|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Jack Spong Dishonest and Wrong?
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
I'm beginning to suspect that the governance of the ECUSA can only be comprehended through apophatic theology.
ROTFL!
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I remember now-Bishop Michael Marshall, when he came to Florida during the early 90s to promote the Anglican "Decade of Evangelism" (what the heck happened to that, anyway?). He said -- and I remember it because I have a tape of it I got at the church he appeared at -- that when he was in a hotel some time back, the fire alarm went off at about 3 or 4 in the morning. And many Anglicans came, bleary-eyed, staggering out of their rooms. "In five minutes," he said, "we'd reverted to type. We'd started a committee to investigate the possibility of the existence of fire in the hotel..."
I submit that, for good or ill, a church about which that can be said is not a church which is likely to push through heresy trials or censure. It doesn't make the promise, made before God, to uphold the Creeds non-binding.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
This is a great discussion. My responses for now are:
Spong’s Dishonesty: I really meant to ask if he hid his beliefs, snuck in as a bishop, then used the position of bishop to launch a lucrative writing and speaking career aimed at destroying the Church. By dishonest, I didn’t really mean “intellectually dishonest by being inconsistent or deliberately obscure.” My personal opinion is that he has never been dishonest in any way, but gives the appearance because of a failure to use rigorous and unambiguous language to get his points across.
Spong’s Wrongness: I wasn’t asking about wrongness of tactics. I really meant to ask if it is completely impossible to assert that one is a Christian while not envisioning God as a personal, independent spiritual entity who miraculously took form via a Virgin birth and proved it via physical resurrection. I take it as a given that overall, his tactics have been far too confrontational and that he is flat wrong in dogmatically asserting, “no longer can anyone believe” this or that and if you do “you are part of what is wrong with the world and you need to get down on your knees and pray the non-sinners prayer to a non-personal God asking the spiritually resurrected JEEEsus to come into your heart and life today.”
The Whole Heresy Thing. I am curious to ask what I’m betting Kyralessa and Ley Druid would love to ask: How is it that dedicated creedalists who criticize Spong’s lack of integrity by not literally enforcing the creeds, and who criticize the ECUSA’s refusal to enforce the literal words of the creeds excuse themselves from lack of integrity by not returning or turning to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches and dealing with whatever differences they have with those doctrines? Only a hierarchical power structure can enforce that kind of discipline; otherwise, it is a matter of scaring up votes and the only way you are going to scare up votes is with sensational stuff like ordaining homosexuals. You can’t stir up a majority of Protestants by saying, “I think the resurrection was not strictly physical.”
The Whole Scholastic thing. Ian’s post was both insightful and illuminating and prompts me to launch an inquiry into the way out of this dichotomy: bringing one’s current worldview to the scriptures in order to create a modern faith vs. extracting the One True Faith from a first century worldview that only an historian can hope to recreate. I note that in response to a simple question about how Catholics and Protestants might intercommune, NT Wright acknowledges that it would take years for anyone outside his thinking to “climb the mountain” required to understand his thinking on justification and that at least something like that would be required for such a monumental task as a unified view of the Eucharist (it’s in the link I keep referring to here.) That level of scholasticism is completely unacceptable to me. It cannot be Right. I am interested in the unification of all people everywhere and it seems blindingly easy to unite them on the concepts of Truth and Love (even atheists). To me, the bedrock of a “Something Good in Us All” expressing itself despite “Something Else Working Against It” is more readily and universally accessible than “An Outside Entity Who Left a Coded Message About How to Join a Future Bodily Resurrection In the Hermeneutic Circle of First Century Judaism Faithfully Recreated by NT Wright.” It just doesn't bother me that the Something In Us All would blow up with us if we blew up. It would still be in the atoms or the space time or something else. It can't be destroyed. Does that make you feel any better?
I'd ask anyone who responds to go really easy on me and remember that I'm a lot dumber than I sound. The Ship has taught me to feign intelligence with the best of them. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I am curious to ask what I’m betting Kyralessa and Ley Druid would love to ask: How is it that dedicated creedalists who criticize Spong’s lack of integrity by not literally enforcing the creeds, and who criticize the ECUSA’s refusal to enforce the literal words of the creeds excuse themselves from lack of integrity by not returning or turning to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches and dealing with whatever differences they have with those doctrines?
Because converting to those faiths require doctrinal promises I cannot make. As a Roman Catholic convert I would be required to stand up in front of God and everybody and say that yes, I will uphold the teachings of the Magisterium, and shortly thereafter I'd be reduced to a smoking pile of ashes because it would be a flat-out, bold-faced lie. As far as the Orthodox Church goes, I have a profound disagreement with the veneration of icons and their closed Communion table.
So in fact I am doing what Jack Spong should have done -- uphold and believe in the core doctrines of the faith tradition I have chosen. Spong has done the exact opposite, given that the ECUSA ordination services require doctrinal promises that he was happy to make and subsequently break.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Same answer from me. I thought long and hard about converting to Catholicism, and I didn't because I simply couldn't sign up for everything in the magisterium.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
I'm with Erin and Ruth - I'm not Orthodox/Roman Catholic or other because I don't subscribe to what they (doctrinally) require of their members. Similarly, I don't associate with the Evangelical Alliance because I profoundly disagree with its doctrinal requirements.
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
My personal opinion is that he has never been dishonest in any way,
This is getting needlessly messianic. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Spong’s Dishonesty: I really meant to ask if he hid his beliefs, snuck in as a bishop, then used the position of bishop to launch a lucrative writing and speaking career aimed at destroying the Church.
Whatever else I may think of Spong, I don't get the impression that he's merely using the ECUSA as a handy platform whence to launch his views. I'd be willing to bet that when he was picking a church to minister in, he chose the ECUSA because he know it'd be a lot more flexible in what he could believe and remain a bishop, but I don't think he chose it simply in order to enjoy the irony of a bishop espousing heretical views.
quote:
Spong’s Wrongness: I wasn’t asking about wrongness of tactics. I really meant to ask if it is completely impossible to assert that one is a Christian while not envisioning God as a personal, independent spiritual entity who miraculously took form via a Virgin birth and proved it via physical resurrection.
At one time I might have said "No, not impossible" but having, since then, become acquainted with the history of the Church, I would say that belief in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection is essential to being a Christian. I'm well acquainted with the point that the Virgin Birth occurs in Matthew and Luke and nowhere else in the New Testament. But it also occurs in the Nicene Creed, and it could just as easily be said that Matthew and Luke were mythmaking around a common tradition as that they were mythmaking around a mythical core. In fact, I think it's easier to postulate that their stories were accepted because the Virgin Birth was already believed than that their stories were an attempt to convince people that the Virgin Birth had occurred.
quote:
The Whole Heresy Thing. I am curious to ask what I’m betting Kyralessa and Ley Druid would love to ask: How is it that dedicated creedalists...excuse themselves from lack of integrity by not returning or turning to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches and dealing with whatever differences they have with those doctrines? Only a hierarchical power structure can enforce that kind of discipline...
My own experience in converting from Churches of Christ to Orthodoxy showed me that conversion is a many-faceted thing; and moving to Orthodoxy is definitely a conversion, not merely "switching churches." (I imagine Roman Catholics would say the same about their church.) That said, from the beginning of the ordination of women priests up through now, we've received a fair number of Episcopalians; occasionally even congregations of them. But there are articles on the danger of converting away from things rather than to things (I linked to a couple on Erin's "I'm sick of being an Anglican" thread), and I wouldn't advise anybody to convert to Orthodoxy without a good assessment of the costs and consequences.
quote:
otherwise, it is a matter of scaring up votes and the only way you are going to scare up votes is with sensational stuff like ordaining homosexuals. You can’t stir up a majority of Protestants by saying, “I think the resurrection was not strictly physical.”
On the other hand, I'll bet you could stir up a lot of votes if same bishop said, "We're now going to alter the words of the creed to make it clear that the resurrection was spiritual and not physical." If the bishop just says it wasn't physical, he's expressing his own wacky opinion. If he changes the creed, he's enforcing his heretical opinion on everybody. Likewise, ordaining women priests or practicing homosexual bishops affects everybody, whereas merely saying "I think women priests would be a good idea," or "Why can't practicing homosexuals be bishops?" doesn't.
quote:
The Whole Scholastic thing. Ian’s post was both insightful and illuminating and prompts me to launch an inquiry into the way out of this dichotomy: bringing one’s current worldview to the scriptures in order to create a modern faith vs. extracting the One True Faith from a first century worldview that only an historian can hope to recreate. I note that in response to a simple question about how Catholics and Protestants might intercommune, NT Wright acknowledges that it would take years for anyone outside his thinking to “climb the mountain” required to understand his thinking on justification and that at least something like that would be required for such a monumental task as a unified view of the Eucharist (it’s in the link I keep referring to here.) That level of scholasticism is completely unacceptable to me...
I think what Wright is referring to is his difficulty in making himself understood to the average layman who will attend a lecture but won't read theological books. It takes a long time for scholarly theology to trickle down to the masses; it may have been twenty-five years ago that the idea was first forcefully promulgated that the Pharisees were not, in fact, trying to earn their way to heaven, but it's still what I hear in sermons by those I think ought to know better. I think what Wright's doing is very valuable, but it may well have to be others, and not him, who interpret his work and explain it in such a way that the average churchgoer can get the essence of it.
So far as bringing one's current worldview, JimT, I would call your attention to an infamous thread a while back on the theology of suicide. Someone posted a quote from G. K. Chesterton, who said about suicide (among other things), "Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act."
Now this is a remarkably insensitive statement about the subject; shouldn't we feel pity for those who saw no way out rather than call their reasons "pathetic"? But someone pointed out on that thread that the word pathetic has more than one meaning. Dictionary.com gives these two meanings:
quote:
- Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion: “The old, rather shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic” (John Galsworthy).
- Arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity.
In the present day I never hear anyone use the first meaning; only the second has any day-to-day usage. When I say "How pathetic," I don't mean "How sad," but "How contemptible." My natural way of reading Chesterton's sentence (what I might call the plain meaning) would have him calling excuses for suicide contemptible. But once I'm aware of the alternate meaning, I see that it's more likely in the context that Chesterton called these excuses sad and pitiable.
But then I'm having to research and interpret rather than take the "plain meaning." And this for a book written less than a hundred years ago in English! How much more so for a book written two thousand years ago, and more, in Greek, Hebrew, and a few bits of Aramaic!
Which is not to say that anybody who wants to be a Christian has to learn those languages; but it does mean that anybody who wants to seriously teach what the New Testament has to say either needs to learn Greek and do some historical research or lean on those who have, rather than trying to teach the "plain meaning of the text" as though there is such a thing.
At this point we could get into whether Christianity is a Biblical or a historical thing, and that would probably be best approached on another thread.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
If the bishop just says it wasn't physical, he's expressing his own wacky opinion.
Yes, as C.S. Lewis (oh, no, not again, I hear you cry) says (but I cannot find now), no matter what is preached from the pulpit, immediately we go right into the Creed after the sermon.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Thank you very much for a thoughtful and well-expressed post, Kyralessa. As with much of this thread, there are many points worthy of deeper discussion because it touches on “Spong’s whole view of Christianity.” One of the questions I am asking is, “does anyone think it has any validity as a Christian belief system?” Not surprisingly, most people say no. But some say yes and seem to understand the kind of “Christianity in Exile” that Spong talks about. There is an old Jimmy Stewart movie where he plays a reporter watching a man being given a lie detector test. The man is divorced and is asked, “Are you divorced?” He answers “yes” but the machine says he’s lying. Stewart asks for an explanation and the test giver says, “he’s Catholic, so he still thinks he is married.”
That is the essence of Spong’s mythical “Believer in Exile.” I’d like to pause and explain that from a personal perspective. It was clear to me at a very, very early age, about 8 or 9, that I would have to “convert away” from my parent’s fiery Fundamentalist Pentecostal Holiness tradition. It was obvious that people speaking in tongues, in those churches at that time, were simply going through an emotional experience. They cried, they shouted, they shook, etc. It was obvious that people who said they longed to pattern their lives after Jesus really just wanted justification for their own status quo. It was obvious that most people’s view of God as kind to his obedient children and brutal to his disobedient children was in conflict with the statement that “God is Love.” A more unholy Trinity was difficult to imagine.
It was equally obvious that the Pentecostal Holiness emphasis on intense self-examination of both belief and action was good. It was clear that the emphasis on truth and proving things to be true was good. Perhaps the best part of this kind of upbringing was a ritual emphasis on compassion for others: we called everybody and I mean everybody in the Church “brother” and “sister” even in the most heated and ugly arguments. I got the idea that the good life was one grounded in love and guided by truth. Although they gave lip service to this, they did not live it. Worst of all, the goodness from God and the goodness toward others applied only to tongue-speaking Pentecostals. Everyone else was dangerously housing demons or inviting demons into their unprotected Temple.
A wide and encompassing truth, such as the truth of God, must be abstract. The more abstract the principle, the greater number of specific situations it will cover. Abstracting my Pentecostal Holiness teachings down to “loving but truth-seeking self-examination against a standard of love guided by truth recognizing all persons as my brother or sister” has served me well. I have had Christians call me Christian when I say what I abstracted from my background and I have had Hindus call me Hindu and Buddhists call me Buddhist. But then members of each religion say it is time to “expand” my thinking (it always appears to be a contraction to me) into helpful specifics, such as God taking human form in Jesus or some other person, or the reincarnation of my soul to perfection, or elimination of desire and self. These things are not helpful to me. I don't feel as though I'm missing something essential. What I experience as the "real world" is more miraculous to me than my understanding of their "real world" with "a more complete truth."
So when asked about my religious views, I speak the truth with my mouth and say, “I am a humanist” but the lie detector goes off and my heart says, “I am a Pentecostal Holiness ‘Believer in Exhile.’” So thorough is my delusion from Satan, I suppose.
[ 22. August 2003, 17:45: Message edited by: JimT ]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Spong represents a portion of liberal thinking in the Anglican church.
I have just finished his autobiography. I found it incredibly moving, as I did the book written by David Jenkins.
Its interesting. They are both looked upon as 'heretics' by some, but I felt there was a much greater sense of justice and holiness in both books than I have ever read from the likes of Tom Wright, for example. I was particularly impressed by his honesty about how he moved on gay and lesbian matters
It has made me want to read Spong's work in greater depth again. Although I don't share all his views, and certainly not his churchmanship, I think he assessed the reality of contemporary conservative views in the Anglican Church and what they really stand for better than anyone else I have read in recent years.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Its interesting. They are both looked upon as 'heretics' by some, but I felt there was a much greater sense of justice and holiness in both books than I have ever read from the likes of Tom Wright, for example. I was particularly impressed by his honesty about how he moved on gay and lesbian matters
MM, out of curiosity, which of N. T. Wright's books have you read?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
I am sure it has been dealt with elsewhere, but it strikes me that there is the world of difference in not believing in the Virgin Birth, and not believing in the Resurrection. The Virgin Birth is not central to the faith. It is only in two books of the Bible. Its origins are texturally questionable, (did Matthew invent it because he was using the Septuagint: Behold a virgin shall conceive, rather than the Hebrew which is more ambiguous (maiden)) etc, etc. At my first Christtmas circuit staff meeting 18 years ago, all 10 ministers present expressed doubts about it.
However, the Resurrection is different. It occurs in every book of New Testament and is fundamental to our faith. Quite how we see it will vary, but even Spong has to an understanding of it to call himself a Christian.
I don't go as far as Spong, but I do think that what he says is a legitimate interpretation of the CHristian tradition in the light of modern scholarship, which is not the same as saying I agree with him.
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Wright ; His apologia for St.Paul, and the debate between Borg and himself. A good advert for the Jesus seminar . And The Way of the Lord.
Perhaps its just me, but I find his smug and self-satisfied style nauseating. Not someone I would choose to read again.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
(JimT - I prepared a response to you but on logging on discovered Kyralessa had covered quite a bit already - I'll get back to you!)
Weslian - yes, I think the virgin birth has been covered fairly recently. The thing about amah in the Jewish version of Isaiah is that it comes from the masoretic text, which is many hundreds of years after the LXX Greek text and well into the Christian era. Unless there has been some recent discovery, we just don't have a Jewish text of the antiquity of the LXX, which raises the question, why did the Jewish translators decide to use the concept of "virgin", bearing in mind that none of them would have expected a univocal reading of scripture - ?
Similarly - quote:
I don't go as far as Spong, but I do think that what he says is a legitimate interpretation of the CHristian tradition in the light of modern scholarship, which is not the same as saying I agree with him.
Yes, he certainly bases what he says on the scholarship of other modern writers, that's true. I think what we are trying to get at here is that those scholars themselves are operating within certain constraints which arise as a result of their worldview, a worldview which is now highly problematic in respect of both Jewish studies of the last half century, and the radical revision of the way we have had to start reconsidering the nature of reality over the last seventy years or so, due to developments in the physical sciences. The challenge here is a radical one - it challenges the axioms of post-enlightenment supposition - not to prove them wrong, but to show what limitations they introduce and the way they colour our ways of seeing things.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
Ian
I am not sure I find that worldview as problematic as you do. (It was the one I was brougth up with.) My point is still that the virgin birth is not central, and disbelieving it does not make you an unfit bishop. I suspect many quite conservative ones have their doubts. The resurrction is a different matter, but I would have thought David Jenkins' approach a pretty middle of the road one, for anyone who has really done some NT scholarship.
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Weslian wrote: quote:
I am not sure I find that worldview as problematic as you do. (It was the one I was brougth up with.)
I guess that goes for many other people too. I've no idea what changes in the public's perception of things will be in the future. In any event, it was Bertrand Russell (no kind of conservative) who observed that so far as what the public regarded as self-evidently true, it was so frequently in error as to be virtually synonymous with being wrong. Probably not too helpful at this point!
I just think some hard graft is in order at the moment, as in a number of these areas there are going to have to be some serious re-thinks, if not actual paradigm-shifts. This can be both a threat or an opportunity.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
The thing about amah in the Jewish version of Isaiah is that it comes from the masoretic text, which is many hundreds of years after the LXX Greek text and well into the Christian era. Unless there has been some recent discovery, we just don't have a Jewish text of the antiquity of the LXX, which raises the question, why did the Jewish translators decide to use the concept of "virgin", bearing in mind that none of them would have expected a univocal reading of scripture - ?
For what it's worth, according to this, "There is no word in the Near Eastern languages that by itself means virgo intacta." Virginity or lack of same is implied by context. The original context of Isaiah 7:14 suggested that a young woman (almah), who would be a virgin at the moment Isaiah was talking, would soon conceive--in the normal fashion--her firstborn and call him Immanuel. Hence, from the context, parthenos was the correct translation; it's just that the woman would not remain a parthenos much longer.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
My point is still that the virgin birth is not central, and disbelieving it does not make you an unfit bishop. I suspect many quite conservative ones have their doubts.
Not to rehash what's already been said, but I'd like to rehash what's already been said: Doesn't one agree to uphold the creeds of the church when one is made a bishop? The Virgin Birth is most definitely in the Nicene Creed.
(Heck, I say those of you who only have to believe in the Virgin Birth should consider yourselves lucky. Us Orthodox also have to believe in the Ever-Virginity of Mary. At least the Virgin Birth can be found in the Bible a few places.)
By the way, since we're talking about the Virgin Birth, and especially about Isaiah 7:14, I was wondering if anyone else has noticed (as I just now did) that Luke, in his Virgin Birth account, never refers to the verse in Isaiah?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
For what it's worth, according to this, "There is no word in the Near Eastern languages that by itself means virgo intacta." Virginity or lack of same is implied by context.
Is this a statement about modern Near Eastern languages or ancient ones?
My field is linguistics, and I can tell you that it is very difficult to establish the fact that a certain language did not have a word for something. Since language is primarily spoken, and only secondarily written, the absence of a certain feature in the writings that have survived does not prove that this feature does not exist. The corpus we have for ancient Hebrew is infinitesimal compared to everything that was spoken and written.
If the linked statement deals with modern Near Eastern languages, we cannot assume that the ancient languages were the same.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
For what it's worth, according to this, "There is no word in the Near Eastern languages that by itself means virgo intacta." Virginity or lack of same is implied by context.
Is this a statement about modern Near Eastern languages or ancient ones?
From the context, I'd figure ancient Near Eastern languages were in question.
quote:
Since language is primarily spoken, and only secondarily written, the absence of a certain feature in the writings that have survived does not prove that this feature does not exist.
However, sexual ethics was a sizable concern in many of the writings that we do have, and it is clear that the language can and was used to convey that certain persons did or did not have sex. So, in this particular case, we do have a sizable number of writing samples where a word for virgo intacta could have been used, yet wasn't. Instead, virginity is implied by context or indicated with phrases. That indicates that a word for virgo intacta simply wasn't available.
Sorry for the digression.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Doesn't one agree to uphold the creeds of the church when one is made a bishop? The Virgin Birth is most definitely in the Nicene Creed.
So how does the theology of the church develop? In the Orthodox tradition, I accept, it doesn't, it is given. But in the Protestant tradition, that is not necessarily the case. If one is not careful such promises can ensure that the leadership of the church is always conservative. For those of us who find that difficult, where do we go? My church 'rejoices in teh apostolic faith adn loyally accepts the fundamental principles of the Historic Creeds.' I don't think the virgin birth is one of those fundamental principles, I think the resurrection is. (and I would cite scripture as my reasoning behind this.)
What exactly to Anglican bishops promise?
[ 23. August 2003, 17:01: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from J.J. Ramsey quote:
However, sexual ethics was a sizable concern in many of the writings that we do have, and it is clear that the language can and was used to convey that certain persons did or did not have sex. So, in this particular case, we do have a sizable number of writing samples where a word for virgo intacta could have been used, yet wasn't. Instead, virginity is implied by context or indicated with phrases. That indicates that a word for virgo intacta simply wasn't available.
But if they had needed such a word, they could have made one up. That's how languages usually work.
I wonder whether the concept of virgo intacta was subsumed in some other word--such as a word meaning, 'a woman still living in her parents' house'.
Every language has the words to say everything important in that culture. If they didn't have a word, that would suggest that virginity was unimportant to them, which seems unlikely.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote from J.J. Ramsey quote:
However, sexual ethics was a sizable concern in many of the writings that we do have, and it is clear that the language can and was used to convey that certain persons did or did not have sex. So, in this particular case, we do have a sizable number of writing samples where a word for virgo intacta could have been used, yet wasn't. Instead, virginity is implied by context or indicated with phrases. That indicates that a word for virgo intacta simply wasn't available.
But if they had needed such a word, they could have made one up. That's how languages usually work.
I wonder whether the concept of virgo intacta was subsumed in some other word--such as a word meaning, 'a woman still living in her parents' house'.
Apparently not.
quote:
From this page
But in Joel 1:8, where the beátuÆlaÆ is called upon to lament the death of her ba>al “husband,” it probably does not mean “virgin” for elsewhere ba>al is the regular word for “husband” and its usual translation by “bridegroom” in the versions is otherwise unattested. Likewise in Est 2:17 the beátuÆloµt who spent a night with King Ahasuerus are not virgins, unless it is a “shorthand” for “those who had been virgins.” In a parable Ezekiel speaks of Oholah and Oholibah playing the harlot and their beátuÆléÆm breasts being handled (23:3). Here too the notion of virginity would be inaccurate. Finally in Job 31:1 even the neb translated our word by “girl” because it would not be sinful for Job to look on a virgin. Unless it is an epithet for a Canaanite goddess it probably designates a young married woman (cf. vv. 8ff).
Like Greek parthenos, Latin virgo and German Jungfrau, beátuÆlaÆ originally meant “young marriageable woman” but since she was normally a virgin it was not difficult for this meaning to become attached to the word. This more technical meaning is a later development in Hebrew and Aramaic and is clearly its meaning by the Christian era. When the change took place is not clear.
What is clear is that one cannot argue that if Isaiah (7:14) in his famous oracle to Ahaz had intended a virgin he could have used beátuÆlaÆ as a more precise term than >almaÆ.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Every language has the words to say everything important in that culture. If they didn't have a word, that would suggest that virginity was unimportant to them, which seems unlikely.
Actually, Moo, you may be on to something. Virginity in and of itself was probably not considered a virtue at the time. Virginity outside of marriage was valued, but virginity within marriage would be absurd. Hence the focus isn't on the virginity per se, which is probably partly why there wasn't a word for it.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I’d like to chime in on the Right/Wrong and Wright/Spong axes that “progressive conservatives” so often describe. I have similar reactions as MerseyMike when I read Spong and Wright. Spong reaches me in an inspirational way when he speaks from the heart to the heart but annoys me when he paints darker and darker pictures of the wrong hearts of those who disagree with him. Wright annoys me when he speaks from head to head, implying that if you cannot agree with him you have a wrong head that needs fixing via conformance to the Real Truth instead of What You Make Up. I pick up the same smugness to which MerseyMike refers: in his Ship of Fools Easter article, he calls the Christian right “Rev. Gospelman” and the Christian left “Rev. Smoothtongue” and bets that no one has heard the revolutionary new middle ground that NT offers. His porridge is “juuuuust right.” Those who suffered through my sometimes playful and sometimes serious explanation of the Meyers-Briggs test will perhaps chuckle when I say that I see these alternatives as “NT” Wright and “NF” Spong.
I see these head/heart issues surfacing in Wright’s story that he grew up in moderate evangelical Lutheranism stressing Christ’s abolition the Old Law and creation of a New Law. This rankled his sense of consistency and constancy of the Truth. He was relieved to read Calvin and find someone who stressed that Christ fulfilled the Law and that laws and rules and regulations were a good thing. So Wright says, “given the option of Calvin and Luther, you simply have to choose Calvin.” (One more time, the article to which I linked earlier).
No thanks. Spong and I grew up with too much Calvin; we had the old law, the new law, the blue laws, and the long arm of the law, and you better celebrate it instead of bridle against it you Rebellious Fallen Creature. Luther is our man; we bring ourselves to the scripture and create a newer better self in the exchange. We do not bring the scriptures to our selves and crucify the old self in favor of the new correct one that God intended, despite clear instruction from Paul that this is The Right Way to Go About It. To me, God is latent inside everything, slowly "revealing" itself or becoming more manifest over time. When we realize that, we can join the revelation and become active rather than passive participants. That’s something like how I see our interaction with a non-personal God.
The other place where I see a similar heart/head dichotomy is Christ/Paul in the New Testament. Without Paul’s systematic overlay of the Gospel onto The Law I think that Calvinist-style thinkers might not be drawn to Christianity. I think that they would say that Christ was a deep feeler but light thinker. He seemed inconsistent on things like the Kingdom of Heaven; he used analogies that spoke to the heart; he did not define terms and present structured arguments. He answered questions with questions. “Are you the Messiah?” they asked. “You tell me,” he would answer. He did not say, "Ask my mother--I was born of a Virgin. QED." It is not that he did not show intelligence—I just think he used it in a different way that appeals to “Lutheran” personality types. Paul on the other hand was very rigorous in use of language and very structured in his arguments. Not that he had no heart or showed no feelings—but it seems to me that he always explained himself in a way that appeals to “Calvinist” types. And I think that some of what he brought to the Gospel, from his presuppositions about women and men and creation and The Fall might have been wrong. I’ll let the linguists and historians argue that out; I have neither specialty.
I think that the correct frame of mind lies in some kind of fusion of the better of the two kinds of thinking, not in one over the other. (My porridge is the only one that's Truly Juuuuust Right™. Alert Coot possible sig.)
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Hello, is this the right room for an argument?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Hello, is this the right room for an argument?
Probably not. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Dunno if anyone is still tuned in here, but JimT raised some interesting points that I for one would like to continue with.
Converting/leaving
This is going to vary a lot. Some people will jump ship at the slightest provocation - others have a much higher level of commitment for various reasons. By and large, those who hold to a more catholic ecclesiology are likely to find it more difficult, though as I say there are also other reasons involved. In any event, as has been pointed out, we don't have heresy police. Even Rome (who sort-of do have a heresy police) take many years before taking action. So courtesy demands sufficient time for the individual to explain themselves. However, that has a downside - it also allows the level of discomfort and cognitive dissonance to rise in others.
There is also the single-issue thing. People who join another church on this basis frequently leave again fairly rapidly. If you are going to somewhere else, it should be a positive decision. Humans are humans wherever you find them, and it also helps to realise that at times our own views can be every bit as crap and biased as theirs.
Perhaps the best way to look at this is to regard the unease that comes with the cognitive dissonance as being the motivator to start doing something. That something may ultimately turn out to be a move, or it might not. In my own case, I don't really know where I shall be in future either. But at some point I know I shall have to decide, rather than let it go by default.
Dishonesty
No, I do not for a minute think that Jack Spong is that sort of Machiavellian-prince bishop. Just wanted to set that record straight.
Christianity in exile
An interesting one. I really do think there is a need for this, and as even his most dedicated opponents acknowledge, he has at least caused the rest of us to put our thinking caps on. I can't give you a fully joined-up position on this one, but my thoughts run something like this.
First, exile from what? There seems to be a sort of suggestion at least that a fundamentalist mindset is involved here, along with other factors like "nobody today can believe…" sort of things, which we've touched on already. I haven't read his "rescuing Christianity" book, so maybe it's more formally stated in there. This rather overlooks the fact that historically, fundamentalism arose as a reaction to theological liberalism, not the other way around. But the two still remain locked together in a sort of deadly embrace, as they share many underlying presuppositions and indeed a strong-realist worldview. It seems remarkably easy for people to move from one of these positions to the other, and as I said in an earlier post, I think that is what Spong has done. The framework has remained, but different objects have been dropped into it. If Christians are to be rescued from exile, it seems to me that a far more radical approach will be needed, that trashes this whole wretched framework itself. I could say more, but had better not for reasons of space.
Incidentally, I think the above is changing. I do not see JimT in this light, and of other shipmates, I don't think it describes Edward Green's position either. However, much of this discussion of people in exile seems to revolve around these existing worldview presuppositions.
Search for a common core
I know JimT is keen on this one, as he has posted on two threads. Just a few thoughts. I have no trouble with this. In fact I think it is a decent and honourable project. But this is limiting. It is a search for what is popularly known as the Lowest Common Denominator (though that should really be the Highest Common Factor). Religions certainly have much in common, including the golden rule. However, much that is incommensurable is also asserted as part of their truth-claims. Sometimes you can exegete your way out of this by ensuring you try to see things within the whole framework, rather than submitting individual views to your own framework. Difficult, but not impossible. In the end, though, it has to be faced that truth-claims are involved that are not reconcilable.
When you get to this point, I think you have to decide whether you are going to say "I can't work this one out - I'm going so far and no further", or "I'm interested, and think one of these truth-claims may have something in it". It seems to me that either of these options possesses integrity. What I think is unacceptable is to say or imply that is impossible to go further. The real world doesn't work that way, except in deeply (intellectually) conservative circles. But maybe I misunderstand your suggestions…
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
And maybe the rest of us misunderstand your responses, Ian! Those last couple of paragraphs are pretty dense...
To continue the Spong/Wright tangent for a bit, I hear what you're saying about Wright being a smarty-pants, Jim. I think this kind of academic superiority goes with the territory, and most normal people find it hard to put up with. From what I'm gathering, Spong's heart-on-sleeve approach is in many respects a lot more admirable.
But in Mr Wright's favour, he is at least agreeable with people he disagrees with, and from what I gather is good friends with many of his opponents (Borg et al). It's something I particularly respect him for. But, as previously mentioned, Spong has nothing but vitriol and open derision for people who disagree with him - not a very commendable character trait, I would have thought.
[ 27. August 2003, 10:20: Message edited by: humblebum ]
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
You mean Wright is a silver-tongued smooth operator who tries to pretend he gets on with everyone?
Just about sums up why I dislike his work. That smug tone is apparent throughout.
I prefer John Spong's honesty and approach. I also agree that homophobes and fundamentalists deserve the approach he takes rather than the pretend-bonhomie of Wright.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
Wright could ordain me in 3 years time. Scary thought (on a numnber of levels) ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
It would be a shame to let personal animosities completely cloud what is being said by either of these guys. I certainly have objected to some of the ways Spong has done things (it was in the OP, remember?), and Merseymike has countered with a category of things that he finds displeasing about the way Wright does things.
Even so, in the final analysis, what counts foremost is whether their writings are right. Secondly, whether they are helpful in conveying that truth. There is no mileage in being the world's greatest apologist for the incorrect.
So, tough though it may be, we have to get down to the bedrock of what is being said. This thread is about Spong, not Wright, so if it is helpful, leave the latter out of it and start another thread somewhere else.
I hope that someone can come back on the comments on "Christians in Exile" that interests JimT and me, for the simple reason that Spong finds this important too. If what I posted was unintelligible (not impossible alas) I'll try to re-work it.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
You mean Wright is a silver-tongued smooth operator who tries to pretend he gets on with everyone?
Just about sums up why I dislike his work. That smug tone is apparent throughout.
I prefer John Spong's honesty and approach. I also agree that homophobes and fundamentalists deserve the approach he takes rather than the pretend-bonhomie of Wright.
Yes, let's just forget about trying to discern whether what a person says is true. Far better to see if they agree with our own prejudices and work from there.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Just like you clearly do with Wright.
I'm certainly nearer Spong's view.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
You mean Wright is a silver-tongued smooth operator who tries to pretend he gets on with everyone?
Merseymike, would you care to explain how being personal friends with those with whom one disagrees constitutes being a "silver-tongued smooth operator who tries to pretend he gets on with everyone"?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
You mean Wright is a silver-tongued smooth operator who tries to pretend he gets on with everyone?
Just about sums up why I dislike his work. That smug tone is apparent throughout.
I prefer John Spong's honesty and approach. I also agree that homophobes and fundamentalists deserve the approach he takes rather than the pretend-bonhomie of Wright.
I think what was meant is that Wright doesn't let scholarly disagreements get personal.
Although I suppose Spong doesn't either, in the sense that one could hardly accuse Spong of having scholarly disagreements with anybody. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I don't take the opinions of the Wright fan club as truth.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I don't take the opinions of the Wright fan club as truth.
I'm guessing nobody's responding to this because nobody knows what your point is.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
It appears that my bias against resurrection (and busy-ness IRL) has caused me to miss the resurrection of this thread. I'll read Ian more carefully and try to work something up today.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I prefer John Spong's honesty and approach. I also agree that homophobes and fundamentalists deserve the approach he takes rather than the pretend-bonhomie of Wright.
Ah right, everyone who disagrees with John Spong is by definition a homophobe and a fundamentalist - now I see the Christian honesty and integrity in his approach.
Haven't we been here before? (like back on the first few pages of this thread?)
(Please note - I wasn't particularly trying to throw mud at Spong here. I had understood from the thread that his venomous style of attacking his critics is accepted by his fans and critics alike).
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I don't take the opinions of the Wright fan club as truth.
Merseymike, it's hard not to read this as a personal insult. A couple of weeks back, you complimented me for something I posted on another thread (secular counselling and the clergy, IIRC). Now I like Tom Wright's academic work, and so my opinion becomes a pile of crap. Please explain - was this comment directed to me, or everyone who has something good to say about Wright?
(with apologies to Jim, Ian, David etc for sidetracking the thread further)
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I don't quite know how to launch into this without lengthy manifesto-style posting but hopefully it is at least as entertaining and illuminating as watchman. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Spong’s Description of “Believers in Exile”
quote:
In the despair of meaninglessness, these Jewish people were forced to leave everything they knew and everything they valued to begin their journey into a Babylonian captivity…In this postmodern world, those who still claim allegiance to the Christian religion find themselves, I believe, living in a similar kind of exile. Spong, Chapter 2 of Why Christianity Must Change or Die
Spong’s thumbnail of the postmodern destruction of the personal God of traditional Christianity is to some the trite and predictable path of Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Freud, and Einstein rearranging the origin of Man and the nature of God until the God and Man of the Bible were no longer the God and Man of the postmodern world. While traditional Christianity has attempted to adapt and respond to this, in Spong’s view it has failed. He does not prove this or argue it, he states it, which I realize is a fatal mistake in terms of explaining himself to the traditionalists. He then appoints himself the champion and advocate of Believers in Exile, for whom postmodernism has destroyed traditional Christianity. Personally, I react by saying, “It’s a nice thought, Jack. I’d like to return from exile to a New Jerusalem but that’s not going to happen. Give up and join the Unitarian Church, which was founded by Believers in Exile a couple hundred years ago.”
The Liberal/Fundamental Chicken and Egg Seeking a Common Yolk/Yoke
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
[H]istorically, fundamentalism arose as a reaction to theological liberalism, not the other way around. But the two still remain locked together in a sort of deadly embrace, as they share many underlying presuppositions and indeed a strong-realist worldview.
I’m going to challenge the notion that theological liberalism is the chicken that laid the fundamentalist egg. The fatal embrace can probably be traced back to the original church councils about which I know little. More recently, American Unitarianism was arguably spawned as much by reaction to the emotional fundamentalism of the 1700’s as it was by the scientific advances of the Enlightenment.
But just as Spong has squandered his opportunity by alienating the core constituency of Christianity in an attempt to appeal to its sympathetic apostates, I think Unitarianism has done the same thing. At the same time I do believe there is such a thing that IanB referred to as the Highest Common Factor.
My simple-minded Highest Common Factor is the Holy Grail of Truth fused with Love and Justice Fused with Mercy. My scriptural support for this are the Biblical quotes that God is Love and after Christ we would be comforted by the Spirit of Truth. The Old Testament sums up our requirements from God as humbly doing justice while loving mercy. My support outside of Christianity comes from experience with people and my own personal experience in psychotherapy. The latter was most surprising. “What is the real truth?” my therapist would say over and over. “What do you really think? How do you really feel? How do the people with whom you have conflict really think and feel? Are you sure? What could be distorting your thinking and feeling? What could be distorting theirs? What’s the best way to find out? Have some empathy and love for yourself when you ask yourself the tough questions, and do the same for others. The truth will make it easier to live with yourself and bond with others.” Etc. So I think this is a fundamental unifying principle worthy of discussion. It’s not going to found Utopia or Christianity for the New Milleneum, but it might be worth talking about.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Just like you clearly do with Wright.
I've only ever read the article he wrote for the Ship, and the interview that Jim linked to. Don't think I've even mentioned him anywhere.
Care to retract?
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
If you do, yes, as your supposition was equally inaccurate.
[ 27. August 2003, 23:19: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
'Believer in exile' sounds a fine description of a Christian as I understand myself. I always hope to be on the edge watching the people in the middle and trying unsuccessfully to understand them. I find the people who speak to me most helpfully are those who don't quite belong. The not truly orthodox, the questionable questioners, the gadflys, the misfits. I see Jesus as one of these. Spong, too, though I don't know much of him.
I think that God is mostly found in the renewal of things, not their faithful perpetuation. So I look for God where the word heresy begins to be heard, where someone is said to have gone too far, where the word 'Christian' appears near question marks.
I've never yet come across an inspiring heresy hunter.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
If you do, yes, as your supposition was equally inaccurate.
You are.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Hatless -
I'm intrigued by your comments. As you believe yourself to be in exile, what would it take for someone like me to do to convince you to return from exile?
Also:- quote:
So I look for God where the word heresy begins to be heard, where someone is said to have gone too far, where the word 'Christian' appears near question marks.
I think I can understand what you are getting at here. But would you be equally comfortable if the word "heresy" doesn't just begin to be heard, but rises to a shout, and people start to feel themselves going into exile as a result of it? (which probably characterises me). At what point would you feel uncomfortable? How would you judge?
Sorry to put you on the spot, but my intent is a practical one.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
JimT
Thanks for the Spong quote. I must admit it's thrown me a bit. It seems to suggest that all those who claim allegiance to the Christian faith are in exile. I suppose in a sense we are - we are supposed to be living with one foot in this age and one in the age to come. But that wasn't what I sensed his main thrust was - I rather understood it meant people in exile from the church itself. Can you clarify that one pls?
However. I think I've said all I can on the subject of destruction of the faith by either modernism or postmodernism (which in this case alone probably can be considered together, though I seriously doubt his claims to be a postmodernist). I'll not bore you with it yet again!
quote:
I’m going to challenge the notion that theological liberalism is the chicken that laid the fundamentalist egg. The fatal embrace can probably be traced back to the original church councils about which I know little.
My point was related to the order they occurred. Yes, you are right, they hardy started at this point, though I would be interested to hear your arguments as to why they started with the councils. I think a strong case could be made for taking it back to the scholastic period of the middle ages, but I would be wary of much before that. This is very much a western-christian phenomenon, which does at least suggest a post-great-schism origin. I can't really comment on Unitarianism as I know very little about it, though it does seem to stretch from expressions that seem little different to mainstream protestant thought, through to the wilder shores at the UU end. But that's an uninformed outside view.
OK - the main point - the "Highest Common Factor" thing. I think we must surely agree on this - I would be interested to hear if anyone disagreed. And as I said before, I am sure your aims are high-minded and noble. You really can't go wrong there. The question I would pose is "Do we not have this already?". I presume you are looking for a greater commitment to organic unity. I certainly would like to see that. What else needs to be done? Greater working together to witness that we don't just talk about justice and mercy, - rather, that we do it, as per your quote from Micah.
I don't know how things are with you, but we have local organizations of churches that do arrange things on a regular basis, called "Churches together in (wherever)" They cover everybody, unless they don't wan't to be in. The general hope is that they will lead to people outside the church seeing us as having a common cause despite our differences. Also, so far as the internal divisions are concerned they help people discover that the "others" are human too, and perhaps gradually become less other, not necessarily by some Hegelian process, but by searching for what is right.
Well, it's a start, but that's all it is. We really ought to be doing a lot more than we do. And it doesn't really help those who see themselves as being on the outside of the group, rather than just part of the group. But I suppose the question has to be faced up "Will there always be somebody on the outside? Can you really expect everyone to be on the inside? Whatever I do, they have the right not just to disagree but to separate themselves from me."
I've got to confess that from this point onwards, my own views are likely to diverge from yours, as I would agree with those people you dismissed earlier who indicated this was simply a starting point.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Ian, when I said it “probably started with the councils” I was literally guessing and trying to head off what seems the inevitable post that says, “actually, this was a hot issue in 376 AD.” With respect to the Highest Common Factor of merging Truth and Love we may have it in lip service, but not in practice. Look at this thread for all the evidence you need here on The Ship. As you move out to all of Christianity and all of the other major religions, again you may get lip service, especially from the intellectuals, but not from practitioners. I also mean that religions should abandon the requirement of anything beyond the Highest Common Factor. Anything beyond it that is defensible should be permitted but not required. You stress finding out what is right among the options. To me right and wrong end with the Highest Common Factor. After that it is personal taste, options, and prerogative. If it doesn’t violate the Highest Common Factor, it should be permissible.
To return to Spong, you asked for clarification about “Believers in Exile.”
Clarification of Who Is “In Exile”
Spong’s position is that all Christians who are “postmodern” are in exile. He never rigorously defines “postmodern” but he makes it clear that it precludes a personal God watching over us, judging us for eligibility for eternal life or deserving of damnation, and available for intervention if we get in serious trouble and need help. By implication he makes it clear that it also precludes traditional views of Christ.
For Spong, every Christian ought to be in exile because if they are not, they are deluding themselves with a premodern world view or are living an empty kind of secularism. After his long explanation of how advances in learning changed views of God and Man to the point that Spong asserts the creeds and traditional Christian beliefs are no longer operative to a postmodern Christian, he says:
quote:
The exile was complete…Is it possible in this exile for us to remain believers? Some clearly do not think so. Many citizens of our century have given up believing and have assumed citizenship in the secular city…Others…have tried to dismiss all the data derived from the explosion of knowledge in the last few centuries as if it were false or evil or even as if it did not exist…Still others, like me and perhaps the audience to which I have some appeal, have begun to define themselves as believers in exile. They refuse to abandon the reality of God, yet they have been driven by forces over which they have no control to sacrifice much of the content of that God reality. So they are left with an almost contentless concept, which must be allowed to find new meaning or it will die.
The postmodern image of God as Ground of Being leads in Spong’s theology to a postmodern image of Christ as “Spirit Person” rather than “Rescuer.” The Virgin Birth and Physical Resurrection are not required, he says, to see Jesus as our common rallying point for seeing the incarnation of God and a universal example for imitation. After several chapters of explanation he concludes with this:
quote:
So being a disciple of this Jesus does not require me to make literalized creedal affirmations in oppositional form about the reality of the theistic God who supposedly invaded our world and who lived among us for a time in the person of Jesus. It only requires me to be empowered by him to imitate the presence of God in him by living fully, by loving wastefully, and by having the courage to be all that God created me to be…It [means] that I will commune with God only to the degree that I can give my life, my love, and my being away to others.
To Spong, a Christian Believer in Exile does not abandon Christ as a unique window on God even though they have abandoned his Virgin Birth and Physical Resurrection.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
To Limbo you go.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
