|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Spong banned in Sydney
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
I just did a search on Spong and came across his 12 points. They seem pretty standard liberal fair. I may not agree with his focus on theism but he raises interesting questions. The thing is, is that a real mission requires us to deal with a multitude of arguments, and Spong raises a few. Not allowing him to preach is like putting one's hands over one's ears and saying 'I can't hear you' whenever a view is offered that you don't like.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
[QB] CJS says quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a big Jensen fan, by any means. But it's his perrogative to say who can and cannot preach from the pulpits in his diocese.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...the Dean of Sydney and other clergy will visit other dioceses and undermine the authority of clergy within that diocese...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you be a bit more specific? Please.
I don't actually want to drag this into specific egs of wrongs or perceived wrongs done by "Sydney", as I said I think their intentions are genuine in defending what they percieve to be the truth, nevertheless, if you want specific publicly discussed egs of Sydney Diocesan representatives undermining the authority structures of other dioceses, here are a couple off the top of my head. Note the issue is not who's approach is truth, just respect for authority.
Church planting outside Sydney
Then there was the sorry case when the Dean of Sydney went to England and can't actually remember what he said but admitted to talking about the Abp of Canterbury and then immediately went on to talk about holders of high office in the CHurch of England prostituting Christian ministry.
Dean talks about prostitution of Christian ministry
Thank you for being specific.
There is a certain irony that in a thread about (I believe) poor reporting of religion in Sydney the references below are from Julia Baird and David Marr.
On the Marr Media Watch thing, Philip (and others in attendance at the conference) denies that the original report is accurate and the Marr rehash is certainly open to challenge . But even if the comments had actually been made, senior clerics from one diocese attending conferences / public forums and criticising senior clerics from other dioceses is a pretty common occurence. I will accept that if the Dean had said those words he was undermining the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (although not I believe in his own diocese) to the same extend that Peter Carnley was undermining the authority of the archbishop of Sydney when he came and launched into a tirade again ‘the movers and shakers in Sydney’ in a lecture theatre of Sydney University during his book launch. I myself had never though of this incident in those terms and I see no evidence that the authority of PFJ was actually undermined by the comments.
On Julia Baird’s article, her failure to understand the actual import of that piece of legislation is illustrated by the fact that it would be impossible to name a single person licensed by the archbishop of Sydney ministering as an ‘invader’ in someone else’s diocese two years after the legislation was passed.
I don't think that either of these has actually undermined anybody's authority structures. Could you tell me who's authority has been undermined and how they have practically experienced this loss of authority?
quote:
PS you selectively quoted me in one of your previous posts so as to misrepresent my point. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I apologise, you appeared to me to be making two, mutually contradictory points.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am seeing another intersting trend on this thread. Apparently when one becomes a Christian one can no longer decide for oneself what one should listen to at the alter.
You are a sheep! Your designated shepherd, a priest (not Jesus mind you because he would let any old riff raff in to eat with you) must protect you from ALL things. Especially anything controversial. In order to protect you he must stand firm against anything, real or imagined that MAY cause you to be forced to think.
Or something.
I see your point here, but I can see the other side too. Eternally a fence sitter.
That said, if I can give an example from my experience. Reading your posts, and don't let your head get too big ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) , I get the impression you are a smart fellow who can, and does, think for himself. I have been at conferences or talks where those around lap up whatever is dished out to them as Gospel Truth : not daring to question the wisdom of the speaker. Foolish? In my opinion yes, but many people do lap such things up. I've had people -- lawyers, doctors, etc, and so you'd think they'd have their brains switched on -- rush to tell me they know the date of Christ's coming [a Sydney Anglican, which concerned me as they don't tend to go for such things] or if they dream and see a Cross it is a message direct from the Blessed Trinity [a cradle Orthodox, responding to a talk].
They're not likely to be here on the Ship, as such debate would frighten or concern them, but I know a great many. Could it be that the Archbishop is concerned for people like these? That an approval to speak as part of a Service/Meeting grants some credence to something which the Diocese of Sydney would have no truck with?
To me the issue is the pulpit and it being part of a Service/Meeting. An external debate: fine. As part of a Service: I'd no sooner expect Richard Dawkins to be invited to preach. It may sound harsh, but, to me, Bishop Spong is as far removed from Christianity as you can get. And I don't think you can make comparisons with harlots and tax collectors and such: we are all sinners, we all fall short ; but when a Bishop starts preaching things contrary to accepted Christian doctrine, alarm bells go off in my head.
I don't consider myself narrow-minded, but perhaps I am. If so, I can but apologise for this sin.
[ 16. August 2007, 07:14: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
I just did a search on Spong and came across his 12 points. They seem pretty standard liberal fair. I may not agree with his focus on theism but he raises interesting questions. The thing is, is that a real mission requires us to deal with a multitude of arguments, and Spong raises a few. Not allowing him to preach is like putting one's hands over one's ears and saying 'I can't hear you' whenever a view is offered that you don't like.
What questions does he raise that Renan and other sceptics of the 19th century didn't?? It seems pretty derivative to me.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Jesus fought people like the bishop his whole life. I suspect him and Spong woulda got along fine.
and that is called making a very big assumption
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If you feel you are entitled to ban, excommunicate, not talk to, keep from preaching, whatever, a perfectly legitimate point of view that is different than yours, well then I have nothing to say that I haven't already said.
The point of those that would support Spong (or anyone else who denies the divinity of Christ)'s not being given permission to preach in a church is that his is not a perfectly legitimate point of view to peddle during an act of Christian worship.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
Seraphim: I said that what he said was pretty standard liberal fair.
Ian: I agree that there are many people who believe what they are told. I know vulnerable people like that. The thing is, who is to judge who they should listen to? Are we to be those who do the controlling? Perhaps it is the case that people need to be weaned off being dependent on what others say, and need to be challenged in their beliefs, in order to help them grow. It is very difficult, though.
Thurible: Give me a Priest who 'denies the divinity of Christ' over a Priest who spreads prejudice of minorities or condones a 'just' war any day. I am not saying that Jensen or anyone is doing the latter; I am talking about my own priorities about Christ's message.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
Seraphim: I said that what he said was pretty standard liberal fair.
Ian: I agree that there are many people who believe what they are told. I know vulnerable people like that. The thing is, who is to judge who they should listen to? Are we to be those who do the controlling? Perhaps it is the case that people need to be weaned off being dependent on what others say, and need to be challenged in their beliefs, in order to help them grow. It is very difficult, though.
Thurible: Give me a Priest who 'denies the divinity of Christ' over a Priest who spreads prejudice of minorities or condones a 'just' war any day.
Why would they remain as a priest if they did the former? What would be the point? And why would someone who didn't believe what he was praying, seeking to live and promising to preach be worth listening to?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
To your first two questions I would say: because that's how they see how their Christian life should be, maybe. To your third question: who are you talking about here? Do you know Spong that well? I cannot talk for a man who I only learned about earlier today. Do you know what he prays or how the tries to live? He seems to be an honest guy; honest about his beliefs.
In fact, in my experience, some of the sermons that I have heard that resound more in the souls of ordinary people are those that speak of doubt; ones that admit to lack of knowledge or even belief.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
To your third question: who are you talking about here? Do you know Spong that well? I cannot talk for a man who I only learned about earlier today. Do you know what he prays or how the tries to live? He seems to be an honest guy; honest about his beliefs.
In fact, in my experience, some of the sermons that I have heard that resound more in the souls of ordinary people are those that speak of doubt; ones that admit to lack of knowledge or even belief.
I meant worth listening to as a preacher, in the context of Christian worship, which wasn't necessarily clear.
I've read a few of Spong's books. Occasionally interesting (his memoirs particularly so, and almost inspirational in places) but not Christian. The local imam is a very interesting man who is very honest about his beliefs but I wouldn't invite him to preach.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ex Cathedra
Shipmate
# 4579
|
Posted
ISTM that what one writes in a book or delivers in a lecture is not necessarily what one preaches in a service of worship. Preaching often leans heavily on academic study and Biblical scholarship, but is essentially (IMO) an exposition of an aspect of the Chistian faith and is generally grounded in scripure.
There are strong hints in many of Spong's books of a deep faith. He has plainly expressed (in 'Here I Stand' et al) his respect for the Church and his love of the Bible. It seems a pity to me that he would be denied the opportunity to preach - as opposed to lecture. Having heard him lecture more than once, I believe that his preaching would not be as 'destructive' as his writing/lecturing, but that he might well take the opportunity of the worship context to emphasise the positive aspects of his understanding, which so many who have posted here believe to be so lacking in his work.
BTW, I'm a bit shocked that the only contributor to this thread who seems to give more weight to the teaching of Jesus than the traditions of the Church and the views of its Councils is Mad Geo, the non-Christian.
--------------------
'Horrific deplorable violence is OK as long as people don't say any naughty words' - Sheila Broflovski
Posts: 83 | From: Essex, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Cathedra:
BTW, I'm a bit shocked that the only contributor to this thread who seems to give more weight to the teaching of Jesus than the traditions of the Church and the views of its Councils is Mad Geo, the non-Christian.
I'm a bit shocked that you think the tradition of the Church and the views of its Councils aren't very closely aligned with the teaching of Jesus.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J Whitgift
Pro ecclesia dei!
# 1981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J Whitgift:
Can we please stop referring to Spong being 'banned' from preaching in the Diocese of Sydney. This thread is beginning to sound like 'The Church of England Newspaper' upon hearing the news that Archbishop Akinola had been banned by Rowan from preaching in England. (What had actually happened was that he had not submitted his request for permission to preach to Rowan in time for his trip.)[/i]
I have been advised that this section of my earlier post on this thread (see page 3 for the full post) is completely incorrect. In the interests of fairness and truth I am hereby retracting this section of my post and offer my apologies to those concerned.
J Whitgift
(Who should check his facts thoroughly before posting.)
--------------------
On the issue of homosexuality the Liberals have spent their time thinking, considering and listening (in the spirit of the Windsor process), whereas Conservative Anglicans have used the time to further dig their feet in and become more intransigent.
Posts: 2838 | From: Gone shoreside | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
I have to point out that Jack Spong is rich and famous, so I really wouldn't waste any tears on him.
In fact, he's a publicity hound with an egomaniacal sense of his own righteousness. He has contempt for those who disagree with him, and doesn't hesitate to express it. He gets paid handsomely to speak in various places across the globe, and sells millions of books. He has a much larger megaphone than any other bishop of the church, with the exception of Rowan Williams. He's really not one of the meek or poor or salt of the earth; in fact, he's still a bishop in the church - part of the power structure, IOW - and yet claims that the teachings of that same church are "bankrupt."
On top of that, he's a tedious read and unoriginal to boot. So, please. Can we tone down the wailing and rending of garments?
[ 16. August 2007, 13:15: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Thurible:
I'm a bit shocked that you think the tradition of the Church and the views of its Councils aren't very closely aligned with the teaching of Jesus.
Well, we've managed to royally screw them up before, certainly. Are we perfect?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by SeraphimSarov:
What questions does he raise that Renan and other sceptics of the 19th century didn't?? It seems pretty derivative to me.
Is there a single theologian now living on the face of the entire planet that isn't derivative?
Isn't the whole idea of an orthodox tradition all about being derivative?
What's so freaking awful about being derivative?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Orthodoxy is about holding on to the same truths, and applying them afresh to each new situation we come across and putting them in a new light to reflect the problems they face today. Spong manages to dump the truths without being interesting, and tbh if he was preaching at my church, I'd rather stay home and read Tillich.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I see your point here, but I can see the other side too. Eternally a fence sitter.
That said, if I can give an example from my experience. Reading your posts, and don't let your head get too big ,
Too late ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
....I have been at conferences or talks where those around lap up whatever is dished out to them as Gospel Truth......
.....Could it be that the Archbishop is concerned for people like these? That an approval to speak as part of a Service/Meeting grants some credence to something which the Diocese of Sydney would have no truck with?
I am of the opinion that information delivered and controlled (if absolutely neccesary) or rebutted, is often better than information that is hidden or surpressed. By banning Spong, people give him a louder voice than he ever would have had they simply let him have his say in a controlled situation.
The days of the Catholic Church spoonfeeding the masses, killing the progressives/liberals, and otherwise suppressing information are SO over. For Holymen to think that they can somehow protect their sheep, is to be, frankly, arrogant and presumptuous, if not outright offensive (I certainly find it so). The priestly caste has to wake up and smell the internet, not to mention books, television, etc.
If I was a sheep, and I heard all this hubbub, I might be curious. I might check out Spong on a website. I might find him persuasive. I might go get his books. And I might be blown out of the church where he was banned and go to the UU because my priest decided not to have him present his ideas, and then rebut them.
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
The point of those that would support Spong (or anyone else who denies the divinity of Christ)'s not being given permission to preach in a church is that his is not a perfectly legitimate point of view to peddle during an act of Christian worship.
Well since the church did NOT stop him from those views when he was a Bishop, I somehow question the validity of your base assumption(s)....
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I have to point out that Jack Spong is rich and famous, so I really wouldn't waste any tears on him.
In fact, he's a publicity hound with an egomaniacal sense of his own righteousness.....
Etc Etc
This whole line of argument is Ad Hominem, and how rich he is is particularly irrelevent.
Show me a megalomaniacal egotistical publicity hound, and I will show you many of the people standing in front of churches behind a pulpit on a Saturday/Sunday morning, preachin.
To No One In Particular
I woke up this morning and thought about how Jesus would react to the divisiveness of his church. How many sects there are, given his strong emphasis to love one another and love thy neighbor, etc, etc. I thought about how this story (true or not) in the OP and the reactions herein describe a pattern of behaviour where people are looking for an excuse, any excuse, to ban, seperate, disagree, etc. etc.
Somehow I think Jesus woulda been disappointed with that whole way of approach.
'Course his people killed him for being of a different opinion, so I doubt he woulda been surprised.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Dingy Sailor:
Orthodoxy is about holding on to the same truths, and applying them afresh to each new situation we come across and putting them in a new light to reflect the problems they face today. Spong manages to dump the truths without being interesting, and tbh if he was preaching at my church, I'd rather stay home and read Tillich.
So...it's a question of who or what you're derivative of, not whether or not you are derivative. You think that the orthodoxy is necessarily derivative of Christ and the rest are derivative of themselves, or something else...
I think Spong's interesting, actually. Of course, I probably haven't read the geniuses whose shoulders he is standing on, but I think he raises some interesting questions, which might explain why his books sell. Also, I know some people who find his books pretty meaningful, though they're not exactly cookie cutter traditionalists or fans of the "that's not how we did things last year!" approach to church. That his books sell, I think, isn't just a matter of him being an egotistical book-monger. It's also a matter that his ideas seem to be resonating with a significant number of people. I wonder why that is, and how, as a church that is trying to figure out where we're going, we can use that instead of crying "FOUL!" every time he raises a scandalous question.
And that's not to say I agree with him. I think he overstates his case and pitches some babies out with the bathwater, and tends to fall into the trap of becoming your enemy, in many respects.
All that said, I can understand the reasons for not letting him preach at a particular church, even if I don't think I'd do the same.
I remember hearing once that the UMC Temple in downtown Chicago once heard an old atheist radical from the 60's speak, and she admitted that one thing the atheists hadn't managed to do was create a cultural medium that served the niche that Christianity once filled. I thought it was interesting, and I bet both sides gained something via the dialogue.
I don't think anyone wins when churches close their doors on people or on ideas. I've never thought Christ was into creating a movement of ideological goose-steppers all chanting the same mantra, even if they did it in his name.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The thing is that preaching from the pulpit is not the same as lecturing in a secular hall. The purpose of preaching from the pulpit is to proclaim the Gospel. It is not to peddle around one's own pet theories that most people would find heretical and unChristian.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ah, the church fucked up while he was a Bishop, so every part of it should continue to fuck up in the same way now that he's retired. Great logic, Mad Geo.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
I think actually how rich Spong is is quite relevant.
He's using his position as Bishop - which he hasn't got the integrity to resign from, which he really should do, considering that he doesn't agree with any of his own church's teachings - in order to enrich himself. I don't think Jesus "woulda got along fine with him." I think Jesus woulda thought he was a tremendous hypocrite.
He sells what should be given away: ideas about God. If the Church and its theology are as dangerously out of touch as he says they are, why doesn't Spong go on speaking tours for nothing? Why does he write books for sale, rather than offer his philosophy for nothing on his website? He's drawing a fat pension from the church as it is.
He's the very opposite of somebody like St. Francis - or, for that matter, like any parish priest who works hard to help his parishioners, and who keeps the vows he took at ordination, something Spong can't be bothered with, apparently.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Ah, the church fucked up while he was a Bishop, so every part of it should continue to fuck up in the same way now that he's retired. Great logic, Mad Geo.
Ah but you are assuming the church fucked up when he was a bishop. THAT is incorrect. Nice try though.
And yes, yes, I know, your going to say it did, I say it didn't blah blah blah. I'm just addressing your absurd assertion about logic.
TM
The last time I checked money wasn't a sin, the LOVE of money was. You cannot prove the latter so you shouldn't assume the former.
I also do not recall a commandment that says "Priests shall not make money speaking". That's absurd.
Again, most of the priests I know are not afraid of money, and are certainly not wallflowers. They are usually agressively political, arrogant to some degree, and often to excess. You have to be to do the tough job they do with all the backbiting, nasty, music-war-comittee, bullshit that often goes on in churches nowadays.
This whole line of "reasoning" is ad hominem. If you want to attack his ideas, fine, but just because he is making money doing what he loves, does not in fact prove anything at all about whether he has or has not got a point.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
TM
The last time I checked money wasn't a sin, the LOVE of money was. You cannot prove the latter so you shouldn't assume the former.
I also do not recall a commandment that says "Priests shall not make money speaking". That's absurd.
Again, most of the priests I know are not afraid of money, and are certainly not wallflowers. They are usually agressively political, arrogant to some degree, and often to excess. You have to be to do the tough job they do with all the backbiting, nasty, music-war-comittee, bullshit that often goes on in churches nowadays.
This whole line of "reasoning" is ad hominem. If you want to attack his ideas, fine, but just because he is making money doing what he loves, does not in fact prove anything at all about whether he has or has not got a point.
I didn't realize that this thread was limited to topics that you prefer to talk about. And I don't remember that you said anything about "whether he has or has not got a point," either, BTW.
I haven't said anything about "sin," either. And I do believe that if it were any other priest who "wasn't afraid of money" - say, a televangelist - you'd be all over them for hypocrisy.
Otherwise, you've totally nailed it.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by SeraphimSarov:
What questions does he raise that Renan and other sceptics of the 19th century didn't?? It seems pretty derivative to me.
Is there a single theologian now living on the face of the entire planet that isn't derivative?
Isn't the whole idea of an orthodox tradition all about being derivative?
What's so freaking awful about being derivative?
The claim however was that he had new or interesting beliefs. He does not.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...it's a question of who or what you're derivative of, not whether or not you are derivative.
Not really.
quote:
I don't think anyone wins when churches close their doors on people or on ideas. I've never thought Christ was into creating a movement of ideological goose-steppers all chanting the same mantra, even if they did it in his name.
Then again, he wasn't into letting the pharisees preach his sermons for him.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally POsted by Dingy Sailor:
Then again, he wasn't into letting the pharisees preach his sermons for him.
So, what is it about Spong that's Pharisaic, besides being unorthodox and overstating his case?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Rowan Williams spoke up about Spong's nonsense in 1998.
The linked article by Rowan Williams is a typically well-written little gem, but I have questions of a general nature about it.
RW says that Spong is attacking a form of theism that is naive, and not actually taught by any significant theologians, and not actually implicit in the practices of Christians and the Church. This sentence seems to be the nub of his argument
quote:
God is not an object or agent over against the world; God is the eternal activity of unconstrained love, an activity that activates all that is around God is more intimate to the world than we can imagine, as the source of activity or energy itself; and God is more different than we can imagine, beyond category and kind and definition.
My concern is that if Spong is being so simplistic as to be likened to a sixth-former, you'd expect that when his mistake is pointed out it would be pretty obvious, and that we'd all feel embarrassed for him to have made such a howler. But RW's correction of Spong's theism offers us something pretty imcomprehensible. Spong is being gently mocked for failing to understand something that taxes even RW's ability to express clearly. In fact the oh, so obvious orthodox doctrine of God relies heavily, it seems, on a phrase - unconstrained love - which I've never come across before. Not a difficult phrase to understand, I admit, but why does RW need it?
If Spong is just making a tiresome beginner's blunder, why can't RW quickly and simply point it out?
I suggest that theism is in a mess. This is what gives Spong some appeal (not greatly to me) and RW and others their difficulty is refuting him.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
"Unconstrained love" comes from, I'd bet, Luther's Preface to the Epistle to the Romans.
Here's one use of it:
quote:
But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5. But the Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul says in his introduction. So, too, faith comes only through the word of God, the Gospel, that preaches Christ: how he is both Son of God and man, how he died and rose for our sake. Paul says all this in chapters 3, 4 and 10.
You're right, though, that RW should explain this more fully.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ex Cathedra
Shipmate
# 4579
|
Posted
No doubt RW is right to say that Spong is attacking a form of theism that is naive, and not actually taught by any significant theologians, but unfortunately the vast majority of Christians are not influenced by significant theologians. Spong is attacking the - as he would see it - simplistic and ultimately destructive theology of those who cling to ancient and now irrelevant understandings of God.
--------------------
'Horrific deplorable violence is OK as long as people don't say any naughty words' - Sheila Broflovski
Posts: 83 | From: Essex, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Cathedra:
No doubt RW is right to say that Spong is attacking a form of theism that is naive, and not actually taught by any significant theologians, but unfortunately the vast majority of Christians are not influenced by significant theologians. Spong is attacking the - as he would see it - simplistic and ultimately destructive theology of those who cling to ancient and now irrelevant understandings of God.
I don't think that's right, though. Spong says, openly, that "the Christology of the ages is bankrupt."
It's a very strong and across-the-board statement, one which doesn't differentiate between theologies at all, as far as I can tell. That's my major beef with him, in fact; if he'd simply make some distinctions, things would be different. But that's not his style; he's not a subtle guy, that's for sure.
And a few of his "Theses" don't really even make much logical sense - the thing about Virgin Birth, for instance - something RW also remarks on.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Jesus fought people like the bishop his whole life. I suspect him and Spong woulda got along fine.
and that is called making a very big assumption
'course it is. so is assuming he wouldn't have gotten along with Spong. Until our Man drops back in to set us aright, they're all big assumptions.
At the same time, I find it really entertaining to see how many people are so willing to say or imply that Jesus would have totally supported their point of view on this. Jesus got very worked up over the powers-that-be making their little rules of who can and cannot play. Healing on the Sabbath, anyone?
Sounds to me like Jesus, in this instance, might very well have said something along the lines of quit getting hung up on traditions, rules, regulations, and your fear of the dark.
However, Jesus also was perfectly happy to teach from all sorts of places, the church/temple/cathedral is just a roof, when all is said and done. So Jensen doesn't want Spong to preach in the chruch of Sydney? Big Fucking Deal. There's a lot more to Sydney than her tax-exempt buildings.
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Cathedra:
BTW, I'm a bit shocked that the only contributor to this thread who seems to give more weight to the teaching of Jesus than the traditions of the Church and the views of its Councils is Mad Geo, the non-Christian.
I'm a bit shocked that you think the tradition of the Church and the views of its Councils aren't very closely aligned with the teaching of Jesus.
Really??
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Jesus fought people like the bishop his whole life. I suspect him and Spong woulda got along fine.
and that is called making a very big assumption
'course it is. so is assuming he wouldn't have gotten along with Spong. Until our Man drops back in to set us aright, they're all big assumptions.
At the same time, I find it really entertaining to see how many people are so willing to say or imply that Jesus would have totally supported their point of view on this. Jesus got very worked up over the powers-that-be making their little rules of who can and cannot play. Healing on the Sabbath, anyone?
i]
I find it entertaining but more puzzling frankly when people can accept the moral teachings of Our Lord but can't accept his claim of Divinity. It is all of a piece or it leads frankly to relativism as Spong and others have gone down the path to IMHO.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I think actually how rich Spong is is quite relevant.
okay, so how rich is he, then? You claimed he's rich and famous. Famous/infamous, obviously. But where do you get that he's rich?
or do you make that claim because he's published some books? Coming from a family of writers I'm quite comfortable saying that publishing books does not make you rich. Selling books helps. And he ain't exactly JK Rowling.
quote:
He's using his position as Bishop - which he hasn't got the integrity to resign from, which he really should do, considering that he doesn't agree with any of his own church's teachings - in order to enrich himself. I don't think Jesus "woulda got along fine with him." I think Jesus woulda thought he was a tremendous hypocrite.
Whoa! again with the assumptions. you're saying he's using his position as bishop to enrich himself. By writing a few books? pahlese.
Now, he could use his position as Bishop to, say, charge thousands to conduct certain ceremonies - how about the old "buy your way into heaven" game? He could grant absolution for all sins of those who give him 30 grand each, say. or ordain anyone willing to pay for the priveledge. Hell, on marriages alone he could make a fortune.
but, from what I understand, he isn't pulling any of that. he wrote a few books. seriously. Relax.
quote:
He sells what should be given away: ideas about God. If the Church and its theology are as dangerously out of touch as he says they are, why doesn't Spong go on speaking tours for nothing? Why does he write books for sale, rather than offer his philosophy for nothing on his website? He's drawing a fat pension from the church as it is.
If he's in trouble for this, then the whole system is fucked. the cheapest bible I can find on Amazon at the moment is $3.95 plus S&H.
++Rowan's cheapest is $8.80, and Jensen's is $15.00.
money hungry bastards.
As for doing his career for nothing, you first! I deeply believe in what I do. But I still expect a paycheck.
My father has written a few books, too. if it weren't for those speaking gigs he'd probably be having to sling hash to feed the dogs. quote:
He's the very opposite of somebody like St. Francis - or, for that matter, like any parish priest who works hard to help his parishioners, and who keeps the vows he took at ordination, something Spong can't be bothered with, apparently.
Good grief, you'd think he was skinning babies.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I find it entertaining but more puzzling frankly when people can accept the moral teachings of Our Lord but can't accept his claim of Divinity. It is all of a piece or it leads frankly to relativism as Spong and others have gone down the path to IMHO.
err...okay.
But we're talking about +Jensen, et. al.'s possible decision not to allow Spong to preach from the pulpit in Sydney, and how JC would have felt about this.
Or, at least, I am.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Anglicanism is well known for having a pope in every parish. Following that tradition I'd have to say that Spong wouldn't be welcome in the pulpit of any church of which I was incumbent; not that I'd be able to stop him with his being a bishop and all.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Now, this is quite funny, actually. The Spong-defenders on this thread all bash the church at every possible opportunity, demanding that it, and its representatives, be morally better and different from the rest of society - more like Jesus, IOW.
But when you suggest that Spong ought to have the integrity to resign from his position because he's not doing his job, or making lots of money bashing the church - while still a representative of the church charged with teaching the faith he doesn't believe in - isn't exactly kosher, all of a sudden Spong should have the right to act exactly like everybody else.
Unbelievable.
Jack Spong is wealthy, BTW, and admits openly to being wealthy. I suppose I'll have to go look for a quote on this, but it's really not too hard to imagine, given that he's written about 10 best-selling books. As I said before, he's drawing a big fat Episcopal pension as well, so he doesn't need the money. Lots of people do volunteer work when they retire, you know. If it's so very, very important - and if his theology is the only solution to the imminent demise of Christianity, as he obviously believes and openly claims - then he really ought to publish for nothing so that all us poor unenlightened schnooks can have access to it. Right?
[ 16. August 2007, 22:13: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
And by the way: how completely lame to try to deflect criticism of Spong because "he's not skinning babies."
Which means, I take it, that you think nothing is really worth bothering with until people start skinning babies? Talk about low standards....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Here's another Spong quote:
quote:
"I had to fight for that title," Spong said. "Religion in America is totally unattractive. It's associated with priests violating someone, people condemning gay America, or keeping Terry Schiavo alive in the name of religion. Most of the debates have to do with sexuality. If that is what religion has come to mean then I don't want to be a part of it."
And yet he still is part of it; imagine that. What a maroon.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Completely lame is watching others here trying to justify exclusivity and intolerance from a Christian perspective. Supposedly a contradiction of terms, but apprently not.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Now, this is quite funny, actually. The Spong-defenders on this thread all bash the church at every possible opportunity, demanding that it, and its representatives, be morally better and different from the rest of society - more like Jesus, IOW.
I'm not a "Spong-defender", until the Ship I'd never even heard of him and I couldn't name a single one of his "best-selling" books. I realy couldn't give a half-shit to defend him.
I'm much more concerned with keeping misleading BS from guiding a conversation.
I'd say it's important at this point to prove Spong's supposed wealth and explain why it matters, or drop it. quote:
Jack Spong is wealthy, BTW, and admits openly to being wealthy. I suppose I'll have to go look for a quote on this, but it's really not too hard to imagine, given that he's written about 10 best-selling books.
writing ten books doesn't make him wealthy. Even writing ten "best-selling" books doesn't make him wealthy. What's on contract between him and his publisher I suspect isn't available for public review. For all I know he gets none of the proceeds and all of his author's share (often around 5% of net, BTW) goes to the Newark diocese.
And I'm doubly, no triply amazed that he's written ten best selling books! really? I have been getting the NYT Bestsellers list for my entire adult life and somehow I had never heard of him. Despite my interest in philosophy and my life-long Anglican status.
quote:
As I said before, he's drawing a big fat Episcopal pension as well, so he doesn't need the money.
need is relative. I could easily say that anyone making more than I do doesn't need the money either, because I'm doing just fine.
The point is, how much he makes is none of your business and has nothing to do with the strength of his theology or whether he should be allowed to speak in Sydney.
quote:
If it's so very, very important - and if his theology is the only solution to the imminent demise of Christianity, as he obviously believes and openly claims - then he really ought to publish for nothing so that all us poor unenlightened schnooks can have access to it. Right?
you do know that publishing costs money, dont you? that there is not a self-respecting publishing house in this country that would give away books? sure, he could pay to have his book published, but then he doesn't get the publicity machine of the big houses and therefore the book goes less places. How much money do you think this one old cleric has? I know we pay pretty much crap for our bishop.
quote:
But when you suggest that Spong ought to have the integrity to resign from his position because he's not doing his job, or making lots of money bashing the church - while still a representative of the church charged with teaching the faith he doesn't believe in - isn't exactly kosher, all of a sudden Spong should have the right to act exactly like everybody else.
This creeps me out. Sure, he could resign from the church, but if he wants to effect change behaps he knows what most of the rest of us know - that change starts from within. you can do more as a member. Remember all the Ship flap over the last year or so? Pyx_e, I suspect, knows very well that if he wants the Ship to change at all, he needs to stick around and influence change from within. Flouncing guarentees you're never heard.
As far as the rest of the AC - Groupthink does not help us. Spong has written a bunch of stuff that may or may not be crap. but Rowan has responded and I'm sure so have many others. We become stronger by discussing the faith. it's the diversity of views that begins the conversation that leads to a better understanding of our faith.
Blind following is very unAnglican.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What a maroon.
it's a tangent, but I've seen this more than once on the Ship. has "maroon" become an insult when I wasn't looking? I thought it was a color.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
I'm so exclusive and intolerant, for not pushing to get every single congregationer in my church up on the pulpit, including the ones who can't speak. The shame of it is nearly killing me.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And by the way: how completely lame to try to deflect criticism of Spong because "he's not skinning babies."
Which means, I take it, that you think nothing is really worth bothering with until people start skinning babies? Talk about low standards....
it wasn't deflecting criticism of him, I was responding to the tone of your posts, which seems over the top and hysterical. Criticize him all you like; but the language you use implies an awful lot of anger than I, personally, would probably reserve for someone like a baby skinner.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Well I did a little googling about this absurd notion regarding wealth and the Bishop. Bishops have a Talent for wealth, apparently.
quote:
Presiding Bishop James De Wolf Perry began the move for voluntary retrenchments last week by pruning his $15,000 salary 10%. He has a rich wife, an independent income. New York's small Bishop William Thomas Manning, who also has a rich wife, a fine Bishop's Palace, a salary of $15,000 and a $5,000 "discretionary fund," followed suit.
From retirement emerged wealthy, 81-year-old Bishop William Lawrence to lend sage counsel.
No salary cut could Long Island's wealthy Bishop Ernest Milmorc Stires take because on assuming office he refused a salary, has only an impressive residence in Garden City with a liberal maintenance allowance and discretionary fund.
Apparently St. Francis is not required reading amongst the Bishoply bretheren. Good for them. Francis was a Maroon .
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
edit
[ 16. August 2007, 23:25: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Mad Geo, do you have nothing else to say in this thread but variations on "Christians suck"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
But when you suggest that Spong ought to have the integrity to resign from his position because he's not doing his job, or making lots of money bashing the church - while still a representative of the church charged with teaching the faith he doesn't believe in - isn't exactly kosher, all of a sudden Spong should have the right to act exactly like everybody else.
This creeps me out. Sure, he could resign from the church, but if he wants to effect change behaps he knows what most of the rest of us know - that change starts from within. you can do more as a member. Remember all the Ship flap over the last year or so? Pyx_e, I suspect, knows very well that if he wants the Ship to change at all, he needs to stick around and influence change from within. Flouncing guarentees you're never heard.
As far as the rest of the AC - Groupthink does not help us. Spong has written a bunch of stuff that may or may not be crap. but Rowan has responded and I'm sure so have many others. We become stronger by discussing the faith. it's the diversity of views that begins the conversation that leads to a better understanding of our faith.
Blind following is very unAnglican.
Sorry you're "creeped out" by the idea that somebody should actually do the job they've promised to do, or else have the decency to resign. Remind me never to hire you for anything.
If you can't have this conversation without misrepresenting what I'm saying, I'm really very much not interested.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
it wasn't deflecting criticism of him, I was responding to the tone of your posts, which seems over the top and hysterical. Criticize him all you like; but the language you use implies an awful lot of anger than I, personally, would probably reserve for someone like a baby skinner.
Is this the "tone" you mean:
quote:
He's the very opposite of somebody like St. Francis - or, for that matter, like any parish priest who works hard to help his parishioners, and who keeps the vows he took at ordination, something Spong can't be bothered with, apparently.
In other words, comparing Spong negatively with a beloved saint, and also with ordinary parish priests who work humbly and hard and out of the spotlight - that's the language that reminds you of "baby skinning"?
Interesting. Looks like you've totally lost contact with reality at this point. Must be all those days and nights you spend in Hell, flinging vile insults at other people for no particular reason.
And BTW, since you've never heard of Spong before, how come you're all of a sudden such an expert about him?
[ 16. August 2007, 23:37: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Sorry you're "creeped out" by the idea that somebody should actually do the job they've promised to do, or else have the decency to resign. Remind me never to hire you for anything.
I would be very surprised to learn that he was expected to not examine the faith in an academic manner when hired as a Bishop.
Did he lead his diocese? Did he confirm and ordain and represent his diocese as they asked him to do when they hired him? Thing is, whether or not he was doing the job he was hired to do is between him and his diocese.
What I find creepy is the idea that dissent is somehow not allowed. So he's a crackpot. so what? It's got people reexamining their beliefs and studying up and asking questions.
That is a good thing.
as for hiring me: don't worry, there have been plenty of others willing to do so.
[ 16. August 2007, 23:49: Message edited by: comet ]
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
