quote:

---

Twelve points for Reform:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

(John Shelby Spong, from the Wikipedia page.

---

quote:

---

We don't believe in God as commonly understood.
We don't believe in the incarnation or the authority of any tradition.
We don't believe in the biblical narrative.
We deny the virgin birth and Christ's divinity.
We deny the reality of biblical miracles, or indeed any miracles that break the commonly understood laws of nature.
We deny theories of sacrificial atonement.
We deny the bodily, historical resurrection (though it's possible to see it differently.)
We deny the ascension.
We deny the moral objectivity of any written text.
We deny the power of prayer to accomplish any particular thing.
We deny any moral system that employs guilt.
We deny the rejection of any person based on external descriptors, and so we affirm the universal image of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
Bullfrog,
I don't think not quite knowing exactly what you are is a weakness, in fact, I think it's a strength.

You have to start from somewhere and saying 'we are not this' is a starting point you can work from. A lot of the Mitzvot is about showing how 'we' are different from 'them' and things like not eating pork, not having idols etc. are about showing how distinct the Jews are from the other ethnic groups. A lot of this is in saying 'we are not like this because...' and Spong is at that starting point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
Bullfrog,
I don't think not quite knowing exactly what you are is a weakness, in fact, I think it's a strength.

You have to start from somewhere and saying 'we are not this' is a starting point you can work from. A lot of the Mitzvot is about showing how 'we' are different from 'them' and things like not eating pork, not having idols etc. are about showing how distinct the Jews are from the other ethnic groups. A lot of this is in saying 'we are not like this because...' and Spong is at that starting point.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Mama Thomas:
So they could gather,sing a song about self-esteem, discuss an inspirational quote from a non-DWEM (dead white European male), pass a sanitised pipe around, and make plans to do non-offensive voluteer work.

---

Yep...Unitarians. Perhaps a politically correct Lion's or Rotary Club?
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Mama Thomas:
So they could gather,sing a song about self-esteem, discuss an inspirational quote from a non-DWEM (dead white European male), pass a sanitised pipe around, and make plans to do non-offensive voluteer work.

---

Yep...Unitarians. Perhaps a politically correct Lion's or Rotary Club?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Mama Thomas:
So they could gather,sing a song about self-esteem, discuss an inspirational quote from a non-DWEM (dead white European male), pass a sanitised pipe around, and make plans to do non-offensive voluteer work.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yep...Unitarians. Perhaps a politically correct Lion's or Rotary Club?

---

I was addressing a Rotary breakfast the other day. Grace was given before the meal. "For what we are about to receive may we be thankful."

Hmmmm.

May the life lessons of collective human consciousness guide you this day and always. Amine.*


*adopting the Māori transliteration to avoid any mmmzzconceived** implication that the Aramaic contains any masculist implications.

**the dreadful sexist implications of the traditional prefix are simply unthinkable.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
No, I enjoy attending meetings of the UU Fellowship far more than attending Rotary or Kiwanis. The former are more interesting people. The latter have more members. Perhaps, the UU's need to meet less frequently, on weekdays, during lunch, at a restaurant or country club. Rotary at least requires attendance at the meetings and all of them charge dues.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
So, is comparing RadicalWhig's adaptation of Spong's vision to the UU a fair comparison?

I'll admit it was my first thought, but looking at these responses, I'm starting to question...
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I'm only familiar with three or four UU fellowships. They are unified in what they don't believe. What they don't believe is orthodox Christianity. How would a Spongite church be different from the UU?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Are there religious groups in India that are united in their non-belief in Hinduism?

Is atheism a religion after all?
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
What would a "Spongite" Church be like?

(IMO) Boring.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
I think what Spong is trying to construct is a religious atheism within a culturally Christian context, so you can have the utility of Christian praxis without the intellectual burden of Christian dogma or the shame of Christian history.

Though at the moment I'm wondering what RadicalWhig thinks of all of these comparisons...
 

---

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Twelve points for Reform:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

(John Shelby Spong, from the Wikipedia page.

---

If there really is no room for that sort of understanding within the existing churches (and it seems that that is the case), then we hyper-liberal "Trans-Christian" heretics will have to start our own.

But, if we start with these ideas as a foundation, how would such a church actually operate? What would these starting points lead to in terms of church order, worship practices, music, liturgies, baptism, communion, evangelism, outreach etc? Would it still look like a church service?

---

This sounds like he knows what he doesn't believe in. So what does he believe in ? This wopuld a church that needs not to exist lets all meet on the 1st hole of a golf club instead. No I do not think Spong's system has a chance in (fill in blank) of succeding .
 

---

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Also, negative things are stronger when the things that they are against are very prevalent.

---

quote:

---

If you can't answer the question "who would you be when all of your (metaphysical) enemies are ground to dust beneath your feet," then success will kill you.

---

quote:

---

Spong, to my eyes, still relies on the orthodox Church to define him as a "heretic." Other than that, he's practically invisible against the larger backdrop of dominant secular humanism. If the Church he reviles disappeared from all time tomorrow, what would he have left to do? If someone could answer that question, then I think they could also answer RadicalWhig's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I think what Spong is trying to construct is a religious atheism within a culturally Christian context, so you can have the utility of Christian praxis without the intellectual burden of Christian dogma or the shame of Christian history.

Though at the moment I'm wondering what RadicalWhig thinks of all of these comparisons...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
[QUOTE]Twelve points for Reform:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

---

quote:

---

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

---

quote:

---

3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

---

quote:

---

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

---

quote:

---

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

---

quote:

---

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

---

quote:

---

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

---

quote:

---

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

---

quote:

---

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

---

quote:

---

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

---

quote:

---

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

---

quote:

---

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Also, negative things are stronger when the things that they are against are very prevalent.

---

I would imagine that believing in a physical existent God is fairly prevalent in the church.

quote:

---

If you can't answer the question "who would you be when all of your (metaphysical) enemies are ground to dust beneath your feet," then success will kill you.

---

I utterly agree. That's probably what killed Jesus off.

quote:

---

Spong, to my eyes, still relies on the orthodox Church to define him as a "heretic." Other than that, he's practically invisible against the larger backdrop of dominant secular humanism. If the Church he reviles disappeared from all time tomorrow, what would he have left to do? If someone could answer that question, then I think they could also answer RadicalWhig's.

---

That's a poor argument. IF the church wasn't around then the argument was utterly null and void in any case. Spong is pushing against the church because he believe the church has lost its way. If te church wasn't there, then he wouldn't have to push.

---

Exactly. Believing in God only exists within the church (and in my experience, even there it's pretty thin on the ground these days.) Outside of the church, Spong has nothing new to offer that I can see. That's what I mean when I say he's invisible to secular society. If there's nothing to distinguish him from his culture, then there's nothing to base his new church on. His vision only operates within the church that he blames for being an embarrassment.

If Spong's vision prevails, then the existing church is null and void. He's not "pushing," so much as trying to construct a new church, but without Christian dogma or Christian anything that doesn't comply with the core tenets of secular humanism. To that end he's become a secular humanist who wants, for some reason, to maintain the veneer of a religion without the substance.

As it depends on orthodoxy to define itself here, Spong's church would vanish if it weren't for the existence of the very dogmas he derides. He needs a vision bigger than what is being expressed here, methinks. He says "The Incarnation is out!" So, what does he put in? What is his core dogma?

And that, I think, is what RadicalWhig needs. Church order, evangelism, and outreach are matters of institutional structure. Worship practices, music, liturgies, baptism, and communion are matters of worship practice.

The problem, to me and I think others on this thread, is that all of these are only tools, extensions, and you can't extend your arm until you know where your body is and what you are reaching for. What's necessary is a mission statement (lacking a missio dei, of course .)
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
That we all bear the image of god?

Only problem is we don't currently have any language for talking about God so we don't really know what it means to say we bear the image of God. Why should anybody care they are made in the image of a God we can't say anything about?
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
He's not "pushing," so much as trying to construct a new church, but without Christian dogma or Christian anything that doesn't comply with the core tenets of secular humanism. To that end he's become a secular humanist who wants, for some reason, to maintain the veneer of a religion without the substance.

Quite.

I still can't see why. I can see that if you're a bishop and have lost your faith, you might want to maintain the veneer without the substance. Otherwise presumably you stop being paid. But isn't he retired?

If I didn't believe, I'd have plenty of other things I'd rather do on a Sunday.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
You've been spending too much time home w/ the kids when you read this thread title and immediately think of Sponge Bob.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I didn't - but I did think of sponge, babies and bathwater
 

---

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
My feelings about Spong are mixed. His absolute insistence on equality of all before God, and on the necessity to treat the bible intelligently I thoroughly applaud. Where I have real difficulty is that whenever I read his stuff and try to find a core argument, it seems to dissolve into "liberal" platitudes. Is this just his "pastoral" stuff, or is this all his work?
 

---

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Outside of the church, Spong has nothing new to offer that I can see. That's what I mean when I say he's invisible to secular society. If there's nothing to distinguish him from his culture, then there's nothing to base his new church on. His vision only operates within the church that he blames for being an embarrassment.

---

quote:

---

If Spong's vision prevails, then the existing church is null and void. He's not "pushing," so much as trying to construct a new church, but without Christian dogma or Christian anything that doesn't comply with the core tenets of secular humanism. To that end he's become a secular humanist who wants, for some reason, to maintain the veneer of a religion without the substance.

---

We don't know what he does want or believe in, we only know what he doesn't believe in.

Spong is, IMHO, beginning to open a dialogue, not stating an entire faith system.

All he appears to be doing is saying "look, we don't think in this way anymore." What now needs to be done is discuss in what ways we do think.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
And we get liberal platitudes.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I know Spong-ite clergy whose services look like traditional ones. You wouldn't be able to tell unless they told you how Spong-y they were.

A lot of these radical Liberal types are into traditional liturgy and so forth because it's the smile of the Cheshire Cat that's left once you take God (as traditionally understood) out of the equation.

That's how it seems to me at any rate. It may be a reductionist view.

So the answer is: Not very different to some of the churches in your neighbourhood. For all you know they might be Spong-y already and simply going through the motions worship-wise.


 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Outside of the church, Spong has nothing new to offer that I can see. That's what I mean when I say he's invisible to secular society. If there's nothing to distinguish him from his culture, then there's nothing to base his new church on. His vision only operates within the church that he blames for being an embarrassment.

---

Is he trying to say anything to the secular society? I thought he was opening dialogue within the church.

quote:

---

If Spong's vision prevails, then the existing church is null and void. He's not "pushing," so much as trying to construct a new church, but without Christian dogma or Christian anything that doesn't comply with the core tenets of secular humanism. To that end he's become a secular humanist who wants, for some reason, to maintain the veneer of a religion without the substance.

---

We don't know what he does want or believe in, we only know what he doesn't believe in.

Spong is, IMHO, beginning to open a dialogue, not stating an entire faith system.

All he appears to be doing is saying "look, we don't think in this way anymore." What now needs to be done is discuss in what ways we do think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, this thread is very instructive.

If you can't see the Good in Christianity that is left when all that is removed, then you are blind to what really counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, this thread is very instructive.

If you can't see the Good in Christianity that is left when all that is removed, then you are blind to what really counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
He talks about living in a post-Newtonian universe. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm terrible at science), but isn't Newton outdated? The idea that the universe operates by fixed and static laws is somewhat discredited, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, this thread is very instructive.

If you can't see the Good in Christianity that is left when all that is removed, then you are blind to what really counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The only positive statement I can see in that entire list is that "All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is."

---

quote:

---

Which is of course completely meaningless because he doesn't have any definition or even description of "God" (who doesn't exist anyway). He's borrowing the Christian understanding of humans as being made in God's image, while jettisoning the Christian (or as far as I can tell, any) God. It's a conjuror's trick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, this thread is very instructive.

If you can't see the Good in Christianity that is left when all that is removed, then you are blind to what really counts.

---

The only positive statement I can see in that entire list is that "All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is."

What else has he left of Christianity besides nice buildings and some uplifting music?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, this thread is very instructive.

If you can't see the Good in Christianity that is left when all that is removed, then you are blind to what really counts.

---

The only positive statement I can see in that entire list is that "All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is."

What else has he left of Christianity besides nice buildings and some uplifting music?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, this thread is very instructive.

If you can't see the Good in Christianity that is left when all that is removed, then you are blind to what really counts.

---

Jesus and the love of God hardly got a look in did they?

Sounds like alot of you arguing on this thread haven't read alot of Spong.

PhilA sounds like he might have.

What would Spong's Church look like?

I'm kind of with Gamaliel on this one. Not very different from a standard Episcopalian service. The theology however, would be different.

At center point of the Eucharist, God would never be a child abuser. The core thing he fights against in contemporary Christianity is the penal substitution theory of atonement.

Bullfrog: you keep going on about core creed. Spong's core creed is love. Like Jesus' was and is.

"Live fully, love wastefully, be all that you can be"

i.e. Abundant Life in the image of God.

In A New Christianity for a New World, there is a chapter on what the new church will look like. Chapter Twelve: The Ecclesia of Tomorrow.

quote:

---

Perhaps the major liturgical event in the life of the ecclesia (of tomorrow) will continue to be a liturgical meal - a new eucharist if you will - that calls to mind the ultimate power of love about which we have learned from the Christ-life that stands at the center of our faith-story. It will not, however, focus on sacrifice and rescue, but on a call to move in response to love, as this Christ did, beyond our self-imposed barriers into a new humanity. pg 212

---

Spong was incredibly helpful to me on the beginning of my faith journey.

He is a beacon of hope to "believers in exile". People that know Jesus and God are real, but think the church has just fucked the theology up way too much or that it just makes no sense to someone who hasn't grown up in it.

Go Spong

After about book fifteen however, I realized I had outgrown him. It no longer resonated. My path had branched off.

I am still however, deeply grateful to him for allowing people to believe they are still Christians. Even when the church is telling them they are not.

To someone that loves God, through Christ, telling them such a thing is incredibly painful and soul destroying.

[ 28. July 2010, 05:02: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
p.s. RadicalWhig . If you like Spongian theology, check out Progressive Christianity.

They also have a network in Britain. There should be a church near you.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, this thread is very instructive.

If you can't see the Good in Christianity that is left when all that is removed, then you are blind to what really counts.

---

Jesus and the love of God hardly got a look in did they?

---

That would be because they didn't really get much of a look in in the course of Spong's reform points. As many of us have pointed out, it was very much about throwing things out.

Okay, we seem to have a nice gooey mess of 'love' left in the centre. Nice. So a Spongite church basically involves people affirming each other and giving each other warm hugs?

Don't get me wrong, I actually think that's quite good as far as it goes.

The problem I see for it, though, in the long run, is that it lacks any sense of purpose, motivation or goal. What are you busy being so nice to each other FOR? I mean, especially when being really, really nice to each other can get you executed in the space of about 3 years, by people who are deeply offended by the depth of the niceness you are demonstrating. That's what you would have to argue happened to Jesus.

It's a cliche, but love is a verb. I'm not saying that Christians in general are particularly good at articulating the reasons why they are called to love one another, but what I'm saying is that if the only positive theological idea you have left is one about how you're all made in the image of God and ought to love each other, it becomes THE central theological issue and you really need to have an answer to it.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Addendum: I want to add that RadicalWhig's comment was symptomatic of the problem. In that it suggested the rest of us were failing to spot what really counts, WITHOUT actually explaining what really counts.

Dismantling is far, far easier than building. I want to see you guys BUILD.
 

---

Posted by tallmaninthecnr (# 15429) on :
 
Got that wrong, I saw the title and assumed it was something to do with Spongebob Squarepants
 

---

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
I fear that there is in this an element of blaming a bath scourer for being scratchy. My scenario is this: someone comes along and finds a baby (for this purpose Christianity) lying in a bath full of very dirty water, the dirt being made up of things which were once held to be essential parts of Christianity but which are now just badges of belonging on the "I'm in because I can believe seven impossible things before breakfast" model. Other elements of the goo are social beliefs from various points in Hebrew and Christian history which again have hardened into tenets of the faith. Having thus lifted the baby out of the bath water and emptied the bath, some of the dirt in the water is discovered to have stuck to the bath. Therefore, before refilling it and replacing the baby inside it, the bath needs cleaning, probably with some fairly powerful cleaners, as the baby and thus the water also have been there for some time. This is the job I see Spong, after Cupitt, attempting. He may well therefore ultimately fade, as his job is completed and others find new things to put in the baby's bathwater, but it does not mean that he has not performed a useful function. Cupitt, in my opinion, is better at defining what the post-scouring baby/bath/bathwater arrangement (i.e. church) might look like, but that is a slightly different argument.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
That analogy just begs the question of where the baby ends and the bathwater begins.
 

---

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
Needs a little more thought, I grant you. It feels as if the baby should be Christ, but I'm finding it quite hard to define precisely the bath and the bathwater.
 

---

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Which is of course completely meaningless because he doesn't have any definition or even description of "God" (who doesn't exist anyway). He's borrowing the Christian understanding of humans as being made in God's image, while jettisoning the Christian (or as far as I can tell, any) God. It's a conjuror's trick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Needs a little more thought, I grant you. It feels as if the baby should be Christ, but I'm finding it quite hard to define precisely the bath and the bathwater.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
You can't define God either. Unless, of course, you believe that God can fit neatly inside a box of human language and be completely encompassed by it. That idea covers any definition of blasphemy I can think of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Needs a little more thought, I grant you. It feels as if the baby should be Christ, but I'm finding it quite hard to define precisely the bath and the bathwater.

---

Indeed. Even if you try to use 'Christ' as your definition, you just end up having to explain what it is about 'Christ' that you think makes him Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: I want to add that RadicalWhig's comment was symptomatic of the problem. In that it suggested the rest of us were failing to spot what really counts, WITHOUT actually explaining what really counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Dismantling is far, far easier than building. I want to see you guys BUILD.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlac:
When I read the title of this thread, I imagined a big sponge cake with people bouncing on top of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlac:

6. The cross is nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum and question: How is Spong's God any different from a guest on Oprah dispensing lifestyle advice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum and question: How is Spong's God any different from a guest on Oprah dispensing lifestyle advice?

---

He believes Jesus is Lord. He believes in God.

I find it hard to stomach that someone that has been rejected by orthodoxy can be so scathing of an attempt at inclusiveness.

You want your cake and eat it too?

I recommend you go that path. You are intelligent. I believe you are faithful to God. I recommend you start hassling the church you were rejected from instead of hassling the one that would include you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spong:
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: I want to add that RadicalWhig's comment was symptomatic of the problem. In that it suggested the rest of us were failing to spot what really counts, WITHOUT actually explaining what really counts.

Dismantling is far, far easier than building. I want to see you guys BUILD.

---

The purpose of starting threads like this is so that "we guys" can think about building. My OP was deliberately constructive and forward-looking, asking what can be built, not what can be rejected.

Evensong ( ) addressed that one pretty well. I would have thought that "what really counts" is a new way of living life in abundance, a new type of forgiveness-ethic, a new type of love-community.

I'm going to quote Richard Holloway, who puts it better than I can, and whose sentiments exactly mirror my own:

quote:

---

Since I believe that the Christian account of meaning has to be separated from its [morally and scientifically untenable] historical packaging if it is to work for us today, I spend time deconstructing important aspects of the Christian doctrinal tradition, such as original sin, incarnation and resurrection, but my ultimately intention is resoundingly positive. I am more interested in using the power of these great themes for our lives today, than in discarding the ancient containers that convey them to us. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
He's borrowing the Christian understanding of humans as being made in God's image, while jettisoning the Christian (or as far as I can tell, any) God. It's a conjuror's trick.

---

quote:

---

My aim is to craft from the Christian past a usable ethic for our own time. [This is] not a middle path between those who hold the old beliefs and those who totally reject them, [but] a way of action. At the heart of Christianity lies a moral challenge that is as pertinent today as it ever was [...] it is more important to follow the way of Jesus than to believe or disbelieve the traditional Christian claims about him.

---

quote:

---

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlac:
6. The cross is nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
RadicalWhig, I can't help noticing that 'ethics' came up again...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
What would a "Spongite" Church be like?

Empty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And I find it galling that someone thinks I should automatically jump into the arms of someone who would 'include' me, without considering whether anything ELSE about them matches with my own beliefs! What, you think that my homosexuality should just mean I sign on the dotted line of the first person who says that they're okay with me being gay? Please. I'm not that easy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

I honestly don't know what 'he believes Jesus is Lord' means here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redlac:
Evensong, I freely admitted I did not know who Mr Spong was or any of his writings, and was merely commenting on the points laid out in the opening post.

If you could point me in the right direction when it comes to Mr Spong I would be grateful. Then I will be able to re-assess things in that light.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
What would a "Spongite" Church be like?

Empty.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by orfeo:
What, you think that my homosexuality should just mean I sign on the dotted line of the first person who says that they're okay with me being gay? Please. I'm not that easy.

---

You want to be accepted into a community that stands for something other that just accepting everybody. How selfish of you.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
RadicalWhig, I can't help noticing that 'ethics' came up again...

---

Ethics, beauty, community, cardinal virtues, fruits of the spirit. It's all good. Just need to crack open the wrapper.

---

quote:

---

No. That's what he said traditional churches would be in Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

And he would seem to be right on that score.

---

quote:

---

He believes Jesus is Lord. He believes in God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
So you already know that I think that defining a religion purely by its 'ethics' leaves you with something that isn't particularly distinctive or indeed religious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by orfeo:
What, you think that my homosexuality should just mean I sign on the dotted line of the first person who says that they're okay with me being gay? Please. I'm not that easy.

---

You want to be accepted into a community that stands for something other that just accepting everybody. How selfish of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
(By that logic, I can assert that Thomas Jefferson rose from the dead too, because his ideas still make liberals get that warm and fuzzy feeling).

---

And I wear my What Would Jefferson Do? bracelet* with pride!

* Hand-knitted by a women's co-operative from organic tofu.

(Ok, now I'm just playing into your stereotypes. Enough.)

But I do think there are more ways of believing in God than to believe in a theistic God, and more ways of following Jesus than to believe he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
So you already know that I think that defining a religion purely by its 'ethics' leaves you with something that isn't particularly distinctive or indeed religious.

---

I know you think that.

I also think that you misrepresent me if you think the ethics only thing I'm trying to salvage from the Christian tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila:
Again, Spong isn't saying what he does believe. To try and build any faith from what was quoted in the OP is utterly absurd and to then dismiss Spong because he hasn't done something he hasn't done is equally absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
(By that logic, I can assert that Thomas Jefferson rose from the dead too, because his ideas still make liberals get that warm and fuzzy feeling).

---

And I wear my What Would Jefferson Do? bracelet* with pride!

* Hand-knitted by a women's co-operative from organic tofu.

(Ok, now I'm just playing into your stereotypes. Enough.)

But I do think there are more ways of believing in God than to believe in a theistic God, and more ways of following Jesus than to believe he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
[QUOTE]We don't believe in God as commonly understood.
We don't believe in the incarnation or the authority of any tradition.
We don't believe in the biblical narrative.
We deny the virgin birth and Christ's divinity.
We deny the reality of biblical miracles, or indeed any miracles that break the commonly understood laws of nature.
We deny theories of sacrificial atonement.
We deny the bodily, historical resurrection (though it's possible to see it differently.)
We deny the ascension.
We deny the moral objectivity of any written text.
We deny the power of prayer to accomplish any particular thing.
We deny any moral system that employs guilt.
We deny the rejection of any person based on external descriptors, and so we affirm the universal image of God.

---

quote:

---

But I do think there are more ways of believing in God than to believe in a theistic God, and more ways of following Jesus than to believe he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by RadicalWhig:
But I do think there are more ways of believing in God than to believe in a theistic God, and more ways of following Jesus than to believe he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila:
Again, Spong isn't saying what he does believe. To try and build any faith from what was quoted in the OP is utterly absurd and to then dismiss Spong because he hasn't done something he hasn't done is equally absurd.

---

Again, and this is why trying to build an entire faith-based institution around Spongite "theology" is impossible.

RadicalWhig should work with someone of a bit more substance, methinks. Even Paul Tillich (whom Spong is deeply indebted to) would be more useful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And I find it galling that someone thinks I should automatically jump into the arms of someone who would 'include' me, without considering whether anything ELSE about them matches with my own beliefs! What, you think that my homosexuality should just mean I sign on the dotted line of the first person who says that they're okay with me being gay? Please. I'm not that easy.

---

Good point. Fair enough.

But your attitude to "the bit different" often comes across very strongly anti. Which I find odd. When you are "a bit different" according to orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I honestly don't know what 'he believes Jesus is Lord' means here

---

Well. You, me and the baker would probably have different versions on that too. Are we not Christians all?

---

You may have meant that as a rhetorical question or one I couldn't possibly say 'no' to. But the answer's no. Or at the very least, I am not going to agree to saying 'yes'. Besides, the Bible quite clearly says that not everyone who calls Jesus 'Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

In and of itself 'Jesus is Lord' is just a phrase. What is actually meant by it is pertinent and relevant. It is simply not the case that 'Jesus was a very wise man and I apply his philosophies in my daily living' is equivalent in all ways and respects to 'the world was created through Him and for Him and the whole universe will eventually bow down to Him'.

Perhaps many of the practical workings out will look very similar. And perhaps, in the end, God is happy with both - I'm not in a position to make a definitive judgment on the issue. But please don't ask me to accept that it doesn't make one iota of philosophical difference and that we are automatically 'Christians all' just because we throw the name of Jesus around in an approving manner.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

ORiginally Posted by RadicalWhig:
Underlying that is an assumption, on both sides, that the supernatural and doctrinal claims about Jesus, as traditionally interpreted by Christianity, are essential to Jesus' example and inseparable from the ethical and aesthetic side of Christianity. And quite simply it's THAT assumption that I disagree with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
orfeo:

I honestly don't know which is worse sometimes: Christians telling me how to behave as a committed follower of Jesus, or Atheists telling me how to behave as a someone who denies the literal truth of the Bible and believes that Jahweh is a mythological character.

On both sides there's frequently an assumption that you can either committed to a Jesus-inspired way of life or you can be sceptical about the supernatural and doctrinal claims of the Christian religion. But not both.

Underlying that is an assumption, on both sides, that the supernatural and doctrinal claims about Jesus, as traditionally interpreted by Christianity, are essential to Jesus' example and inseparable from the ethical and aesthetic side of Christianity. And quite simply it's THAT assumption that I disagree with.

So yes, an organisation that happily includes me because they don't believe there's anything special about Jesus and his imperative call to a new way of life .. that doesn't really cut it as inclusion. Because it would be acceptance of my non-belief in certain supernatural and doctrinal claims at the expense of rejecting everything else about my Jeso-centric worldview.

I don't see why I should settle for such a poor exchange, just for the benefit of approving how I interpret Jesus' life and message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

ORiginally Posted by RadicalWhig:
Underlying that is an assumption, on both sides, that the supernatural and doctrinal claims about Jesus, as traditionally interpreted by Christianity, are essential to Jesus' example and inseparable from the ethical and aesthetic side of Christianity. And quite simply it's THAT assumption that I disagree with.

---

The ethics come from the aesthetics constructed around the creedal statements. It's like saying you love this particular painting but you disapprove of the canvas and of paint in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

ORiginally Posted by RadicalWhig:
Underlying that is an assumption, on both sides, that the supernatural and doctrinal claims about Jesus, as traditionally interpreted by Christianity, are essential to Jesus' example and inseparable from the ethical and aesthetic side of Christianity. And quite simply it's THAT assumption that I disagree with.

---

The ethics come from the aesthetics constructed around the creedal statements. It's like saying you love this particular painting but you disapprove of the canvas and of paint in general.

---

Lovely. Thank you. Now, why couldn't I say it that succinctly?

---

Pithiness is a gift of the Spirit. As the seed was planted within me I cultivated it.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Speaking as someone who appreciates some of Spong's earlier work -- seating your belief system on what you DON'T believe isn't particularly appealing to me. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there doesn't seem to be a lot of "there" there.

I also reject the assumption (of both ends of the theological continuum) that there's no tenable middle ground between slack-jawed fundamentalism and arch-browed Spongism. Oh, please.

[ 28. July 2010, 14:36: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
In other news, I've just changed my avatar image in the wild hope that it will help myself and everybody else keep track of what I wrote and what Radical Whig wrote...
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
In other news, I've just changed my avatar image in the wild hope that it will help myself and everybody else keep track of what I wrote and what Radical Whig wrote...

---

Thank you!!!
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Community, beauty, and ethics are all fine things, but I demand that Christianity be something more. All those things, for the average person, are not based on objective standards but on social conditioning. Community is not really based on love, but on norms imposed for the smooth functioning of society. What one culture considers beautiful is considered pale and anemic to another. What one community considers morally praiseworthy is morally abhorrent to another. So why must there be a recourse to Jesus Christ for any of those things? In truth, I don't think any of those things do take any recourse to Jesus Christ.

What's worse, attempts to shoe-horn Jesus Christ into teaching those things only makes Jesus Christ the servant of culture and society. The Almighty damn well better bow down to what we think is good and beautiful! Our society is good, Lord, so either conform to us or be consigned to the outer darkness of myth!

That’s what I think the Incarnation is about. Jesus Christ is in of himself more important than any teaching about ethics or community. Community, ethics, and beauty? All rubbish compared to Him. Otherwise, we demand everything bow down to us. Truth. Goodness. The Almighty. Everything.

Zach
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Radical Whig

Only seen this this afternoon and posts rather too long to try to listen to all the way through, but I have read all of yours and as usual of course I like very much what you say.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
If you want to understand what bugs us, one more resource might be Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

There's a general sense that when religion gets reduced to a particular culture, a reflection of our particular human ideals, bad things happen. State religions sound nice in concept, but have a long bloody history in practice going back at least to Catholic Spain, if not Constantine himself.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The simple answer is 'empty'.

The Unitarians started off successfully, grasping the spirit of the age but they are now struggling with tine congregations.
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
Zach 82,

I think you are about 180 degrees away from what I'm trying to say. I don't know why this is so difficult to communicate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Community, beauty, and ethics are all fine things, but I demand that Christianity be something more. All those things, for the average person, are not based on objective standards but on social conditioning. Community is not really based on love, but on norms imposed for the smooth functioning of society. What one culture considers beautiful is considered pale and anemic to another. What one community considers morally praiseworthy is morally abhorrent to another. So why must there be a recourse to Jesus Christ for any of those things? In truth, I don't think any of those things do take any recourse to Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

What's worse, attempts to shoe-horn Jesus Christ into teaching those things only makes Jesus Christ the servant of culture and society. The Almighty damn well better bow down to what we think is good and beautiful! Our society is good, Lord, so either conform to us or be consigned to the outer darkness of myth!

---

quote:

---

That’s what I think the Incarnation is about. Jesus Christ is in of himself more important than any teaching about ethics or community. Community, ethics, and beauty? All rubbish compared to Him. Otherwise, we demand everything bow down to us. Truth. Goodness. The Almighty. Everything.

---

quote:

---

Look at what Jesus did to his own culture. Replicate in your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
RadicalWhig And isn't that exactly what you are attempting: A man-made religion?

You say "man-made religion" like it's a bad thing, but then you deny that any other kind exists, ISTM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Look at what Jesus did to his own culture. Replicate in your own.

---

Have you ever actually tried to do this with your whole heart, soul, mind, body, and strength? I'm amazed you have the time to post on an internet discussion board!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
RadicalWhig And isn't that exactly what you are attempting: A man-made religion?

You say "man-made religion" like it's a bad thing, but then you deny that any other kind exists, ISTM.

---

I'm just honest about it, and about its limitations.

quote:

---

Look at what Jesus did to his own culture. Replicate in your own.

---

Have you ever actually tried to do this with your whole heart, soul, mind, body, and strength? I'm amazed you have the time to post on an internet discussion board!

---

The same could be said of anyone - we are all trying, imperfectly, to do these things. And yes, I do think that in my own small way I try to challenge, and improve, the world around me - and this underpins my vocation as an academic political scientist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
What I am saying is as clear, I hope. Community, morality, and beauty are mere human constructs, and to make any of them divine is to worship a human construct. Idolotry!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
But your doctrine is also a human construct, as is the Bible, as is the idea of the Trinity. To worship these - or to claim these as uniquely divine - is, I think, a sort of idolatry too. Let's just be honest about that, and say that the God which exists is bigger than our human doctrines or our man-made religion; then we can approach and experience the divine with a profound and awed agnosticism, while concentrating on living well, on the fact that this is a hurting world, which we'd like to make better. As part of that, we can acknowledge Jesus as one of the great, or perhaps even the greatest, of those who have penetrated into the human condition and taught us to live well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I've got one word for ya, RW:

Pelagius. Best heretic the church has ever known.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I've got one word for ya, RW:

Pelagius. Best heretic the church has ever known.

---

Don't see the connection. Wasn't his thing to do with original sin and free will?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
This is also why, by the standards of any community, Jesus must be crucified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Certainly Christians through the ages have admired Socrates for that very thing. Yet, Socrates ultimately taught that community was higher than the individual.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum and question: How is Spong's God any different from a guest on Oprah dispensing lifestyle advice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Finally, it is worth remembering that what Spong offers here is a reform agenda. It assumes the pre-existence of a Church and a Christian tradition which he is trying to re-interpret. He's not inventing a new religion entirely ex nihilo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
What would a "Spongite" Church be like?

Empty.

---

Granted, as the wise Archdeacon said, "Most people prefer cornflakes to muesli."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

I honestly don't know what 'he believes Jesus is Lord' means here

---

Well. You, me and the baker would probably have different versions on that too. Are we not Christians all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
What would a "Spongite" Church be like?

Empty.

---

No. That's what he said traditional churches would be in Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

And he would seem to be right on that score.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
But I do think there are more ways of believing in God than to believe in a theistic God, and more ways of following Jesus than to believe he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
In other news, I've just changed my avatar image in the wild hope that it will help myself and everybody else keep track of what I wrote and what Radical Whig wrote...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Look at what Jesus did to his own culture. Replicate in your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
But your doctrine is also a human construct, as is the Bible, as is the idea of the Trinity. To worship these - or to claim these as uniquely divine - is, I think, a sort of idolatry too. Let's just be honest about that, and say that the God which exists is bigger than our human doctrines or our man-made religion; then we can approach and experience the divine with a profound and awed agnosticism, while concentrating on living well, on the fact that this is a hurting world, which we'd like to make better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I wish Spong was more honest and not use the term 'Christianity'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
(By that logic, I can assert that Thomas Jefferson rose from the dead too, because his ideas still make liberals get that warm and fuzzy feeling).

---

And I wear my What Would Jefferson Do? bracelet* with pride!

* Hand-knitted by a women's co-operative from organic tofu.

(Ok, now I'm just playing into your stereotypes. Enough.)

But I do think there are more ways of believing in God than to believe in a theistic God, and more ways of following Jesus than to believe he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?

---

quote:

---

The ironic thing here is that it's the churches that are closest to Spong theologically-wise: the very liberal mainlines, that are shrinking. The con-evo theologically unyielding churches (in the US at least) are the ones that are growing. The data so far suggest Spong is 180° wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila:
Again, Spong isn't saying what he does believe. To try and build any faith from what was quoted in the OP is utterly absurd and to then dismiss Spong because he hasn't done something he hasn't done is equally absurd.

---

Again, and this is why trying to build an entire faith-based institution around Spongite "theology" is impossible.

---

quote:

---

RadicalWhig should work with someone of a bit more substance, methinks. Even Paul Tillich (whom Spong is deeply indebted to) would be more useful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phila:
Again, Spong isn't saying what he does believe. To try and build any faith from what was quoted in the OP is utterly absurd and to then dismiss Spong because he hasn't done something he hasn't done is equally absurd.

---

Again, and this is why trying to build an entire faith-based institution around Spongite "theology" is impossible.

---

Agree. I don't think Spong is trying to build a faith based institution.

quote:

---

RadicalWhig should work with someone of a bit more substance, methinks. Even Paul Tillich (whom Spong is deeply indebted to) would be more useful.

---

Tillich. Now your talking. He is one theologian I love and agree with on everything I have read of his (haven't read systematic theology volume 3 yet).

IMHO, Don Cupitt is watered down Tillich and Spong is watered down Cupitt.

IMHO Tillich writes a wonderful theology which is a wondrous apologetic for theism and is, rather than an attempt at a reformation of the church, an attempt to help it evolve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But "Let's just be honest about that" from you means "Let's just agree with me [RadicalWhig]." Which is rather question-begging. I can't deny what I honestly believe, and call it being honest. We've had this discussion before. You appear to think that, deep down, we all really secretly agree with you, but we pretend that we believe in a personal God, and that the man Jesus Christ was God incarnate, and that God is capable of doing what are normally referred to as miracles, and so on and so forth. You appear to think that "being honest" would be for us to give up these "mythological wrappers." But we really do believe them, and being honest for us is to admit that and deal with it. It would be dishonest for me to say I am a RadicalWhigian, because I am not. Let's just be honest -- we disagree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I wish Spong was more honest and not use the term 'Christianity'.

---

There it is in a nutshell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking as someone who appreciates some of Spong's earlier work -- seating your belief system on what you DON'T believe isn't particularly appealing to me. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there doesn't seem to be a lot of "there" there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But "Let's just be honest about that" from you means "Let's just agree with me [RadicalWhig]." Which is rather question-begging. I can't deny what I honestly believe, and call it being honest. We've had this discussion before. You appear to think that, deep down, we all really secretly agree with you, but we pretend that we believe in a personal God, and that the man Jesus Christ was God incarnate, and that God is capable of doing what are normally referred to as miracles, and so on and so forth. You appear to think that "being honest" would be for us to give up these "mythological wrappers." But we really do believe them, and being honest for us is to admit that and deal with it. It would be dishonest for me to say I am a RadicalWhigian, because I am not. Let's just be honest -- we disagree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I wish Spong was more honest and not use the term 'Christianity'.

---

There it is in a nutshell.

---

I rather think the first part of the post answers the second.

If we're really honest, Mousethief, orfeo and ianjmatt are the only true Christians on this thread. They have the correct definitions of God.

Their way is the only way. Everybody else is destined for hell.

Fundys are so irrational.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking as someone who appreciates some of Spong's earlier work -- seating your belief system on what you DON'T believe isn't particularly appealing to me. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there doesn't seem to be a lot of "there" there.

---

The Nicene Creed came out of what we are not. It came out of opposition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

There is a world of grey beyond black and white thinking.

---

Apparently, not when it comes to being a Christian.



 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Spong is also a fundamentalist. He's just got a different set of operative fundamentals. That's one reason people find him annoying. He claims that he's all about being open minded as long as you're not a small-o orthodox Christian.

But if you're a small-o orthodox Christian, you must be one of those dreaded fundamentalists we're all so eager to get rid of.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Besides, the Bible quite clearly says that not everyone who calls Jesus 'Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

---

quote:

---

If we're really honest, Mousethief, orfeo and ianjmatt are the only true Christians on this thread. They have the correct definitions of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

There is a world of grey beyond black and white thinking.

---

Apparently, not when it comes to being a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
What gets me about Christian bigots is doctrine becomes more important than people.

The sabbath was made for man. Man was not made for the sabbath.

Sometimes I'm so ashamed to be a Christian......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
What gets me about Christian bigots is doctrine becomes more important than people.

The sabbath was made for man. Man was not made for the sabbath.

---

What a strange analogy. "The sabbath was made for man" is not the same statement as "Ignore the sabbath completely because I think it's silly."
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The more I think about this, the more I wonder what people's attitudes are to non-religious contexts. To club, associations or professions.

I have this mental image of a person who dresses in a police uniform, who tells people that they're a policeman. And then the other police realise that this person hanging around the station was never sworn in as a police officer. They have no legal authority to perform the duties of a police officer. They read a bunch of magazines on policing, they're dead keen on the whole idea of policing, but they failed the entrance exam or were told during training that they weren't going to obtain the qualification at the end of this.

And when they're told that the other police do not, in fact, consider them to be a police officer, they storm off talking about how the police force is in dire need of reform.

Just because we're talking about religion here, I see no reason why questions of mutual recognition and acceptance that the person fits the label should be thrown away.

It's got nothing to do with the subject matter. And yes, before there are any snide remarks about me being police I could have picked doctor, or teacher, or plumber. Or alleged member of the local garden society who doesn't actually pay the annual membership fee and feels free to totally ignore whatever is written in the society's consitution, but still insists on telling everyone they are in fact on the society's board.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Forgive me for thinking the word "Christian" ought to have content and not just be an empty symbol.

Yes, the creed came out of a situation of ruling out heresies. But it actually SAYS something. It makes claims. It says what we believe in. You can list multiple things we believe from it.

If you take Spong's list of points as posited in the OP, what positive claims does it make? It doesn't just come out of a context of ruling things out; that's virtually all it does. What actual beliefs can you determine he has from those points? The creed says many many things that we believe.

In other words, apples and oranges. A cheap attempt to score debating points.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
My analogy was more apt than I realised. It just occurred to me what the word 'profession' MEANS.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Now I know how Luther felt.

Come to think of it, that's the analogy used in the title of Spong's autobiography.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Forgive me for thinking the word "Christian" ought to have content and not just be an empty symbol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Forgive me for thinking the word "Christian" ought to have content and not just be an empty symbol.

---

The arrogance of this statement is astounding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Now I know how Luther felt.

Come to think of it, that's the analogy used in the title of Spong's autobiography.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Forgive me for thinking the word "Christian" ought to have content and not just be an empty symbol.

---

The arrogance of this statement is astounding.

Alot of you obviously missed the Sunday School lessons on humility.

Its in the bible ya know.

Or wait.....you all probably wouldn't be terribly interested. More about tradition isn't it?

Luther indeed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

I give up. What do you mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

To interpret Luther as some kind of wild-eyed radical is to misread his theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Forgive me for thinking the word "Christian" ought to have content and not just be an empty symbol.

---

The arrogance of this statement is astounding.

---

Is it? That's easy to say isn't it? Are dictionary-makers arrogant? Shouldn't words have meaning?

Or wait you mean that THIS word shouldn't have meaning? Or wait, it shouldn't have the meaning that it's had for 2000 years, but should have some other meaning? or ...

I give up. What do you mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

I give up. What do you mean?

---

You are saying Spong's Christianity is empty. God might surprise you in the places she dwells these days.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

To interpret Luther as some kind of wild-eyed radical is to misread his theology.

---

Yeah. He was such a conservative. That's why they kept trying to kill him.

Nothing like rocking the status quo to get into trouble.

The modern version is shouted at Spong "Crucify him! Crucify him!"

He receives death threats from Christians all the time.

Such a loving people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
What gets me about Christian bigots is doctrine becomes more important than people.

The sabbath was made for man. Man was not made for the sabbath.

Sometimes I'm so ashamed to be a Christian......

---

I don't think anyone is saying that doctrine is more important than people.

I think all they're saying is that doctrine is important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The more I think about this, the more I wonder what people's attitudes are to non-religious contexts. To club, associations or professions.

I have this mental image of a person who dresses in a police uniform, who tells people that they're a policeman. And then the other police realise that this person hanging around the station was never sworn in as a police officer. They have no legal authority to perform the duties of a police officer. They read a bunch of magazines on policing, they're dead keen on the whole idea of policing, but they failed the entrance exam or were told during training that they weren't going to obtain the qualification at the end of this.

And when they're told that the other police do not, in fact, consider them to be a police officer, they storm off talking about how the police force is in dire need of reform.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The more I think about this, the more I wonder what people's attitudes are to non-religious contexts. To club, associations or professions.

I have this mental image of a person who dresses in a police uniform, who tells people that they're a policeman. And then the other police realise that this person hanging around the station was never sworn in as a police officer. They have no legal authority to perform the duties of a police officer. They read a bunch of magazines on policing, they're dead keen on the whole idea of policing, but they failed the entrance exam or were told during training that they weren't going to obtain the qualification at the end of this.

And when they're told that the other police do not, in fact, consider them to be a police officer, they storm off talking about how the police force is in dire need of reform.

---

Jesus was out of line in not accepting the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees. He set a vary dangerous precedent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

I give up. What do you mean?

---

You are saying Spong's Christianity is empty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
YES. AND WE DON'T CALL OURSELVES JEWS, DO WE?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

I give up. What do you mean?

---

You are saying Spong's Christianity is empty.

---

No, right now what mousethief is saying is that Spong's 'Christianity' is not Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
YES. AND WE DON'T CALL OURSELVES JEWS, DO WE?

---

Same God.

Unless you disagree with tradition?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Maybe there can be more than one definition of God, but there can be only one Christian definition. God is omnipotent. God is omniscient. God is perfectly benevolent. That God is Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Same God as the Jews. Same God as the Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
YES. AND WE DON'T CALL OURSELVES JEWS, DO WE?

---

Same God.

Unless you disagree with tradition?

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

I give up. What do you mean?

---

You are saying Spong's Christianity is empty.

---

No, right now what mousethief is saying is that Spong's 'Christianity' is not Christian.

---

Bully for him and for you in your self-righteousness.

In my tradition, it's God that judges that kind of thing.

If you want to let your God out of that little box you're holding him in, you might find some surprises. "Bigotry tries to keep truth safe in its hand with a grip that kills it".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Labels? You like labels?

You're not a Christian. You're Gay. The two are mutually exclusive.

Happy now?

Labels are wonderful things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But you are not free to tell us that we have to label it 'Christian' and regard it as exactly the same as the range of beliefs and opinions that we currently consider to be embraced within 'Christianity'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Same God as the Jews. Same God as the Muslims.

---

If we are talking about the fictional/mythological characters, they are very different Gods.

If we are talking about the God to which these different traditions point, then its the same God as the Hindus, the Pagans and the Jedi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Sorry - third post in a row (I should have combined them into one, but have serious caffeine deficiency this morning).

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But you are not free to tell us that we have to label it 'Christian' and regard it as exactly the same as the range of beliefs and opinions that we currently consider to be embraced within 'Christianity'.

---

Hardcore Catholics might regard heretical Protestant schismatics as "non-Christians".

Hardcore evangelical Protestants might regard anyone who is a bit non-literal with scripture. or who does not have a personal conversion story, as "non-Christian".

Both Protestants and Catholics regard Progressives/Hyper-Liberals etc as non-Christians.

All that is fine.

What would happen if we started saying that Trinitarianism is blasphemy, that biblicalism is idolatry, and that - having made a God out of Jesus, you have committed a gross heresy against his teachings - that you have made a mockery of his redeeming message, turning his call for a new way of being into just another doctrinal system - and that, as a result, you are not Christians. You are Biblicalists, Petrists or Paulists. But you are not Christians, because your religion is not the religion of Jesus Christ, but a false religion made up about Jesus Christ as if he were God.

I'm not asking you to agree, but can you at least see what it looks like from this side of the fence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Labels? You like labels?

You're not a Christian. You're Gay. The two are mutually exclusive.

Happy now?

Labels are wonderful things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
First time I've heard it suggested that the Hindus have a single God. Interesting.

I honestly don't know what 'if we are talking about the fictional/mythological characters' means, by the way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Same God as the Jews. Same God as the Muslims.

---

If we are talking about the fictional/mythological characters, they are very different Gods.

If we are talking about the God to which these different traditions point, then its the same God as the Hindus, the Pagans and the Jedi.

---

This has to be true imo.

There are far too many views of God within Christianity for us to say 'The Christian God is the One True God'

Jesus is the benchmark for me, does it matter that Guru Nanak Dev or whoever shows the way for others?

What matters is that we act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with our God.


 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm willing to accept that Jesus is the mythological God of your religion (in the same way that there are lots of mythological Gods in the Hindu and Pagan religions), but that's different from being the real God that lies behind it all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
First time I've heard it suggested that the Hindus have a single God. Interesting.

I honestly don't know what 'if we are talking about the fictional/mythological characters' means, by the way.

---

If there is a God - a real God - it's a God of all, and all the diverse human impressions of the divine are ultimately reflections of a single source.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm willing to accept that Jesus is the mythological God of your religion (in the same way that there are lots of mythological Gods in the Hindu and Pagan religions), but that's different from being the real God that lies behind it all.

---

Maybe the difference between us is that Jesus is the God of your religion, but he only was a central figure in the development of my philosophy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If there is a real God, then that means that there are things about that God that will be objectively provable or falsifiable, even if the only being in possession of enough facts to be sure of the answer is God himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I may be hearing wrongl, but saying that they are all 'reflections of a single source' SOUNDS like a pretentious way of saying there is no wrong answer. Which is crap. If there is a real God, then that means that there are things about that God that will be objectively provable or falsifiable, even if the only being in possession of enough facts to be sure of the answer is God himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If there is a real God, then that means that there are things about that God that will be objectively provable or falsifiable, even if the only being in possession of enough facts to be sure of the answer is God himself.

---

This seems to make furkall sense. Please would you explain how a real God must necessarily be objectively provable or falsifiable to us (especially if He also happens to be only understandable to/by Himself)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I may be hearing wrongl, but saying that they are all 'reflections of a single source' SOUNDS like a pretentious way of saying there is no wrong answer. Which is crap. If there is a real God, then that means that there are things about that God that will be objectively provable or falsifiable, even if the only being in possession of enough facts to be sure of the answer is God himself.

---

Yes, saying there is no wrong answer is crap - on that we are agreed.

I just don't believe that any of us has yet come up with a right answer, and that the more claims about God we make, the more we are likely to be wrong.

The end point of my "system", as it is emerging, is not a mushy syncretic relativism, but a profound and awed agnosticism. This still finds much truth, beauty and wisdom in elements of various human traditions, but without claiming any pretence to ultimate Truth for any one of them. Some might be closer to the Truth than others, but the only means we have of discovering that is with our senses, reason and conscience. These enable us to falsify certain claims, but not others (e.g. we can falsify creation myths, and thus falsify the inerrant claims of scripture, but not yet falsify the existence of a divine power of some indeterminate sort). In the meanwhile, the extent of "goodness' in the various human traditions of religion can be measured by their practical, human and social effects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Maybe the difference between us is that Jesus is the God of your religion, but he only was a central figure in the development of my philosophy.

---

Bingo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You added 'to us'. I didn't say that. And it's critical.

---

Well, now I'm more confused. To whom do you refer by your omission of 'us' as 'not us'? God Himself, I suppose?


 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Possibly some parallels with (certain forms of) Buddhism there, perhaps?

Just to interject though, RW, that the thread seems to have taken a turn for the better once it veered away from Spong! Whatever his merits may be, I honestly don't think that's a coincidence.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Maybe the difference between us is that Jesus is the God of your religion, but he only was a central figure in the development of my philosophy.

---

Bingo.

---

Ok, so, to return to the OP - given that foundation:

Where can we go from there?

How could such a philosophy and way of life be manifested in individual spiritual practice?

How could such a philosophy and way of life be manifested in communal religious practice?

What would meetings for the divine worship be like?

Would there still be room for "sermons", as forms of encouragement, guidance and instruction?

GIven that it is Jesus-centric and evolves from a Christian root, how much of the outward Christian panoply would be retained? - Would we develop new hymns, devise new liturgies, changing the content but keeping the stylistic approaches similar?

I see a big potential role for some sort of friar-like order, dispensing grace and charity.

---

Let me know when it's set up - I'll join!
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I may be hearing wrongl, but saying that they are all 'reflections of a single source' SOUNDS like a pretentious way of saying there is no wrong answer. Which is crap. If there is a real God, then that means that there are things about that God that will be objectively provable or falsifiable, even if the only being in possession of enough facts to be sure of the answer is God himself.

---

Yes, saying there is no wrong answer is crap - on that we are agreed.

I just don't believe that any of us has yet come up with a right answer, and that the more claims about God we make, the more we are likely to be wrong.

The end point of my "system", as it is emerging, is not a mushy syncretic relativism, but a profound and awed agnosticism. This still finds much truth, beauty and wisdom in elements of various human traditions, but without claiming any pretence to ultimate Truth for any one of them. Some might be closer to the Truth than others, but the only means we have of discovering that is with our senses, reason and conscience. These enable us to falsify certain claims, but not others (e.g. we can falsify creation myths, and thus falsify the inerrant claims of scripture, but not yet falsify the existence of a divine power of some indeterminate sort). In the meanwhile, the extent of "goodness' in the various human traditions of religion can be measured by their practical, human and social effects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You added 'to us'. I didn't say that. And it's critical.

---

Well, now I'm more confused. To whom do you refer by your omission of 'us' as 'not us'? God Himself, I suppose?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Is that a problem?

I personally don't confine the concept of 'true' to things that I know how to ascertain.

---

quote:

---

If there is a real God, then that means that there are things about that God that will be objectively provable or falsifiable, even if the only being in possession of enough facts to be sure of the answer is God himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
YES. AND WE DON'T CALL OURSELVES JEWS, DO WE?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
YES. AND WE DON'T CALL OURSELVES JEWS, DO WE?

---

THAT'S BECAUSE THE JEWS KICKED US OUT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
But surely the whole point of the incarnation (for those of us who are still reactionary enough to believe in it) is precisely that God has become knowable? As someone rather more lucid than me once put it, he became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

---

quote:

---

And not seen it in some kind of metaphorical spiritual sense, actually seen it with our physical eyes. The reason we can say something about God (even if we accept for the sake of argument that we couldn't have done before) is because actual people have spent time hanging out with him, seeing him and talking to him. And so we can form some rather definite ideas about what God is like. He is like Christ.

---

quote:

---

But for me one of the most satisfying things about traditional Christianity is the idea that God has lowered and humbled himself in order (among other reasons) to make himself knowable to humanity.

---

quote:

---

And I don't buy the idea that this idea has lost currency because of scientific progress. The idea was extraordinary at the time as well. Jesus was a Jew, for goodness' sake, as were his followers. The idea of a man being God was at least as shocking to them, maybe more so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
YES. AND WE DON'T CALL OURSELVES JEWS, DO WE?

---

THAT'S BECAUSE THE JEWS KICKED US OUT.

---

Whether we were kicked or we left, what's your point? My point is that there's a different label for a different set of beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, I doubt you're correct because the New Testament shows plenty of signs of the internal Christian debate about whether Gentile converts had to become 'Jews' as well.

---

Yes. The followers of The Way (later to be called Christians) decided that labels didn't matter and the distinction between Jew and Greek, slave or free, male or female was blurred. The religious big-wigs decided that these labels did matter and they stamped their feet and had a little paddy at the idea of someone who refused to conform to prior stereotypes and labels worshipping in the same place in the same way and threw them out. The Christians were banned from synagogues from 70AD when the temple came down. Gentile Christians were obviously not allowed in the temple prior to that, but anyone could enter a synagogue. Many Christians worshipped at synagogue on the Sabbath and then with their fellow Christians on the Lords Day. It was after 70AD that Christians - on the whole - stopped worshipping on the Sabbath.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
YES. AND WE DON'T CALL OURSELVES JEWS, DO WE?

---

THAT'S BECAUSE THE JEWS KICKED US OUT.

---

Whether we were kicked or we left, what's your point? My point is that there's a different label for a different set of beliefs.

---

There are many different beliefs that call themselves 'Christian'. If you look at the massive range of opinions between Eastern Orthodox and a very evangelical, charismatic Toronto Blessing style church - do they require different labels?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Maybe the difference between us is that Jesus is the God of your religion, but he only was a central figure in the development of my philosophy.

---

Bingo.

---

Ok, so, to return to the OP - given that foundation:

Where can we go from there?

How could such a philosophy and way of life be manifested in individual spiritual practice?

How could such a philosophy and way of life be manifested in communal religious practice?

What would meetings for the divine worship be like?

Would there still be room for "sermons", as forms of encouragement, guidance and instruction?

GIven that it is Jesus-centric and evolves from a Christian root, how much of the outward Christian panoply would be retained? - Would we develop new hymns, devise new liturgies, changing the content but keeping the stylistic approaches similar?

I see a big potential role for some sort of friar-like order, dispensing grace and charity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
There are many different beliefs that call themselves 'Christian'. If you look at the massive range of opinions between Eastern Orthodox and a very evangelical, charismatic Toronto Blessing style church - do they require different labels?

---

You just used different labels. QED.

If your question, though, is whether they both fit under the label 'Christian' then I say yes.

Whether a definition is broad or narrow, it is still a definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
How about the "Society of the Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth"? I mean if you don't believe in a messiah (do you or Spong?) since that's mythological, "Christ" or "Christian" aren't exactly descriptive, are they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Part of where you lose me, I think, is that you continue to use religious language for your philosophy.

Philosophies don't generally have 'religious practice', nor do they have 'meetings for divine worship'. Nor do they have baptism into the faith, to pick up on something from another thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
How about the "Society of the Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth"?

---

quote:

---

I mean if you don't believe in a messiah (do you or Spong?) since that's mythological, "Christ" or "Christian" aren't exactly descriptive, are they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
A myth is not something that is unimportant or to be dismissed, a myth is something that is just as important as anything historical. In fact, I would think that many people would say are more important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
How about the "Society of the Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth"? I mean if you don't believe in a messiah (do you or Spong?) since that's mythological, "Christ" or "Christian" aren't exactly descriptive, are they?

---

Why is it that when someone says something is mythological do people think that mean it isn't believed in?

I don't believe that the first chapters of Genesis are historical, but I believe God created the world.

A myth is not something that is unimportant or to be dismissed, a myth is something that is just as important as anything historical. In fact, I would think that many people would say are more important.

---

I don't think that mythology is a bad or untrue thing. I was just trying to address the situation as it seemed to be expressed by the OP in Spong's points. He seems to be jettisoning the mythology (a theistic god, virgin birth, ascension, miraculous resurrection) in favor of material reality with possibly a deistic god.

And, yes, RadicalWhig, "Followers of the Way of Jesus" has a nice ring to it and seems descriptive of the movement you favor.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

"Followers of the Way of Jesus"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

"Followers of the Way of Jesus"

---

Sounds rather gruesome, considering the place that Way ended up. Well, the way it ended up if you take away the miracles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

"Followers of the Way of Jesus"

---

Sounds rather gruesome, considering the place that Way ended up. Well, the way it ended up if you take away the miracles.

---

Well, I suppose that's where cross-carrying comes in! And there's a sort of resurrection-like experience (both personal and communal) that can emerge from such self-sacrifice.

ETA: See, the Christian nomenclature, narratives and imagery still have value, even when stripped from their traditional metaphysical and doctrinal understandings! That's why this approach is very much "Trans-Christian", as opposed to just non-specific deism!

---

quote:

---

Well, I suppose that's where cross-carrying comes in! And there's a sort of resurrection-like experience (both personal and communal) that can emerge from such self-sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm willing to accept that Jesus is the mythological God of your religion (in the same way that there are lots of mythological Gods in the Hindu and Pagan religions), but that's different from being the real God that lies behind it all.

---

Maybe the difference between us is that Jesus is the God of your religion, but he only was a central figure in the development of my philosophy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
YES. AND WE DON'T CALL OURSELVES JEWS, DO WE?

---

Same God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

"Followers of the Way of Jesus"

---

Sounds rather gruesome, considering the place that Way ended up. Well, the way it ended up if you take away the miracles.

---

Well, I suppose that's where cross-carrying comes in! And there's a sort of resurrection-like experience (both personal and communal) that can emerge from such self-sacrifice.

ETA: See, the Christian nomenclature, narratives and imagery still have value, even when stripped from their traditional metaphysical and doctrinal understandings! That's why this approach is very much "Trans-Christian", as opposed to just non-specific deism!

---

quote:

---

Perhaps there may be some well-meaning persons who carry this farther still; who aver, that whatever change is wrought in men, whether in their hearts or lives, yet if they have not clear views of those capital doctrines, the fall of man, justification by faith, and of the atonement made by the death of Christ, and of his righteousness transferred to them, they can have no benefit from his death. I dare in no wise affirm this. Indeed I do not believe it. I believe the merciful God regards the lives and tempers of men more than their ideas. I believe he respects the goodness of the heart rather than the clearness of the head; and that if the heart of a man be filled (by the grace of God, and the power of his Spirit) with the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man, God will not cast him into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels because his ideas are not clear, or because his conceptions are confused. Without holiness, I own, "no man shall see the Lord;" but I dare not add, "or clear ideas."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
But the problem is that in your OP, what you're talking about is constructing a religion. Philosophy ain't enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
]Depends on how far the cross is carried. I suppose there might be some feeling of self fulfillment obtained from carrying your cross for part of the way. There cannot be any sense of fulfillment from carrying your cross all of the way, because in your cosmology there is nothing left to possess the victory.

---

quote:

---

So indeed the image of Christ is held up only as an extreme example and not really as something meant to be emulated. You call for mere admirers of Christ and not actual followers. That can be another thing you strike from the pages of scripture, because the Jesus of the Bible called not for admirers but for followers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
What are your new "metaphysical and doctrinal understandings?"

---

quote:

---

And how will these inform whatever liturgy or denominational order you would generate? That's the real question I've been trying to get at since the start of this thread...

---

quote:

---

All I can say to that is that many good people have been martyrs to causes - including Jesus himself, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. Full, stop, finito.

---

quote:

---

I remain a committed Jesus-follower, (and an admirer) although I am no longer a Christ-worshipper.

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by RadicalWhig:
Check my responses above: as I say, I don't mean philosophy in the abstract sense, but as a vital, active way of life: something that is lived, not just understood and believed.

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by RadicalWhig:
Something like:
(1) Human beings are precious by virtue of their consciousness -the Divine presence - we recognise this through our sympathy with our fellow-man.

(2) Many human being are hurting. Some of that hurt comes from unjust social, economic and political religions; some of it comes from our own bad choices; some of it comes from the twistedness and unhealthiness of our inner lives - our minds, or if you prefer, our souls.

(3) That Jesus correctly identified this need, its cause and its remedy: That we need to be transformed from what we are into what we might be - to be made perfect in love - in order to undo the twistedness of our nature, and to bring peace and harmony to our inner selves. We also need to transform social, economic and political relationships in realisation of this ideal, aiming for a new grace-community based on love (liberty, equality and fraternity), not on fear, exploitation and domination.

---

Replace "Divine Presence" with "Christ," "twistedness and unhealthiness" with "Sin," and you sound like John Wesley's 21st century clone.

"To be made perfect in love"...that's Wesley's soteriology in a nutshell.

Now if only the Methodist Church understood this stuff...

[ 29. July 2010, 20:51: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
Bullfrog:

I liked your quote from Wesley: the direct experience thing doesn't put me off, but only because I have experienced it - I've had my heart strangely warmed, and that's part of why I believe in the Divine, and I believe it's the same divine power which Jesus, the Apostles, Wesley, Buddha and Gandhi knew and experienced.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

Beeswax Altar - I don't think your geographical analogy works very well. It assumes Christianity should be "bounded" (i.e. defined by definite boundaries) rather than "centred" (i.e. looking at Jesus).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

And if God decides at the gates of heaven that what you believe is quite okay and that the Trinity, the resurrection, prayer, miracles etc etc were just a load of unfortunate distractions, then great! I'm very happy for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
There seems to be a couple modern convictions banging about the thread which, though widely believed, are not actually true.

First, in my mind anyway, is "Jesus never claimed to be God." I don't know who originated this belief, but clearly he didn't read the Bible very much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:


The second is the idea that Martin Luther was a heroic loose cannon tossed from the Roman Catholic Church for his liberalizing beliefs. However, if you look at what he was fighting for, you can see that he was actually conservative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

What a pity Evensong won't tell us what "Christianity" means to her. It might make it easier to discuss whether Spong possesses any.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I believe the merciful God regards the lives and tempers of men more than their ideas. I believe he respects the goodness of the heart rather than the clearness of the head; and that if the heart of a man be filled (by the grace of God, and the power of his Spirit) with the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man, God will not cast him into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels because his ideas are not clear, or because his conceptions are confused.

---

[ 30. July 2010, 01:06: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
To be a Christian is to follow Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If any believe Spong has changed the essence of the Gospel, then fair enough, don't call him a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that a resurrection isn't an axiom of Christianity is also a fascinating one that I'd quite like to have teased out for me. I'm having a glance at 1 Corinthians 15, I'm having a glance at the Nicene Creed and they both seem rather keen on there being a resurrection.

Now, it's conceivably possible that someone might be able to explain to me, through a process of exploration of what exactly 1 Cor 15 says (including a discussion about the original Greek and whether English translations capture the meaning of it correctly) that a metaphorical 'resurrection' of Jesus' teachings and ideas is sufficient and still fits the passage and the Creed.

But by golly, that's going to require some work. An argument that involves any variation of 'a physical resurrection is impossible/silly/too ridiculous to stomach' is going to be hit straight out of the ballpark on the grounds that it's not an argument at all but a prejudged conclusion. It's an axiom, from which the argument for a metaphorical resurrection is built, and it's an axiom I don't accept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that a resurrection isn't an axiom of Christianity is also a fascinating one that I'd quite like to have teased out for me. I'm having a glance at 1 Corinthians 15, I'm having a glance at the Nicene Creed and they both seem rather keen on there being a resurrection.

Now, it's conceivably possible that someone might be able to explain to me, through a process of exploration of what exactly 1 Cor 15 says (including a discussion about the original Greek and whether English translations capture the meaning of it correctly) that a metaphorical 'resurrection' of Jesus' teachings and ideas is sufficient and still fits the passage and the Creed.

But by golly, that's going to require some work. An argument that involves any variation of 'a physical resurrection is impossible/silly/too ridiculous to stomach' is going to be hit straight out of the ballpark on the grounds that it's not an argument at all but a prejudged conclusion. It's an axiom, from which the argument for a metaphorical resurrection is built, and it's an axiom I don't accept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that a resurrection isn't an axiom of Christianity is also a fascinating one that I'd quite like to have teased out for me. I'm having a glance at 1 Corinthians 15, I'm having a glance at the Nicene Creed and they both seem rather keen on there being a resurrection.

Now, it's conceivably possible that someone might be able to explain to me, through a process of exploration of what exactly 1 Cor 15 says (including a discussion about the original Greek and whether English translations capture the meaning of it correctly) that a metaphorical 'resurrection' of Jesus' teachings and ideas is sufficient and still fits the passage and the Creed.

But by golly, that's going to require some work. An argument that involves any variation of 'a physical resurrection is impossible/silly/too ridiculous to stomach' is going to be hit straight out of the ballpark on the grounds that it's not an argument at all but a prejudged conclusion. It's an axiom, from which the argument for a metaphorical resurrection is built, and it's an axiom I don't accept.

---

You are also assuming that the Nicene Creed and Paul's letter to the Corinthians have some sort of validity as an accurate and undistorted explanation of Jesus' teaching - assumptions for which there isn't much evidence. (You could almost say that Paul never stopped trying to destroy the message of Jesus, he just changed tactics, from outright opposition and repression to co-optation and distortion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The idea that a resurrection isn't an axiom of Christianity is also a fascinating one that I'd quite like to have teased out for me. I'm having a glance at 1 Corinthians 15, I'm having a glance at the Nicene Creed and they both seem rather keen on there being a resurrection.

Now, it's conceivably possible that someone might be able to explain to me, through a process of exploration of what exactly 1 Cor 15 says (including a discussion about the original Greek and whether English translations capture the meaning of it correctly) that a metaphorical 'resurrection' of Jesus' teachings and ideas is sufficient and still fits the passage and the Creed.

But by golly, that's going to require some work. An argument that involves any variation of 'a physical resurrection is impossible/silly/too ridiculous to stomach' is going to be hit straight out of the ballpark on the grounds that it's not an argument at all but a prejudged conclusion. It's an axiom, from which the argument for a metaphorical resurrection is built, and it's an axiom I don't accept.

---

In other words, you haven't got 'resurrection' as an axiom, you have 'physical resurrection' as an axiom.

Define physical.

Define resurrecion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, I am assuming the Nicene Creed represents an accurate statement of what Christians believe, because it was expressly designed for that purpose.

---

quote:

---

As to evidence of Jesus' teaching... I've never quite understood what evidence of Jesus' teaching there is if it isn't the Bible. I'm all for analysing what the Bible ACTUALLY says, and that certainly can include textual criticism, but it's at the point where people seem to move outside the text altogether that I get genuinely confused what their source is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
To be a Christian is to follow Christ.

---

Meaning what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If any believe Spong has changed the essence of the Gospel, then fair enough, don't call him a Christian.

---

Aye. That's what I said and you ever so humbly accused me of great hubris.

---

quote:

---

But only after Christianity had developed into a human-made doctrinal system and had turned Jesus into a God. It might represent an axiom of the Christian Religion, but my point was that the axioms of the Christian Religion are not faithful to the teachings of Jesus.

---

You know, that's the problem with people. We do tend to do that. But one of the central facts (ok, tenets) of Christianity is the physical resurrection of Jesus. All four Gospels include it. He eats, he invites people to touch him, etc. John's gospel in particular starts with an introduction that equates Jesus as the Word made flesh, etc, I'm sure you are aware. And I think we have reasonable evidence that John, the one who leaned on Jesus' breast, indeed wrote this Gospel (though I'm no historian). But should we now redact that marvelous scene where Mary encounters her risen Lord at the tomb, and (apparently after an embrace of some sort) he tells her not to keep clinging to him, but to go and tell the others the good news?

So it would seem that we have a very early and reliable witness that Jesus was indeed the incarnate God, and that He physically rose from the dead.

It gets me that we put such bad motivations on those who so soon followed Christ, or to think that they were too primitive to know what they were seeing. I doubt we would have done much better. And now, 2000 years later, we have the ability to look back and figure out what really happened?

Oh, the Church has indeed got the message all screwed up at various points. We tend to get all sacramental and legalistic and proof-texty and magical in ALL the denominations I've ever been involved in, on both sides of the Tiber.

But the Body of Christ is still out there, and I hope I'm part of it, though I don't underestimate my ability to deceive myself. They are the redeemers, the lovers, the ones who attempt to bring the life and love and holiness and judgment of Jesus to everyone they meet.

And I gotta admit, I don't see where Paul and Jesus have this huge conflict.

I'm pretty busy today, but I'll try to check back. I'm pretty bad for doing the hit'n'run thing around here...

I don't know about Spong; I've often felt sorry for him.

Blessings,

Tom
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
To be a Christian is to follow Christ.

---

Meaning what?

---

It means what is says.

What's your definition? Much tighter methinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
To be a Christian is to follow Christ.

---

Meaning what?

---

It means what is says.

What's your definition? Much tighter methinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
But one of the central facts (ok, tenets) of Christianity is the physical resurrection of Jesus. All four Gospels include it. He eats, he invites people to touch him, etc. John's gospel in particular starts with an introduction that equates Jesus as the Word made flesh, etc, I'm sure you are aware. And I think we have reasonable evidence that John, the one who leaned on Jesus' breast, indeed wrote this Gospel (though I'm no historian). But should we now redact that marvelous scene where Mary encounters her risen Lord at the tomb, and (apparently after an embrace of some sort) he tells her not to keep clinging to him, but to go and tell the others the good news?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
(1) At what point were the resurrection stories put into the gospels?

(2) Who added them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
But one of the central facts (ok, tenets) of Christianity is the physical resurrection of Jesus. All four Gospels include it. He eats, he invites people to touch him, etc. John's gospel in particular starts with an introduction that equates Jesus as the Word made flesh, etc, I'm sure you are aware. And I think we have reasonable evidence that John, the one who leaned on Jesus' breast, indeed wrote this Gospel (though I'm no historian). But should we now redact that marvelous scene where Mary encounters her risen Lord at the tomb, and (apparently after an embrace of some sort) he tells her not to keep clinging to him, but to go and tell the others the good news?

---

It begs a few questions:

(1) At what point were the resurrection stories put into the gospels?

(2) Who added them?

(3) What were they trying to prove? (What other parts of the story were they trying to make fit by means of the resurrection? What were they trying to achieve?)

(4) How many other resurrection stories are there in ancient literature? How many of those do you think are literal and physical resurrections?

(5) What do we know about the practice of story-telling in the ancient world? Were they the sort to let the truth stand in the way of a good (powerful, inspiring, life-changing) story?

If you say, as you seem to be saying, that the dead Jesus was resurrected metaphorically, through a body of followers committed to living out his life and teachings, then I have no disagreement: I know that sort of resurrected body exists, because (despite the attempt of those defining the boundaries to exclude me) I've been a member of it since 1997. It's only when we go from there to claiming that the Bible is an accurate record of a physical resurrection that really happened, and happened because Jesus is God, that we part company.

---

The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is crucial to the Gospel. Without it, Caesar has won and all of Jesus' teachings are nothing but pious fantasies that collaspe under the iron fist of the Empire.

The way of Jesus took for granted a God who is active in history, who yes, overturned the so-called laws of nature because nature is subservient to Him, and who demands complete and absolute devotion and loyalty from those who claim to follow him. To extrapolate a Jesus apart from this theological context is to do complete violence to this historical figure. For Jesus, God was everything and grounded all of his social and ethical teachings.
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Not just the gospels. The earliest Christian documents that we have are the epistles of Paul, and he was banging on about the resurrection of the body very early on.

I don't think he thought that the resurrection was a thing added onto the gospel. I think there's quite a lot of mileage in the idea that Paul thought that the ressurection was the gospel.

Of course, talking about Paul opens up a whole other can of worms... but it's probably one that we're going to have to take the tin opener to at some point
 

---

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
To belabor the point, there are plenty of dead Messiahs throughout history. If someone claimed that their dead messiah came back to life, most people would have thought he was certifiably insane. It isn't as if Jesus was the only single person who came to be Christ.

The fact that the Apostles were able to convince many people of the Resurrection of Christ is one of the strongest arguments for its veracity.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Not just the gospels. The earliest Christian documents that we have are the epistles of Paul, and he was banging on about the resurrection of the body very early on.

I don't think he thought that the resurrection was a thing added onto the gospel. I think there's quite a lot of mileage in the idea that Paul thought that the ressurection was the gospel.

---

Indeed. Wikipedia again but the page on Jesus' resurrection refers to 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 1 as containing very early examples of resurrection creeds. My understanding is that these are among the Pauline letters that are widely accepted as genuine.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Radical Whig

The RNIB do not have an audio copy of anything by Spong, but if I choose a title, they will see if they can arrange to have it read. With their up-to-the-minute computer system, they can now do this much more readily than in the past.

So I wonder if you would be kind enough to suggest a title that maybe gives a broad, overview of his philosophy?
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally Posted by orfeo:
I suppose one argument is that Mark doesn't contain a resurrection. However, you would also have to argue that the predictions of a resurrection that appear in Mark are either later interpolations or completely metaphorical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by orfeo:
I suppose one argument is that Mark doesn't contain a resurrection. However, you would also have to argue that the predictions of a resurrection that appear in Mark are either later interpolations or completely metaphorical.

---

Mark has a resurrection. It's just not described. The angels are sitting in the empty tomb telling the women "yes, he's raised, now go to Galilee."

And the women say nothing, frightened (or reverent, depending on how you translate a word.)

Perhaps we should start a Keryg thread to sort out where Paul and the gospels differ.

---

quote:

---

If you say, as you seem to be saying, that the dead Jesus was resurrected metaphorically, through a body of followers committed to living out his life and teachings, then I have no disagreement: I know that sort of resurrected body exists, because (despite the attempt of those defining the boundaries to exclude me) I've been a member of it since 1997. It's only when we go from there to claiming that the Bible is an accurate record of a physical resurrection that really happened, and happened because Jesus is God, that we part company.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Radical Whig

The RNIB do not have an audio copy of anything by Spong, but if I choose a title, they will see if they can arrange to have it read. With their up-to-the-minute computer system, they can now do this much more readily than in the past.

So I wonder if you would be kind enough to suggest a title that maybe gives a broad, overview of his philosophy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is crucial to the Gospel. Without it, Caesar has won and all of Jesus' teachings are nothing but pious fantasies that collaspe under the iron fist of the Empire.

---

quote:

---

The way of Jesus took for granted a God who is active in history, who yes, overturned the so-called laws of nature because nature is subservient to Him, and who demands complete and absolute devotion and loyalty from those who claim to follow him. To extrapolate a Jesus apart from this theological context is to do complete violence to this historical figure. For Jesus, God was everything and grounded all of his social and ethical teachings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is crucial to the Gospel. Without it, Caesar has won and all of Jesus' teachings are nothing but pious fantasies that collaspe under the iron fist of the Empire.

---

Translation:

"The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is crucial to the traditional understanding of the Gospel as developed by the Church, which I accept. If this is not true, I cannot help but think that Caesar has won, and I cannot understand Jesus' teachings as anything but pious fantasies that collapse under the iron fist of the Empire."

That really worries me. Because if the message and call of Jesus depend on something as spurious as a physical resurrection, then Caesar has won, and all of Jesus' teachings are nothing but pious fantasies that - unless we can believe in fairy tales - collaspe under the iron fist of the Empire.

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by RadicalWhig:
That really worries me. Because if the message and call of Jesus depend on something as spurious as a physical resurrection, then Caesar has won, and all of Jesus' teachings are nothing but pious fantasies that - unless we can believe in fairy tales - collapse under the iron fist of the Empire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
"If Christ be not raised, our faith is in vain."

---

quote:

---

Twelve points for Reform:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

---

quote:

---

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

---

quote:

---

3. The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

---

quote:

---

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

---

quote:

---

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

---

quote:

---

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

---

quote:

---

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

---

quote:

---

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

---

quote:

---

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

---

quote:

---

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

---

quote:

---

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

---

quote:

---

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
To repeat my question, have you got more direct access to Jesus than any of us have?

---

quote:

---

How do you know about these timeless truths he taught if the writings about him are so skewed?

---

quote:

---

If you're also willing to take out the things that Jesus himself taught but which he accepted "from his cultural milieu", doesn't that mean that you're only accepting the bits of Jesus' teaching that you like, even if you believe he taught them in the first place?

---

quote:

---

Surely that means that you're really a follower of RadicalWhig rather than Jesus, as the final authority rests with you?

---

quote:

---

Finally, sorry but what is 'spurious' about a physical resurrection? Since the resurrection of the dead is meant to be when God brings his kingdom to earth, it's not a spurious matter at all, but a highly important and relevant one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Why do you persist with a Jesus who, without the Gospel records, is surely irrecoverable in any meaningful sense? I'm not being confrontational, just genuinely curious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Ok, I'll throw a hand grenade into the thread and run.

---

quote:

---

(1) I think that the historical figure of Jesus makes a very compelling ethical call to a new and better way of life.

(2) I think that the legend of Christ - understood as a legend, not as Truth, but as a story which contains aspiration, wisdom and allegory - is a beautiful and enrapturing story.

Does that, at least, make it clear?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think it is a great pity that he doesn't take the final step and be an atheist!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Really, I don't get it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Really, I don't get it.

---

That's ok. I don't get people who think that the value of Jesus and of a Christian way of life depends upon belief in the trinity, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, creeds, biblical inerrancy, young earth creationism, hating gays, and all that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
To be a Christian is to follow Christ.

---

Meaning what?

---

It means what is says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If any believe Spong has changed the essence of the Gospel, then fair enough, don't call him a Christian.

---

Aye. That's what I said and you ever so humbly accused me of great hubris.

---

What, of the essence of the Gospel, do you think he has changed?

---

quote:

---

But it makes a hell of a lot of sense for many. And it brings them to Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog:
There are doubtless many, probably a majority in some churches, who "believe in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ," without necessarily thinking that a dead body popped out of a grave 2000 years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Really, I don't get it.

---

That's ok. I don't get people who think that the value of Jesus and of a Christian way of life depends upon belief in the trinity, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, creeds, biblical inerrancy, young earth creationism, hating gays, and all that.

---

Respectfully, all of those things you describe, for most, aren't wrapped up in one package deal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Really, I don't get it.

---

That's ok. I don't get people who think that the value of Jesus and of a Christian way of life depends upon belief in the trinity, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, creeds, biblical inerrancy, young earth creationism, hating gays, and all that.

---

Respectfully, all of those things you describe, for most, aren't wrapped up in one package deal.

---

I know, that's why I listed them! My point being that some people think Christianity is meaningless if you reject the inerrancy of the bible: it's not a negotiable, it's not an optional extra; it's absolutely essential to the faith, and those who do not believe it are not Christians. For others, Christianty is meaningless if you reject the accepted creeds: they are not negotiable, they are not optional extras, they are absolutely essential to the faith. Both sides will happily exclude the other, but they will unite to exclude people like me, who are only doing exactly what the Reformers did five centuries ago: trying to fundamentally remodel previous Christian understandings.

It really does make me wonder why I bother.

---

quote:

---

...who are only doing exactly what the Reformers did five centuries ago: trying to fundamentally remodel previous Christian understandings.

---

quote:

---

It really does make me wonder why I bother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I would say that the reformers were trying to recover, not re-invent, Biblical Christianity. they used the Scriptures as their guide (and yes, I know about Luther and James...) and the veracity of the Scriptures was pretty much a given.

---

quote:

---

First time I've heard it suggested that the Hindus have a single God. Interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by RadicalWhig:
I bother, ultimately, because I believe it will all my heart. It is the power of God for our salvation. I just understand God and salvation rather differently (i.e. as a personal and social transformation), because I'm a non-theist (although not an atheist) and I don't believe in a heaven or hell. Is this so hard to understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
If you're also willing to take out the things that Jesus himself taught but which he accepted "from his cultural milieu", doesn't that mean that you're only accepting the bits of Jesus' teaching that you like, even if you believe he taught them in the first place?

---

Exactly. That's precisely what I said. That's the difference between following from free and intelligent allegiance and blind obedience. I think Maurizio Viroli is one of the greatest political thinkers of our time, who is reinterpreting and reapplying the Italian civic-republican tradition into a compelling critique of contemporary politics and political scholarship - but I don't agree with every point he makes. I think Aristotle contains much truth (and I'm probably as much an Aristotelian as I am a Christian), but I disagree with him over his justification of slavery. Aside from the difficulty of separating historical truth from legend, I think the historical Jesus got some things absolutely right - in particular, the importance of forgiveness, love, extending empathy outside of our in-group, and personal experience of the divine manifested in benevolence. I also think he probably said some things which I don't necessarily agree with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Surely that means that you're really a follower of RadicalWhig rather than Jesus, as the final authority rests with you?

---

Yes, in the same way as you are a follower of Dingy Sailor rather than Jesus, as the final authority rests with you. You just reach different conclusions. Ultimately, we all make up our own minds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I would say that the reformers were trying to recover, not re-invent, Biblical Christianity. they used the Scriptures as their guide (and yes, I know about Luther and James...) and the veracity of the Scriptures was pretty much a given.

---

Ok, so what? Their assumptions and their ends were different, but they were still trying to peel away unnecessary additions, purify and simplify religion, and rework / reinterpret the standard beliefs of their day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
It is the power of God for our salvation. I just understand God and salvation rather differently (i.e. as a personal and social transformation), because I'm a non-theist (although not an atheist) and I don't believe in a heaven or hell. Is this so hard to understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
If you're a non-theist, then what is this thing you believe in that you call God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
...here's a question that will help my understanding at least - you say you are a non-theist and not an atheist.
Can you say what your understanding of God is, then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I'm sorry, you can't have both of those. Either Christians follow Jesus 'blindly' or they follow themselves because they ditch the bits they don't like. Those are contradictory, pick'n'mix Christianity and blind faith can't logically coexist.

---

quote:

---

As it happens, my transformation isn't complete but I do try to live under scripture and let Jesus renew my mind, as do other Christians who can't see all of the way right now, but have seen enough to trust God to manage the rest for them.

---

quote:

---

That isn't blind faith, it's a decision to hand over control based on prior judgement. It's no different from a passenger who trusts that a pilot (who the passenger doesn't know) will safely fly a plane, based on the fact that the airline hasn't had any crashes recentl

---

quote:

---

The difference is that the reformers kept the beliefs that had been declared foundational right at the start of Christianity, while people were around who had known Jesus personally and while Christianity was still a religion of the powerless rather than a religion of power structures. The reformers tried to remove the cruft that had built up to get back to this core, different people will agree or disagree on whether they got it right but will hopefully agree that's what they intended to do, and why they were still Christians. The non-theist agenda OTOH goes directly for those foundational truths declared as "of first importance" by those with a better idea of Jesus than we'll ever have in this life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
One thing I noticed:

He talks about living in a post-Newtonian universe. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm terrible at science), but isn't Newton outdated? The idea that the universe operates by fixed and static laws is somewhat discredited, isn't it?

Of course that doesn't mean evidence for miracles, but I'm wondering if Spong's entire scientific mindset is itself outdated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
How do you derive ethics without metaphysics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Eh...that's probably too annoying a question. Let's get more practical...

[snip]

Worship practices: If you don't believe in God, what are you worshiping?

[snip]

Baptism: Christian baptism is for initiation and the remission of sins. I suppose you can keep the "initiation" part, but is that all it's about?

Communion: If it's not "This is my body given for you," and "this is the blood of the new covenant,
" then again...what's it really about? I figure memorialism is probably as close as you dare get.

[...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Church order: What's the goal of your institution?

---

quote:

---

Worship practices: If you don't believe in God, what are you worshiping?

---

quote:

---

Music: Most Christian worship music is either singing about our experiences of or with God, or singing praises to God (and some other stuff.) If no God, who are you singing to and what is it about?

---

quote:

---

Liturgies: See Worship. Same difference.

---

quote:

---

Baptism: Christian baptism is for initiation and the remission of sins. I suppose you can keep the "initiation" part, but is that all it's about?

---

quote:

---

Communion: If it's not "This is my body given for you," and "this is the blood of the new covenant,
" then again...what's it really about? I figure memorialism is probably as close as you dare get.

---

quote:

---

Evangelism: Literally "The proclamation of Good Tidings." If not the resurrection and the life, what is the good news? What has the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever you call it done that is worth celebrating? Somehow, "He gave us the idealized moral system" isn't gonna cut it.

---

quote:

---

Outreach: Do you mean getting people to join the organization or do you mean doing community service? What is the reason for reaching out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I'm sorry, you can't have both of those. Either Christians follow Jesus 'blindly' or they follow themselves because they ditch the bits they don't like. Those are contradictory, pick'n'mix Christianity and blind faith can't logically coexist.

---

Perhaps you misunderstand.

That's the difference between following from free and intelligent allegiance and blind obedience. Ultimately, we all make up our own minds. Some of us might think we are being "obedient to God", but really we are just responding from our own points of view. If anything, we are obedient to our own minds, our own understandings, and our own conscience.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The difference is that the reformers kept the beliefs that had been declared foundational right at the start of Christianity, while people were around who had known Jesus personally and while Christianity was still a religion of the powerless rather than a religion of power structures. The reformers tried to remove the cruft that had built up to get back to this core, different people will agree or disagree on whether they got it right but will hopefully agree that's what they intended to do, and why they were still Christians. The non-theist agenda OTOH goes directly for those foundational truths declared as "of first importance" by those with a better idea of Jesus than we'll ever have in this life.

---

So, I go further, and challenge whether some of those original assumptions were correct. From 33AD to the Battle of Milvian bridge was quite a long time to make up crazy stuff on the back of the Jesus myth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
If I may play the devil's advocate (or maybe just be fair to the man), Spong (AIU him) doesn't not believe in God. He believes traditional theistic conceptions of God are no longer believable. Some of the non-theist ways people conceive of God include panentheism, pantheism, or the description of God as the Ground of all being or Being itself. There is still an attendant sense of the Holy, so there could still be worship. I think Tillich, for example, said that God isn't the personal God imagined by theism, but God certainly isn't less than personal. We have a hard time imagining what super-personal could mean, so we work with a theistic conception of God, while at the same time, denying that God is an old man in the sky. The theism Spong is against might be a bit of a straw man, though, as most theists also don't think God is an old man in the sky. And that's possibly why Spong looks like an atheist to most theists (just like Jews and Christians did to ancient Greeks & Romans, or as Socrates did to the authorities).

---

quote:

---

The Eucharist can also be conceived as re-membering Christ in the sense that his presence is made real among us when we break bread together as he said to do. That is made possible/meaningful by the idea that he was somehow absorbed into God, even if he wasn't believed to have originally been divine.

---

quote:

---

It may not really look much like Christianity, but it's not completely unrelated to it. It's possibly similar to the non-theist development Buddhism took, or that ancient Greek philosophers did when they reinterpreted the gods as natural laws/forces.

---

Yes!

That's exactly it!

(Somebody gets it! I'm really quite genuinely happy. Ask my wife - I've been in a three day "nobody gets me" funk because of this thread.)
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
To repeat my question, have you got more direct access to Jesus than any of us have?

---

No, I just don't pretend I have direct access, nor pretend that any account we have is necessarily accurate; I try to piece things together in the same way as I'd try to piece together the information on any other historical or legendary figure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

That isn't blind faith, it's a decision to hand over control based on prior judgement. It's no different from a passenger who trusts that a pilot (who the passenger doesn't know) will safely fly a plane, based on the fact that the airline hasn't had any crashes recentl

---

Another way of putting it, is that instead of having to make lots of decisions, you only have to make one, and then let all the rest flow from it and call it "trusting God".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orlando098:
Re. the main topics being discussed here, I think Jesus's original message was tied to a literal coming of a Kingdom of God, in the near future, when the current regime of Roman rule etc would be overthrown and God's faithful followers - notably those who had also behaved lovingly to others - would be exalted and share in a great banquet, and the faithful dead would be resurrected and join them, and people would have new, immortal bodies (and the unrighteous would go away into a place of fire). It's something that gives me a problem with being Christian, as I think he was mistaken. I think he said certain good things about love and morality etc, but I am not sure how much use it is just to cherry pick them out and say that is Christianity. However I personally think that trinitarianism and incarnation and atonement have nothing to do with what the historical Jesus probably actually taught either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
What about singing our commitment to living well, to following Jesus in a life of love.

---

quote:

---

(A bit like the Quakers, perhaps, who, for all their doctrinal lapseness, seem to have done more good than just about all the orthodox Christian denominations put together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So if you're saying that we all make up our own minds, that means that your accusation upthread of 'blind faith' doesn't stand for anyone, they're following what they want to do anyway.

---

quote:

---

Alternatively, you can keep the blind faith bit but retract your comment about how we all discard the bits we don't like.

---

quote:

---

Personally I'd prefer you took the second option, as I know many people who've sincerely struggled to be holy, living by both their hard and their easy bits of scripture.

---

quote:

---

What really confuses me and AFAICS a good number of other people here is how you can claim Jesus' followers could get everything so very wrong about him within a few decades of his ascension, yet somehow be assured that 2000 years later you can construct a picture of him that involves anything more than his name and the fact that he was crucified. How is your picture so much more accurate than theirs?

---

quote:

---

We must consider the setting--the place and time in which these stories spread. This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted.
[...]
They were neither equipped nor skilled, nor even interested, in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like that of the Gospels: utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class society--even more a story that, if believed, secured eternal life. Who wouldn't have bought a ticket to that lottery? Opposition arose mainly from prior commitments to other dogmas, not reason or evidence.

---

quote:

---

And maybe that's why Spong is so obnoxious. He's not really saying anything that's not been unconsciously assumed in the mainline traditions for the past 50 years, which is our shame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
That's the thing. It's viewed as necessarily INaccurate just because it contains the miraculous. As if, axiomatically, God has to conform to precisely the same rules that human beings do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
That's the thing. It's viewed as necessarily INaccurate just because it contains the miraculous. As if, axiomatically, God has to conform to precisely the same rules that human beings do.

---

If God isthe rules (the operating system of the universe, not its user or programmer) then everything that is in God - that is, the whole universe, including Jesus, conforms to the same physical rules. So yes, this is my working foundation: you can't just bend the rules and say "God did it". I leave open the possibility that the rules are much more complicated than we currently understand them to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
What about singing our commitment to living well, to following Jesus in a life of love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Good luck to you. I'm afraid I'm less optimistic about humanity than you are.

---

quote:

---

What keeps me going is the belief that God can does and will step into history and bail us out of the mess we keep making. Humans have tried time and again to live well by themselves, they haven't got much better at it yet.

---

quote:

---

But still we are left with a problem: Where do we go from here? Where do I go from here? Many people on this thread have mentioned that they'd like Spong to quit pretending to be a Christian, stop using the label, and stop claiming to enjoy the "fruits" without believing in the "tree" the same way you do. Should I do the same? Should I pack the whole thing in? If there's no welcome space anywhere in the church for these reinterpretations, why bother at all?

---

quote:

---

You might not agree with it, but can you not at least see the good in it?

---

quote:

---

Is your idea of good news so thin?

---

quote:

---

Yes. I wasn't accusing people of blind faith - except in so much as they might choose to buy into complete systems (what a former Minister used to call "One Size Fits All Theology") rather than consciously and deliberately working out each step for themselves.

---

quote:

---

It's as if you privilege scripture and give it some sort of claim to authority,

---

quote:

---

even though that authority only comes from your pre-commitment to it.

---

quote:

---

[qb]They were neither equipped nor skilled, nor even interested, in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like that of the Gospels: utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class society--even more a story that, if believed, secured eternal life. Who wouldn't have bought a ticket to that lottery? Opposition arose mainly from prior commitments to other dogmas, not reason or evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally POsted by RadicalWhig:
But to those of us who "got saved" as adults in an evangelical setting, and have been trying to rewind from that point to something which doesn't insult the mind or credulity, it comes as a very refreshing revelation.

---

That explains a lot. I come from exactly the opposite. My background is boring mainline protestantism and I envy the evangelicals for their natural zeal and simplicity of faith.

One problem with mainline liberal evangelism is that while we may have some fantastic theology, but it doesn't lend itself to soundbites.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Following on from my previous post, I'm wondering about Buddhism.

I haven't studied it closely, but from a cursory glance it does seem that there is an awful lot in Buddhist thought and practice that is compatible with Christianity and would be capable of being used in a Christian context.

One of the places that Christianity and Buddhism part ways, though, is that Buddhism is not theistic in the way Christianity is. Buddhism refers to impersonal processes where Christianity refers to a personal God.

So, I'm beginning to think that our reforming 'a-theistic' Christians who think that they are forging a new path for Christianity might actually be re-inventing Buddhism. But replacing Siddartha Gautama with Jesus of Nazareth.
 

---

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
For interest, What's wrong with Bishop Spong

I don't know when all this debate on the dating of the NT began, but I thought it was accepted tradition that Matthew wrote the first Gospel, Thomas took it with him to India, 50/52, and
Orthodox trad says it was written in Hebrew, and, I recall in the 60's being told by a, I think, Methodist, lay preacher that Matthew as the tax collector would have had to be educated and so emminently suitable as the scribe of group and that he wrote in Hebrew.

I also think there's a disjunct with the early history by Spong in treating them as if they were all poor illiterates. Jesus's uncle was High Priest (he refers to this, being killed on the Temple steps), his grandfather, mother's father, was a priest, Mary was educated at the Temple, James, his step brother, was campaigned for to be High Priest even by the non-Christian Jews, Luke was doctor, and so on, these were people at the top of their society structure.

There's also: Did some disciples take notes


To the OP, what's missing here definitely, imv, is a USP, unique selling proposition, it doesn't have a focus, as some have touched on already, until you get that sorted no one can tell what it is you're selling. But, if you're following Spong's ideas, he doesn't seem to have thought anything through much either, as the first link covers examples and has been brought up here by several, he doesn't actually make any sense. If this is something you're drawn to do, maybe you'd be better starting from scratch and getting to grips with your own vision rather than referring back to him..?


Myrrh
 

---

Posted by Keromaru (# 15757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Following on from my previous post, I'm wondering about Buddhism.

I haven't studied it closely, but from a cursory glance it does seem that there is an awful lot in Buddhist thought and practice that is compatible with Christianity and would be capable of being used in a Christian context.

One of the places that Christianity and Buddhism part ways, though, is that Buddhism is not theistic in the way Christianity is. Buddhism refers to impersonal processes where Christianity refers to a personal God.

So, I'm beginning to think that our reforming 'a-theistic' Christians who think that they are forging a new path for Christianity might actually be re-inventing Buddhism. But replacing Siddartha Gautama with Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Buddhism is actually a large part of what makes me a Christian. When my faith has lagged, I ended up turning to Buddhist philosophy and meditation. It really helped me keep my spiritual life afloat as my theological life foundered. Then I encountered statements from the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh recommending that people take what they learn from Buddhism and apply them to their original faith.

And so I did. After my flirtation with Buddhism, I started reading Tillich, Merton, learned about Centering Prayer and Lectio Divina, and started using the Jesus Prayer. I've read so much further into the depths of Christian tradition, and found much more satisfying answers and insights.

I read a lot of Spong early in my spiritual life, but as time goes on, I find I have less use for him. Part of it is that I see his picture of early Christianity as distorted. The way he describes it is as if Fundamentalism took over the church as soon as John mailed his letter out from Patmos--fundamentalism being any interpretation more literal or conservative than his own. But from my readings, the Church Fathers had more liberal interpretations than modern fundamentalists would allow, and insights that have helped my understanding tremendously.

I know Spong's fond of Tillich's "ground of being" view, but that's not really that radical or a-theistic. Tillich himself got it from St. Augustine. You find similar views all through pre-modern theology. I see an incredible respect for Mystery, which Spong doesn't seem to have much time for. He rails against a pre-Newtonian cosmology, but seems ignorant of the post-Newtonian, with its multiple dimensions, chaos theory, and quantum weirdness. And frankly, I've never been sure whether his version of "midrash" is really the same as what Jewish interpreters practice.

I like to think of it this way: I followed Spong's theology so far, I looped right back into orthodoxy.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Keromaru: Weird. Your history sounds a lot like mine, though somewhat rearranged. Have we met?
 

---

Posted by Keromaru (# 15757) on :
 
I've never been to Chicago, so I doubt it.
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
And welcome to the ship, of course.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Really, I don't get it.

---

That's ok. I don't get people who think that the value of Jesus and of a Christian way of life depends upon belief in the trinity, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, creeds, biblical inerrancy, young earth creationism, hating gays, and all that.

You think I'm missing the point.

I think you're missing the point.

Where do we go from here?

---

Welcome to the ship Karomaru. Interesting contribution.

[ 31. July 2010, 03:49: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 
Are any of these any use in usp?:

Christian Heresies

Myrrh
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Are any of these any use in usp?:

Christian Heresies

Myrrh

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Are any of these any use in usp?:

Christian Heresies

Myrrh

---

“Heresy is what the minority believe, it is the real name given by the powerful to the doctrine of the weak”

Robert Green Ingersoll

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
That's exactly it!

(Somebody gets it! I'm really quite genuinely happy. Ask my wife - I've been in a three day "nobody gets me" funk because of this thread.)

---

I have to say it also makes me nearly giddy to know that. (Not the funk part, of course, the happy part!)
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
If I may continue with my last thought, including the fruit analogy...

If one is going to ask 'how is Christianity currently defined', then I would have thought the Creeds were the logical answer. The Nicean Creed in particular seems to have been brought into being for that precise purpose: it arose as a response to a situation where "we don't have a proper definition of what Christians believe and we need one".

Does the fact that this Creed has been recited for over 1600 years prevent someone from defining 'Christianity' in a different way? Well, no.

However, saying "I'm a Christian who believes [insert non-Credal statement here]" is the equivalent of saying "My favourite nectarines are the ones with fur". You can say it if you want, but you probably shouldn't be surprised if it leads to incomprehension or arguments. And you really shouldn't declare that the people who hold to the view that nectarines, by definition, don't have fur are 'bigots'.
 

---

Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on :
 
We need rules and definitions, dammit! You're either In the Club or Out the Club! We cain't have no fuzzy independent thinkers claiming ta be Christians! It's an exclusive organization and Jaysus wouldn't have it no other way!
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Fine. Ditch the Nicene Creed.

And you get the Quakers. They're right there waiting for you.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
So anyone alive before 325AD couldn't have been a Christian?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
So anyone alive before 325AD couldn't have been a Christian?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh: Jesus's uncle was High Priest (he refers to this, being killed on the Temple steps), his grandfather, mother's father, was a priest, Mary was educated at the Temple, James, his step brother, was campaigned for to be High Priest even by the non-Christian Jews,

---

Where do you get all this from?

 

---

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Are any of these any use in usp?:

Christian Heresies

Myrrh

---

“Heresy is what the minority believe, it is the real name given by the powerful to the doctrine of the weak”

Robert Green Ingersoll

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orlando098:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh: Jesus's uncle was High Priest (he refers to this, being killed on the Temple steps), his grandfather, mother's father, was a priest, Mary was educated at the Temple, James, his step brother, was campaigned for to be High Priest even by the non-Christian Jews,

---

Where do you get all this from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Hardcore Catholics might regard heretical Protestant schismatics as "non-Christians".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
So, I'm beginning to think that our reforming 'a-theistic' Christians who think that they are forging a new path for Christianity might actually be re-inventing Buddhism. But replacing Siddartha Gautama with Jesus of Nazareth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But my main comment is that I see a lot in common between what RadicalWhig would like to see done in Christianity and what Stephen Batchelor is trying to do for Buddhism. ( See Buddhism without beliefs and confession of a Buddhist Atheist).
For some of us it seems that we refuse to give up on the good we see in ancient wisdom traditions like Christianity or Buddhism. Even after we can no longer believe in things like reincarnation or Theism. I would definitely go to a church that was able to minister to that. I find a lot of fulfillment in the sort of Buddhism I practice because the emphasis is on praxis not on faith. (My italics)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What I don't quite get is the heat in all this. Spongites, or at least Spongites Of the Radicalwhig-Type (SORTs), appear to attack orthodox Christianity with much the same fervor as Fundamentalist Atheists a la Dawkins (FADs). But to the extent that SORTs see more good in orthodox Christianity than FADs, shouldn't they be more sympathetic? I can see why a FAD feels he is on a mission to save benighted believers from the wholesale corruption of their minds, but shouldn't a SORT be more concerned with gently removing the layer of misunderstanding from that core of goodness?

By their fruits you shall know them, and I see little practical reason to distinguish between FADs and SORTs so far. We get much the same attack-rhetorics from them - which is best simply ignored, and to be dealt with by careful argument and resilient faith where one can't. It seems to me that one thing a SORT church should not be like is a branch of FAD. Perhaps instead of worrying about what songs they shall sing to non-existent but inspirational entities, SORTs should first pour some water on their FADdish auto-da-fes? That would be remarkably Christophile of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
OK, RadicalWhig, but your little story entirely relies on all parties being fully paid up naive realists. How realistic is that when increasing numbers of us are not that? And more importantly for you, how realistic is that when it is assumed such a thing is relevant to first-century middle eastern texts?

I'm not trying to pigeon-hole you, but having actually read Spong, I think uncritical naive realism can be said to describe him pretty accurately. As of course it also does fundamentalists. Which you may find in due course leads you away from him and towards other people in this area, such as Borg whom Anglican_Brat suggests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The message of the Gospel that is so pivotal to our faith and that will always challenge secularism is the assertion that Jesus is Lord. He is the purpose of creation, he is the reason the birds sing every morning, he is the reason for the towering grandeur of the mountains. He is the reason the stars shine every night, he is the reason the trees and flowers bloom. He is indeed why the entire universe was created. And, he is also the reason why we were created.

If one affirms that, it is no wonder the early Christians, good Jewish monotheists they were, could only help but call Jesus Christ their Lord and God.

---

That's the first time I have ever used that smiley.
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
As much as Jesus is a great teacher, he is more than that for me. The message of the GospelETA: "As I understand it" that is so pivotal to our faith and that will always challenge secularism is the assertion that Jesus is Lord. He is the purpose of creation, he is the reason the birds sing every morning, he is the reason for the towering grandeur of the mountains. He is the reason the stars shine every night, he is the reason the trees and flowers bloom. He is indeed why the entire universe was created. And, he is also the reason why we were created.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
As much as Jesus is a great teacher, he is more than that for me. The message of the GospelETA: "As I understand it" that is so pivotal to our faith and that will always challenge secularism is the assertion that Jesus is Lord. He is the purpose of creation, he is the reason the birds sing every morning, he is the reason for the towering grandeur of the mountains. He is the reason the stars shine every night, he is the reason the trees and flowers bloom. He is indeed why the entire universe was created. And, he is also the reason why we were created.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
As much as Jesus is a great teacher, he is more than that for me. The message of the GospelETA: "As I understand it" that is so pivotal to our faith and that will always challenge secularism is the assertion that Jesus is Lord. He is the purpose of creation, he is the reason the birds sing every morning, he is the reason for the towering grandeur of the mountains. He is the reason the stars shine every night, he is the reason the trees and flowers bloom. He is indeed why the entire universe was created. And, he is also the reason why we were created.

---

This is a lovely, moving piece of writing. But it can't really be so of one who is fully human. I think that in Jesus which we call Christ (God's Spirit) is all of the above. The source of all creation and all that is good.

I call Him Lord, for sure - but that's me recognising God in Jesus - not Jesus as God.

(And, the realist side of me says - birds sing out of despertion to survive and keep hold of their territories, not out of joy)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Bullfrog,

It's not that "you don't all agree with me". I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the view that my views are self-exclusionary.

I see room for SORTS, as well as BMAFTs, within the church: I like the idea of calling truce on what's really "true" and just getting on with things and living well - but, and its a crucial but - I'm not willing to pretend that I believe in Magic and Fairy Tales in order to be able to take part in that.

---

quote:

---

But I'm really confused by what you are saying? Are you accusing SORTs of being naive realists? If a BMAFT ceases to be a naive realist, they are on their way to becoming SORTs.

---

quote:

---

They see the value in these stories. In fact, they enjoy the stories very much. They just don't believe they are true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:I'm very skeptical that Spong's message will mean anything to people who don't already have the basic Christian Gospel ingrained in them. For someone who doesn't already claim Christianity, I don't see what he adds to the conversation except a pretty metaphysical pastiche. "You can be a decent secular humanist, just like you already are, but you can also come to our services and tithe to our organization! Isn't it grand!" [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Spong isn't the first person to construct a theology of resurrection while conveniently sidestepping the body. Nor is he the best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orlando098:
I tend to feel this is true, for Spong and for other radically liberal versions of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Bullfrog,

It's not that "you don't all agree with me". I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the view that my views are self-exclusionary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I think you do believe in the Fairy Tale. You just don't believe in the literalness of the Fairy Tale.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
ken,

If church were not such an exercise in organised perjury, I'd go - not because of what I believe about God, but because of what I believe about humanity and the human condition. But I'm tired, really sick and tired, of lying, pretending to believe literally the things I believe so strongly and powerfully in a metaphorical sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In my own thinking, I come to see the Creed as not necessarily a static list of prescriptive dogmas intended to make me stop questioning, but rather a set of faith statements intended to keep me questioning. By affirming that Jesus is both God and human begs the question: What is God and what is humanity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
For thinking people on the margins of the Church, I think Spong is probably able to draw them back in, but if my experience (and some others on this thread) is common, once drawn back they'll move onto more meaty theologians like Tillich or Bultmann, Bonhoeffer or Wesley, or God forbid, Moltmann.

---

quote:

---

You say metaphysics should be kept as thin as possible so you can move onto ethics. For me, that sounds like Pharisaism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The priest then said "Say it anyway, even if you don't believe it at the moment. It is the Creed of the Church, and not your own. When you recite it continually, you will, over time, increase in your learning and acceptance of the teachings of the Creed."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
So anyone alive before 325AD couldn't have been a Christian?

---

I fail to see how that logically follows.

---