|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Spong banned in Sydney
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Denigrating and denouncing their religion while profiting from it monetarily?
When someone provides evidence that this is fair comment on Bishop Spong I'll take such questions seriously.
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Many thanks, Spawn and Tuba Mirum, for sharing your genuine insights gained from actual firsthand experience of Spong.
Genuine insights? That both posters just happen to hold strongly opposing opinions in one respect or another about the Church to +Spong makes me think their 'insights' might be of limited value.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Spong can't seem to articulate his vision of this New Christianity very well
This may be true, but neither I suggest can anyone else except those who adopt simplistic fundamentalist models. You seem to want someone else to tell you what the Church should be; Spong I think is inviting us to take responsibility for the future of Christianity on ourselves.
quote:
It's not true, either, that people don't want the church to be their for their grandchildren; of course they do.
The problem though is that too many are not prepared to listen to what their grandchildren are saying. Which is basically that they haven't a clue what the Church is going on about. Traditional Christianity simply does not connect with them. That I think is what motivates Spong. Why should we be surprised that he can't come up with all the answers to that scale of problem?
quote:
Spong would resign as Bishop he'd have a lot more credibility. Nobody in the church takes him seriously anymore
Nonsense. You just don't like him. You say you know him - perhaps he's told you a few home truths? He didn't mince his words when I heard heard him speak.
quote:
in the greater world Spong gets more attention than almost anybody else in the Church
I'd be surprised if that was true. But that he gets attention in the wider world suggests he engages with where they are. Which is more than can be said for most of the Anglican Communion.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
northender
Apprentice
# 9374
|
Posted
Interesting that Bp Spong is doing a talk and/or booklaunch at the Theosophical bookshop, next block from the Cathedral.
Fr Laurence
Posts: 26 | From: Central Coast, NSW, Australia | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Spong can't seem to articulate his vision of this New Christianity very well
This may be true, but neither I suggest can anyone else except those who adopt simplistic fundamentalist models. You seem to want someone else to tell you what the Church should be; Spong I think is inviting us to take responsibility for the future of Christianity on ourselves.
No, Dave, I don't want that. But thanks for demonstrating the kind of arrogance I'm talking about here. It's become the regular thing, when a person criticizes Spong for anything, that one of his supporters will break out the "you can't think for yourself" ad hominem. IOW, if I don't buy into the Spong bullshit - if I actually ask him to be clear for once about what he's saying - there's something wrong with me. Well, that's certainly an easy way to avoid having to deal with the problem.
It reminds me of atheists who call themselves "free-thinkers" in opposition to religious believers - implying that religious believers are all mind slaves and half-wits. Boring - and also patently untrue.
Also funny is the "prophet without honor" line; IOW, if people think Spong is full of it, that means he's just way too deep for us poor simpletons and sheep to understand. I do find it interesting that there doesn't seem to be anybody anywhere doing any work with any of Spong's "theological ideas" - whatever they are. Religion actually involves formulating ideas and conveying their meaning to others - or at least to somebody.
Anyway, I hate to mention it, but lots of us who participate in the church actually do think quite a lot about its future; in fact, we've had quite a number of conversations about that very thing on these boards. Probably you're not aware of what's going on, since you don't participate yourself.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Here's a random Spong quote:
quote:
I said in Perth last Sunday that though I am a Trinitarian, I could never say that God is a Trinity because I don't think a human being can ever tell anybody what God is like. But I experience God.
....
That's right. The Trinity is an attempt to explain my experience. I experience God as beyond anything I can imagine, otherness, transcendence, that's what the symbol, rather patriarchal symbol, but the symbol Father means. I experience God as a depth within myself, deeper than my own breath, and that's what spirit means. And I experience God as incarnate in the lives of other people, and incarnate particularly for me in the defining life of Jesus of Nazareth. But incarnate in all people. And since I think God is only one God, then my experience has to sort of find a way to put these different elements together, and that's where the Trinity comes from. It's not what God is, it's what my experience of God is.
Now please tell me why this should matter to anybody who's not Spong, and how it advances the cause of "the future of Christianity." Why should anybody care how Spong "experiences God"? What does this do for anybody else's faith? Where does it go? Does it address anything outside Spong's head? Does it attempt to explain anything?
And what's different about it, BTW? Most people on this board - and in my church - acknowledge that we can't ever fully describe God. But if that's such a burden to religion, what's the point of bothering?
How can the "Christology of the ages" be completely bankrupt - and yet at the same time a valid way for Spong to "experience God"? Why should anybody listen to a person who makes so little sense? Would you pay attention to somebody whose stated philosophy is based in utterly contradictory ideas?
And can somebody please explain the "New Christianity" that's been developed here?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's become the regular thing, when a person criticizes Spong for anything, that one of his supporters will break out the "you can't think for yourself" ad hominem. IOW, if I don't buy into the Spong bullshit - if I actually ask him to be clear for once about what he's saying - there's something wrong with me.
OK, rather than trade generalities, what that Spong has actually said are you not clear about? I don't have an inside track on his thinking, but I'd be happy have a go at clarifying what he's getting at.
quote:
It reminds me of atheists who call themselves "free-thinkers" in opposition to religious believers - implying that religious believers are all mind slaves and half-wits. Boring - and also patently untrue.
I agree that put like that, it's untrue. But a defining characteristic of traditional Christianity is acceptance of whatever selection of religious truths define it for you. If you're unwilling to consider the possibility that those 'truths' are only your personal preferences for a view on truth, and that using them to define church excludes people who can't see any truth from that point of view, you're still a block to the church becoming a truth-embodying institution for other truth-seeking people.
quote:
Religion actually involves formulating ideas and conveying their meaning to others - or at least to somebody.
Does it?
quote:
Anyway, I hate to mention it, but lots of us who participate in the church actually do think quite a lot about its future
Yet you seem to end up doing next to nothing beyond tinkering with presentation.
quote:
Probably you're not aware of what's going on, since you don't participate yourself.
So what exactly am I (and I guess Spong) missing? Just a few examples will give me an idea of what you mean.
[cross-posted]
[ 18. August 2007, 13:59: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
Personally speaking, what I'm not clear about with Spong is why he wants to stay in the Christian faith and what he's offering.
I don't claim to be an expert on him, but I understand it from reading a few of his books, he doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ, doesn't believe in the power of prayer and isn't sure whether he believes (or doesn't believe?) in a transcendent God.
So, what is it that he has to offer except some vague appearance of standing in the Christian tradition and throwing stones at the rest of us who are so stupid as to believe in the creeds? 'Come to chuch and hold everyone else there in contempt'?
Someone on the Ship - I don't know if it was this thread - commented that Spong is a fundamentalist. I think there is some weird kind of similarities between Jensen and Spong. Both seem incapable of conceiving of a non-fundamentalist Christian faith; they just react in different ways to this false thesis that they both hold. Jensen in claiming that he is actually a paradigm of traditional Christianity and Spong in concluding that traditional Christianity has nothing to offer anyone.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...why was Arius wrong, besides that he disagreed with the Catholic church?
Essentially, the fight was about salvation. Not about power, not about arguments, but about salvation. From an Orthodox point of view, because Jesus is God coming in the flesh we can become christs and gods. If the two are not sewn together, if divinity and humanity are not knitted together in Jesus, then man cannot become deified, and there is no salvation.
The problem is that all this high-theology does not affect the people on the streets today. For most Orthodox it remains another obscure teaching of the Church, the rest of the world, in my view, does not even suspect this is possible, and only a few people manage it silently through a lot of sweat. At the time of the first ecumenical council, there were more people that had that kind of experience of God in their personal lives, so they took the debate upon themselves. Eventually the people followed them, and not the heretics.
If things have taken another route back then, that would mean that all the people that managed it in the centuries that followed would have had their way blocked and the doors shut. Fortunately, this didn't happen, and here we are discussing about these things.
Just because for the average man today these things are way beyond their spiritual radars, this does not mean that they are not important. Obviously, they are not important for most people, but they remain issues of life and death for some. Difficult to grasp, I know, but as far as I can see it's true.
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
May I ask why? Is "inclusiveness" the only thing we should aim for?
It depends on what one means by inclusiveness. I would pursue the inclusiveness that comes through a lot of sweat and hard inner work that leads to forgiveness and love for all, and this is very difficult. I wouldn't pursue the inclusiveness that blurs the boundaries between different ways of thinking and approaches to life. Hope this is not too vague, but I have to stop because this post is getting rather long.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Now please tell me why this [Spong quote]should matter to anybody who's not Spong, and how it advances the cause of "the future of Christianity."
In one post you're complaining that you don't understand what Spong is saying, now in the next you object to his explaining exactly what he means. I guess the confusion comes because your quote doesn't spell out the question, or that it's a tiny extract from a long interview that would provide the context within which it makes sense. If you're not interested, you don't have to read it. Or listen to anything that Spong says or writes.
FWIW, I take this to be about why the Church should stop making claims like 'God is Trinity'. Many of us may have already seen past this, but it's not official teaching nor likely to be any time soon.
quote:
How can the "Christology of the ages" be completely bankrupt - and yet at the same time a valid way for Spong to "experience God"?
I wasn't aware he claimed to experience God through the "Christology of the Ages", which I would take to mean that the historical Jesus was literally God incarnate.
quote:
Why should anybody listen to a person who makes so little sense? Would you pay attention to somebody whose stated philosophy is based in utterly contradictory ideas?
I see no contradiction in Spong's ideas, even if I don't always think they're especially helpful. I am struggling to follow your logic though.
quote:
And can somebody please explain the "New Christianity" that's been developed here?
That I imagine would be the one that emerges when the Church moves beyond defining itself in terms of the traditional creeds. We don't know what it will look like yet.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Anyway, I hate to mention it, but lots of us who participate in the church actually do think quite a lot about its future
Yet you seem to end up doing next to nothing beyond tinkering with presentation.
See, this is the basic probelem, ISTM. Dave, you don't want the core Faith as it has been historically understood and passed down for 2000 years at all - you want something else.
Now, that something else may be utterly admirable and worth going for - and best of luck to you in getting what you seek there. But what Tuba Mirum and Mousethief and me and others (forgive my presumption here, but...) want is the Faith. Not something else - not something our grandparents and great-grand-parents in the Faith wouldn't recognise as the Faith. We don't want anything that's even too much tinkered with, because anything that wasn't substantially what we have and inherited wouldn't be what we value as the Faith at all. We do want the Faith to be there for our grandchildren - and we want it to be the same Faith, as alive to them as it is for us. But it has to be the same or what we're bequeathing them isn't our to give - cos we never had it.
And you're just going to have to live with that. Just as we'll have to live with it if you're right and our Faith couldn't or won't endure because it's past its sell-by date. I'm staking my eternal future on our model of the Faith being "the one", so it, you know, kinda matters to me.
And whatever Spong or anyone else says to the contrary, what Spong believes in is not compatable with the Faith as it has been understood since St Paul told us he was just passing on what he had been given. It just ain't. Therefore, it's not what Spong signed up to defend and propagate when he took his oaths and drew his stipend.
[ 18. August 2007, 15:37: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
My attitude towards Spong is that his theology is basically a rehash of Tillich and Bultmann for lay people who can't be bothered to read actual academic theology.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ger
Shipmate
# 3113
|
Posted
My understanding is that canonically speaking +Jensen is absolutely able to prevent Spong from preaching from the pulpits of the Sydney diocese. I have no problem with this.
I am though of the opinion that +Jensen has been unwise in exercising his authority in this fashion:
(1) Spong is a member of the same historic episcopate as +Jensen. If it is felt that Spong should be removed from the episcopate then there are canonical procedures for achieving this. (Presumably causes that could be pursued run from invalid consecration to heresy, take your pick.) For whatever reason Spong does not seem to have been subjected (or successfully subjected)to such procedures.
(2) By allowing Spong to preach from the Sydney pulpits, +Jensen is in a position to (a) absolutely know what Spong is saying, and (b) is in a position to refute from the same pulpits what Spong has said. That of course assumes that +Jensen is sure that his arguments pronouncements will successfully refute Spong. Perhaps +Jensen has doubts.
(3) +Jensen has himself been fulfilling is episcopal teaching function. Is his clergy sufficiently educated, are his seminaries fulfilling their function, is there effective preaching from the pulpits? If not, then perhaps Spong is showing up deficiencies in +Jensen.
(4) I suggest there is more likely to be an uprising from the laity by not allowing Spong to preach rather by allowing him.
(5) While I do not equate Spong with St Paul, what St Paul said is still debated after two thousand tears and that debate affects Christianity today. The task with Spong I suggest is finding the mote in the bathwater. Throwing out the bathwater without first seeking that mote is just plain wrong.
(6) Personally I approve of Voltaire (or what is attributed to Voltaire): "I disapprove of what you say, etc etc."
--------------------
Elohai, n'tzor l'shoni mayro, usfosai midabayr mirmo.
V'limkal'lai nafshi sidom, v'nafshi ke-ofor lakol tih-ye.
(Shemoneh Esrei)
Posts: 93 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
My attitude towards Spong is that his theology is basically a rehash of Tillich and Bultmann for lay people who can't be bothered to read actual academic theology.
Some laypeople have read Berkhof and Barth and come to the conclusion that Tillich and Bultmann are to theology what fad diet devisers are to nutrition.
Comparing Spong's destruction of episcopalianism in New Jersey with Sydney's church growth is fruitful, but not for the reasons which some deluded Shipmates think it is. Oh, and Spong's faithful disciple in Brisbane, the Primate of Australia (!!), is engaged on a similar crusade. So I'd better get on my bike and spend the morning observing the Holy Spirit frustrating his devices.
FD
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Comparing Spong's destruction of episcopalianism in New Jersey with Sydney's church growth is fruitful, but not for the reasons which some deluded Shipmates think it is. Oh, and Spong's faithful disciple in Brisbane, the Primate of Australia (!!), is engaged on a similar crusade. So I'd better get on my bike and spend the morning observing the Holy Spirit frustrating his devices.
Keep on the soapbox, FD. If you shout loudly enough ++Phillip might hear you and remove whatever license you might hold to stand on soapboxes in the diocese. If you shout even louder, he might even realise what a bad and naughty boy he's been, and come crawling to your door in sackcloth and ashes so you can say to him, "Told you so, you liberal bastard!" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't think it was wise for the Archbishop to invite Spong to preach in the Cathedral. But I don't think he deserves the bitter invective you are fond of serving on him.
[ 19. August 2007, 02:36: Message edited by: Nunc Dimittis ]
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
...Comparing Spong's destruction of episcopalianism in New Jersey with Sydney's church growth is fruitful, but not for the reasons which some deluded Shipmates think it is. ...
So discouraging scholarship and thinking -- and, in the process, doing your best to destroy Anglican tradition -- is a good thing? Banning graduates of all but one apparently fundamentalist know-nothing seminary produces only one kind of fruit, and it's not a very pleasant one.
And one does keep hearing rumors of (at the very least) borderline Arianism taking over there.
How is this any better or, in essence, any different from what +Spong does?
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
If Spong's infractions are beyond the coffee point, then why haven't you guys done something about it?
THAT is the $40,000 question. Then again when in recent memory have the Anglicans (as a group) taken a firm stand on anything?
The ones that do get planked, MouseThief.
[ 19. August 2007, 06:15: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
How is this any better or, in essence, any different from what +Spong does?
It`s the Anglican way with a very broad bum as a base.
As long as we remember that Salavation is through Christ and not Anglican leadership.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Oh Dear. More on Spong! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
If you really attempt to have an intelligent discussion on an Anglican (of sorts) theological figure (also of sorts) there are four essentials:
(1) You need to be intelligent.
(2) You need to know what you are talking about.
(3) You need to put your own cards on the table.
(4) You need to keep to the topic rather than bash heads. (Most unhelpful that!)
No, I'm not trying to take over as host nor discipline anyone.
Rather to say, as an observer rapidly becoming totally disinterested in what seems to be becoming a total, noholds barred free-for-all, with a lot of hot air and personal aggro around, that this is what drives people away from these threads.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The ones that do get planked, MouseThief.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) At least those who put their need to crusade above the simple rules of a discussion board.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
At least those who put their need to crusade above the simple rules of a discussion board.
Oh Dear! Oh Dear! Self-amusement!
Well, I suppose you must get lonely.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Nah. I have all of my zealot internet friends to keep me company.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Dave, you don't want the core Faith as it has been historically understood and passed down for 2000 years at all - you want something else.
That might be true, but unless you spell out what you mean by "the Faith" I can't be sure. It's the same issue as whether Spong is being faithful to his vows or not.
If "the Faith" is about, say, the preservation of a body of people who believe the Nicene Creed is in some sense true, then you'd be right. What Spong is arguing for would not be what the Church is, and I should stop pestering you faithful church people about the need for fundamental change.
The problem is that if that's all the Church is, you've just got a little religion that will last as long there's people who value a particular form of worship or way of thinking. But if in fact the Church is really about eternal things, about truth and human value and justice, and the story of Jesus and its traditions are simply a distinctive means to that end, then it becomes an institution that Spong and people like me can be legitimately committed to.
[ 19. August 2007, 11:01: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Nah. I have all of my zealot internet friends to keep me company.
Are you prepared to share the actual number with us? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
How can the "Christology of the ages" be completely bankrupt - and yet at the same time a valid way for Spong to "experience God"?
I wasn't aware he claimed to experience God through the "Christology of the Ages", which I would take to mean that the historical Jesus was literally God incarnate.
And yet somehow, Spong's New Christianity is also Trinitarian. What an amazing coincidence that is! Here's a person who's been sneering at traditional views of the faith for decades - yet somehow his own internal "experience of God" comes out Triune, too.
Quite remarkable, really. Ever consider that that sort of implies that the Creeds really might have hit on something important? And that Spong himself looks like a quite a determined literalist? I don't have any problem with expressing my own Trinitarianism through the Creeds, even though I strongly doubt that God has a "right hand" or that there's a "three-tiered universe."
In any case, I still wonder why Spong's internal experience of God should matter to anybody else. Perhaps his experience of God is only heartburn; how can a person be sure? And since it might be heartburn, or delusion, what kind of religious faith can be built around it? IOW, if Spong can't say anything about God, doesn't that render him quite useless as a resource (and, of course, as a bishop charged to teach the faith)? Why should we pay any attention to what he says about the future of Christianity if he's this inarticulate about the basics of faith?
And BTW, if Jesus isn't divine, why is there a religion focused around him? Doesn't that mean we're worshipping a human being?
[ 19. August 2007, 11:46: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
People have been proclaiming the coming demise of Nicene Christianity for at least 300 years. Like a Timex, it takes a licking and keeps on ticking. The movements proclaiming its demise always fade into obscurity. At least, this is the case in the United States. Off the top of my head, Western Europe may be the only place on earth the prophecies of doom are coming true. I will pray for a revival in Europe.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ger:
I am though of the opinion that +Jensen has been unwise in exercising his authority in this fashion
Except of course, that no authority has been exercised here
Spong has not been refused permission, because (perhaps to +Spong's credit) +Spong hasn't even applied for permission to speak in an Anglican church.
The question from the journalist was, I suspect, designed to generate a story no matter what the response.
You say "yes" and the media say there is an internal division in the diocese with the Arch happy for him to preach, whilst other leaders condemn.
You say "It depends.../ or We'll wait and see when it happens.." and the media says the diocese is unsure of how to respond to +Spong's message.
You say "no" and...well we've seen what they say. At least the latter clearly communicates that you disagree with +Spong's teaching quote:
(2) By allowing Spong to preach from the Sydney pulpits, +Jensen is in a position to (a) absolutely know what Spong is saying,
(a) I suspect that +Jensen, like the rest of Christendom, knows exactly what Spong is saying since he has published a book and is going around publicising it.
quote:
(3) +Jensen has himself been fulfilling is episcopal teaching function. Is his clergy sufficiently educated, are his seminaries fulfilling their function, is there effective preaching from the pulpits? If not, then perhaps Spong is showing up deficiencies in +Jensen.
I'm not really sure I understand the logic of your comment here as it pertains to the present discussion. quote:
(4) I suggest there is more likely to be an uprising from the laity by not allowing Spong to preach rather by allowing him.
Somehow I suspect that there would be more likelihood of an uprising from the laity if +Jensen were to give permission for +Spong to preach. quote:
...The task with Spong I suggest is finding the mote in the bathwater. Throwing out the bathwater without first seeking that mote is just plain wrong.
No.
As long as you have removed the baby from the bathwater, then you throw the mote out with the bathwater. The reason you give babies baths is to wash the motes away, isn't it? quote:
(6) Personally I approve of Voltaire (or what is attributed to Voltaire): "I disapprove of what you say, etc etc."
As do I, as does +Jensen.
But there is a difference between affirming some one's right to freedom of expression, and giving them a context in which to say what they believe, which might be misconstrued that you agree with them.
Hand in hand with a person's freedom of expression, has to go the freedom to disagree with that person.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
People have been proclaiming the coming demise of Nicene Christianity for at least 300 years. Like a Timex, it takes a licking and keeps on ticking. The movements proclaiming its demise always fade into obscurity. At least, this is the case in the United States. Off the top of my head, Western Europe may be the only place on earth the prophecies of doom are coming true. I will pray for a revival in Europe.
Actually, I think it might be good in a crazy way that the faith loses its attraction for people for a time. It's been too closely aligned with the culture for way too long, and attempts to normalize it have caused it to lose its ability to shock. It's just not the same faith without that, I don't think.
In the U.S., over-familiarity with the "religious" right-wing version has bred incredible contempt, and not without reason. I think we're on the same road here as the Europeans have been in some ways, but probably won't go quite that far.
I think revival will come, but maybe not soon, and definitely not in the same way. I think Christianity is going to go underground or something, and that will be a benefit. But the faith itself, as you say, isn't going to go away.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ger
Shipmate
# 3113
|
Posted
By Anselm:
quote:
From Ger quote:
(3) +Jensen has himself been fulfilling is episcopal teaching function. Is his clergy sufficiently educated, are his seminaries fulfilling their function, is there effective preaching from the pulpits? If not, then perhaps Spong is showing up deficiencies in +Jensen.
Anselm's response:
I'm not really sure I understand the logic of your comment here as it pertains to the present discussion.
Anselm, thank you for pointing out the lack of logic in my comment. I quite agree. (Hopefully, one of these days, a word processor that processes your thoughts rather than the input from your fingers will be produced.)
I will try again:
If the clergy of the Diocese of Sydney are not in a position to refute from the pulpit,to the satisfaction of the listener, Spong's arguments then it raises the question as to whether or not the Archbishop of Sydney has fulfilled his episcopal teaching and leadership functions. Is the Archbishop ordaining clergy who have sufficient intellectual firepower to deal with Spong's (and others) arguments? Is the clergy of the Diocese of Sydney sufficiently educated - are the seminaries of the Diocese fulfilling their function? Is there effective preaching from the pulpits of the Diocese of Sydney?
I have no particular views on the rightness or otherwise of ideas put forward by Spong or the Archbishop of Sydney. What I would like to see and hear is a debate on the rightness or otherwise of those views. This is not achieved by an argumentum ad hominem attack on Spong. Rather let the views be set out and debated - what better place than from the pulpits of the Diocese of Sydney.
One's own argument is neither strengthened nor the opposing argument diminished by ensuring the opposing argument is not heard. Indeed it could be argued that the Archbishop would strengthen his arguments by inviting Spong to preach in the Cathedral!
--------------------
Elohai, n'tzor l'shoni mayro, usfosai midabayr mirmo.
V'limkal'lai nafshi sidom, v'nafshi ke-ofor lakol tih-ye.
(Shemoneh Esrei)
Posts: 93 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
It's interesting that Spong seems to be provoking profounder analysis than he may be capable of himself. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My gut feeling is that he speaks to a few people who feel "put off" by the Church.
I don't think he presents any intellectual or moral danger to most, if not all, contributors to this thread. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
He's here to sell books. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
There's no need to go and hear him or buy them.
Perhaps neither ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) nor ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) are appropriate reactions to him?
Perhaps
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
THAT is the $40,000 question. Then again when in recent memory have the Anglicans (as a group) taken a firm stand on anything?
I think this shows a misunderstanding about Anglican ecclesiology.
As far as I can tell it's based on the idea that one province (/national church) can't tell another one what to do, and even to a degree that one diocese can't tell another what to do. Although there's a shared heritage and (within somewhat broad limits admittedly) a shared set of beliefs, the Anglican Communion is really a relational thing rather that a structural hierarchy that looks to me to have more than a passing similarity to the way the Orthodox Church works. I might be just misinformed though.
So, if you look at the national church or province level, you can find fairly firm stands such as the fact that the Church of England chose to ordain women to the priesthood. If you want to go to a higher level then you're asking for the equivalent of a Pan-Orthodox authority to start ordering Patriarchs and ruling Archbishops of autocephalous churches around.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reuben
Shipmate
# 11361
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ger:
I have no particular views on the rightness or otherwise of ideas put forward by Spong or the Archbishop of Sydney. What I would like to see and hear is a debate on the rightness or otherwise of those views. This is not achieved by an argumentum ad hominem attack on Spong. Rather let the views be set out and debated - what better place than from the pulpits of the Diocese of Sydney.
One's own argument is neither strengthened nor the opposing argument diminished by ensuring the opposing argument is not heard. Indeed it could be argued that the Archbishop would strengthen his arguments by inviting Spong to preach in the Cathedral!
Whilst not speaking on Peter Jensen's behalf, I would think this proposal is as likely as the Dali Lama getting a gig at St Andrews Cathedral!
+Jensen is shepherding his flock and guarding them against false teaching. In my view (and I am pretty sure his too) Spong is a false teacher. Why give the pulpit of your flock to a false teacher?
From this springs two personal opinions that we will never agree on:
- How wrong (or right!) is Spong?
- how false do you need to be to get black listed in [insert Diocese name]'s churches?
+Jensen is willing on occasion to have a debate with someone of different views as evidenced by this debate with Professor John Carroll, but surely the place for wildly divergent views is in the lecture theatre, the neutral venue, rather than opening your sanctum to those that would question you and your flock's sincere belief in God.
--------------------
"I got nothing." Barrie Unsworth
Posts: 227 | From: New South Wales | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
A Christianity where I "doubt" the Resurrection and other generally agreed beliefs of Christian orthodoxy seems a bit like a weak religious cold chicken broth to me.
Which is a shame, methinks, since I can imagine no other. How can one not doubt things one has no proof of? By definition, without proof, it might have happened, it might not. I can no more stop thinking "it may not be true" by my will, any more than I can make myself stop thinking about blue elephants.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And BTW, if Jesus isn't divine, why is there a religion focused around him? Doesn't that mean we're worshipping a human being?
So? There's a religion focussed around L Ron Hubbard. Plus at least one focussed around Elvis. And Prince Philip. Are you saying they weren't / aren't human?
[ 22. August 2007, 21:59: Message edited by: Figbash ]
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
There's a religion focussed around L Ron Hubbard. Plus at least one focussed around Elvis. And Prince Philip. Are you saying they weren't / aren't human?
hmmm...I'm gonna have to get back to you one that one...
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
There's a religion focussed around L Ron Hubbard. Plus at least one focussed around Elvis. And Prince Philip. Are you saying they weren't / aren't human?
hmmm...I'm gonna have to get back to you one that one...
Yeah. We'll get back to you in 2,000 years or so, and see how those religions are holding up. (I don't think they actually worship those guys, BTW. And if they do, well, yes: they're worshipping human beings. If we are, too, then shame on us.)
[ 23. August 2007, 01:54: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: ... I can no more stop thinking "it may not be true" by my will, any more than I can make myself stop thinking about blue elephants.
There are excercises that can help with this, grasshopper. Have you looked into Prana Yoga?
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
My gut feeling is that he speaks to a few people who feel "put off" by the Church.
Based on his books' sales, I'd say it's more than "a few people" who are feeling put off by the church. I know some of them personally. quote:
Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
Yeah. We'll get back to you in 2,000 years or so, and see how those religions are holding up. (I don't think they actually worship those guys, BTW. And if they do, well, yes: they're worshipping human beings. If we are, too, then shame on us.)
Funny, I have some non-religious friends who feel that the only reason Mormonism gets a hard time is because its history is recent enough that the warts and gaps are still visible.
ETA: second quote and an appropriate apostrophe
[ 23. August 2007, 02:43: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Funny, I have some non-religious friends who feel that the only reason Mormonism gets a hard time is because its history is recent enough that the warts and gaps are still visible.
I don't really understand the point you're making. I don't know anything about Mormonism, for one thing, and I don't know what the "non-religious friends" thing is about, either.
Is the point that Christian faith is based in worship of a human being? (Is that what happens in Mormonism? I really don't know.) If I came to believe that were true, I'd be the first one out the door; I'd probably become a Jew or a Buddhist.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
The idea was that institutional Christianity 2000 years ago might have looked just as unorthodox and strange as any more recent religion would today. Just because a way of thinking is new to the church doesn't necessarily mean it's anti-church.
And there are tons of traditions that have come and gone over those 2000 years as the church has changed to communicate to new generations of people.
Basically, I don't think that longevity is a guarantee of truth. "That's how we did things ten years ago, and therefore that's how they must've done things 2000 years ago so that's the proper way to do them (TM)" doesn't really work for me.
That's the point I was trying to make, albeit awkwardly...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And BTW, if Jesus isn't divine, why is there a religion focused around him? Doesn't that mean we're worshipping a human being?
So? There's a religion focussed around L Ron Hubbard. Plus at least one focussed around Elvis. And Prince Philip. Are you saying they weren't / aren't human?
I don't think Prince Philip even in his stranger moments has ever claimed Divinity
but Our Lord did
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
The idea was that institutional Christianity 2000 years ago might have looked just as unorthodox and strange as any more recent religion would today. Just because a way of thinking is new to the church doesn't necessarily mean it's anti-church.
And there are tons of traditions that have come and gone over those 2000 years as the church has changed to communicate to new generations of people.
Basically, I don't think that longevity is a guarantee of truth. "That's how we did things ten years ago, and therefore that's how they must've done things 2000 years ago so that's the proper way to do them (TM)" doesn't really work for me.
That's the point I was trying to make, albeit awkwardly...
OK, sorry, Mirrizin; I was just having trouble getting what you were saying.
I was only talking about how long Christian faith itself has existed, though. Lots of things have come & gone in the meantime and it's still here. And there are reasons for that, IMO, that make me think that L. Ron Hubbard and Elvis won't have similar longevity as "religions."
Judaism has been around for longer than 3,000 years, and there are religions even older than that - none of which are based in worship of a human being.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Most Moved Mover
Shipmate
# 11673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I don't think Prince Philip even in his stranger moments has ever claimed Divinity
but Our Lord did
I think that's very much up for debate personally.
[ 24. August 2007, 09:27: Message edited by: Most Moved Mover ]
--------------------
www.HOPEHIV.org
Posts: 169 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Most Moved Mover:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I don't think Prince Philip even in his stranger moments has ever claimed Divinity
but Our Lord did
I think that's very much up for debate personally.
You mean that Prince Philip has has claimed divinity??
That would make QEII theotokos.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
quote:
Originally posted by Most Moved Mover:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I don't think Prince Philip even in his stranger moments has ever claimed Divinity
but Our Lord did
I think that's very much up for debate personally.
You mean that Prince Philip has has claimed divinity??
That would make QEII theotokos.
It would? I'd have thought it would have made Princess Andrew such!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
quote:
Originally posted by Most Moved Mover:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I don't think Prince Philip even in his stranger moments has ever claimed Divinity
but Our Lord did
I think that's very much up for debate personally.
You mean that Prince Philip has has claimed divinity??
That would make QEII theotokos.
It would? I'd have thought it would have made Princess Andrew such!
Thurible
and she was Orthodox too!! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Who names a princess Andrew?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Who names a princess Andrew?
like the "Empress Frederick" (Vicky Saxe Coburg Gotha)
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Who names a princess Andrew?
You know what royalty are like. Princess Charles, Princess Edward, Princess Richard, Princess Edward, Princess Michael and that's only a few of them.
You might get to see Princess Andrew on this video of Princess Anne (or Mrs Timothy Laurence)'s baptism.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
Who names a princess Andrew?
It was rather customary at that time that a wife take her husband's name. Royalty being no exception.
eta: Except when a Prince married a queen. Like Albert did Vicky.
or, sometimes, in the ranks, a wife's title might outrank her husband's...
[ 24. August 2007, 16:02: Message edited by: PeteCanada ]
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
