaders through the centuries. And ways which require further development in Christian doctrine and preaching.
New & Improved Christianity for the New Millenium! The religion where people come first! Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager
Response:
It is, unfortunately for this argument, not true that the object of religious intention is necessarily personal. Pantheism is ever popular and does not require the divine to have any personality or will at all.
The reality is Spong’s God is referenced to Jesus Christ as per classical Christianity from the beginning. And Jesus made it clear this Father does have both personality and will. However, God dwells not in the heights. Rather in the depths of human life/souls. However, as per classical Christianity no one is equating God with empirical reality or the "solid world." Remember one of the most important and authentic utterances of Jesus "the kingdom of God is among you." or in John "Where two or three are gathered in my name…" In my opinion Spong has not outline or proposed a new theology or way of looking at God. Rather he is suggesting, really stating, the old classical theistic way is inadequate for modern humans and is passing away. Spong is also hinting at some new ways of looking at God. Ways which are already implicit in the sayings of Jesus and other Church leaders through the centuries. And ways which require further development in Christian doctrine and preaching. Many moons ago a theological professor asked me "Do humans discover order in the universe and the world or is it all imposed order. Well, reading some quantum mechanics and theology, too, I wouldd think most if not all is as much imposed order. A map of reality. The imposed order is linked to reality but it seems to always require some tinkering and updating. In other words, a closer approximation to the reality being structured for the human brain to comprehend. This ordering task may seem irksome and equivalent to always having to roll the stone up the mountl only to have it roll down automatic. for the millionth + nth time. Such is life in science, history, and especially theology. That’s why we DO theology. It’s not grabbed from the divine hand extended from heaven as per Moses and the 2 tablets of Mt. Sinai fame. If one is going to adopt thsi pseudoscientific approach, anyway, the
psudoscientific" is here loaded and perjorative. Argue the argument and not the person. Spong is fairly well aquainted with current science, real science. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -objection immediately arises that the issue of whether the divine is truly personal is not in fact addressed. It is, as it were, an empirical question, rather like asking what model car I drive, and the only way to answer the question is through interaction, direct or indirect, with the divine. To argue against the reality of a phenomenon without evidence to the contrary is to admit of a bias against the phenomenon. In this case there is little more than the fact that personal gods are unfashionable; all the rationalizations of what the ancients *might* have done simply are not sufficient, without evidence that they did n fact do these things. And this is hardly a new argument; you can find it hashed out in Lewis, for instance. The issue began to be fought out as soon as "Man is the measure of all things" began to be understood with the codicil that the human yardstick is adequate. In this case, it is not. C. Wingate
Response:
It is, unfortunately for this argument, not true that the object of religious intention is necessarily personal. Pantheism is ever popular and does not require the divine to have any personality or will at all. If one is going to adopt thsi pseudoscientific approach, anyway, the objection immediately arises that the issue of whether the divine is truly personal is not in fact addressed. It is, as it were, an empirical question, rather like asking what model car I drive, and the only way to answer the question is through interaction, direct or indirect, with the divine. To argue against the reality of a phenomenon without evidence to the contrary is to admit of a bias against the phenomenon. In this case there is little more than the fact that personal gods are unfashionable; all the rationalizations of what the ancients *might* have done simply are not sufficient, without evidence that they did n fact do these things. And this is hardly a new argument; you can find it hashed out in Lewis, for instance. The issue began to be fought out as soon as "Man is the measure of all things" began to be understood with the codicil that the human yardstick is adequate. In this case, it is not. C. Wingate
Response:
A long time Spong has been telling us theism isn’t going to last. Like a literal Virgin Birth, 6 day creation, the ascension and a physically resurrected Christ it ain’t long for this world. Adios and good-bye. Now Spong, at last, gives us a rough idea what the future holds for followers of Christ. and I quote… T Thesis #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 God talk is today meaningless unless a new way to speak of God is found. From my Twelve Theses drawn from the book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die. If horses had gods, they would look like horses! That elementary insight is never fully embraced when human beings talk about God. We arrogantly suggest we can speak of what God actually is, when all we can do is describe our experience of God. This theological delusion prevents us from facing the fact that our "gods" look very much like expanded human beings. The argument that God is personal, because we experience God in personal ways, quickly descends to the conclusion that God is a divine person, who acts like a supernatural human being. The two assertions are not the same. The God thought of as a supernatural being is normally conceived of as a male figure living above the sky. We portray this deity sitting on a throne, keeping record books on the basis of which he judges the people. This supernatural being also acts to protect the people in danger. There are no atheists in foxholes, we say. He also is thought to enjoy human praises, to hear human petitions and to grant boons to petitioners. To do so, this Deity is sometimes said to act in miraculous, invasive ways. It is so obvious in these incidences that believers have simply expanded human qualities in order to reach an understanding of divinity. Human beings, we recognize, are limited in knowledge; but God, we say, is not limited, so we call God omniscient. God, unlike us, is deemed to possess infinite power, so we say that God is omnipotent. Human beings can be in only one place at a time, but God, not bound by such a limitation, is said to be omnipresent. Human beings are mortal. God we define as immortal. Surely the qualities that we have traditionally located in God are reminiscent of those things that mark an expanded human existence. This theistic God also seems to act like a tribal chieftain possessing miraculous power and using it for the benefit of a favored nation. In the biblical story God was said to work for Jewish goals visiting plague after plague on Egyptians. God split the Red Sea allowing the Hebrews to escape to safety, then closed it to drown the pursuing Egyptians. This God was clearly pro-Jewish! He fed the Jews in the wilderness with heavenly manna and quenched their thirst with water drawn from a rock. If the people were obedient to the divine will, this Deity, the chief priests and prophets said, could be counted on to fight their enemies so they could win their wars. As ancient people struggled with the exigencies of human life, they began to envision a time when the rule of this God would mark the life of the whole world. The painful and tragic elements of human life would disappear: the deaf would hear, the blind would see, the lame would walk and the dead would be raised. Facing the perils of our mortal struggles, people sought God’s intervening power. These are the human hopes which form the content of our theistic definition of God. So deeply has this theistic content captured the common definition of God that one who rejects it is said to be an "a-theist." But this human God construct, this theistic definition of the deity, has fallen on difficult days as knowledge has expanded over the last 400 years. More and more things we once attributed to our invading, external deity are now understood without any reference to God. Sickness, we know today, results from germs, viruses or some physiological or hereditary weakness. It is not the work of a punishing deity. Cures come through antibiotics, surgery and chemotherapy, not from divine intervention. To assert otherwise is to be forced to explain why those who are not cured did not merit God’s favor. As these divine explanations are pushed to the edges of life, by the advance of science God becomes what Dietrich Bonhoeffer has called the God of the gaps. That is, God is the explanation inserted into the gaps of human knowledge in order to explain the inexplicable. But with every new scientific discovery, the gaps that need a supernatural explanation have become thinner and thinner, and God becomes further and further removed from the center of life. Finally the distance becomes so great that God ceases to be a reality even in the minds of believers, and the drift into godlessness grows. Very quickly, after God no longer matters as a coping power, the dismissal of God follows. In many ways this is the situation in which modern men and women live today. Faith has been badly eroded. Religious explanations now seem neurotic. God has become a shaky hypothesis without any real work to do. God no longer sends the weather, heals the sick, fights our wars, or protects us from peril. There is little need for an unemployed deity in our world and so this deity is increasingly ignored. Theism ultimately gives way to atheism. But is theism the only way to understand God? I do not think so. Throughout western history a subterranean minority voice has always been part of Christianity which has never spoken of God in supernatural or theistic terms, as a superparent, or a divine Mr. Fix-it. That tradition is called mysticism. It sees God in the words of Rudolf Otto, as the "mysterium tremendum," the inexplicable presence, the symbol of transcendence, otherness, the emerging life force that produces an expanded consciousness. It portrays the deity in non-personalistic terms as the source of life, the source of love and the Ground of Being. It challenges that concept of God as a heavenly power relating to human beings as a parent relates to a child, creating passive dependency in the life of the worshiper. This mystical understanding of God calls its adherents out of childishness into a radical new maturity. It manifests itself in a human willingness to accept responsibility for our own actions, to see ourselves as lives through which the power of the divine can enter and shape human history. If one listens, one can hear echoes of this understanding of God even in the New Testament. Paul speaks of the God "in whom we live and move and have our being." The Johannine Christ is made to say "I have come that you might have life and that you might have it abundantly." Jesus is portrayed as arguing against a theistic understanding of God when he suggested that the people who perished when the tower of Siloam fell were not more guilty than those who survived. I believe that a case for the divinity of Christ can be made apart from the traditional supernatural framework of theism that defined Jesus as the incarnation of that external God who entered this world by way of a miraculous birth and departed by way of a cosmic ascension. The divinity of Jesus was first an experience which later was interpreted theistically. But the experience of God present in Jesus is not to be identified with supernatural myths that surrounded Jesus, but with the God experience that marked his existence. Jesus lived so fully that he revealed the Source of Life. He loved so completely that he revealed the Source of Love. He was so completely true to his own being in the way he lived out his own humanity that people saw in him the very Ground of all Being. That is why the ultimate Christian experience is captured in the Pauline exclamation "God was in Christ" that drives us to the meaning of the life of Jesus. Yes, I am convinced that there is a realm of spirit, transcendence and otherness beyond the limits of my physical existence. I use the word God to speak of this realm. I experience the inbreaking of this realm in those moments when life is expanded, when consciousness is enhanced and when eyes are opened to view dimensions of life beyond our normal boundaries. I do not expect a supernatural being from this realm to invade my world to accomplish some miraculous purpose. I do expect human life to make this realm known in the quality of our lives, in the wastefulness of our love and in the expansion of our being. I do believe that in this mysterious realm of the divine, our love and our caring can loose energy that embraces us, makes us whole, brings healing power, and invites us to share in that which is timeless. I further believe that those of us who know this reality are responsible for acting it out so that it impacts our world and transforms it, calling us into a new awareness of the holy. Finally, this is what leads me to say that I see God in Jesus of Nazareth; and he becomes Christ and Lord for me because he penetrated this realm as no one else has done and his life made clear what God as the Source of Life, the Source of Love and the Ground of Being really is. Those of us who are disciples of this Jesus call ourselves "The Body of Christ," which means that we are called to be agents of the life, sharers of the love and enablers of the expanded humanity revealed in his being. Perhaps the time has come for men and women of faith to recognize there is no divine supernatural being who inhabits the sky. There is only a divine presence deep in the heart of life, bubbling up in each of us, waiting for the opportunity to emerge in the expansion of our being. So I turn inward to meet God, and the God I find there is the God I see in Jesus of Nazareth. When I give that God away, I become a revealer, indeed a bearer of God in this world. In this sense we human beings are the workers of miracles. … read more »
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.