|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Jack Spong Dishonest and Wrong?
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Tonewheel, thanks for the apology. I hear what you and JJ are saying about Spong's style of communication in the media. He uses the media and the media use him. But it is unfair to characterize the man's philosophy solely on magazine articles, interviews, and posting on the internet. Spong is far more deliberate in his books than in interviews, as everyone is.
What particularly galls me about the media charge of racism is that He was revulsed by his father's racism and began working hard and bravely on black civil rights as a teenager. The racist charge is too low.
And Erin, what would you expect a Presbyterian bishop from South Carolina who wrote a book entitled The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy to say about any progressive liberal? I'm betting Jesuitical Lad is right there on the same page with the good doctor. Now if Marcus Borg had said it of Spong, I might raise an eyebrow. But Fitzsimons? Typical conservative/liberal banter, that's all that is, and it deserves zero attention from anyone.
More than the heretics of the past, Spong reflects 20th century theologians like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Reinhold Niebuhr whose theology strongly stressed our role in revealing God as active members of the Body of Christ doing the work of Christ. Jugular is correct in labeling him more ecclesiologist than theologist. Spong worked for two tumultuous decades in the black civil rights movements and paid a personal price for it. Once a homophobe, he worked for the next two decades in a similar capacity for gays after his interactions with them and research on the subject convinced him that this too was a matter of civil rights. His admirable efforts were inspired more by theologians of the 20th century than by heretics of prior centuries, and he is more fairly characterized as an implementer of modern theology rather than an unconfessed heretic.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Since when is Allison a Presbyterian? Hell, he was one of the ordaining bishops of the Anglican Mission in America.
However, the point remains -- Jack Spong offers no new revelation. All of his twelve theses (ha ha HA!) are reincarnations of ancient and modern heresies that have been dealt with by the church already.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Tonewheel, thanks for the apology. I hear what you and JJ are saying about Spong's style of communication in the media. He uses the media and the media use him. But it is unfair to characterize the man's philosophy solely on magazine articles, interviews, and posting on the internet. Spong is far more deliberate in his books than in interviews, as everyone is.
Again -- it's not his "style" of communication in the media I have an objection to. It's the way he formulates arguments (which is to say, not at all) that I object to. It's intellectually and academically weak. I agree he's more deliberate in his books, but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't evaluate him based on articles and debates. The guy's a Bishop in God's church, it's not too much to expect him to clearly argue his points instead of attack his opponents, whether it's in a article, book, or debate.
quote:
And Erin, what would you expect a Presbyterian bishop from South Carolina who wrote a book entitled The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy to say about any progressive liberal? ... Now if Marcus Borg had said it of Spong, I might raise an eyebrow. But Fitzsimons? Typical conservative/liberal banter, that's all that is, and it deserves zero attention from anyone.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) JimT, you're doing exactly what I've been criticizing Spong for doing. It's not valid to say Fitzsimmons was wrong about Spong simply because he's Fitzsimmons. That's not a reason. It's an argumentum ad hominem: the practise of picking some personal feature or weakness about somebody and using it to dismiss everything they say. It's It doesn't matter whether Marcus Borg said it, or Fitzsimmons said it, or some schmuck from a pig farm in Toldeo said it. Because the question is not who said it, the question is whether it's true. A word to the wise: evaluate arguments and ideas on their merits, not on whether the person who made them aggravated your prejudices.
In Christ.
--------------------
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
quote:
Since when is Allison a Presbyterian?
Er, I believe its called hyperbole.
quote:
All of his twelve theses (ha ha HA!) are reincarnations of ancient and modern heresies that have been dealt with by the church already.
The death of theism has not been "dealt with" by the church - just go down to your local theology faculty and find how many academic theologians are addressing this very issue. Not to mention at a grass roots level where people ask questions like "How can a loving God allow suffering?" and are no longer satisfied with the pat answers
Belief in a literal "virgin" birth have not been "dealt with" by the church, unless you count such models of outstanding theology as the doctrine of the immaculate conception.
Also, to use the word "heresy" as a term of derision is fraught with difficulty. Anti-theism is a relatively new concept, and much modern theology flows out of this new style of thought. (I am conscious that many mystics have been anti-theist down through the ages, but their views have not achieved mainstream awareness). Anti-theism lies at the heart of Spong's theology, and is not a "heresy" that has been "dealt with" by the church at all. The 12 theses are not terribly radical. As Spong himself claims, he is not making up something new, he is simply bringing contemporary thinking out of the academy and into the church at large.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
quote:
Because the question is not who said it, the question is whether it's true. A word to the wise: evaluate arguments and ideas on their merits, not on whether the person who made them aggravated your prejudices.
Thank you so much for that advice, Tonewheel! Gee, I've been on the ship such a short time, I needed someone to help me on that very difficult issue!
Perhaps if we all followed this advice we wouldn't make arguments by saying
quote:
They liked Spong because he was colourful, not because he was prophetic.
or
quote:
whatever it was Spong had cooking in that noggin of his, it wasn't sticking to the ribs in his own Diocese.
We would instead carefully dissect his arguments, careful to remain objective at all times.
In fact, as has been stated earlier, if anyone is able "to evaluate arguments and ideas on their merits" it is Jack Spong - who, based on the prejudices in his culture, should have been a racist, homophobic conservative. Instead, he has had the courage to change his ideas based on reason and experience and has not ignored or derided others simply because they don't fit the official view of things.
Those who wish to hassle Spong for his negative comments towards evangelicals need to remember that he is not speaking out of ignorance. He actually is an evangelical, unlike many public figures who criticise that which they are not.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
quote:
Since when is Allison a Presbyterian?
Er, I believe its called hyperbole.
Hyperbole? Huh? Calling an Episcopal bishop a Presbyterian is hyperbole? In what sense?
quote:
The death of theism has not been "dealt with" by the church - just go down to your local theology faculty and find how many academic theologians are addressing this very issue. Not to mention at a grass roots level where people ask questions like "How can a loving God allow suffering?" and are no longer satisfied with the pat answers
Belief in a literal "virgin" birth have not been "dealt with" by the church, unless you count such models of outstanding theology as the doctrine of the immaculate conception.
To the first point: you'll have to forgive me if I don't consider denomination-based, theological eggheads permanently ensconced in the ivory towers of academia to be "the church". When I say "dealt with by the church", I am speaking of the ancient councils. My apologies, I assumed that was understood.
To the second: I'm not sure which church you're talking about, but the one I'm familiar with has most assuredly dealt with the Virgin Birth. I refer you to your local Nicene and Apostle's Creeds for confirmation. As for the Immaculate Conception, that is highly tangential to the Virgin Birth and is relevant to one particular group's understanding of the Incarnation.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Oh, for fuck's sake! Hyperbole is the deliberate use of exaggeration to make a (usually satirical) point.
Allison was referred to as Presbyterian because of his anti-episcopal actions and reformed evangelical theology. By deliberately exaggerating the description, JimT drew attention to the fact that the author clearly had a pre-existing bias and agenda. It is a well-worn debating technique, and one which anyone with half a brain can work out.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Now to the substance of the debate.
Erin wrote:
quote:
you'll have to forgive me if I don't consider denomination-based, theological eggheads permanently ensconced in the ivory towers of academia to be "the church". When I say "dealt with by the church", I am speaking of the ancient councils. My apologies, I assumed that was understood.
The substance of Spong's argument is that the ancient councils were working inside a whole different world-view and cosmology. In fact, the phrase "and was incarnate by the holy spirit, of the virgin Mary" is a direct reference to the scriptural account, which is obviously so fraught with inaccuracies, mistranslations and political agendas that the reference in the creed is ambiguous. Also, are we to assume that revelation ceased with the ancient councils? Surely the reason we have academic theologians is so that they can be tasked with exploring the faith anew? I am a liberationist who believes passionately in the ability of the church to be self determining - and in my experience, reasonably well-informed Christians are asking these questions as much as any scholar. Not least because a literal virgin birth has been used as a tool to demean women to being mere vessels and to de-feminise God, hence the frequency of praying to Mary.
I realise I have addressed the two points in a mish-mash, but I hope you get my point.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
And Erin, what would you expect a Presbyterian bishop from South Carolina who wrote a book entitled The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy to say about any progressive liberal?
I rather liked that book. In fact I thought it was very good. I recommend it to people.
I almost thought that I understood the Monophysite controversy for a few days after I first read it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
The only point I get of yours, jugular, is that you are either unaware that personal attacks belong in one place only, and Purgatory ain't it; or think that you are exempt from the rules. If that was Jim's point, it was a piss-poor way of illustrating it, and insulting to the Presbyterians on the board (which is, again, not allowed).
As to your other statements -- just because a theological belief was used as a weapon doesn't automatically mean it was wrong to start with. And no, I do not believe that we are getting any new revelations in this day and age that contradict the fundamentals (i.e., the creeds).
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Re the question of Right and Wrong
As it applies to Bishop Spong
And his notions of... lots of things,
Here my little poem sings:
I will sing to the highest Heaven
That I agree with Iga (Kevin)
And I will shout to deepest Hell
That I agree with Erin as well.
When others say that which I would
My posts are shorter -- and that's good. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
David
PS: I think Allison's book is good
But then, as with Lewis, I guess I would
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If that was Jim's point, it was a piss-poor way of illustrating it, and insulting to the Presbyterians on the board (which is, again, not allowed).
Erin has in fact caught my ignorance: I once read something that incorrectly identified him as being a Presbyterian. My bad. Still, it is obvious that Fitzsimons has a traditional view of heresy that would no doubt find Tillich, Borg, and many other 20th century Protestant theologians "heretical."
This is my real point in response to Erin's criticism of Spong as recycled heresy: there is no doubt that Spong is a heretic in the eyes of the 6th century Roman Catholic church. There is also no doubt that Erin would undoubtedly be branded a heretic by any 6th century council for asserting that Adam was merely a mythical creature and not the first Man created by God, as described plainly and factually in Genesis. NT Wright would be a heretic as well.
Why do I argue that in 21st century liberal Protestant terms Spong is not a heretic?
1. The center of his theology is that God is revealed in Christ.
2. The Bible is his primary text for religious and moral instruction.
3. With the Bible as his primary text for religious and moral instruction, Spong says that the specific manner in which Christ reveals God is the embodiment of Love.
It may be argued that this is an heretical view of heresy, but the fact remains that the standards of "heresy" must change as time moves forward or we are frozen in past world views with their limited circumspection of Truth. To the modern evangelical, the "one time" miracles begin when one turns the page from Malachai to Matthew; prior to that, the Bible is myth and legend. They deride Fundamentalists for failing to see this. When the liberal refuses to accept "one time" miracles after the book of Malachai, the modern evangelical morphs into a Fundamentalist and cries heresy, to the shock of the Fundamentalist who has just been excoriated for their Old Testament view and of the liberal who a moment ago had an ally.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Actually, Spong the man is welcome to whatever belief he wants to have. I really couldn't care less. The problem I have is with a bishop who, having vowed to uphold the faith as defined in the creeds*, subsequently turns around and says it is all a crock of shit. Yet he still remained a bishop. I find that position lacking in integrity.
*From the Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA), page 519:
quote:
[Name of bishop-elect], through these promises you have committed yourself to God, to serve his Church in the office of bishop. We therefore call upon you, chosen to be a guardian of the Church's faith, to lead us in confessing that faith.
And then bishop-elect leads off the Nicene Creed, which is the ECUSA's fundamental statement about the nature of Jesus Christ.
My problem lies not with Spong the man or Spong the ecclesiologist/theologist, but rather Spong the ECUSA bishop.
[ 11. August 2003, 17:29: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Cuervo
Son of a Son of a Sailor
# 4725
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If that was Jim's point, it was a piss-poor way of illustrating it, and insulting to the Presbyterians on the board (which is, again, not allowed).
I read the reference to Bishop Allison as a "Presbyterian" as a compliment...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Who wouldn't want to be known for doing things "decently and in order"?
St. C.
--------------------
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked... angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...
Posts: 295 | From: Falls Church, VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
According to jugular's highly creative and completely groundless interpretation of the mix-up, it would not have been intended as a compliment.
But it's no matter, because that wasn't the intent.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
Oh, for fuck's sake! Hyperbole is the deliberate use of exaggeration to make a (usually satirical) point.
<snip> It is a well-worn debating technique, and one which anyone with half a brain can work out.
Who on this thread has been shown to have less than half a brain?
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I literally just saw a few weeks ago, and was quite intrigued by, the Spong book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die". I only have had the chance to browse it and read a few chapters, but what I saw shocked me by how much I could agree with him.
I have been amused by the rhetoric on this thread that cites him being a populist (like that is bad) or a heretic, etc. and that his writings were simplistic or makes things up. In my business (Environmental Consulting) we can write things two ways; first we can write in FULL technical, scientific jargon with acronyms and verbage that only a scientist or engineer would understand, or, we can write with the client in mind and simplify, simplify, simplify so they HEAR what we are trying to say. I ALWAYS choose the latter!
Why do I go off on that tangent? Cause when I read Spong, he had well-articulated many questions, problems, and issues I am trying to sort out, and there is a NEED for well articulated, straightforward write-up sometimes without all the academic embroidery. I thought (from my limited read so far) IMHO he has justified his lines of questioning enough to explain his position(s) adequately.
As for:
JimT Asked: quote:
If a Fundamentalist changes from a literal view of Adam to a mythic view, has he "lost his faith" or "grown in faith?"
How about, If a fundementalist changes from a literal view of Adam to a mythic view, he has simply changed in faith? Which is not to say greater or lesser. Cause if we say "grown" it emplies better or worse and that is not the case, IMHO. A fundementalist is no better than me for having his/her version of faith, and I am no better than them. They, of course, might not see it that way, but they have to proceed at their own understanding.
I try to remember often that I could have been properly labeled a fundementalist at one time and I had to experience that to be where I am today.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Still, it is obvious that Fitzsimons has a traditional view of heresy that would no doubt find Tillich, Borg, and many other 20th century Protestant theologians "heretical."
And this 20th century bloke in the pew would likely agree with him.
quote:
This is my real point in response to Erin's criticism of Spong as recycled heresy: there is no doubt that Spong is a heretic in the eyes of the 6th century Roman Catholic church.
No doubt at all. I'm glad we are clear on that point.
quote:
There is also no doubt that Erin would undoubtedly be branded a heretic by any 6th century council for asserting that Adam was merely a mythical creature and not the first Man created by God, as described plainly and factually in Genesis. NT Wright would be a heretic as well.
6th century? She might just have been able to have the argument. With very careful skating round of some definitions. OK, 4th century then. They getting were a bit touchy by the 6th.
quote:
It may be argued that this is an heretical view of heresy, but the fact remains that the standards of "heresy" must change as time moves forward or we are frozen in past world views with their limited circumspection of Truth.
But if the truth we are trying to speak is the truth about God the creator, then it can only come from him. Only though revelation could God be known. The idea of any created beings researching into God, or carrying out an experiment on God, or coming to some knowledge of God other than through revelation is absurd, illogical, meaningless, self-contradictory, 1+1=3. To assert that it is possible is to assert nothing. We are only able to say of God what God says of God. We can no more find out about God by our own efforts than a character in a novel can find out about the author.
And if the primary revelation of God is in the Incarnation of God in Jesus (which claim is the essential difference between Christianity and other religions) then there is no reason to think that we might be able to come up with better 'standards of "heresy"' than those based on what we know of the Incarnation. There is no reason at all to think that theology should "move forward" as we move away in time from the Incarnation. Rationally and logically one might expect the opposite. (I mean theology in the strict sense here - study or knowledge of God - things like ethics and so on could change of course)
So when a theologian says something about God claiming that it is based on a revelation from a "theistic", personal, God - well it might be true or it might be false. If one thought that it was based on a genuine revelation, it might be worth considering. But if they say anything else about God at all, there is no point in listening to them. Fine, God might be "non-theistic". But if so then all theology is pissing in the wind. In a universe created by a theistic, personal, God, it is at least imaginable that God might communicate something of God's nature to created beings. But otherwise, no.
quote:
To the modern evangelical, the "one time" miracles begin when one turns the page from Malachai to Matthew; prior to that, the Bible is myth and legend.
Is it? Cor, this is a new kind of Evangelical. One that doesn't believe in the historical reality of the Persian empire.
quote:
They deride Fundamentalists for failing to see this.
We do? Where do we do that? I'd like to see one single quote from an "evangelical" mocking a "fundamentalist" for thinking there is history in the Old Testament, or that God could work miracles before the Incarnation.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
Not least because a literal virgin birth has been used as a tool to demean women to being mere vessels and to de-feminise God.
This sort of thing is said all the time, and seems to be thought such a self-evident truth that no evidence needs to be offered in support of it.
There is a significant minority amongst feminist theologians who view the virginal conception tradition as being affirmative of women - in that it presents us with a woman whose reproductive capacity is exercised independently of male sexuality. As regards this, and the claim about 'de-feminising God', it should be noted that the doctrine of the virginal conception does not claim that the Holy Spirit takes the place of a human father. Rather, it is claimed that Jesus has no human father, and that his parthenogenic conception is brought about by the action of God, who, of course, has no sex.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
I have read most of Spong's work and see it for what it is - populist literature intended to provoke thought and discussion about a new form of orthodoxy.
I wasn't impressed with the quality of his arguments. Not the substance, but the ability to express a clearly reasoned chain of logic. It may indeed be populist, but in a rather poor sense of populism.
Hans Kung, on the other hand, in English translation (and in person), makes arguments that are models of clarity.
A lack of books here at work prevents me from quoting examples.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
They deride Fundamentalists for failing to see this.
We do? Where do we do that? I'd like to see one single quote from an "evangelical" mocking a "fundamentalist" for thinking there is history in the Old Testament, or that God could work miracles before the Incarnation.
Ken, you did it, along with me, to several fundamentalists on the Noah thread. You were every bit as mocking and scathing as Spong ever was. I really don't feel like pulling up a specific quote to embarrass us both.
And Erin, if Spong's position on the creeds is the problem, what is the specific problem? Here is Spong's position on the creeds from Why Christianity Must Change or Die:
quote:
Our task is neither to literalize nor to worship the words of yesterday’s theological consensus. It is, rather, to return to the experience that created these creedal words in the first place and then to seek to incorporate that experience in the words that we today can use, without compromising its truth or our integrity as citizens of this century.
He attacks interpretations of the creeds, not the creeds themselves. Those he affirms.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Are you telling me that Spong does NOT deny a Virgin Birth or the literal Resurrection?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Are you telling me that Spong does NOT deny a Virgin Birth or the literal Resurrection?
Are you telling me that Ruth and Karl cannot be bishops in the Episcopal church?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
If they deny the Virgin Birth and literal Resurrection, then no, they cannot be bishops in the ECUSA. Besides, I believe that both Ruth and Karl have enough integrity that they would not sign a document that they cannot uphold and teach.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from JimT quote:
And Erin, if Spong's position on the creeds is the problem, what is the specific problem? Here is Spong's position on the creeds from Why Christianity Must Change or Die:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Our task is neither to literalize nor to worship the words of yesterday’s theological consensus. It is, rather, to return to the experience that created these creedal words in the first place and then to seek to incorporate that experience in the words that we today can use, without compromising its truth or our integrity as citizens of this century.
-------------------------------------------------
Does Spong explain how we can "return to the experience that created these creedal words in the first place"?
That strikes me as a very tall order.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Cuervo
Son of a Son of a Sailor
# 4725
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
According to jugular's highly creative and completely groundless interpretation of the mix-up, it would not have been intended as a compliment.
But it's no matter, because that wasn't the intent.
... the conservatives in my denomination wouldn't have taken it as a compliment. Their big lobbying group just issued a press release entitled, Presbyterians Are Not Episcopalians on the Robinson election.
... I took it as a compliment! Now if someone would have called Spong a Presbyterian...
Cheers,
St. C.
--------------------
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked... angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...
Posts: 295 | From: Falls Church, VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If they deny the Virgin Birth and literal Resurrection, then no, they cannot be bishops in the ECUSA. Besides, I believe that both Ruth and Karl have enough integrity that they would not sign a document that they cannot uphold and teach.
Fair enough. Didn't I see a thread that said 27% of the Anglican vicars in England do not believe in the Virgin Birth? If true, a significant proportion of priests are recycled heretics who should quit or be removed if they will not quit.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Does Spong explain how we can "return to the experience that created these creedal words in the first place"?
Yes, it is much the same as returning to the Old Testament and trying to extract truth from myth; study the times and the language and then attempt to discern what motivated the words. I would think we do the same when we return to the story of Adam from a modern perspective.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If they deny the Virgin Birth and literal Resurrection, then no, they cannot be bishops in the ECUSA. Besides, I believe that both Ruth and Karl have enough integrity that they would not sign a document that they cannot uphold and teach.
Why, thank you!
For the record: I have doubts about the virgin birth, but don't really care one way or the other. And if I didn't think Jesus physically threw off the winding sheets and busted himself out of the tomb (w/ or w/o angelic assistance) I would have been sleeping in on Sunday mornings all these years.
Anyone who wishes to make me bishop may kiss my ring. Anyone else ... well ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GOTC
Apprentice
# 3400
|
Posted
If I may join in?
Jesus said (to paraphrase) that He had come to fulfil the prophets, not overturn them. The Old Testament foresaw the Virgin Birth ("and lo, a virgin shall conceive"). Now, logically, if one accepts that Jesus was/is/will be the Messiah foretold, one must accept that He did fulfil the prophets. It is mentioned several time in the Gospels that Jesus does certain things so that the prophets would be fulfilled, such as saying "I thirst" on the cross (and that is why someone lifted the vinegar-soaked sponge to Him).
I accept Christ as the Messiah, and therefore I accept the Virgin Birth and Resurrection as literally true. I supposed one could accept Christ's teachings without accepting these two events as truth, but I don't understand how one could accept Christ as God's Son, as predicted in the Old Testament, and yet reject these tenets.
And yes, I'm a newbie, and if I've over-stepped, I'm sorry.
--------------------
"Because I'm the Goddess Of The Classroom and I say so."
(they don't really care about state standards or curricula)
Posts: 9 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Welcome to the ship, GoddessOTC.
Glad to have you with us.
Some might suggest that the early (New Testament) Christians got to write the story to fit the predictions (prophecies). Some might be considered heretical for saying that too, but that's the theory.
P.S. No "Overstepping" whatsoever.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
And then again some of us would say that, whilst the stories are clearly authorial creations, the virgin-conception tradition predates the gospels and (we may believe) is historical - note for example that Mary's virginity is a problem for Matthew, who wants to trace Jesus' Davidic descent via. Joseph - if Matthew were writing from scratch with an entirely free hand he would hardly not have Joseph as the natural father.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GOTC
Apprentice
# 3400
|
Posted
Thanks, Mad Geo.
Your argurment about history's being written by the victors, er, early Christians, is fair enough, but my point is that either Jesus IS/WAS/WILL BE the Messiah foretold or he isn't (etc). If he is/was/will be, no editing to fit the facts (or prophecies) would have been (etc.) necessary; if he isn't...well, he was just a carpenter who knew how to talk and inspire incredible loyalty for a show that only ran three years (or so).
--------------------
"Because I'm the Goddess Of The Classroom and I say so."
(they don't really care about state standards or curricula)
Posts: 9 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goddessoftheclassroom:
Thanks, Mad Geo.
Your argurment about history's being written by the victors, er, early Christians, is fair enough, but my point is that either Jesus IS/WAS/WILL BE the Messiah foretold or he isn't (etc). If he is/was/will be, no editing to fit the facts (or prophecies) would have been (etc.) necessary; if he isn't...well, he was just a carpenter who knew how to talk and inspire incredible loyalty for a show that only ran three years (or so).
How about somewhere in the middle? It is a very human thing to revise appropriately to pitch a story (as you so rightly point out that History is written by the victors). Mythologies (and I do not use the term pejoratively) are built on good stories, stories with a point. I think Jesus was more than a carpenter.
How much more is open.
--------------------
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
|
|
GOTC
Apprentice
# 3400
|
Posted
Ummmm. Somewhere in the middle--is that like selecting from the following menu?
I agree that it is possible to view Jesus in terms of what he taught (putting others first, forgiveness, loving God, inclusiveness, etc). I believe that Muslims see Jesus as a prophet but not the Son of God. Can Jesus be the Christ but not the Son of God? Can He be the Redeemer of the world but not the one revealed to the prophets? That of course presumes that the works of ther prophets were in fact divinely inspired.
PS Thanks, Ruth.
--------------------
"Because I'm the Goddess Of The Classroom and I say so."
(they don't really care about state standards or curricula)
Posts: 9 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
I gave up reading Spong several months ago, although the truth is I never read very much. I was browsing through a local library and pulled a more recent Spongtome off the shelf. It doesn't matter which one, I'm not sure there's much difference between them.
Flicking through, I came across a couple of paragraphs in which he was expressing his disappointment at Michael Goulder abandoning his gospels-as-liturgical-calendar theory, which to that point was a nasty stain on an otherwise impressive body of work. Sad thing was, Spong wasn't prepared to abandon it, because it was one of the planks in his pseudo-historical pseudo-scholarly examination of the genesis of the gospels. Oh no, he'd wait until Goulder came back to the fold on that one.
Close book, replace on shelf, walk away. For however many things Spong is right about (and there are many of them), a historian he is not.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Does Spong explain how we can "return to the experience that created these creedal words in the first place"?
Yes, it is much the same as returning to the Old Testament and trying to extract truth from myth; study the times and the language and then attempt to discern what motivated the words. I would think we do the same when we return to the story of Adam from a modern perspective.
I am extremely skeptical.
Many years ago I read several books, written by people of different viewpoints, about the "search for the historical Jesus". Surprise, surprise. Each concluded that Jesus was exactly the kind of person the author had thought he was.
I honestly don't think anyone can achieve the necessary detachment, much less acquire the necessary background knowledge, to discover for himself what Jesus was really like.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Since joining the Ship I've listened to people yell at each other over "Why Christianity Must change Or Die." I found the arguments interesting but, not having read Spong, I stayed out of them.
I recently went to find a copy of WCMCOD and discovered that Spong has a newer book titled, "A New Christianity For A New World." In the introduction, Spong explains that, where WCMCOD was mainly a critique of traditional Christianity, ANCFANW is an exploration of the future shape of Christianity, as he sees it.
Since I'm digesting the book very slowly, I'm not really ready to argue its merits. However, it's interesting that everybody here is going on about WCMCOD rather than citing the more recent title. Has anyone even read it?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Does Spong explain how we can "return to the experience that created these creedal words in the first place"?
Yes, it is much the same as returning to the Old Testament and trying to extract truth from myth
I am extremely skeptical.
Many years ago I read several books, written by people of different viewpoints, about the "search for the historical Jesus". Surprise, surprise. Each concluded that Jesus was exactly the kind of person the author had thought he was.
I honestly don't think anyone can achieve the necessary detachment, much less acquire the necessary background knowledge, to discover for himself what Jesus was really like.
Moo
Moo, you have shifted the discussion away from the creeds to the mind of Jesus. The crucial point we were discussing is that Spong is a slam-dunk recycled heretic because rather than accept the literal Virgin Birth and literal physical resurrection, Spong instead says that these are legends testifying to the complete uniqueness of Christ in the minds of his followers: namely, that he was the purest embodiment of Truth and Love known. Our creedal goal in Spong's view is thus to believe that it is possible for us individually and corporately, via deep and personal contact with the life of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, to become the embodiment of Truth and Love. Our creedal goal is not to believe that Jesus had no natual father and was a unique divine/human hybrid being. At one time in history, when the miraculous was deemed more common than it is now, and when the seed from the father was considered what we would think of as a fertilized egg with the mother as a passive incubator, this creedal explanation made sense. Today, the literal words of the creed do not make sense. Today we know that women actually produce an egg with half the genome of the child. Today, we know that we are not separate creations from animals but their near relatives as destined to physical death as they are. Therefore, if we are to say the creeds with integrity we must think in metaphorical terms that contain the same truth that motivated the original words: Christ was the embodiment of Truth and Love; so can we be, so should we be; individually, collectively. Amen.
Like that.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
JimT said:
quote:
Our creedal goal is not to believe that Jesus ... was a unique divine/human hybrid being.
Of course not; that would be something like Heracles. "Fully God and fully man" is something different than that.
quote:
At one time in history, when the miraculous was deemed more common than it is now
By whom? We're told that these events are exceptions to the norm, which is why they were written down in the first place, and why Joseph is shown as having to be convinced by an angel that Mary wasn't pregnant by some other mortal man. The disciples had to be convinced that Jesus was not a ghost, it's true, but even believing (as many people do today) in ghosts, they were facing something a bit weirder than that. People are depicted as being really amazed at the things Jesus is shown as doing, not treating it as just one more ho-hum or slightly-unusual supernatural occurence; heck, even if the Gospels were taking place in the world of Harry Potter, with magic as a commonplace, they'd be pretty startling, frankly.
quote:
when the seed from the father was considered what we would think of as a fertilized egg with the mother as a passive incubator, this creedal explanation made sense
Speaking as someone who converted to Christianity from outside with a fairly decent background in science, and who always knew that a fertilized egg was made of sperm and egg together, I never had a problem with this; I don't at all see how our increased knowledge of How Babies Are Usually Conceived makes any difference at all. The Gospels and Creeds don't give any details about the mechanics of the event, whether one of Mary's eggs was fertilized by a Divinely-created spermatazoa, or whether Mary simply had a Divinely-created pre-fertilized egg implanted in her, or any number of other possibilities. One might as well say that because we understand better how fermentation works, then Jesus could not have made water into wine; or that as we understand surface tension better, He could not have walked on water.
quote:
Today, we know that we are not separate creations from animals but their near relatives as destined to physical death as they are.
I don't at all see how this affects the Creeds at all, I'm sorry. We already knew that animals and human beings died, and I don't know that we know any more at all about the spiritual nature of animals by what we know of them physically -- including whatever our biological relationship to them happens to be.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What David said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Actually, Spong the man is welcome to whatever belief he wants to have. I really couldn't care less. The problem I have is with a bishop who, having vowed to uphold the faith as defined in the creeds*, subsequently turns around and says it is all a crock of shit. Yet he still remained a bishop. I find that position lacking in integrity.
I hope I won't ruin Erin's day by saying I completely agree. Thank you, Erin. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
In the interest of addressing the first part of "Is Jack Spong Dishonest and Wrong?":
I went to our neighborhood Global Bookstore Megacorporation last night and picked up Spongs latest book "A New Christianity for a New World". Let me give you an excerpt from the beginning of his book:
quote:
I am a Christian.
For forty-five years I have served the Christian Church as a deacon, priest and bishop. I continue to serve that church today in a wide variety of ways in official retirement. I believe that God is real and that I live deeply and significantly to that divine reality.
I call Jesus my Lord. I beleive that he has mediated God in a powerful and unique way to human history and to me.
I beleive that my particular life has been dramatically and decisively impacted not only by the life of this Jesus, but also by his death and indeed by the Easter experience that Christians know as the resurrection.
Part of my life's experience has been spent seeking a way to articulate this impact and to invite others into what I can only call the "Christ-experience". I beleive that in this Christ I discover a basis for meaning, for ethics, for prayer, for worship, and even for the hope of life beyond the boundaries of mortality. I want my readers to know who it is that writes these words. I do not want to be guilty of violating any truth-in-packaging act. I define myself first and foremost as a Christian believer.
I would love to go on quoting, cause from there he starts to persuasively state where he parts ways with the standard Christian model (my words). Something I can definitely relate to.
I think that those words posted in one of the most public ways possible (a book) establishes his credibility with me that he is in no way "dishonest" that I can discern from the writings of his that I have had the pleasure to browse.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Um, this Christian doesn't refer to 'our Easter experience' as the Resurrection. I refer to the Resurrection as the Resurrection! Spong's views on which are subject to the criticism voiced in a sermon by the author of my current sig.:-
"To believe that God creates the whole universe and holds it in being over against absolute nothing, but to find it tricky and unworthy of belief that he should raise a man from the dead to a human life of glory seems eccentric."
Herbert McCabe, God Still Matters, pp. 227-8.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Whether your views are right or wrong, or Spong's views are right or wrong are not what I was addressing.
I was addressing whether he was being honest about himself and his views and per the quote I provided IMHO the answer is Yes.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
The man clearly holds his beliefs with integrity. The issue is whether he has integrity in belonging to a credal Church. My point is that orthodox Christianity does not merely affirm an Easter experience, although that is clearly our point of epistemic access to Easter-belief, it holds that there is a real 'object' of this experience, Jesus Christ, risen from the dead.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I appreciate the acknowledgement that "The man clearly holds his beliefs with integrity" as that is the point.
Someday maybe all Christians may realize that we do not hold onto the same beliefs, that those beliefs are not static, and that conserving old beliefs in the face of new information may appear to some Christians to be logically (or even intuitively) flawed.
Someday....
--------------------
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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Perhaps. But if you don't believe in the written creeds of our faith, then by God you should have enough integrity and honesty to quit drawing a paycheck for upholding them.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
I entirely agree Erin.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from JimT quote:
Moo, you have shifted the discussion away from the creeds to the mind of Jesus. The crucial point we were discussing is that Spong is a slam-dunk recycled heretic because rather than accept the literal Virgin Birth and literal physical resurrection, Spong instead says that these are legends testifying to the complete uniqueness of Christ in the minds of his followers: namely, that he was the purest embodiment of Truth and Love known. Our creedal goal in Spong's view is thus to believe that it is possible for us individually and corporately, via deep and personal contact with the life of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, to become the embodiment of Truth and Love.
I'm sorry for the apparent tangent, but I raised the point because you quoted these words of Spong's with approval. quote:
Our task is neither to literalize nor to worship the words of yesterday’s theological consensus. It is, rather, to return to the experience that created these creedal words in the first place and then to seek to incorporate that experience in the words that we today can use, without compromising its truth or our integrity as citizens of this century.
The 'search for the historical Jesus' was not an attempt to analyze the mind of Jesus, at least not in the books I read. It was an attempt to figure out what Jesus really said and did.
The Spong quote refers to the 'experience that created those credal words in the first place'. I had assumed that this experience was encounters with Jesus while he walked the earth and after his resurrection. This is what the 'historical Jesus' books dealt with.
If that is not what you and Spong mean by 'experience', what do you mean?
Moo
[ 12. August 2003, 20:25: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
