Overflow Responses to the Spong Challenge

• James McMahon BJPSYMAC@webtv.net Thu, 28 May 1998 21:47

A few thoughts on your views vis a vis MacDonald on Spong.
{a} I think the Bishop has offered a tertium quid to American fundamentalists and drifting hermeneutists (in a way that is akin to some other deconstructionists) re. Christian belief.  Within that post-modern temper, his responses in debate (if more are forthcoming) might shift.  That shift might be more a tribute to the diversity of his ideas and to his skills as a debater than to coherence.
{b} He has already responded to a husband-wife clergy team whose responses were sincere but trivial in the current Internet dialogue. The Bishop's responses were devestatingly on target & not once did he proceed in an ad hoc way (ie count as arguable only those points he considered worthy of his time & effort while dismissing many which I thought trivial).  His responses were also entertaining as he reserved his bombasts for the couple's short memory and ingratitude (the Bishop had used $s from his Diocese to help the couple keep their parish alive within a style apparently not personally pleasing to him)!
{c}  Your comments on RC growth are important--that growth 200K per month in real numbers in the US.  Of those, many are from Hispanic births, while about half are converts from Protestant & evangelical sects.   The other mainline churches have not lost real numbers, however.  They have lost market share as total %age of church-going population--a steady 40% of total US pop. who attend church each week since 1940.  In 1995, the ECUSA actually lost 25K compared to '94. Market share for organized groups such as the Church of God have increased since 1940 by 500% (but they had less than 30K members in 1940).  Fundamental sects & televangelist groups have grown in both real numbers and market share for well established reasons, sources available if you wish.  Indeed, the RC experience represents a good benchmark in religious demographics.
{d} Lastly, a new group--2nd generation evangelists & fundamentalist--have been added to the mix.  For example, Wm. Lane Craig is an evangelist who trained in natural theology at Louvain after having earned sep. doctorates in philosophy and then theology at other world class universities.  He routinely debates and often demolishes the arguments, say, of materialists (most recently on a PBS program moderated by Wm. F. Buckley).  I would like to see Bishop Spong compare notes for a couple of hours with a skilled debater like Craig & I will suggest same to both in due course (I also think Craig relies upon updated arguments I learned in my Jesuit undergrad. years &  himself would be out smarted by natural theologians who have crafted  better arguments: e.g. Mortimer J. Adler).
  Best wishes, Jim
• Nicholas 29 May 10:15

Thanks for your interesting comments & references.
{b}I found Spong's response poor and his reference to money below the belt and a veiled threat. He says "I am also aware that St. Michael's has on two occasions cut the percentage of its outreach giving to the Diocese of Newark, and that the Diocese of Newark put up the money to build and to subsidize that church until it reached self support."  It seems (if ECUSA works like the CofE) that St Michael's cut its support to the Diocese, and Spong claims that this ammounted to the Diocese paying St Michaels.  Of course the Church was originally built by the Diocese, probably when a Bishop with very different views to Spong was in charge.
{c} with people like Spong at the top ECUSA is bound to loose numbers.  With people like Richard Chartres, London is growing.
{d} A Spong/Craig debate would be great.  Go for it.
• James McMahon BJPSYMAC@webtv.net Tue, 23 Jun

I wanted to check out a few items before writing again.  In my original, I judged that Bishop Spong's remarks re. the Donnelleys' comments and their ingratitude seemed on target.  You, in turn and from your perspective, thought the Bishop's remarks re. fiscal issues below the belt.
{b} Records show that the parish church where the Donnelleys serve was built in 1957 with great help from the Diocese of Newark.  The numbers who attend that parish weekly, however, have been cut in half compared to the numbers attending when the parish had a different orientation (ie was more or less in the middle, neither conservative nor liberal, but is now charasmatic-renewal).  Since the renewal, the parish--under its present leadership--has cut its Diocesan pledge two times because there are fewer people to contribute than was case when the the Diocese bankrolled startup funds.
What Spong wrote, then, had little to do with 'below the belt' or 'get even' threats.  The Bishop had just been told by the Donnelleys how successful
their fundamntalist thinking parish had been while Spong was yelling 'Henny Penny' and predicting a swelling of the church alumni association (his term).  Effectively, he said to them, 'If so, how come there are now half as many people and two pledge cuts to central office--the Diocese had more fiscal support from former rectors with a different orientation'.
{d}  I have listened for the first time to the April 3rd debate between Wm. Lane Craig and an Oxford interlocutor by the name of Atkins.  Craig would be a fine adversary for Spong, and I will write to Wm. F. Buckley and Larry King to propose a debate between an evangelical conservative educated at Louvain (Craig) and the Bishop, a maverick who, from my view after reading about seven of his texts, is yet angered at his fundamentalist upbringing and liberal seminary training.  His background, it seems to me, now has been distilled and projected though his views of a declining church.  My view that one's theory reflects personaltiy is hadly new: Wm. James propounded it just one hundred years ago (in contrast to Nietzsche, who argued that theory shaped peronality).  Since JS seems to dislike RC polity as well, he just winks or fails to notice RC demogaphics, increasing at 200K per month in the USA.--growth that undermines his thesis of a declining church.
  A happy summer season to you and yours in the UK,  James McMahon, Psy.D, Ph.D, FAOA.
• Nicholas Beale 24 June 98

Thus, when you read JS's response you had the impression that "the Bishop had used $s from his Diocese to help the couple keep their parish alive" but now you have confirmed that the parish has cut its $s to the Diocese - somewhat different I think - and that the financial contribtion from the Diocese was in 1957, as I suspected "when a Bishop with very different views to Spong was in charge" .  Of course attendance at JS's diocese has fallen and maybe the Donelleys' Church has not bucked the trend, although there could be many other factors.  This does not invaidate their views.
• Timothy Raisbeck Tue, 2 Jun 1998

Spong has presented his "New Reformation" by juxtaposing his ideas against a simplistic, albeit mainstream, perception of God, Christ, Eden, Heaven, Hell, etc. that is parochial, narrow, and more characteristic of the religious lore of appalachian "Hill folk" then the discourses of great religious thinkers.  He has completely ignored the " Moses Maimonides' " of Christianity, the great intellectual saints.
     Instead of delving into the deeper questions like,
•  "What does it mean for God to perform a miracle when the cause-and-effect relationship of temporal, mortal existence might not apply to an eternal being?", or,
•   "What does it mean for God to answer a prayer when, from his perspective, the prayer and the answer 'always were'?",
 Spong chooses to debunk a story-book God presented in the mold of Greek mythology, the kindly grandfather of so many pre-confirmation class drawings.
 Also, In his statements on the immaculate conception, he chooses a justification for the virgin birth of Christ that is arbitrary, not universally held, and ignores the implications of the temptation of Christ in the desert, and it's analogy with the seduction in Eden.  One could argue that he does this simply for rhetorical advantage, and out of no desire to enlighten.
  Spong is 'shooting from the hip' in a way that is intrinsically manipulative, and rhetorically unethical.  What he is doing is not unlike claiming that Heaven, as a physical reality, could not possibly exist, because a cloud cannot support the weight of a human form, and besides, we would be able to hear the angels twanging away on their golden harps day and night!
{Comment on Spong's Thesis 1: 1. Theism, as a way of defining God is dead....}
  "Theism" is accepted as belief in God, or a divine being (at least one).  On having been ordained as an Anglican priest, and being made Bishop, Spong participated in ceremonies based on the witness and participation of a perceived God.  It is by this witness, and through this holy participation, that his tenure as a member of the clergy, an irrevocable decision, was determined.
  Since he states that this perception of God is flawed, and not relevant, would it not follow, by his own position, that the ceremonies associated with his vows, and the ordination of him by members of the Anglican church, were -not- intrinsically divine, not witnessed by a divine being, but simply the acts of men?
  Consequently, would it not follow that, by his own position, there is no "Divine" tenure as a Bishop, or a Priest, and consequently, he is renouncing his defense should it be decided that he be expelled?
{Further comments from Mr Raisbeck:}
• Those who support Spong's position will use as justification the issues of free speech and freedom from repression.  What they fail to understand is that the fundamental issue is one of freedom of religious practice and association!
• If they insist on melding in to the liturgy, policy and practice that the majority of parishoners find intolerable, they are usurping the church and making others leave.  This is grossly unfair!  In addition, how are their rights and religious freedoms being violated?
• If they believe that they see clearly, where others are blinded by bigotry, why do they -care- if they call themselves "Church of England", "Anglican, "Methodist", or whatever?  If they can see the truth what difference does it make?  One can only assume that, for Spong and his other Protestant idealogical equivalents, the conflict has nothing to do with belief, but the desire to remain associated with major, well established, religious organizations for social, political, and material reasons.
• Spong should step back from his sparkling vision of this timeless cosmic reality and consider the possibility that the apostles were no dummies!
• Spong's position is a consequence of the common perception that science is a divine blueprint for reality, rather than it's true nature as a continually changing model of the universe - The consequence of the combined experience of human beings, with all of the associated myopia and human failings.
• Albin Chalk Tues 2 June 1998

{Mr} Pepper Marts of Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, first made me aware of Spong's latest insane ramblings and I asked him if there was a site where one could respond to his latest idiocy. In that request I made this comment: "How long, O Lord, must we endure this spiritually bankrupt being? When will you rid yourself and us of this voice of chaos and darkness? He knows you not, yet you suffer him to continue to spread foolishness, untruth, and discord while claiming to be one of your own?"
Your systematic refutation is excellent and I shall check back to see how others respond. I will confess that I have always found it difficult to "suffer fools gladly" and Spong's rejection of the Faith while still claiming to be a Christian really puts "a burr under my saddle" as we say in the southwest US. It is a shame that we have no one in the episcopacy of the American Church or Spong's Diocese with the strength and courage to challenge him and have him removed just as he would any unworthy priest. He has shown himself not to be a Christian much less a Christian bishop. Why will NO ONE move to remove him once and for all? Thank you for standing up and responding to this atheist in Bishop's clothing! And for providing a forum where others can express their rejection of his efforts on behalf of the "evil one."
• Nicholas Beale 3 June 1998

You may have gathered that I'm not a Spong fan, but I would not presume to describe him (or anyone else) as a "spiritually bankrupt being".  His arguments and theses may be "bankrupt" - he is a beloved child of God.  He is wayward and misguided, but so are we all, to a greater or lesser extent.  Also I doubt whether there is a practical way of removing him in ECUSA, if he does not choose to go.  He is going in 2000 - I quite agree that the honorable course would be to go now.  Pray especially for his Diocese voting in a few days time on his replacement.
• Dwight Welch (universalist@hotmail.com) Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:59:45 PDT

 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.
I would suggest that a fairly narrow definition of theism is being used here. Accepting all the premises Spong uses that a 3 tiered universe, God as something "out there", etc.. we have quite a few interesting ways to speak of God still. Tillich's notion of God, process theology, and even most feminist theology simply are not the theism being criticized by Spong and yet they are still theistic.
"Whether or not we know it, what we really mean when we say that a god is dead is that the images of God vanish, and that therefore an image which was up to now was regarded and worshipped as God, can no longer be so regarded and worshipped. For what we call gods are nothing but images of God and must suffer the fate of such images. But Nietzsche manifestly wishes to say something different, and that something different is terribly wrong in a way characteristic of our time. For it means confusing an image, confusing one of the many images of God that are born and perish, with the real God whose reality humans can never shake with any one of these images, no matter what forms they might honestly invent for the objects of their particular adoration.
  Time after time, the images must be broken, the iconoclasts must have their way. For the iconoclast is the human soul which rebels against having an image that can no longer be believed in,  elevated above the heads of humanity as a thing that demands to be worshipped. In our longing for a god, we try again and again to sept up a greater, more genuine and more just image, which is intended to be more glorious than the last and only proves more unsatisfactory.
  The commandment, "Though shalt not make unto thee an image," means at the same time, "Thou canst not make an image,". This does not of course, refer merely to sculptured or painted images, but to our fantasy, to all the power of our imagination as well. But we are forced time and again to make images and forced to destroy them when we realize that we have not succeeded.
  The images topple, but the voice is never silenced...The voice speaks in  the guise of everything that happens, in the guide of all world events; it speaks to the people of all generations, makes demands  upon them, and summons them to accept their responsibility...It is of the utmost importance not to loose one's openess. But to be open means not to shut out the voice--call it what you will. It does not matter what you call it. All that matters is  that you hear it. "
-Hebrew Union Prayer Book and I believe originally from Martin Buber is a pertinent answer to Spong's objections to theism and takes his critiques seriously.
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.
 Actually the problem with incarnational language is not incarnational language initself. The problem is a hierarchial notion which exagerates the person of Jesus as over and above the rest of humanity. It is this heirarchial notion which must be abandoned IMHO. Incarnational language though should be expanded to the creation itself, God as immanent in the  world..not constricted or eliminated. Spong has a divine seed, so do the people reading this article
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.
 The question is pertinent, even if one accepts the fact that people do sin, do miss the mark. A quick read through history suggests that the truth of the doctrine of original sin points to. But the question raised  for me more relates to Christian understandings of other religions. If  religion evolved in human beings (and if monotheism is a rather recent development)..it would suggest the precariousness of absolutizing monotheism what less Christianity (as Paul does in Romans  1). In other words, what happens to theology when there was no perfect paradise to harken backward to. No collective guilt. I think the directions can be quite healthy and need more exploring (though there has been much reflection in process thought, etc)
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
Well the problem I have with the virgin birth is certainly the idea that for God to be divine, he could not have been born under a sexual act  (which is a historical understanding). I don't see it as proof of Jesus divinity either. And I doubt there is a biological basis for it either.  And I suspect it centers on a mistranslation of Isaiah (and a prophecy taken horribly out of context). But what meaning can be derived from the virgin birth apart from it's biology?
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.
I would suggest though that if we do live in a naturalistic world (and if we didn't the scientific method would not be a horribly useful method) than the miracles as described throughout the Bible are suspect. It isn't because regularilty is a dictator that forbids unusual occurances. It's because in the Bible miracles are a dime a dozen, so much so that the naturalistic world falls apart and with it the scientific method. Miracles that somehow occurred quite a bit in the Bible that just don't seem to occur today which certainly should raise some legitimate questions. If anything, certainly the truth of a religion is based on the ideas itself, quite apart from any miracle working.
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.
Certainly it should be. It raises several issues. Was God's grace contingent on human sacrafice? Does God demand a pound of flesh so that he can save a small % of humankind from the eternal torments of hell. Is God's grace stifled until the cross? I believe the ethical picture derived from such a doctrine makes God into a monster and a limited one at that.
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.
I would suggest that the orthodox understanding is that God acts in history. Since a God connected to humanity at some level is the only one that would seem to interest most humans (outside of the enjoyment of philosophical questions) I don't buy Spong's argument. What I would suggest is that a study of New Testament appearance stories are contradictory and it's impossible to paint a truly historical picture of what did occur. John Dominic Crossan's works would seem to raise legitimate historical questions about resurrection.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
I would agree with the assertion made in your article. Metaphoric language can certainly be translated into modern times. In fact it may be one of the tasks of the theologian to do so. I don't imagine the Bible could have the power it does if the language is wholly alien to us.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behaviour for all time.
Yes it is clear that we need rules to live by, to make society work. But  I would agree with Spong's contention. the "objective" truth in the Bible is as much priveleged language of one group of interpetators, not something that fell out of the sky in some sort of ahistorical vacuum. I think ethical like theological discourse that needs conversation. We may need absolutes..they still come from human beings like you and I.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
I'm not sure how I understand prayer to be quite honest. I don't invision a God out there who makes things all better with supernatural intervention. But I do believe one can "conjure" up the sacred, healing power in such a way that is healing. It seems that quite a lot of evidence suggests that those patients with a strong prayer/faith generally are healthier and do better in the hospital. There is an efficacy, even if it may not be in traditionalist understandings
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.
I would agree to an extent. I think the language of hell should be abolished all together from discourse personally. I think the language of heaven as much as it obscures people from their responsibilties of our earth is a harmful belief. But there is a thing called conviction, "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". Ethics is important. I don't believe people would run amok without otherworldy punishments. I do favor conviction, I don't favor a sort of guilt that paralyzes a right response though.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination
I 100% agree. I would add gender expression to that as well. And I think it will be one of the big challenges of Christian faith as she enters the 21st century.
• Nicholas Beale 6 June

1. So Spong 1 as stated is "terribly wrong ".
2. Clearly, if you don't believe that Jesus is in truth the Son of God, the ultimate bridge-builder (pontifex) between God and Humanity, you won't believe in The Incarnation.  As you rightly point out, this is not because it's "nonsensical" but because you think it's wrong.
3. So it's not "nonsense", although like all deep truths it needs re-understanding in every age.
4. No serious Christian thinker sees the Virgin Birth as either logically necessary for, or a proof of,  Jesus' divinity.  Matthew and Luke independently record this, despite the grave risk that it would be misunderstood in Pagan and Jewish culture, while people who knew Mary well were still alive. Why? becasue it was true. But Spong's thesis is not (the mistaken but logically possible view) that it was false, but the ludicrous assertion that it "makes Christ's divinity...impossible".  Spong simply doesn't understand orthodox Christianity.
5. Bible miracles are not "a dime a dozen" at all.  They are carefully selected signs of God's action in the world.  In fact almost all the developers of classical science were Christians (except Lapace,  who thought comets were fables).  Does Spong really think he understands Newtonian physics better than Newton, Faraday & Maxwell?
6. It's not "human sacrifice", it's the sacrifice of Christ!  Read Hebrews.  Spong clearly doesn't understand sacrifice, either in the human or divine sense.  Maybe that's why he thinks he can preach any old rubbish and remain comfortably a Bishop.  None of the 'issues' you raise is a consequence of the Christian doctrine of sacrifice.
7. So we agree Spong 7 is refuted.
8. And 8.
9. Absolutes can't come from human beings, although they may be interpreted by them.  Phyiscists and Mathematicians are minority elites - that does not per se mean they statements arent objective.
10. You might want to look here. But it seems you agree that whether of not the requests are effective, prayer can be concieved as requests for God to act - so Spong 10 is refuted.
11. Wouldn't it be nice if guilt, evil and rejection of God didn't exist, and didn't have serious consequences.  "In California, death is optional", and apparently in Spong-land the only evil is those who take a different view of God from Spong.  Those who have to live and minister in the real world know such "comforting" lies for what they are.
12. Spong 12 is true as written but what he wants it to mean (eg that practising homosexual priests are OK) does not follow.  Some people are more psychologically disposed to rape women or abuse children than others.  This does not mean that practising rapists or paedophiles are OK.
In other words, although you appear somewhat sympathetic to Spong, you agree that Spong 1,2,3,7,8 and 10 (and 4?) are refuted.
 
• F. William Abbate <ronin48@bellsouth.net> Fri, 19 Jun

{a} Bishop Spong’s "Call for a New Reformation" set out 12 issues on which he calls for debate. What better forum than the Episcopal/Anglican Church? This is the church (1) whose members cover the spectrum of Catholics (not Roman) worshipping at Mass led by a Father to those who are Protestant worshipping at Service led by a Mister/Ms; (2) with Rites I an II and even use of the "old" prayer book. Whatever is needed to meet the needs of individual congregations. We are indeed a diverse group. We have diverse needs.
{b} There are many of us who find the thought provoking teachings of contemporaries such as Campbell, Borg, and Spong closely reflecting the God we love with our soul, heart and mind. If you like labels we may be defined as Pantheistic/Panentheistic, Pluralists/Universalists. A large group of the congregation I would label as Theisist, Exclusivists/Inclusivists. Those in the former group tend to continuously seek to find those truths which will make us better Christians. We knock on the doors; we discuss. As Jefferson stated, "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed;  but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense he wised any one to be; sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others…"
{c} We live in a Democratic Republic of free people. Our country and its ideals were built in the late 1700s by a diverse and unique group of people. Never before has there been such a civilization with such a population and standing. Universal education is the norm. Communications are instantaneous. Capability to visit other areas of the world to see and feel other cultures is fast and cheap. Books and films are voluminous and cheap. Knowledge has expanded  exponentially in the last 50 years.
  However, a free citizen of a Democratic Republic has an awesome responsibility. We should do only that which we would have others do. Said in the oriental way, we should not do anything we would not want anyone to do to us. But is this not just the second great commandment? Love each other as we love ourselves;  work together,  pull together, cooperate and not compete,  add and not subtract,  multiply and serve and not divide and rule. Simple to say, hard to accomplish.
{d}  So let us discuss. Let us be objective. Bishop Spong’s call is no different that that of J. Campbell, (Mythos, V2, early 1980’s), where he suggests that {d1}our society has a basic problem. "I would say that there is no conflict between mythical dimensions and science. There is a difference between science of 2000 years ago and currently…Sacred texts were composed somewhere else and by ‘other’ people a long time age. They have nothing to do with the experiences of our lives. There is a fundamental disengagement (between our sacred texts and our current life experiences)."
  The discussion should have nothing to do with personalities. However, as for Bishop Spong himself, I have not yet read his new book but have read others. {e}Let me say that I feel that the following review taken from Amazon.com reflects how Spong comes through to me and others like me.
A reader from Seattle, 05/08/98
Bishop Spong's obviously heart-felt exploration embraces both the living Spirit and the undeniable advances in human knowledge in an effort to reconcile Christ with the truths of the 20th century. His respectful valuing of the deep, central and living roots of the church is unlikely to be enough to keep him out of deep dip with that segment of Christendom that is unwilling to examine the basis of their beliefs or have them challenged. In fact, many of the ideas presented in this book will be uncomfortable for even the open-minded, but they are worth considering. Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, Spong's
presentation is tight, well-reasoned, well-supported, and presented lovingly with deep faith in a living God. His reasoning and research provide a wonderful platform for faithful renewal or, at the very least, a fulcrum for dialogue. His points will resonate for people who have been struggling with some of these issues, but are sure to mightily irritate a lot of others. Be prepared for some unusual reactions from people around you, but more importantly, if your hearts and minds are open or if you are a "Christian in exile," be prepared for some refreshingly provocative ideas and potential spiritual growth.
•  Nicholas Beale 19 June

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.  May I respond briefly?
{a} The Anglican Communion is a great place for constructive debate.  Our diversity on 'inessentials' is wonderful.
{b} But Spong steps well outside the essentials of the Christian Faith, and not by way of constructive exploration (Finding "new ways to speak about God" is fine) but hysterical denial ("theism is dead" is evil rubbish).
{c}I live in England BTW!  There are important differences between "don't do.." and "love..".  And you can only really justify ethics by reference to the ultimate reality of God, anything else is ultimately arbitrary.  Humans are fallen.
{d} Let's indeed discuss and be objective - this means subjecting Spong's views to rational analysis and where necessary tearing them to shreds.  I  quite agree they are not new - re-hashed 70s 'liberalism' which is itself re-hashed from the 19th C (and indeed the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Cs).
{d1} Anyone who thinks that the Bible "has nothing to so with the experiences of our lives" clearly can't read.  Have love, sin, life, death, children, parents, property, envy, redemption and sacrifice gone away from the world?!
{e} It is ludicrous to talk of Spong's "respectful valuing of the deep, central and living roots of the church" when he describes the central doctrines of the Church as "dead" "bankrupt".  This is sheer hypocricy.  Spong likes being a Bishop but has lost his hold on the objective reality of Faith.  He can't face the truth, so he rubbishes it in his Theses.
{e1} I will not, on principle, buy his book, but if there are "well-reasoned, well-supported" ideas to support his theses please send us some.  We've seen nothing on this site so far.
• F. William Abbate <ronin48@bellsouth.net> Sat, 20 Jun

I note that you live in the U.K. I hope that this doesn't mean that we are separated only by a common language. For the discussion to be production I think that we should all know the definitions of words/phrases and the background (I can not find good words for this) of each person so that we can better understand the words and ideas coming from that person. Thus:
{a} Yes the Anglican Communion is a great place for many things! The problem we will have initially and as I get it from that which I can currently find on the internet on this subject is just what is REALLY essential and what is non-essential. Without getting into details, I would guess that one aspect of
the discussion will center on what really is essential. Taking the example of my wife and I, she would consider many more 'things' essential to being a 'good Christian' than I would. Yet I would argue, it doesn't make a difference. But for her, she must follow her own essentials and my, mine.
{b} This is where we differ. I find Spong "Asks the Question" and formulates "Ideas". As I noted in Borg's bio, individual ideas and concepts strongly govern how we act in life. Then, comes the definition of Theism. You see, Theism as spoken here does not mean that God is Dead. Theism refers, as I understand it, that God intervenes in life. I shall simply state that many of us do not beleve that God intervenes or if God does, then it is a very, very rare occasion. To paraphase a phrase from popular show, "The primary directive is not to interfere".
{c} Here again will be the great difference. Original sin is like the perpetual virginity of Mary. The former came before the reformation and is therefore part of the Anglican catechism, the latter is after the reformation so is not. Original sin, to some of us is neither an essential nor a necessary guilt trip to put on the human race.
{d,e} We may not like the position taken by anyone on a given subject, but I cannot call that ludicrous. I go back to my original premise. We must know the background of each person and knowing this respect that persons ideas no matter how wrong we think they may be.From the American point of view, the Church doctrines are little changed since 1750 while the world has changed dramatically. Maybe some change is due?
{e1} Don't buy it. But you should read it if only to better understand what is driving the man and others like him.
• Nicholas Beale 21 Jun 1998 sent to Louie Crew's Diocese of Newark Unofficial EMail list

Dear Friends in Christ
  We have had 20 more responses re Spong's Theses since I last EMailed, and there are comments on www.starcourse.org/spong/responses.html from all over the world.  But still no-one, even those sympathetic to Spong's general ideas, has offered a rational defense of his theses, which are admitted to be significantly flawed.
  The Bishop of Rochester has given a robust and constructive response, which is not even mentioned on the Newark web-pages - nor is ours or this discussion.
  Should we conclude that there is no rational support for Spong's Theses even within his own Diocese?  Should we also conclude that Spong's claims to want to engage in a debate on his 'Theses' are less than whole-hearted?
 Comments please.
 Yours in Christ,  Nicholas Beale
PS      One contributor requested that his posting be anonymous because he didn't want to be flamed.  Any such requests will of course be fully respected.
• Louie Crew <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu> Sun, 21 Jun 1998

Thank you for alerting me to the material from the Bishop of Rochester [U.K.].  I have added a link on my Anglican Pages.
The Church took over 400 years to shape and then agree to the Nicean Creed. I urge you to be a little more patient with those of us who are reading and inwardly digesting the new theses.
 That is no reason to delay the most important unity we have, however:  Joy to you and to the whole world!
• Elaine Alley <alleyoop@intertex.net> Mon 22 June 1998

How can one defend insanity?
• gpisani <gpisani@ix.netcom.com>Mon, 22 Jun 1998

  Bishop Spong clearly has the support of his Diocese.  If you have attended any of our Conventions or large gatherings you would know that this is true.  This does not mean that each of us agrees with our Bishop at every point nor does it mean that we never questions what he says or does.  It does mean that we are an open, loving and thoughtful Christian community. There is no reason for us to be defensive because he is in no way offensive to us.
  Most, like me, are members of the Episcopal church because it does provide for thinking people to differ and to accept one another in spite of those differences.  In my large family we would never cast anyone out or banish them because of any circumstances that I can think of.  That's the true spirit of this Diocese and of our Bishop.  We are children of God and a part of God's family so we always try to act in like manner.
  According to many, I am "significantly flawed", but that has never prevented me from expressing my love and understanding of God or the Church. Our parish presently has a staff of 28 full time people in several specialized ministries.  There is hardly a person who knows about our work who would questions our deep relationship to God and our performance which is patterned after the example of the Christ whom we call Lord.
  Without the Bishop and people of this Diocese we would never have been able to walk by faith and expand such ministries.  Support is a two way street and the people of this Diocese are a model for mutual support and encouragement.  We are not so apt to judge one another as to love one another in the Name of a wonderful God whom we know, worship and experience every day.
  You should also know that I am not interested in judging others who are extremely offended by our Bishop.  They have a right, in this Church, to their opinions and feelings.  I would only ask that they and we be treated with the dignity and worth that is the Godly right of every human being.  I would only hope that time and space be given to the proper and careful witness we each have to offer one another with love and respect.   The offensive rhetoric that I see in so many remarks about our Bishop and this Diocese is, in my opinion, completely uncalled for, especially among those who would be followers of Jesus the Christ. Yours in the love of Christ, Jerry +  (cc:Louie Crew)
•  Jim (ZenJS@aol.com) 5 July, 1998

{a} I would have to say first of all that you could not be more wrong when you say that your brief and deeply subjective "refutations" of Spong's work offer some kind of unequivocal defeat of his views.  Rather than begin by attempting to counter you refutations, (and in the interests of brevity) perhaps I might offer what I see as several relevant ideas in understanding not only Spong's viewpoint, but its appeal to his many supporters (myself included).
{b} Many of us come from a place, like Spong where we feel faith alone is not an acceptable nor sustaining force for personal belief (AGAIN...not for all...many are content to simply have faith alone and no logical...or rather empirical basis in fact for their views, however some of us require this.  Why God created us this way...we aren't sure, but trusting his wisdom, I also trust that he gave us doubt so that we might learn something from it...even if
only that logic has limits).
{c}  Many of us also come from a place where we, speaking more than 1 language, realize the severe limits created by translation.  When individuals offer to me the "words of Jesus" I cannot help (much like Spong) to think that Jesus NEVER said those words, simply words in Aramaic which have been translated into those words.  There are many Biblical scholars whom address this concern, both fundamentalist and liberal.
{d}  Each of us finds in Christ's words aspects which we feel most personally moving.  Most of the Christians whom I know (myself included) have some piece of scripture which inexplicably moves them more than others.  The members of the Aryan Nations will often quite violent passages from the Old Testament, many a fundamentalist is fond of John 3:16, Spong (and I) are fond of the words of Christ which attest to his great love of peace and love for all of God's people (both the saved and the sinner).  It is from the inspiration that this love creates in us that we find motivation to include homosexuals and other traditionally excluded individuals into Christ's word and his body of faith.
{e}  In the absence of Spong, whom I think could best defend his own ideas, I would be happy to speak as what I am;  a believer in Jesus as the Christ and my personal savior, whom supports and agrees with much of what Bishop Spong attests to.  I would be happy to discuss (or debate) the core of this faith with any interested party.
  Regards to all. Your brother in Christ- Jim.
• Nicholas Beale 6 July, 1998

{a} I only suggest they offer logical refutations.  Spong's views, being illogical, will continue to appeal to a section of society.  If you feel there are logical flaws in the 'refutations' please point one out: I'm always keen to learn and to improve.
{b} But othodox anglicans like John Polkinghorne (to say nothing of and me and Nicky Gumbel), with a far deeper grasp of science (and theology) than Spong will even have, root their faith deeply in empirical fact.  It's not empiricism that leads to Spongism.
{c} Actually Jesus said words in Aramaic which are represented by Greek - the Evangelists, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are far more than translators.  Nevertheless the Gospels are the record God has left us of His Son, - only nutters like Spong imagine that they are a 2nd Messiah, sent to 'rescue Christianity from 2000 years of misinterpretation' ("for God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son(er, maybe), but was so incompetent that he ensured the message was fundamentally misunderstood, so God so loved the world (again) that he sent JOHN SELBY SPONG...").
{d} But this does not entitle us to 'pick and choose'.
{e} Funny that - Spong 'stands ready to debate' and yet he has ducked this one and does not even acknowledge its existence (or the response from Bp Nazir-Ali) on his website.  How's that for courage and integrity?  Please stand in for Spong and offer a rational defense of his 'theses' - no-one else has.
Your brother in Christ, fellow pilgrim and fellow-sinner, Nicholas
• Jim (ZenJS@aol.com) 8 July, 1998

Thank you for your prompt response.  Since the discussion we are beginning here is so large and has so many complex levels to it, perhaps some organization might be good so as not to overwhelm (at least overwhelm me) with too many good and bad points thrown around on both ends.  Also, I should point out (before I get identified as the Spong surrogate here...that as much as I agree with a great deal (the majority) of Spong's ideas, I do not support them all.  Further, I am nowhere near as qualified as him to discuss matters of theology (other than my own experience, faith and Bible Study (far less than Spong's I am sure).
{a} First, I would like to say that my prior statements on your writings as somewhat ineffective as "logical refutations" of Spong's work is not meant as a disparagement of your ideas.  Simply I am saying that they appear rooted in a strong faith which although it may be rooted in logic (or empiricism) is far deeper and far more carried by faith.  Not only do I NOT view this as negative, I envy it, and I imagine that Spong might as well.  I often wish and pray that my faith may be deepened, and that my constant need for empirical and logical backing was less great.  For example, your comments regarding the divine influence on keeping scripture as the "true word of God".  This is a matter of faith, and can never be "proven" otherwise.  Translation performed by deceased parties with no living witnesses to actual events cannot be "proven".  One must accept it on faith.  (However, I have never been to China, but have faith it IS there....so this is not a disparagement of faith as a form of "knowing")
  So anyway...in some ways I do believe that empiricism leads to "Spongism" (a curious term and one which sounds a bit silly...but I certainly functional for our purposes).
{d} I would like to examine your comment that one of Spong's flaws is that we are "not allowed to pick and choose"  which parts of God's word we wish to follow. Somehow I suspect that this is not in fact the case with you, or many other contemporary Christians.  The Bible makes many statements regarding condoning slavery, mistreatment of women and slaves, medical practices (quite  dangerous and ill advised ones) and demonic possession as an explanation of things like epilepsy (to name a small number).  In addition there are countless restrictions vocalized by God to the prophets, regarding Kosher foods, rituals and such.  I assume you are not keeping each of these, and like most Christians, have chosen to follow the aspects of God's word which your heart and mind (both the creation of that same God) lead you to accept as valid in our day and age.
  So...perhaps what Spong (and others of his mind - myself included) are doing is updating what we see as the "outdated" aspects of our religion, as long as they do not negatively impact the core of our beliefs.  The church feared that the idea the world is round, and rotating around the sun would destroy faith in God (the same for the idea of evolution, and many diseases) however they had nothing to fear.
{d1} The core of our faith is simple and wonderful;  Jesus, the Son of God died for all of us, rose again, and both loves and lives on for all eternity in the hearts and lives of those who simply turn to him.  We are all sinners, all imperfect without hope for perfection, and in need of redemption.  All we need do is open our hearts and lives to the Lord and we can be "born again".  THIS is the key...THIS is the center.  However we see the nuances, let us debate, discuss, use the minds God gave us, and learn from each other.  Some of us look to Jesus and see our savior, a demanding leader and sometimes stern disciplinarian;  some of us look to Jesus and see our savior, an embodiment of love and compassion for ANY and ALL.  If we  both see him as our savior however; isn't that such an amazing and wonderful thing to have in common that we should focus on the positive brotherhood that can create?
  Your brother in Christ -  Jim
• Nicholas Beale Sat 25 July

{a} I think you need to re-examine you concepts of 'proof' and 'faith'.  It is not a matter of 'faith' that China exists.
{d} There is a big difference between saying 'we need to see this in context to see what God wants us to understand by the whole passage' and 'picking and choosing'.  See here for more explanation.
{d1} I share the core of your faith as expressed (small quibbles: the word 'simply' is perhaps a bit simplistic, and anothen means from above or anew rather than again) - after all the first 'creed' was Jesus is LORD.  But I don't see how this can be compatible with Spongism.  At Spongism's heart is a belief that Jesus somehow failed in his mission until Spong came to rescue him from 2000 years of fundamentalism, and that pretty well all the Christians who lived BS (Before Spong) were worshipping an idol. Spong's theses deny most of what you assert.
  Your brother in Christ, and fellow pilgrim - Nicholas
• Jim (ZenJS@aol.com) 27 July, 1998

{a} It is, to some degree a matter of faith that China exists.  Unless I have BEEN to China, I cannot with complete certainty state that it does exist.  To use a different metaphor, if I show you a picture of myself and a dog, saying "this is my dog" you have no reason to assume I am not stating a truth.  If someone were to say, "I don't think Jim has a dog or likes dogs" you could say (and be reasonable in doing so) "I believe he does have a dog."  However, as you have not, in the first person witnessed the actuality firsthand, you are basing your statement (to some degree) on faith.
{a1} Here is a good test (first proposed by Dr. Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death) on how to tell if something you believe is a matter of faith.  Ask yourself the question;  What would you accept as evidence that this belief is FALSE?  What would you accept as proof that the Bible is not perfectly translated (ie: guided by divine hands in order to perfectly transmit the word of God).
  Perhaps we might begin there.
• Nicholas Beale 28 July

{a} Jim, this is a well explored territory of confusions.  If by 'faith' we mean 'any belief that does not have complete irrefutable proof that could never be questioned by a sceptic' then indeed all beliefs other than theorems of logic/mathematics are a matter of 'faith'.  Even if I had 'BEEN' to China I might be mistaken - it could have been a hoax - I could have thought it was China and it was in fact Singapore/Taiwan etc.. - people have been to Rhodesia but Rhodesia does not exist.  So in fact all beliefs are based to a significant extent on 'faith.' But this does not mean that they are disconnected from empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is about items which tend to increase or decrease the probability that a hypothesis is true (see the debate here).
{a1} The 'evidence that a belief is false' test (in a 1 0 sense) is therefore also rather too simplistic - science, knowledge and belief just don't work like that.  What we have is evidence which (tends to) dis-confirm a belief.  For example there is no evidence that would PROVE that my wife did not love me, but if she kept hitting me over the head with a hammer it would tend to dis-confirm my belief!  As it happens my view of the Bible is not based on 'translation' as you describe, but that any significant part of the Bible has one or more meanings that God wants us to understand, and that these meanings are true. (more explanation here)  If there were passages which could not fit into this, that would tend to dis-confirm this view, but you'd need an awful lot to get me to abandon it, becasue it is so clearly true for so many passages.
{d1} I'm still intrigued to hear how you reconcile your faith statement with Spong's theses.
• Jim (ZenJS@aol.com) 29 July, 1998

{a1} I have always found that refering to someone's argument as "over simplistic" is a bit of a "cop out", as often (as in this case) these matters can be somewhat simple.  It is critical to acknowledge (as a starting point) that the opposite of a true statement is a false statement;  but the opposite of a profound truth (based in part or whole on faith) is ANOTHER profound truth.
{a2} I would again ask;  what would you accept as evidence that the Bible is not, as a whole, entirely true and divinely inspired.  If you DO NOT accept it as such;  how do you discern which is true and which is not.   I do not mean to harp on one idea, but I think it is a critical starting point, and central to Spong's interpretation of scripture. YIC- Jim
• Nicholas Beale 29 July 1998

{a1} I think you mean "there can be two profound truths (eg God is 3, God is 1) which appear to be opposites, but which in fact are both true"?
{a2} I find it hard to add much to this.  If there were books of the Bible which contained significant parts for which no Christian had ever been able to offer a reasonable interpretation then this would be evidence against the view of the Bible I hold.  But the data set is finite and very well explored. The tricky issues are (i) how do you decide what a 'significant part' is and (ii) how do you decide whether something is 'a meaning that God wants us to understand'.  As for most significant decisions in life, there are no simplistic rules.  But, for example, in Ps 135 God wants us to "dash our sins against the rock of Christ" and assuredly not to murder Iraqui babies.  Similarly, Eph 6:5 Col 3:22 are not saying 'slavery is OK' but "under God (and subject to our over-riding duties to Him) we have a duty to our bosses, in which we should be Christ-like, even if we are of very low social status".  By contrast. Spong just seems to disregard anything in the Bible that does not fit in with his prejudices.
{d1} Will you eventually explain how you reconcile your faith statement with Spong's theses?
• Jim (ZenJS@aol.com) 31 July, 1998

{a1} I'm not sure you understood the statement regarding the opposite of a profound truth being another profound truth.
{a2} Essentially, I think we are agreeing that there is a grey area here, and that Spong, like you and I, has chosen to interpret scripture, based on his faith, in the same way that we have.  An important starting point; as often when discussing Spong, I am trapped in the "everything the Bible says is completely and literally true without exception" trap, which ends up being a futile discussion.
{d1} As for resolving my faith statement with Spong's theses;  perhaps I should go one at a time, and thus give you chance to comment.
  1st Thesis:  As I do not have them in front of me, I believe this is the statement regarding Christianity as dead (or dying) in its most recent (or most culturally visible) form.  Clearly Spong is discussing the Christian CHURCH in this statement, from Catholic to evangelical, and
 {d1a} the steadfast refusal of such to accept many of the important and extremely well grounded scientific discoveries of our time (ie: evolution).
 {d1b} Further, I think Spong is stating here a widespread alientation which is felt by many whom have been raised religious, but cannot accept many of the teaching which have come to be associated with modern Christian churches (ie: homosexuality as an abberant or sinful behavior, euthanasia, etc.)  I know I will hear about how there is an increase in the number of people practicing mainstream fundamentalist Christianity, however 5 years ago there was an incredible number of people whom loved Mili Vanilli or The New Kids On The Block.  To suggest that this resurgance is not possibly a newfound fad in a culture FILLED with them is a bit too optomistic.
  So...when Spong says that Christianity is dead (or dying) I think he is making a valid observation about the nature of a faith system in a culture far removed from faith.
{d1c} This does not, as far as I can see, contradict with any of my faith statement's components.
  Regards- YIC Jim
• Nicholas 31 July

{a1} If this was not what you meant, then you're saying eg: "God is Love" is a profound truth, therefore so is "God is Hate".
{a2} There's a huge difference between intelligent interpretation and simply disregarding the Bible when it suits you.
{d1} Spong's T1 says "Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead" - not at all the same.  It may be true that Spong's extreme form of "Liberal Christianity" has committed suicide, but theism is intellectually far from dead (see eg Polkinghorne, Conway Morriss, Ward, Post-secular Philosophy etc..) and practically there are well over 3 bn theists with the 2 major theistic religions (Christianity & Islam) growing strongly worldwide.
{d1a} what 'steadfast refusal'?  The Pope accepts the scientific aspects of evolution, so do almost all Anglicans.
{d1b} Indeed people who are drifting (or worse) away from Christian teaching take comfort from Spong saying "that's OK then."  But what if it's not?  No Christian can deny the existence of sin, and as soon as Spongians substitute their (late 20th C liberal white american) personal opinion for the Word of God and the teaching of the Church, they are in a moral wilderness and worse, "justifying" murder of the weakest humans with all the zeal of the proponents of the last 20th C ideology supposedly based on evolution.
{d1c}Against your profession of faith Spong says: (T2) it is nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity, (T6) the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world ...must be dismissed.
The faith you affirm is the wonderful core of the Christian faith.  Let us go out and proclaim the Gospel, without the negativity and confusion of  a self-publicising apostate.
YIC -N
PS I've decided to close the debate to new postings.  It's getting too time-consuming. I feel that almost everything that can be said, has been said.  I also feel I have learned a lot, especially from the contributions you and a number of other "intelligent liberals" have made.  Thank you very much.
 
•  James McMahon Sun, 12 Jul 1998 13:29:21

It is difficult to defend propositions that are stated ambiguously.  To answer the Bp., one would argue for but one side of a proposition,  at which time the Bp. (a very experienced debater who said he would respond to "recognized" authorities, proably meaning he would pick his fights carefully) would evade that answer or argue a tertium quid.  It is no win proposition to argue with the Bp. in that way. (From history, he often states propositions  by using ambiguous terms, only to evade one aspect or the other when he answers, which is seldom, those who separate his  statements--terms-- as earnestly proposed or propsed in a Picwickian sense).  The Anglican-Episcopalian philosopher-theologian Fr. Mark Harris recognized the tactic in his resposes to the Bp., responses that excluded one term in the ambiguity so that Fr. Harris answered coherently with the theses stated in his own 1998 text (The Challenge of Change: the Anglican communion in a postmodern era.).  Until the Bp. reads Fr. Harris' text, he would be wise not to respond--and most likely will not-- from personal, face to face, communication I had with Fr. Harris last week--since Fr. Harris out-Sponged Spong.
PS  I read A. Carey's "interview" of the Bp--hardly an interview in the sense that I recognize an interview.  It seemed to me to be selected answers (with many typos) from the Bp. with comments from A. Carey. Interesting, though.  JM
• C Fortunato Thus 16 July

I can't help but notice that those on this site who defend Bishop Spong almost invariably do so by stating that Spong was somewhat unclear in one aspect or
another of his theses.
 Bishop Spong is a published writer.  Surely he knows that the time to get rid of vague wording in one's writing is BEFORE publication?
 Are his defenders seriously stating that the bishop released something he considers to be of primary importance - according to him a more far-reaching and consequential Christian statement than the 95 Theses - and he can't even be bothered to proofread it first?
  He comes out with a real winner right at the beginning when he implies that the Hundred Years' War was a Protestant/Christian conflict.  It is too much to ask that the bishop learn History 101 before posing as an expert?  Is his knowledge of Darwin and Freud equally ignorant?   Is this his great document of earth-shattering importance?  One that can't even be checked for elementary errors of fact?
  And - far more critically than mere historical errors - if he is going to make such sweeping statements as "Theism is dead," he had better be crystal clear as to what he means by "theism" and what he means by "dead."  But he isn't. He is so totally ambiguous that it could mean anything.  I see no earthly reason why any serious person would entertain that sort of vague nonsense for even a moment.  He wants to debate?  Debate WHAT?  He isn't even clear about what he means.
  And if his defenders can only defend him by stating that the Bishop didn't quite mean what he actually said, maybe that is proof positive that the statement is truly, and completely, indefensible.
• John E. Crean Thurs 16 July

Dear Colleague,
Thank you for the tremendous service you have provided with this website and all the useful links.  I had the privilege of having dinner with John Polkinghorne the other evening here in Grand Rapids, Michigan USA, where John is Visiting Professor at Calvin College for a junior faculty seminar.
 As an Episcopal priest of the Diocese of Western Michigan, a university professor, the rector of a small parish, and the Chair of the local deanery of the diocese, I feel compelled to lift my voice against the basic error of what John Spong is doing.
  "Speculative theology", ie hypothetical postulations/redefinitions/probings into dogmatic/systematic theology, is perfectly fine as a sub-discipline of
theological inquiry.  What is not fine, is for a sitting Ordinary to engage in such. When the Bishop speaks, the Church speaks.  Ubi episcopus, ibi ecclesia.   But in the case of John Shelby Spong, where this bishop holds forth experimental theses, there is no Church Catholic or Reformed present, but merely an ordained man speculating . . . and confusing the flock who looks to him for truth.  A sitting Diocesan in my ethical opinion should not pronounce anything but the tried and true, the tested "straight teaching" which the very word "orthodoxy" means.  Period.  Full stop.
  Herein lies the scandal; herein lies the forgetting of his episcopal ordination vows.  May God move his heart to see the unfairness of using his sworn office to teach error instead of truth.
  Faithfully, (The Rev. Dr.) John E. Crean, Jr.+
• Timothy Raisbeck 18 July

As the Lambeth conference unfolds, and the rhetoric flies around in all directions, I feel it is important to remember that truth is often quite simple.
  In Brief, the debate that is unfolding between the likes of Spong, and the defenders of mainstream Anglican thought focuses on forgiveness - That is all.  Is God's forgiveness good enough for you? It was good enough for Martin Luther; It is good enough for the Pope, and I would assume it was good enough for Thomas a'Becket, but apparently, it just isn't good enough for John Spong and his followers!  They have been compelled to create an utterly non-judgemental God to resolve their feelings of persecution, and disapproval, at the hands of the progenitor of creation, and precursor to our existence.