Posted by Helen on: 06.06.2007 /
The title of this book caught my attention because it sounded like something Off The Map could have produced. Off The Map is into Jesus and not into religion. I know I like Off The Map. I was interested to look through this book and see what I liked and didn’t like about it. (By the way, I found a radio interview with Spong about this book on the website of Interfaith Voices)
I have some familiarity with Spong’s ideas and beliefs because I’ve read A New Christianity for a New World. That book helped me see that people rejected by conservative Christians as heretics (like Spong) can say some things about Jesus which strike me as very meaningful and beautiful. This, from the new book, summarizes where Spong stands
I find myself unable to believe literally the supernatural things said about Jesus in the Bible and reiterated in Christian history, yet I am still drawn deeply and expectantly into the Jesus experience.
As I expected, Spong really brings out the best in Jesus (in my opinion) in the new book. He discusses specific interactions Jesus has with people in the gospels. Here are a few of his summary statements about Jesus.
A Jesus who steps beyond the security systems of fear to create new life is at the heart of the gospel portrait.
I have sought to understand Jesus as a boundary-breaker, as one who calls people to step outside the circles of their security systems. His was a life that recognized the reality that fear stifles humanity, builds protective walls, creates defining prejudices and erects religious systems designed to give security to chronically frightened people. To walk the Christ path is to be empowered to step outside and beyond these various human security systems.
I also like his three part breakdown of God into: the Source of Life, the Source of Love and the Ground of my Being.
I experience life to be more than I can embrace. To live it fully calls me beyond the limits of my human consciousness. I can, however, taste its sweetness and contemplate its eternity. When I do, I commune with the Source of Life that I call God.
I experience love as something beyond me. I cannot create it, but I can receive it. Once I have received it, I can give it away. So love is a transcendent reality that I can engage and by which I can be transformed; I can grow into a deeper understanding of it and contemplate its source, which I call God.
I experience being as something in which I participate, but my being does not come close to exhausting the content of Being itself. I am grounded in something so much greater than I am. Being itself is inexhaustible, infite and indestructive. When I touch the Ground of Being, I believe that I touch that which I call God.
And his definition of a Christian
Being a Christian [...] is not to be a religious human being; it is to be a whole human being.
I also liked this part where he uses the gospels to infer that people have permission to find God different ways.
Those finding their way to God could be as noisy as the clamoring widow who would not stop knocking on the door until all her needs were met (Luke 18:1-8) or they could be like those who in the secret recesses of their hearts found a forgiveness so gracious and limitless that it reached into the meaning of eternity (John 8:1-11).
I did find his choices of what is historic and what isn’t in the Bible seemed rather arbitrary. They clearly served his agenda (wow, that’s just what a conservative Christian would say ;-)). I was skeptical about whether he could have provided justification for them that was not related to his agenda.
Having said that, there’s something I don’t like at all about Spong’s writing: he imposes his disbelief in a personal God on other people. It seems especially ironic he would do this in light of his own statement
Horses cannot tell anyone what it is like to be human. Human beings cannot tell anyone what it is like to be God. That seems so elementary.
If human beings cannot tell anyone what it is like to be God, why on earth is Spong telling us at length that God is not a person? Could he have failed to notice that statements about what God is not can put God in a box as much as statements from conservative Christians about what God is?
Spong attributes motives to conservative Christians
Jesus becomes the captive of the hysterically religious, the chronically fearful, the insecure and even the neurotic among us, or he becomes little more than a fading memory, the symbol of an age that is no more and a nostalgic reminder of a believing past.
On the whole I think it’s unwise to assert knowledge of other peoples’ motives. It’s hard to know for sure what someone else’s motive is. (I have enough trouble understanding my own).
The choices before the Christian world are clear to me. We can pretend that there is no problem with the continued use of the literalized, dated and inoperative language of our faith, changing nothing, and the result will be that Christianity will die. The other choice is that we can develop a whole new way of seeing Jesus and conceptualizing God that will lay the groundwork for a radical reformulation of what we call Christianity. In this book I will make it quite clear which choice I have made.
I see no more evidence conservative Christians are pretending than he is. I don’t think he is although there are Christians who say everyone who denies a personal God exists actually knows it in their heart and is just pretending not to know. Which would include Spong.
I also don’t understand Spong’s all-or-nothing approach in the above quote. He implies there are only two views of God — the conservative Christian one and his. I’ve come across many others.
I like what Spong says about Jesus but I don’t understand why he has to pair that with so much assertion about conservative Christians being wrong. If he simply raised questions about the God depicted in the Bible I’d be ok with that. But he goes much further.
I’m glad Off The Map is not on an “I’m right, you’re wrong” crusade. We’re a lot more focused on doing than thinking anyway. But when it comes to thinking, this is the difference I see between Spong and various other people out there and us.
We want people to think.
They want people to think like them.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
1 06/6/07 1:33 PM | Comment Link |I agree with you about Spong Helen. He has a lot of good things to add to our understandings of God and Jesus (especially the part about “the Source of Life, the Source of Love and the Ground of my Being”), but they’d make more sense to me if he’d cast them as a “both/and” rather than an “either/or”.
Comment by: Laura M.
2 06/6/07 4:21 PM | Comment Link |I certainly haven’t read the book but from what you’ve written here, Helen, it sounds to me like he’s just trying to present the reader with a clear understanding of the distinctions between what he believes and what he doesn’t believe, as well as what he thinks will be the consequences of not believing as he does. I’ve always admired people who are strong enough to do that, especially when the ideas they are promoting aren’t currently the ‘majority opinion’, or politically expedient.
Even if I completely disagree with their viewpoint.
Comment by: Pete S.
3 06/6/07 9:48 PM | Comment Link |I’ll quote you, quoting Spong (I hope):
Such a viewpoint is as condemning as those viewpoints he challenges as being conservative and inflexible in their literalism. Spong is being very reactionary here: He has felt the heat for being called a heretic or heterodoxical. But what I have seen, on the contrary: the places were a non-supernatural interpretation of the bible is embraced, little excitement, little devotion, little growth occurs. Spong is Episcopalian. Much of the Episcopal church languishes in continued decline because it has embraced an increasingly liberal, but also non-supernatural version of Christianity. Where the Anglican (Episcopal is the American version of Anglican) church has grown the strongest, and shows no signs of dying (as Spong predicts) is in places like Africa that embrace a thoroughly supernatural, traditional view of Scripture and theology. Spong is in a minority, but there are few signs that his viewpoint will appeal to very many, since it is little more than warm-fuzzyism with an intellectual, historical-criticism bent.
Obviously that is my opinion, and I suspect others will disagree with me, but consider the evidence concerning where Christianity is growing and shows few signs of weakening. One does not need to embrace a thoroughly literalistic view of the Bible (such as Genesis 1 and 2) in order to believe in a supernatural God, the occurence of miracles, or Jesus’s resurrection from death AND be socially conscious, “green”/environmentally minded and practicing justice and peace…. I count myself among the latter without holding a literalist view of 100% of the Bible. Many things I do consider as literally true, and many things (esp. in the Old Testament) as figurative, metaphorical or legendary. The Bible was not written as a whole: it was written in parts, bit by bit, century by century, by many different people for many different reasons, that had God and Humanity’s relationship with God in common. Some of those stories and accounts I believe literally, historically happened: others did not. Job and Jonah have totally different feels, styles, deliveries, etc.. than other stories. They tell/impart truth through their mythical elements. But the Resurrection stories are not told as or intended to convey mythical truth. One senses that through how the narrative is told, how the early church responded to those stories, and how it is interpreted by Paul.
Comment by: Helen
4 06/7/07 10:18 AM | Comment Link |Mike, thanks for your comment. Yes, that’s one of my main thoughts: I’d much prefer Spong to use ‘both/and’ rather than ‘either/or’ - and unlike me you managed to say it in one sentence!
Laura, I agree that Spong is trying to be clear about what he does and doesn’t believe. What I don’t like is a) he asserts his beliefs/nonbeliefs are ‘The Truth’ (while complaining about anyone else who does that) and b) he ascribes motives like fear to people who disagree with him.
In my opinion, these tactics annoy the people he is trying to reach and hence are unwise - whether they are employed by Spong, Dawkins or esteemed conservative Christian apologists like Ravi Zacharias.
Pete, it surprises me that Spong completely ignores people with beliefs such as yours - i.e. a more moderate version of what he depicts as conservative Christianity - since you obviously do exist :-) and are quite numerous as best I can tell. (I hope that doesn’t sound patronizing)
And if people are going to shift from fundamentalism, a shift to views like yours seems much more doable and likely to me than the drastic shift involved in moving to the view Spong advocates. I felt he was being patronizing when he talked about the pain involved in giving up belief in a personal God and then implying: but it’s the necessary thing to do to embrace truth.
I often found his decisions about what is historic and what is allegory/myth in the Bible somewhat arbitrary. I have read reasons elsewhere why the resurrection stories might be made up which make some sense to me. But I don’t recall Spong making a good case for that - he rather seemed to assume it was obvious, which it clearly isn’t to multitudes of Christians. (On the other hand I did go through the book quickly because it was due back at the library - so possibly I missed some detailed justification for his views that was in the book somewhere)
Comment by: Mike Clawson
5 06/7/07 2:36 PM | Comment Link |Pete makes a good point: Spong is simply wrong in asserting that “Christianity must change or die” at least if he means it must change in the way that he wants it to. The reality is that supernaturalist Christianity (especially of the Pentecostal variety) is the fastest growing type of faith worldwide right now, while liberal Modernist faith of the type Spong represents is a rapidly shrinking segment.
Of course, that says nothing about the truth or falsity of either side’s beliefs (and personally I do think some aspects of Christianity need to change). However, if Spong’s concern is primarily about Christianity’s survival, I fear he is on the wrong track.
Comment by: Rachel
6 06/7/07 9:46 PM | Comment Link |That bothers me as well, Helen. There are many of us who are theologically orthodox and socially progressive. We don’t fit neatly into either the “liberal” or “conservative” categories.
Mike and Pete are both correct in saying that it is orthodox Christianity that is experiencing massive global growth, whether it be evangelical Anglicanism in Africa or Pentecostalism in Latin America. How Bishop Spong can simply ignore that fact is beyond my understanding.
Comment by: Laura M.
7 06/7/07 10:00 PM | Comment Link |I’m not aware of any evidence that,
although i’ve often heard this repeated. Repeating it frequently doesn’t make it so, despite the fact that it will make it seem so in most people’s minds.
I live in Dallas, Texas, 10 minutes away from Southern Methodist University, Laura Bush’s alma mater and future home of the George Bush Presidential Library.
The presence of
isn’t growing in this area, but the Unitarian Church has made leaps and bounds in the past 30 years.
Personally I think Spong is absolutely right about the survival of ’supernaturalist’ Christianity. It is growing in areas where it is new, but dying in the places where it has been around the longest. How many Christians are there in Jerusulem?
I expect the writing is on the wall and this pattern will continue, it’s just a matter of time.
But no, ’supernaturalist’ Christianity won’t be dead anytime soon. Future looking/thinking individuals are usually ridiculed in their own time, but looking back hundreds of years later, they are often declared to be geniuses.
Comment by: Helen
8 06/8/07 5:32 AM | Comment Link |Laura M wrote:
I agree, but people who say ridiculous things also get ridiculed. I think it’s unwise for someone to assume they’re being ridiculed for being a forward-looking genius when there might just be another explanation.
I get the sense about Spong that, like his other all-or-nothing arguments, he’s decided he’s a forward looking genius and that’s the only reason he gets criticized as much as he does.
I don’t think that’s the only reason. I think his approach invites criticism.
I’d like him better if I felt his message was simply “I’ve found something really powerful for me - maybe it could help others too” - rather than that plus “I need to criticize everyone who doesn’t agree with me and I need to assert that I am right”
He’s still in the business of being right, just like many conservative Christians. I’m more into being kind. Spong portrays a kind Jesus, which I love, but Spong’s treatment of those who disagree with him is not kind. So I see an inconsistency in his approach which I think will continue to undermine his ability to get his message across.
One thing conservative Christians are right about (imo) is, many people who disagree with them talk about tolerance, love and kindness, but are not especially interested in showing tolerance, love or kindness to conservative Christians.
That’s probably why Jesus said to be kind to your enemies. He realized that if you can’t do that, all your wonderful words are just words. (Being kind to enemies doesn’t mean pretending not to care about what you care about, but rather things like not being unnecessarily mean)
Comment by: Rachel
9 06/8/07 7:29 AM | Comment Link |Well said, Helen!
I think that many of us in the postmodern/emerging church movement are simply not that interested in the arguments between revisionists like Spong on the one side and the traditional apologists on the other side. Of course, that doesn’t mean their viewpoints are any less legitimate. But their argument is a modernist argument. For the growing segment of Christians who view the world through a postmodern lens, we are not concerned about “proving” supernatural events. We believe that faith is a different type of knowledge than science, no less legitimate, simply different. We are neither threatened by Spong, Borg and Crossan, nor are we compelled to study Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel to “arm ourselves to defend our faith.”
Many of us hold to orthodox Christian theology - the faith of “the one holy catholic and apostolic church” as outlined in the ancient creeds. We believe that this is a treasure handed down to us by our forefathers and foremothers, something we choose to embrace, not something we must fight to defend. It has survived 2000 years and we believe it will continue to survive, regardless of the calls of alarm issued on the left or the right.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
10 06/8/07 12:37 PM | Comment Link |The decline of mainline churches is a well-documented fact. As is the growth of evangelical and Pentecostal denominations. Click here for some data & articles.
Comment by: Helen
11 06/9/07 4:40 AM | Comment Link |The modern/postmodern divide fascinates me.
I often hear modernists object to postmodernism on the grounds that there is absolute truth and those who think everything is subjective/relative are in denial.
I’m not sure what I am - a modernist or postmodernist - because for me the issue is not even whether truth is absolute or relative.
It’s that, much of the time, I don’t need to hash out who is right in order to get on with my life. Arguments about who is right are simply a distraction, since they seem to go nowhere anyway.
To me that would be like spending hours and hours finding which is the cheapest grocery store, when in reality I am going to go to the closest one anyway, because I care more about time than money. (In reality my decisions are more nuanced than that). It’s my choice to do that. And I respect the right of other people to choose differently.
So I don’t know what that makes me; apart from making me feel that for me, modern/postmodern isn’t exactly the issue. Or maybe it is, if pragmatism is considered postmodern.
Comment by: Laura M.
12 06/9/07 4:43 AM | Comment Link |Mike C., your comments prove my point. Unless you are not aware that mainline churches teach a ’supernaturalist’ version of Christianity.
Most mainline churches teach:
God is the supernatural being who is the creator of Earth and all life on it, including human life. (Which he created supernaturally)
Jesus is the son of God, God incarnate , part of the Holy Trinity, etc.
Jesus death supernaturally atoned for all human sin.
Jesus was supernaturally resurrected and did various other supernatural things before his supernatural ascenscion to a supernatural heaven, to be with the supernatural creator.
And yes, just as you said, and I implied, mainline church attendance is declining.
And yes, evengelical/Pentecostal ’supernaturalist’ Christianity is growing, as I said in areas where it is new. (Doesn’t the term ‘evangelical’ imply new?)
I see no reason to assume that Christianity in new places won’t follow the pattern of Christianity in the old places, and eventually decline as well.
Comment by: Mike C
13 06/9/07 7:42 AM | Comment Link |It depends on what mainline churches you’re talking about. And it also depends on the particular church and pastor. While most mainline churches still have these beliefs in their doctrinal statements and liturgies, a large number of pastors and denominational officials actually hold to a more modernistic view of the faith (I’m not saying all, but a decent percentage.) Most don’t go to Spong’s extreme, but many would deny miracles or say that the resurrection was metaphorical/spiritual, not physical. Few would believe in anything like spiritual gifts. Many would agree with those who say that Jesus was a prophet or good teacher but not divine.
Again, I don’t want to paint with too broad of a brush, but I am familiar with the history of liberal theology in the past two centuries, and it is the case that those churches where Modern liberal theology has become acceptable and common among the clergy and academics (though perhaps not among the rank and file members) are the same churches that are declining in membership. (Though that doesn’t necessarily imply a causal connection.)
BTW, on an unrelated point:
I don’t think I know what you mean. The term “evangelical” goes at least as far back as Martin Luther (ca. 1500’s), and in it’s modern form, back to John Wesley and George Whitefield (ca. 1700’s).
Comment by: Rachel
14 06/9/07 8:18 AM | Comment Link |Laura, the term “evangelical” comes from the Greek word “euangelion” which means “gospel” or “good news.” In the year 6 BC, there was saying inscribed around the Roman Empire: “Augustus has been sent to us as Savior…the birthday of the God Augustus has been for the whole world the beginning of the gospel (euangelion).” It was no coincidence that the same language was used in reference to Jesus. The early evangelists (bearers of good news) preached that there was another Savior, another gospel, another Kingdom - one that would be characterized by self-giving love, not military domination, a gospel that would be good news for the poor, not a gospel which preserved the power of the wealthy and the elites.
To the extent that the term “evangelical” has come to no longer mean spreading the good news of the peaceable Kingdom, but instead a judgmental and mean-spirited political agenda that gives its allegiance to Caesar rather than Christ, the evangelical community is to blame and we need to repent.
The explosive growth of Pentecostalism in Latin America, for example, is not Christianity in new places at all. Catholicism has been present in Latin America for many centuries and many Latin Americans are leaving the Catholic church for Pentecostal churches. So they are simply moving from one branch of the Christian tree to another branch, one which apparently seems more vibrant and relevant to them at this time.
Laura, I see your point about the beliefs of mainline churches. The Episcopal church which our family has recently started to attend is definitely orthodox in its theological beliefs and teaches everything you listed above. (It is also progressive on social justice issues, unlike the Baptist church we attended before.)
But many mainline churches have reinterpreted these beliefs to be symbolic and metaphorical. If you read Bishop Spong, Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg or Bishop Tutu, for example, they teach that the resurrection of Jesus was not a literal, physical event. So while they may repeat the ancient creeds in church, they do not preach a supernaturalist Christianity.
Comment by: Rachel
15 06/9/07 8:36 AM | Comment Link |Helen, as I see it, the modern apologists who attack the postmodern/emerging church movement really don’t understand where we are coming from. As you said, they love to accuse us of not believing in the existence of absolute truth. That is absurd. We definitely believe that absolute truth exists and that is it worth seeking. What we do doubt is our own ability to completely ascertain the truth. We acknowledge that there is no such thing as complete objectivity - all people are subject to their environment, their experiences, etc. Postmodern/emerging faith has been described as having a “chastened epistemology” - in other words, we seek to be humble about our ability to perfectly know truth.
So while postmodern/emerging types may have very strong spiritual and religious convictions, we are more likely to state them as our personal beliefs. For example, we are more likely to say “I believe that Christ was literally resurrected” than “Christ was literally resurrected.” To the ears of our critics, that sounds like we have compromised and watered down our faith. To us, we are simply trying to be more humble about our ability to know truth and also show respect for those who believe differently. As we see it, that doesn’t make our beliefs any less fervent or real.
Comment by: Helen
16 06/9/07 9:05 AM | Comment Link |Rachel wrote:
Ah yes, that sounds like me :)
Thanks for explaining. If this is ‘postmodern’ it sounds like what I am. (Or even if it isn’t ‘postmodern’!)
Comment by: Rachel
17 06/9/07 10:00 AM | Comment Link |Helen, I think that you are an excellent representation of a postmodern individual. You have rejected the fundamentalist, modernist Christianity of your former years, but you continue on an open-minded, lifelong search for truth and encourage others to do the same. You do a wonderful job facilitating this blog because you are respectful of everyone’s beliefs and viewpoints and the only thing you require of the participants in the conversation is that we also be open-minded and respectful of one another.
PS- I think you are awesome! :-)
Comment by: Helen
18 06/9/07 3:23 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Rachel :)
Comment by: Mike Clawson
19 06/9/07 7:29 PM | Comment Link |Ditto!
Comment by: Laura M.
20 06/9/07 8:12 PM | Comment Link |News means information which is new.
A few centuries compared to a few millenia is new.
I don’t think the folks you named represent entire denominations, they represent small factions within those denominations. Otherwise more church leaders would be saying, writing and teaching what they do. But statistically speaking- relatively few representatives of mainline churches do. This, IMO, is why they are declining in membership.
I agree it is more vibrant to them as Pentecostalism tends to be of a ‘charismatic’ nature. People who live in these areas also tend to have many superstitious/supernatural beliefs as they are for the most part not well educated, particularly about science. Pentecostalism is pretty new in these areas and yes it makes perfect sense in their cultures that they would be drawn to it at this time.
Give them a century or two to catch up to the rest of the developed world.
I can speak about the little part of the world where I live, where these ‘mainline churches’ are on almost every corner, and membership is declining despite large population growth in this area. These churches are extremely conservative, fundamentalist churches that tow the party line- the ‘creed’, and that is why here, anyway, they are called ‘mainline’ in the first place.
I no longer attend them, but I grew up in them (I’ve attended all of those types of mainline churches referred to, for many years) and I’m not that old ( I’m in my 30’s). I read articles every day in the papers written by these church leaders and members, I watch their services on TV, listen on the radio etc. They are without a doubt teaching , promoting, and insisting on a ’supernaturalist’ version of Christianity. Why else do they declare their loyalty and belief in as well as recite these creeds in church?
Their membership is declining while the Unitarian church, the emergent churches and the other churches that do not insist on supernatural based creeds grow at rapid pace here.
Yes, here. Dallas, Texas , in the heart of the Bible belt.
Comment by: JG
21 06/10/07 1:56 AM | Comment Link |Rachel,
I like your comment 15 and can agree whole heartedly with your approach.
For me the problem is that there are not two camps of people. People lumped together as “post moderns” do not all think the same so my only point of disagreement with you would be over the use of the word “we” rather than “I” and in the same way modern apologists and critics of post moderns do not all think the same way.
When there is good communication (and your comment is an excellent example of such good communication) apparent barriers and divisions come down.
In reality people have far more in common than is usually realised and it is a shame that points of difference are allowed to divide.
At the same time, I doubt if any two people would agree on everything. We need to appreciate our diversity and our common ground at the same time rather than allow crude polarisation into “us and them” which sadly happens so often.
Comment by: JG
22 06/10/07 2:02 AM | Comment Link |My previous comment was also in response to Helen’s original comment which was equally good. I whole heartedly agree with Helen’s approach and in particular with her comments:
Comment by: Helen
23 06/10/07 7:50 AM | Comment Link |Thanks JG.
What I think is: there is some value in identifying groups, patterns of thinking, etc. as long as people don’t assume that tells you everything there is to know about a person.
For example, I find it helpful information to be told someone is a Christian. Not because it tells me everything about what that means to them: to find out I need to explore further. Nevertheless to me it’s a helpful starting point; it defines a range of possibilities.
Imagine if everyone assumed that labels etc only provide limited information; that we always need to go beyond them to get to know an individual. Then disclaimers such as yours wouldn’t need making - wouldn’t that be neat?
Comment by: JG
24 06/10/07 8:10 AM | Comment Link |Helen,
I agree absolutely. But I think I go further by saying that some of the assumptions behind the initial labels we use are unhelpful and misleading and that often it would be better if we used different initial labels.
I think conversation should take place before any labels are applied. And I think any labels should be seen as merely possibilities rather than certainities or probabilities.
You said the label Chistian DEFINES a range of possibilities. There I do disagree. We should always be open to the possibility that the person lies outside the range we have imposed.
My impression is you have suffered as much from this as anyone, people making wrong assumptions based on the label you have been given.
Comment by: Rachel
25 06/10/07 8:11 AM | Comment Link |Laura, it sounds like you and I probably have different definitions or lists of what we would call “mainline” churches. I am curious - are you including Southern Baptists in your definition of “mainline”? And probably our viewpoints do differ a lot because of geography - you living in the heart of the Bible belt and me living here in the Pacific Northwest, in what was at one time at least “the most unchurched county in the nation.”
I guess that is an illustration of what JG has reminded me - that labels and groupings are limited in their clarity and effectiveness. It does seem that different types of faith communities are growing or declining in different areas of the world. And as you point out, they don’t follow consistent pattern, but vary from region to region. I’m sure there are as many explanations as there are people to weigh in on the subject!
Laura, personally I share your concern about the spread of Pentecostalism in Latin America. Although in my case, it isn’t supernaturalism I’m concerned about (since this particular emerging postmodern Baptist Episcopal follower of Jesus DOES believe in the supernatural.) What concerns me the most is the popularity in Latin America of the “prosperity gospel” which I consider to be both a distortion of the gospel of Jesus and a huge insult to those living in poverty.
I did see a news report that said that one reason many Latinos leave the Catholic church for the Pentecostal churches is that the Pentecostals permit and encourage the use of birth control. And in my opinion, that IS “good news for the poor”! :-)
Comment by: Helen
26 06/10/07 8:55 AM | Comment Link |JG, I don’t mind at all if conversation takes place first. I generally try to encourage that by not bringing out my labels right away :)
And - I’m open enough to add to my range of possibilities if someone lies outside it. My definitions are working ones based on experience rather than definitions engraved in stone that can never be changed.
I just think that in reality it’s very hard to get people not to use labels. So my approach is to listen, but not read too much into them.
I think we’re both agreed that when two people are willing to talk with each other and listen, they are going to get beyond the labels and find out who each other the individual is.
(And if they aren’t, no amount of pleading or redefining will get them there because they will simply replace old stereotypes with new equally rigid ones)
What I am saying is, I don’t think fixing labels will help - I think it’s people who need fixing - so we listen better and become more curious about each other :)
This began as a Spong book review: one of my problems with him is, I don’t get the sense he wants to engage with Christians who are theists. He just wants them to ’see the light’. It’s a very one-way thing.
Comment by: Helen
27 06/10/07 8:57 AM | Comment Link |Rachel, my sense is that most people in mainline denominations are theists. Spong’s nontheism is radical and a minority position - at least among laypeople in mainline denominations.
Is that your perception too, or not?
Comment by: Rachel
28 06/10/07 9:05 AM | Comment Link |I feel the same way, Helen. That’s one reason why I won’t put bumper stickers on my car.
Comment by: Helen
29 06/10/07 9:08 AM | Comment Link |Good example, Rachel!
I intentionally never specified whether I was Christian or atheist in the ‘Basic Beliefs’ box on the atheist board where I’m a member. I put “My beliefs aren’t basic”
:)
Comment by: JG
30 06/10/07 9:13 AM | Comment Link |Helen.
Agreed. This was why I liked your review of Spong’s book.
You state all the things you appreciate about his book and his approach but also state the areas you disagree with. I like this approach.
I don’t know enough about Spong to comment but following my theme, I do know with political leaders here in the UK, there are some who would probably be regarded as having similar ideas to me who I wouldn’t trust for a moment. In contrast there are political leaders with more or less radically opposite views to me who I have great respect for and who I regard as having great integrity. Similar principles apply to church leaders.
Comment by: Rachel
31 06/10/07 9:27 AM | Comment Link |Definitely! Bishop Spong is quite a controversial figure, even among the mainline community.
In the United States, churches that are generally labeled “mainline” are those which belong to the National Council of Churches (Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, United Methodist, etc). Churches which belong to the National Association of Evangelicals are generally labeled “evangelical” (several Baptist denominations, Nazarene, Assemblies of God, Vineyard, Mennonite Brethren, etc.) A third category, further to the right both theologically and politically, would be “fundamentalist.” They tend to be fiercely independent and do not join associations as large as the NCC and NAE. The most prominent example in the US would be the Southern Baptists.
Comment by: Laura M.
32 06/10/07 9:39 AM | Comment Link |Helen, this statement confuses me a bit because in your post I didn’t read anything Spong wrote that is so ‘ridiculous’ that it would ‘invite criticism’ as you seem to suggest.
I’m sorry, I haven’t read any of his work so I was only commenting on the quotes from his book that you posted here.
I don’t believe there is anything wrong with asserting that your beliefs are ‘The Truth’ and ‘complaining’ about others who assert that their views are the ‘Truth’, when their views are in direct conflict with your views and you feel certain that your views are ‘The Truth’.
That sounds like an attempt at clarity and honesty to me.
Nor do I believe there is anything wrong with ‘ascribing motives like fear to people who disagree’ if that is the best motive you could wrack your brain and come up with. If others deny what seems plain to you, you could come to other conclusions. Such as perhaps they are being dishonest because they believe they have more to gain by denying than by telling the truth. He might have been trying to be polite when ‘ascribing motives like fear’.
This sounds like someone uncomfortably close to:
Who’s to say one way is the better or perhaps more ‘true’ way? It’s simply a matter of preference.
I understand that in your post and responses here you are simply describing what you do and don’t like about Spong and his writing and how what he says would be more appealing to you if he worded it differently, but I don’t think ‘both/and’ can possibly work if you truly believe you are discussing an ‘either/or’ situation. Especially if you are discussing what you believe is of the ultimate importance, the most important thing in the history of mankind, and those either /or’s result in ‘either’ the best of all outcomes/’or’ terribly dire consequences -which the end of the Christian church would be to Spong (at least that’s what it sounds like from what you quoted here).
I don’t have any trouble ‘ascribing motives like fear’ to people when that is how their words or behavior appear to be motivated to me. As I said, there are worse types of ‘motives’ one could ‘ascribe’ to someone you disagree with, and it comes across to me like a few people here have done that with Spong:
Comment by: Laura M.
33 06/10/07 9:51 AM | Comment Link |I only went down to the top of post #8 (out of about thirty posts) and decided to stop because my response was getting too long. But that’s how many negative ‘motives’ I found being ‘ascribed’ to Spong in just those few posts.
I’m not trying to single anyone out or be focused on the negative here, I just meant to point out that perhaps Spong is coming from a different place than some here seem to be assuming. I just wanted to voice my alternative viewpoint not to criticize anyone else, just to show that I think there are other reasonable , less negative ‘motivations’ to ‘ascribe’ to Spong.
Comment by: Laura M.
34 06/10/07 9:55 AM | Comment Link |I agree Helen :8->
Comment by: Laura M.
35 06/10/07 10:53 AM | Comment Link |Rachel,
NO, I was not referring to Southern Baptists as a mainline denomination. I was talking about exactly the same churches you named in post #31. It is a myth that most Texans are Southern Baptists.
The churches on every corner and that I grew up attending are Lutheran , Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterrian, Episcopalian.
We also have some Baptist, Pentecostal, Emergent, Unitarian…
…also a few Church of Christ, Unity, Latter Day Saints, Jewish and Buddhist temples, Islamic mosque,
Briths and Krishnas, Church of Freethought, even a Scientology Celebrity Center…
all within 15 miles of where I live.
Comment by: Helen
36 06/10/07 11:23 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comments, Laura.
I picked up ‘ridiculous’ from another comment - I wasn’t necessarily applying that word to Spong’s writing. Although I might in places, if I went through his caricature of Christians again in detail.
I definitely think he invites criticism from Christians. For the reasons I said in the blog entry.
You really don’t see a problem with saying “I have the right to assert truth but you don’t!”
If he said “I disagree with them - I see this as The Truth” - then he’s assuming a level playing field. But he’s implying he has a right others don’t have. Where did that right come from? Why does he have special rights?
I can’t see myself ever agreeing that one person has rights others don’t have, whether it’s to assert The Truth or something else.
I know other people disagree with me on this - including you, evidently :).
I’ll agree to disagree because I’ve never succeeded in changing anyone’s mind on this point.
Btw thanks for pointing out Spong things the end of the church would be dire. It hadn’t occurred to me lately to notice that he is trying to save the church - which is a good thing to want to do (for anyone who cares about it and thinks it’s good).
Thanks - you have helped me see a good motive! :) (Also I think his desire to present a Jesus and God worth believing in is a good one)
It doesn’t work for me to say “but he could have speculated something worse - like they are dishonest”.
I admit I speculate about motives sometimes. Maybe that’s unwise. But even so I see a difference between that and asserting them, which Spong does.
I don’t think all of those statements of mine were attributing motives. For example -
Spong ignoring moderates is a fact based on the book. I illustrated it with at least one quote. It’s not an attribution of motive.
And the comment about him being patronizing was based on my feelings about what he said - it wasn’t speculative. If I say “Laura - it’s going to hurt for you to embrace that you’re wrong and I’m right - but you will just have to push through it” doesn’t that feel patronizing to you? It would to me.
I hope you’ll have time to read a Spong book at some point and report back - because I’d be curious to see whether it confirms your sense he’s coming from a different place than people here (me included?) are assuming. (And please don’t interpret that as meaning ‘go away until you’ve read some Spong’ because that’s not what I mean at all :))
Comment by: Laura M.
37 06/10/07 12:10 PM | Comment Link |Helen, I would definitely have a problem with him saying that, but I didn’t read that in the quotes from the book you gave us.
See, that’s exactly the thing, from what you printed here, that’s PRECISELY how I read his words:
I’ve read them four times now and I still read them that way, from these quotes here.
You are so right that I haven’t read his work and I was thinking that I really shouldn’t comment about something I know nothing about. So I was just trying to comment about the quotes you gave. I really don’t think those particular quotes, out of context, support what you are saying.
If I read the book I would probably would be able to see it.
Comment by: Rachel
38 06/10/07 12:16 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for the information, Laura! I did have the impression that the Southern Baptist Church was the dominant church in Texas. Clearly there is more religious diversity in Texas than I realized.
I think that our president has done a great deal to contribute to a certain stereotype of Texans. That has got to be frustrating!
Comment by: Helen
39 06/10/07 12:31 PM | Comment Link |Laura, thanks for clarifying.
I see it in this:
plus his general tone of “conservative Christians can’t possibly be correct in their view of God” - which implicitly is a statement about what God is not, which to me is the same as saying what God is like, even though he just said humans can’t tell each other what God is like. So he exempts himself from his own rule.
You’re right in saying I didn’t give quotes which demonstrate that clearly (if at all).
So, fair enough :)
Comment by: Rachel
40 06/10/07 12:51 PM | Comment Link |As I see it, this takes us back to the modern/postmodern issue. Although he is taking a nontraditional approach to Christianity, Bishop Spong is making a modernist argument. By contrast, someone like Jerry Falwell represents a modernist, traditional approach to Christianity. But I think that Spong and Falwell in the end both have a similar style - they both claim to know the truth, they both assert their religious views as fact and they both fervently criticize those who believe otherwise.
It’s interesting that this is coming up because I recently listened to an Emergent podcast which was a lecture delivered by Diana Butler Bass (a 2007 OTM conference speaker, BTW). It is rather lengthy but very interesting and insightful. It would be a great listen as a follow-up to and expansion on this particular dialogue.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
41 06/10/07 10:17 PM | Comment Link |Phyllis Tickle has described Spong as the closing bookend of the Modernist era (with Martin Luther being the opening bookend). So yes, Spong and Falwell do in fact have very much in common, in that they are both expression of a Modernist approach to Christianity - just from opposite campes.
The irony is that for as much as Spong thinks he is presenting a radically new and progressive version of faith, to those of us already on the other side of the postmodern divide he already seems rather outdated.
Comment by: Helen
42 06/11/07 5:20 AM | Comment Link |I don’t agree that Spong’s beliefs are outdated. To me his version of faith is as up to date as anyone else’s.
On the other hand, I don’t agree with his implication that all theism is outdated. As almost-an-atheist I do find all versions of theism problematic but I wouldn’t say they are all outdated. Only the ones which seem to glorify genocide, for no apparent reason other than ‘God did it in the Bible’.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
43 06/11/07 7:20 PM | Comment Link |I might not call his beliefs outdated, just the Modernist epistemology on which they’re based.
Comment by: Helen
44 06/11/07 8:08 PM | Comment Link |Mike, I thought maybe that was what you meant.