|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What would a "Spongite" Church be like?
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, this thread is very instructive.
If you can't see the Good in Christianity that is left when all that is removed, then you are blind to what really counts.
The only positive statement I can see in that entire list is that "All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is."
What else has he left of Christianity besides nice buildings and some uplifting music?
And here is where Spong misses the point. All of his liberal beliefs about the dignity of the human individual, the sacredness of creation, inclusivity, etc, is grounded on the Christian faith. It is the Incarnation, the fact that God became human, that is the greatest glorification of human nature.
Spong wants the fruits of Christian faith: love, justice, peace, and humanism without the necessary seeds of faith that make those values possible.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, this thread is very instructive.
If you can't see the Good in Christianity that is left when all that is removed, then you are blind to what really counts.
The only positive statement I can see in that entire list is that "All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is."
What else has he left of Christianity besides nice buildings and some uplifting music?
And here is where Spong misses the point. All of his liberal beliefs about the dignity of the human individual, the sacredness of creation, inclusivity, etc, is grounded on the Christian faith. It is the Incarnation, the fact that God became human, that is the greatest glorification of human nature.
Spong wants the fruits of Christian faith: love, justice, peace, and humanism without the necessary seeds of faith that make those values possible.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, this thread is very instructive.
If you can't see the Good in Christianity that is left when all that is removed, then you are blind to what really counts.
Jesus and the love of God hardly got a look in did they? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Sounds like alot of you arguing on this thread haven't read alot of Spong.
PhilA sounds like he might have.
What would Spong's Church look like?
I'm kind of with Gamaliel on this one. Not very different from a standard Episcopalian service. The theology however, would be different.
At center point of the Eucharist, God would never be a child abuser. The core thing he fights against in contemporary Christianity is the penal substitution theory of atonement.
Bullfrog: you keep going on about core creed. Spong's core creed is love. Like Jesus' was and is.
"Live fully, love wastefully, be all that you can be"
i.e. Abundant Life in the image of God.
In A New Christianity for a New World, there is a chapter on what the new church will look like. Chapter Twelve: The Ecclesia of Tomorrow.
quote:
Perhaps the major liturgical event in the life of the ecclesia (of tomorrow) will continue to be a liturgical meal - a new eucharist if you will - that calls to mind the ultimate power of love about which we have learned from the Christ-life that stands at the center of our faith-story. It will not, however, focus on sacrifice and rescue, but on a call to move in response to love, as this Christ did, beyond our self-imposed barriers into a new humanity. pg 212
Spong was incredibly helpful to me on the beginning of my faith journey.
He is a beacon of hope to "believers in exile". People that know Jesus and God are real, but think the church has just fucked the theology up way too much or that it just makes no sense to someone who hasn't grown up in it.
Go Spong ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
After about book fifteen however, I realized I had outgrown him. It no longer resonated. My path had branched off.
I am still however, deeply grateful to him for allowing people to believe they are still Christians. Even when the church is telling them they are not.
To someone that loves God, through Christ, telling them such a thing is incredibly painful and soul destroying.
[ 28. July 2010, 05:02: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Well, this thread is very instructive.
If you can't see the Good in Christianity that is left when all that is removed, then you are blind to what really counts.
Jesus and the love of God hardly got a look in did they?
That would be because they didn't really get much of a look in in the course of Spong's reform points. As many of us have pointed out, it was very much about throwing things out.
Okay, we seem to have a nice gooey mess of 'love' left in the centre. Nice. So a Spongite church basically involves people affirming each other and giving each other warm hugs?
Don't get me wrong, I actually think that's quite good as far as it goes.
The problem I see for it, though, in the long run, is that it lacks any sense of purpose, motivation or goal. What are you busy being so nice to each other FOR? I mean, especially when being really, really nice to each other can get you executed in the space of about 3 years, by people who are deeply offended by the depth of the niceness you are demonstrating. That's what you would have to argue happened to Jesus.
It's a cliche, but love is a verb. I'm not saying that Christians in general are particularly good at articulating the reasons why they are called to love one another, but what I'm saying is that if the only positive theological idea you have left is one about how you're all made in the image of God and ought to love each other, it becomes THE central theological issue and you really need to have an answer to it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Addendum: I want to add that RadicalWhig's comment was symptomatic of the problem. In that it suggested the rest of us were failing to spot what really counts, WITHOUT actually explaining what really counts.
Dismantling is far, far easier than building. I want to see you guys BUILD.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tallmaninthecnr
Shipmate
# 15429
|
Posted
Got that wrong, I saw the title and assumed it was something to do with Spongebob Squarepants ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 197 | From: Auckland, NZ | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I fear that there is in this an element of blaming a bath scourer for being scratchy. My scenario is this: someone comes along and finds a baby (for this purpose Christianity) lying in a bath full of very dirty water, the dirt being made up of things which were once held to be essential parts of Christianity but which are now just badges of belonging on the "I'm in because I can believe seven impossible things before breakfast" model. Other elements of the goo are social beliefs from various points in Hebrew and Christian history which again have hardened into tenets of the faith. Having thus lifted the baby out of the bath water and emptied the bath, some of the dirt in the water is discovered to have stuck to the bath. Therefore, before refilling it and replacing the baby inside it, the bath needs cleaning, probably with some fairly powerful cleaners, as the baby and thus the water also have been there for some time. This is the job I see Spong, after Cupitt, attempting. He may well therefore ultimately fade, as his job is completed and others find new things to put in the baby's bathwater, but it does not mean that he has not performed a useful function. Cupitt, in my opinion, is better at defining what the post-scouring baby/bath/bathwater arrangement (i.e. church) might look like, but that is a slightly different argument.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
That analogy just begs the question of where the baby ends and the bathwater begins.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Needs a little more thought, I grant you. It feels as if the baby should be Christ, but I'm finding it quite hard to define precisely the bath and the bathwater.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Which is of course completely meaningless because he doesn't have any definition or even description of "God" (who doesn't exist anyway). He's borrowing the Christian understanding of humans as being made in God's image, while jettisoning the Christian (or as far as I can tell, any) God. It's a conjuror's trick.
You can't define God either. Unless, of course, you believe that God can fit neatly inside a box of human language and be completely encompassed by it. That idea covers any definition of blasphemy I can think of.
God is so much bigger than that and by admitting that we can't define God, that to use the word 'exist' in relation to God is simply wrong.
Again, Spong isn't saying what he does believe. To try and build any faith from what was quoted in the OP is utterly absurd and to then dismiss Spong because he hasn't done something he hasn't done is equally absurd.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Needs a little more thought, I grant you. It feels as if the baby should be Christ, but I'm finding it quite hard to define precisely the bath and the bathwater.
Indeed. Even if you try to use 'Christ' as your definition, you just end up having to explain what it is about 'Christ' that you think makes him Christ.
For example, Spong dismisses prayer. In order to make Christ fit that model, you have to assert that the bits of the Bible that appear to show Christ praying are 'bathwater' rather than 'baby'. Someone else will see Christ praying as an essential characteristic which means that his prayer is part of the 'baby'. Which would mean that Spong is not just scouring the bath, he's making the baby bleed.
Either way it solves nothing.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Redlac
Apprentice
# 12725
|
Posted
When I read the title of this thread, I imagined a big sponge cake with people bouncing on top of it.
I will freely admit that I don't know who John Shelby Spong is, and have therefore never read any of his books. But what I gather from the twelve points in the opening posts is as follows.
1. We can't talk about God, because we can't define him properly.
2. Talking about Jesus is a load of old waffle, because we don't know who or what God is or isn't. So talking about Jesus other than 'he was a nice guy' doesn't work.
3. The creation story is a load of old nonsense too.
4. Virgin Birth? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
5. Miracles are incompatible with science.
6. The cross is nonsense.
7. God did the Resurrection. But it wasn't a resurrection.
8. The ascension apparently tells us that we live in a three tier universe, but we can only see the one, so that's not accurate.
9. There is no authority in Scripture. You might as well go and buy Heat Magazine or something.
10. Prayer is nonsense. You're talking to yourself.
11. Life after death shouldn't be coupled with a guilt trip. Neither should our good behaviour be motivated by guilt.
12. We must all get along and play nice because we're all made in God's image. Whatever that is.
How would a church operate? Well that is an interesting question. There's nothing to stand on other than 'Be nice to each other' There's no point in prayer. There's no point in worship. There's no point in turning up. Actually, what tells us to 'be nice to each other?'
It can't be God, since we wouldn't understand if it was, and since the traditional methods of finding guidance such as scripture, prayer and so on are all dismissed as waffle, where does that leave you?
I am quite confused myself as how this would be a church, let alone how it would operate.
Posts: 16 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
You can't define God either. Unless, of course, you believe that God can fit neatly inside a box of human language and be completely encompassed by it. That idea covers any definition of blasphemy I can think of.
Sorry, but isn't that pretty much what Spong does? Get rid of all the bits of 'God' - miracles, prayer and the like - that are supernatural? That are outside the normal human experience and normal human language?
Isn't he left with a God that doesn't do anything outside of what a human being can do? An exceptionally nice, wise human being, sure, but with all the limitations of a human being who doesn't go around doing 'impossible' things.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Addendum and question: How is Spong's God any different from a guest on Oprah dispensing lifestyle advice?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Needs a little more thought, I grant you. It feels as if the baby should be Christ, but I'm finding it quite hard to define precisely the bath and the bathwater.
Indeed. Even if you try to use 'Christ' as your definition, you just end up having to explain what it is about 'Christ' that you think makes him Christ.
Just like all other churches in the last 2000 years.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: I want to add that RadicalWhig's comment was symptomatic of the problem. In that it suggested the rest of us were failing to spot what really counts, WITHOUT actually explaining what really counts.
Bit like orthodoxy. Unless you discount love.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Dismantling is far, far easier than building. I want to see you guys BUILD.
I showed you some examples.
Did Martin Luther build immediately? There is a process. You can't build before you tear down.
quote:
Originally posted by Redlac:
When I read the title of this thread, I imagined a big sponge cake with people bouncing on top of it.
That just about sums up your understanding of Spong. Read before you critique.
quote:
Originally posted by Redlac:
6. The cross is nonsense.
Im pointing this one out in particular because it is so central to the story.
The cross is not nonsense to Spong. He has an atonement theory. Read it. Then say something intelligent about it.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum and question: How is Spong's God any different from a guest on Oprah dispensing lifestyle advice?
He believes Jesus is Lord. He believes in God.
I find it hard to stomach that someone that has been rejected by orthodoxy can be so scathing of an attempt at inclusiveness.
You want your cake and eat it too?
I recommend you go that path. You are intelligent. I believe you are faithful to God. I recommend you start hassling the church you were rejected from instead of hassling the one that would include you.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum and question: How is Spong's God any different from a guest on Oprah dispensing lifestyle advice?
He believes Jesus is Lord. He believes in God.
I find it hard to stomach that someone that has been rejected by orthodoxy can be so scathing of an attempt at inclusiveness.
You want your cake and eat it too?
I recommend you go that path. You are intelligent. I believe you are faithful to God. I recommend you start hassling the church you were rejected from instead of hassling the one that would include you.
And I find it galling that someone thinks I should automatically jump into the arms of someone who would 'include' me, without considering whether anything ELSE about them matches with my own beliefs! What, you think that my homosexuality should just mean I sign on the dotted line of the first person who says that they're okay with me being gay? Please. I'm not that easy.
I honestly don't know what 'he believes Jesus is Lord' means here, when he clearly doesn't believe that Jesus is divine. Someone is going to have to spell it out.
I believe that the Queen reigns. That doesn't mean I believe that she has particularly good morals.
And a statement that 'Jesus is Lord' is exceptionally problematic if you believe that Jesus has been dead for two milennia. It fails to explain why Jesus is 'Lord' more than Buddha, St Francis of Assissi or any other person who was wise and made some excellent observations about the human condition.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Redlac
Apprentice
# 12725
|
Posted
Evensong, I freely admitted I did not know who Mr Spong was or any of his writings, and was merely commenting on the points laid out in the opening post.
If you could point me in the right direction when it comes to Mr Spong I would be grateful. Then I will be able to re-assess things in that light.
Posts: 16 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
Do you know what REALLY irritates me about statements like this? The way it utterly patronises the ancients.
You don't need Newton's laws to observe things. You need Newton to EXPLAIN them, yes, but people before Newton were perfectly capable of observing what normally happened. And therefore they were also perfectly capable of seeing something different or unusual.
You don't need Newton's laws or modern chemistry to know that water doesn't NORMALLY turn into wine, or to know what water is or what wine is. You don't need Newton's laws to know that you don't normally end up with more bread and fish than you started with. You don't need a degree in biology to understand that it's highly unusual for someone to be alive several days after you wrapped them in bandages and put the rock in front of the tomb entrance.
To dismiss it all with a 'we know better now' is the worse kind of patronising and paints the ancients as simpletons who couldn't see that things fall towards the ground - which is a completely different issue to whether they had the same understanding of WHY it happened.
References to a post-Newtonian world are meaningless unless you use that post-Newtonian understanding to actually create an explanation of the observed phenomenon. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with Newton, and everything to do with deciding that the ancients were unreliable observers because you happen to not like what they said they saw. Totally different issue.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Ok, lots of points to address, but I'll start with these:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: I want to add that RadicalWhig's comment was symptomatic of the problem. In that it suggested the rest of us were failing to spot what really counts, WITHOUT actually explaining what really counts.
Dismantling is far, far easier than building. I want to see you guys BUILD.
The purpose of starting threads like this is so that "we guys" can think about building. My OP was deliberately constructive and forward-looking, asking what can be built, not what can be rejected.
Evensong ( ) addressed that one pretty well. I would have thought that "what really counts" is a new way of living life in abundance, a new type of forgiveness-ethic, a new type of love-community.
I'm going to quote Richard Holloway, who puts it better than I can, and whose sentiments exactly mirror my own: quote:
Since I believe that the Christian account of meaning has to be separated from its [morally and scientifically untenable] historical packaging if it is to work for us today, I spend time deconstructing important aspects of the Christian doctrinal tradition, such as original sin, incarnation and resurrection, but my ultimately intention is resoundingly positive. I am more interested in using the power of these great themes for our lives today, than in discarding the ancient containers that convey them to us. "
Ok, what's next...
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
He's borrowing the Christian understanding of humans as being made in God's image, while jettisoning the Christian (or as far as I can tell, any) God. It's a conjuror's trick.
I think the Christian understanding of humans is a profound and beautiful one. Of course I want to borrow / salvage it. But if we cling to its Biblicalist/Sacredotalist wrapper, we will lose it, and the world will be taken over by a cold, utilitarian materialism. Again, I think the Holloway quote sums up my position better than I can myself:
quote:
My aim is to craft from the Christian past a usable ethic for our own time. [This is] not a middle path between those who hold the old beliefs and those who totally reject them, [but] a way of action. At the heart of Christianity lies a moral challenge that is as pertinent today as it ever was [...] it is more important to follow the way of Jesus than to believe or disbelieve the traditional Christian claims about him.
Now let's take this as an example. Spong writes: quote:
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
Which Redlac interprets as quote:
Originally posted by Redlac:
6. The cross is nonsense.
No, Redlac. That's precisely not the point. The cross is not nonsense. It can still be a powerful symbol and metaphor. The myth of the cross can be broken open to discover its value in our own lives - a call to follow principle despite the cost, to face all dangers with calm and equanimity, to forgive our persecutors, and to rise triumphantly from the struggles of life. It is just the "traditional" interpretation of the Cross as a redeeming sacrifice of a vengeful, blood-thirty tribal deity that is being rejected.
Finally, it is worth remembering that what Spong offers here is a reform agenda. It assumes the pre-existence of a Church and a Christian tradition which he is trying to re-interpret. He's not inventing a new religion entirely ex nihilo.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
RadicalWhig, I can't help noticing that 'ethics' came up again...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
RadicalWhig, I can't help noticing that 'ethics' came up again...
Ethics, beauty, community, cardinal virtues, fruits of the spirit. It's all good. Just need to crack open the wrapper.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Redlac
Apprentice
# 12725
|
Posted
RadicalWhig, thank you for taking the time to explain further. I think I see where he is coming from a bit better now. Having been raised in Evangelical circles, you don't tend to hear many other versions of why the cross is important. Given my heritage, you might see why I might think he's calling the cross a nonsense. If anything, this thread has made me have a good think, which is never a bad thing.
Posts: 16 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What would a "Spongite" Church be like?
Empty.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What would a "Spongite" Church be like?
Empty.
Granted, as the wise Archdeacon said, "Most people prefer cornflakes to muesli."
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I find it galling that someone thinks I should automatically jump into the arms of someone who would 'include' me, without considering whether anything ELSE about them matches with my own beliefs! What, you think that my homosexuality should just mean I sign on the dotted line of the first person who says that they're okay with me being gay? Please. I'm not that easy.
Good point. Fair enough.
But your attitude to "the bit different" often comes across very strongly anti. Which I find odd. When you are "a bit different" according to orthodoxy.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I honestly don't know what 'he believes Jesus is Lord' means here
Well. You, me and the baker would probably have different versions on that too. Are we not Christians all?
quote:
Originally posted by Redlac:
Evensong, I freely admitted I did not know who Mr Spong was or any of his writings, and was merely commenting on the points laid out in the opening post.
If you could point me in the right direction when it comes to Mr Spong I would be grateful. Then I will be able to re-assess things in that light.
Sorry Redlac. I was a bit hard on you.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What would a "Spongite" Church be like?
Empty.
No. That's what he said traditional churches would be in Why Christianity Must Change or Die.
And he would seem to be right on that score.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
What, you think that my homosexuality should just mean I sign on the dotted line of the first person who says that they're okay with me being gay? Please. I'm not that easy.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
You want to be accepted into a community that stands for something other that just accepting everybody. How selfish of you.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
RadicalWhig, I can't help noticing that 'ethics' came up again...
Ethics, beauty, community, cardinal virtues, fruits of the spirit. It's all good. Just need to crack open the wrapper.
Well, you and I, with I think mousethief and perhaps some others, have already had that conversation in another thread. So you already know that I think that defining a religion purely by its 'ethics' leaves you with something that isn't particularly distinctive or indeed religious.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Evensong wrote:- quote:
No. That's what he said traditional churches would be in Why Christianity Must Change or Die.
And he would seem to be right on that score.
I don't think the data support your conclusion though, Evensong. The thesis is that churches must change or die - at least I think we can assume the nature of change envisaged would be in the direction of addressing his critique.
But if that were so, where are these places? He has been going on about this or similar things for a couple of decades, and there has been plenty of time to try this out. America must be the easiest place in the world to set up a new church, and TEC must be the easiest part of Anglicanism to do that sort of thing internally. And last time I looked, his own ex-diocese was well up the list of losing people faster than other dioceses.
It's scant evidence I know, but such as it is suggests that his suggestions would lose people even faster than most other options, which implies ken is right. In any event the purpose of church is not to do what other people think is right just because they think it, whatever your own views on the issues at hand.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
He believes Jesus is Lord. He believes in God.
Spong may well claim that, but what exactly does he mean by that?
If you reject most of the Church's claims about Jesus, then why exactly do you follow him? We are not putting words into Spong's mouth, he does assert that petitionary prayer is worthless, that Jesus was not raised from the dead except in a very metaphorical way (By that logic, I can assert that Thomas Jefferson rose from the dead too, because his ideas still make liberals get that warm and fuzzy feeling).
--------------------
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
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So you already know that I think that defining a religion purely by its 'ethics' leaves you with something that isn't particularly distinctive or indeed religious.
I know you think that.
I also think that you misrepresent me if you think the ethics only thing I'm trying to salvage from the Christian tradition.
I'm not trying to repeat the discussion of previous threads here. I'm trying to ask, Ok, if you accept this sort of broadly post-theistic or Trans-Christian view of religion, then where do we go from here? Having re-interpreted the theology and the narrative, how do we re-interpret the worship, the church, the music, and the rest of it?
The Unitarians and the Quakers seem, from what little I've read and heard, to share a broadly similar theological approach, and a similar (if internally very diverse) relationship to the Christian tradition, Christian motifs and Christian scriptures - yet they have very different forms of worship, practice, organisation etc.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
What, you think that my homosexuality should just mean I sign on the dotted line of the first person who says that they're okay with me being gay? Please. I'm not that easy.
You want to be accepted into a community that stands for something other that just accepting everybody. How selfish of you.
I honestly don't know which is worse sometimes: Christians telling me how to behave as a homosexual, or gays/gay-friendly people telling me how to behave as a Christian.
On both sides there's frequently an assumption that you can either be an old-fashioned, Bible-believing Christian or you can be an openly gay man comfortable with his homosexuality. But not both.
Underlying that is an assumption, on both sides, about what the Bible says about homosexuality. And quite simply it's THAT assumption that I disagree with.
So yes, a church that happily includes me because they don't believe the Bible is God's word, and they think that it's full of miracles that couldn't be possible because we are SO post-Newtonian and that resurrections can only ever be metaphorical... that doesn't really cut it as inclusion. Because it would be acceptance of my boyfriend (if I had one) at the expense of rejecting everything else about my worldview.
I don't see why I should settle for such a poor exchange, just for the benefit of approving who I sleep with.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
(By that logic, I can assert that Thomas Jefferson rose from the dead too, because his ideas still make liberals get that warm and fuzzy feeling).
![[Smile]](smile.gif) And I wear my What Would Jefferson Do? bracelet* with pride!
* Hand-knitted by a women's co-operative from organic tofu.
(Ok, now I'm just playing into your stereotypes. Enough.)
But I do think there are more ways of believing in God than to believe in a theistic God, and more ways of following Jesus than to believe he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So you already know that I think that defining a religion purely by its 'ethics' leaves you with something that isn't particularly distinctive or indeed religious.
I know you think that.
I also think that you misrepresent me if you think the ethics only thing I'm trying to salvage from the Christian tradition.
Well what else are you trying to salvage?
I'm not looking misrepresent you. The whole reason I probe and focus on this issue is that I honestly struggle to see what's left that has meaning/value in the absence of all the things that you are looking to strip away.
The music, the architecture, the rituals and the forms of worship and so on may have artistic value in and of themselves, but they don't have any moral/philosohpical value in and of themselves. If THAT is what's left, then you haven't removed the wrapper, you've left the wrapper and hollowed out the middle.
'Tradition' in and of itself has no real meaning other than being an explanation for how you ended up with something. But, as I'm fond of quoting, antiquity without truth is but ancient error. It doesn't matter how comforting a tradition might be, how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel. That is not, by itself, a coherent rationale or justification. It's empty ritual that you do because someone else did it before you.
And yes 'orthodox' Christians are just as guilty of engaging in rituals without thinking about why they are doing them, myself included. But there's still a fundamental difference between thinking of a tradition/ritual as a MEANS, and seeing it as an END in itself.
So, what else are you trying to salvage?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Supporting inclusion of women and LGBT people does not necessarily correlate to a rejection of Creedal orthodoxy.
Solemn High Masses would be banned in Spongite churches. Yep, not for me. I need priests prancing around in pretty vestments, waving enough incense to make angels sneeze, and chanting beautiful prayers in Elizabethan language. I'll take that over an hour of listening to the Word of Spong.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Phila:
Again, Spong isn't saying what he does believe. To try and build any faith from what was quoted in the OP is utterly absurd and to then dismiss Spong because he hasn't done something he hasn't done is equally absurd.
Again, and this is why trying to build an entire faith-based institution around Spongite "theology" is impossible.
RadicalWhig should work with someone of a bit more substance, methinks. Even Paul Tillich (whom Spong is deeply indebted to) would be more useful.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
(By that logic, I can assert that Thomas Jefferson rose from the dead too, because his ideas still make liberals get that warm and fuzzy feeling).
And I wear my What Would Jefferson Do? bracelet* with pride!
* Hand-knitted by a women's co-operative from organic tofu.
(Ok, now I'm just playing into your stereotypes. Enough.)
But I do think there are more ways of believing in God than to believe in a theistic God, and more ways of following Jesus than to believe he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?
I think Anglican_Brat's point is that you end up with a God and a Jesus that are no more remarkable or special than many other great people through history. Which then leads to the conclusion that the only remaining eason for elevating God/Jesus into a unique position ABOVE those other people is that it's the tradition you've been handed.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
[QUOTE]We don't believe in God as commonly understood.
We don't believe in the incarnation or the authority of any tradition.
We don't believe in the biblical narrative.
We deny the virgin birth and Christ's divinity.
We deny the reality of biblical miracles, or indeed any miracles that break the commonly understood laws of nature.
We deny theories of sacrificial atonement.
We deny the bodily, historical resurrection (though it's possible to see it differently.)
We deny the ascension.
We deny the moral objectivity of any written text.
We deny the power of prayer to accomplish any particular thing.
We deny any moral system that employs guilt.
We deny the rejection of any person based on external descriptors, and so we affirm the universal image of God.
With a few modifications that list could be the basis of secular humanism.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
But I do think there are more ways of believing in God than to believe in a theistic God, and more ways of following Jesus than to believe he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?
It isn't, RadicalWhig.
The thesis is that what Christians seem to believe is pish, that I and my mates know better, and we're going to change it.
If you don't (overall) believe what Christianity teaches - even allowing for the fact that nobody is expected to know let alone understand everything perfectly - surely the logical thing to do is to set up your own show?
I know that's a bit unfair on you as to some extent that is what I think you are pointing towards, but it sure ain't what Spong wants. Maybe that needs teasing out a bit more. It does, I think, explain why some of us get so tetchy at the mention of the name.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalWhig:
But I do think there are more ways of believing in God than to believe in a theistic God, and more ways of following Jesus than to believe he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?
Fine. Wonderful. Granting that this is possible, What makes this system tick?
You can't reject the entire tradition of the church unless you can put something else in its place.
If Spong was given the right to write a new Nicene Creed, and wasn't allowed to use the word "deny," "reject," or the phrase "We don't believe," what would he say?
--------------------
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
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
orfeo:
I honestly don't know which is worse sometimes: Christians telling me how to behave as a committed follower of Jesus, or Atheists telling me how to behave as a someone who denies the literal truth of the Bible and believes that Jahweh is a mythological character.
On both sides there's frequently an assumption that you can either committed to a Jesus-inspired way of life or you can be sceptical about the supernatural and doctrinal claims of the Christian religion. But not both.
Underlying that is an assumption, on both sides, that the supernatural and doctrinal claims about Jesus, as traditionally interpreted by Christianity, are essential to Jesus' example and inseparable from the ethical and aesthetic side of Christianity. And quite simply it's THAT assumption that I disagree with.
So yes, an organisation that happily includes me because they don't believe there's anything special about Jesus and his imperative call to a new way of life .. that doesn't really cut it as inclusion. Because it would be acceptance of my non-belief in certain supernatural and doctrinal claims at the expense of rejecting everything else about my Jeso-centric worldview.
I don't see why I should settle for such a poor exchange, just for the benefit of approving how I interpret Jesus' life and message.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally Posted by Phila:
Again, Spong isn't saying what he does believe. To try and build any faith from what was quoted in the OP is utterly absurd and to then dismiss Spong because he hasn't done something he hasn't done is equally absurd.
Again, and this is why trying to build an entire faith-based institution around Spongite "theology" is impossible.
RadicalWhig should work with someone of a bit more substance, methinks. Even Paul Tillich (whom Spong is deeply indebted to) would be more useful.
To be fair, I was taking Spong more as a representative example of that line of thought. There might be fine differences between Spong, Marcus Borg and Richard Holloway which I have not been able to spot - they all seem to be coming from roughly the same direction: i.e. there is much that is "good" and even "true" in the Christian tradition, but its fundamental doctrinal claims are bunkum -and the challenge is to extract what is good and true.
Again, it's not as if they are creating from scratch, they are responding to and reacting against an existing reality. So the focus is on what is to be protested against, with the implicit expectation (I assume), that all which is not protested against is accepted.
(Tillich I'm not very familiar with - I've read bits about him, and he is widely quoted, but I haven't read his works: I will do so when time and energy allow.)
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I find it galling that someone thinks I should automatically jump into the arms of someone who would 'include' me, without considering whether anything ELSE about them matches with my own beliefs! What, you think that my homosexuality should just mean I sign on the dotted line of the first person who says that they're okay with me being gay? Please. I'm not that easy.
Good point. Fair enough.
But your attitude to "the bit different" often comes across very strongly anti. Which I find odd. When you are "a bit different" according to orthodoxy.
The idea that because I am in an unorthodox position on one issue, I ought to support all unorthodox views is extremely woolly thinking. Similarly, there is no reason in terms of logic that I shouldn't be accepting of a wide range of views on some issues but rigid and dogmatic on others.
I spend my working life choosing the occasions when I will express things the way that someone else wants, even though it wouldn't be the way I would express it, and choosing the occasions when I will flat out say 'no' because what they've chosen doesn't work and is wrong.
quote:
quote:
I honestly don't know what 'he believes Jesus is Lord' means here
Well. You, me and the baker would probably have different versions on that too. Are we not Christians all?
You may have meant that as a rhetorical question or one I couldn't possibly say 'no' to. But the answer's no. Or at the very least, I am not going to agree to saying 'yes'. Besides, the Bible quite clearly says that not everyone who calls Jesus 'Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
In and of itself 'Jesus is Lord' is just a phrase. What is actually meant by it is pertinent and relevant. It is simply not the case that 'Jesus was a very wise man and I apply his philosophies in my daily living' is equivalent in all ways and respects to 'the world was created through Him and for Him and the whole universe will eventually bow down to Him'.
Perhaps many of the practical workings out will look very similar. And perhaps, in the end, God is happy with both - I'm not in a position to make a definitive judgment on the issue. But please don't ask me to accept that it doesn't make one iota of philosophical difference and that we are automatically 'Christians all' just because we throw the name of Jesus around in an approving manner.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
ORiginally Posted by RadicalWhig:
Underlying that is an assumption, on both sides, that the supernatural and doctrinal claims about Jesus, as traditionally interpreted by Christianity, are essential to Jesus' example and inseparable from the ethical and aesthetic side of Christianity. And quite simply it's THAT assumption that I disagree with.
The ethics come from the aesthetics constructed around the creedal statements. It's like saying you love this particular painting but you disapprove of the canvas and of paint in general.
I think Spong employs the same dichotomy, or plays into it and doesn't do a good job of communicating with some of us that reside in the funny faith space of being content to say the Bible is a basis for doctrine and faith even if it's not literally convenient for the verification of epistemological truth claims.
I take the Bible pretty seriously, and the creed (admittedly to a lesser extent,) and I'm also quite content to say that in terms of strict history they're rather dodgy (as are most documents dating to the pre-modern era.) You have to embrace them for the corrupted, human things that they are, just as God embraces us.
There was a time when I liked Spong (I think someone else thanked him for keeping them from totally leaving the church,) but in a sense, some of us are past that phase and to us (ok, me at least) he seems a bit...shallow, if I can say that generously. At the point you quote, he's still too busy deconstructing (destroying, really) to do anything you could make a new church out of. If you really want to start a new institution, you're going to need someone with a bit more meat on their bones, not someone who's dissecting what they believe to be a dead corpse (did I just see that finger twitch?).
The Eucharist, which is pretty central to my faith at the moment, is a symbol. It's not a literal transubstantiation. But it is not an empty symbol. And in a sense, to treat it like a mere symbol (as Spong seems to tend to do) is deeply offensive. There's a tangible reality to it. I think one danger of Spongite religion is it becomes like that, too gnostic, to caught up in heady ideas and not enough reality, which is ironic since I think he fancies that he's brining the church back to reality.
If you like the "myth" aspects of Christianity, know that the physical reality of Jesus Christ and the entering of God into the world we live in are the bases for a lot of the ethics. If the myth is shoved fully into the abstract, then the whole project becomes meaningless, or gnostic. Your Communion would have to be devoid of any physical bread or wine, which seems kind of bland if you ask me.
If you deny atonement, God, and the incarnation, what will you do with the phrase "This is my body, the one given for you. Do this in remembrance of me"? If the body isn't real, the giving is barbaric, and the memory is of something that never happened...what have you got?
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
orfeo:
I honestly don't know which is worse sometimes: Christians telling me how to behave as a committed follower of Jesus, or Atheists telling me how to behave as a someone who denies the literal truth of the Bible and believes that Jahweh is a mythological character.
On both sides there's frequently an assumption that you can either committed to a Jesus-inspired way of life or you can be sceptical about the supernatural and doctrinal claims of the Christian religion. But not both.
Underlying that is an assumption, on both sides, that the supernatural and doctrinal claims about Jesus, as traditionally interpreted by Christianity, are essential to Jesus' example and inseparable from the ethical and aesthetic side of Christianity. And quite simply it's THAT assumption that I disagree with.
So yes, an organisation that happily includes me because they don't believe there's anything special about Jesus and his imperative call to a new way of life .. that doesn't really cut it as inclusion. Because it would be acceptance of my non-belief in certain supernatural and doctrinal claims at the expense of rejecting everything else about my Jeso-centric worldview.
I don't see why I should settle for such a poor exchange, just for the benefit of approving how I interpret Jesus' life and message.
Nice try, but where you fall down is that I didn't say you couldn't separate the ethical example from the supernatural mumbo-jumbo. I just queried whether it remained 'Christianity'.
Even terribly conservative Christians don't tend to regard their views on homosexuality as being one of the basic doctrinal beliefs of the church. What they tend to do is conclude that 'acceptance of homosexuality' means 'rejection of the Bible'. And I agree with them wholeheartedly that acceptance or rejection of the Bible IS a basic doctrinal belief.
Oh, and 'Jesus-inspired way of life'. This is the entire point, whether or not having a 'Jesus-inspired way of life' is what 'Christian' means.
So... lovely try, but the category errors are pretty obvious and I'm not falling for it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
ORiginally Posted by RadicalWhig:
Underlying that is an assumption, on both sides, that the supernatural and doctrinal claims about Jesus, as traditionally interpreted by Christianity, are essential to Jesus' example and inseparable from the ethical and aesthetic side of Christianity. And quite simply it's THAT assumption that I disagree with.
The ethics come from the aesthetics constructed around the creedal statements. It's like saying you love this particular painting but you disapprove of the canvas and of paint in general.
Lovely. Thank you. Now, why couldn't I say it that succinctly?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I think you've got to find a way to engage the myth sincerely and wholeheartedly while simultaneously saying "it's bunkum."
That's difficult. I've tried to walk that line for a while, but if you stick to it long enough the story will drag you back into its own context. The Holy Spirit is sneaky like that.
Which might be the idea, but in that case...I'm closer, theologically, to Spong than some people here are (I think,) and I still think he's lacking in many things. Maybe that's where you are now, but I think one could do better. Maybe try some Emergent stuff if you're looking for examples...Brian McClaren (who also makes me wince, but not nearly so badly as Spong) might be a resource.
--------------------
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 orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
ORiginally Posted by RadicalWhig:
Underlying that is an assumption, on both sides, that the supernatural and doctrinal claims about Jesus, as traditionally interpreted by Christianity, are essential to Jesus' example and inseparable from the ethical and aesthetic side of Christianity. And quite simply it's THAT assumption that I disagree with.
The ethics come from the aesthetics constructed around the creedal statements. It's like saying you love this particular painting but you disapprove of the canvas and of paint in general.
Lovely. Thank you. Now, why couldn't I say it that succinctly?
Pithiness is a gift of the Spirit. As the seed was planted within me I cultivated it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Speaking as someone who appreciates some of Spong's earlier work -- seating your belief system on what you DON'T believe isn't particularly appealing to me. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there doesn't seem to be a lot of "there" there.
I also reject the assumption (of both ends of the theological continuum) that there's no tenable middle ground between slack-jawed fundamentalism and arch-browed Spongism. Oh, please.
[ 28. July 2010, 14:36: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
In other news, I've just changed my avatar image in the wild hope that it will help myself and everybody else keep track of what I wrote and what Radical Whig wrote...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
