|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Jack Spong Dishonest and Wrong?
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I freely admit I do not know, but dontya think the church he was Bishop in woulda fired his butt, if he was soooo out of line with their version of Christian belief?
The problem of the "written creed" is that people like to make them rules by which to evaluate other people by. I don't like the "written creed" standard of ejecting people, in fact I don't really like ejecting people out of church at all.
If one HAS to have a creed it should be simple like:
quote:
"I believe that God is real and that I live deeply and significantly to that divine reality."
and quote:
"I call Jesus my Lord."
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
You don't just fire a bishop. You have to try them for heresy.
You don't have to like the creed, Mad Geo. But bishops vow to uphold the teachings of the church, including the creed.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
And MadGeo there are faith organisations where people who would express their faith in those terms could happily exist. The Anglican Communion, however, for better or worse (I think better, I guess you think worse) subscribes to the creeds.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You don't just fire a bishop. You have to try them for heresy.
You don't have to like the creed, Mad Geo. But bishops vow to uphold the teachings of the church, including the creed.
And with all the supposed violations of creed he did, they couldn't try him for heresy?
This doesn't pass the sniff test, elaborate please.
--------------------
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
I will concede that Jack Spong is not dishonest, but if he can't uphold the Creed (literally, Belief) of Christianity, he is disingenuous to call himself a Christian.
Funny enough, as much as I'm coming to terms with the election of Gene Robinson, I must admit that there is no question of the soundness of his theology.
--------------------
"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
I just had another thought. Let's say for a minute that the creeds or whatever, do not fit in with new understandings (i.e. science, biblical criticism, historical discovery, whatever) and that those creeds need revision or outright setting aside.
How would a Bishop (or anyone else for that matter) implement that change, if he was fired/tried for not supporting the creed? I think he might try to go back to the original INTENT of the creeds, which is what Spong proposed as I understand it.
Are we stuck in the old ways of metaphorical burnings-at-the-stake, or can we engage in reasonable discourse, clergy or not?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
And with all the supposed violations of creed he did, they couldn't try him for heresy?
This doesn't pass the sniff test, elaborate please.
They could have. They chose not to. It's probably not the best way to deal with conflict in the church.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Which brings me back to what I said before:
quote:
dontya think the church he was Bishop in woulda fired his butt, if he was soooo out of line with their version of Christian belief?
SO basically he was out of line with some people, but not so out of line that they would try him for heresy.
Sounds like he was onto something to me!
--------------------
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
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
Or the third alternative -- Spong's alternative if you read him closely -- is that he assents to the creed but sees the credal affirmations as pointers to spiritual meaning rather than a list of literal facts.
I ascribe to this. I don't believe, for example, that the Virgin Birth is a literal fact, but is rather how we say that Jesus is of God. It doesn't make Spong a heretic but rather a non-literalist. If he went as far as Don Cupitt (he doesn't) he'd be an out-and-out non-realist.
Lot's of us are there, and consider ourselves to be Christian, and in some cases Episcopalian/Anglican.
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Poulain:
Or the third alternative -- Spong's alternative if you read him closely -- is that he assents to the creed but sees the credal affirmations as pointers to spiritual meaning rather than a list of literal facts.
I ascribe to this. I don't believe, for example, that the Virgin Birth is a literal fact, but is rather how we say that Jesus is of God. It doesn't make Spong a heretic but rather a non-literalist.
Couldn't Arius say much the same?
[ 12. August 2003, 23:40: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
He would be speaking from a fourth century perspective, and Spong from a 20th. I would judge they would NOT be saying the same thing, or possibly meaning the same thing.
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Poulain:
I would judge they would NOT be saying the same thing, or possibly meaning the same thing.
Based on what?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Which brings me back to what I said before:
quote:
dontya think the church he was Bishop in woulda fired his butt, if he was soooo out of line with their version of Christian belief?
SO basically he was out of line with some people, but not so out of line that they would try him for heresy.
Sounds like he was onto something to me!
Because the Episocopal Church in the USA lacks the balls to do its job. Heresy trials are a monster of an undertaking.
However, that's neither here nor there. If Spong could no longer believe in the tenets of the creeds, which he took an oath before God to uphold and teach, then the responsibility is HIS, NOT THE CHURCH'S, to do the right thing.
So that answers the OP as to how he is "dishonest and wrong". Again, he can believe whatthefuckever little heresy he feels like believing. But he can NOT call himself a bishop of the ECUSA with anything approaching integrity.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Once again I find myself agreeing with Erin. Except that I felt (back when I was an Episcopalian) that ECUSA should have found the balls, somewhere.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Poulain:
he assents to the creed but sees the credal affirmations as pointers to spiritual meaning rather than a list of literal facts.
Which is something that could be construed as a distorted reading of the creed and an abuse of its semantics.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
And I skipped right over this little gem:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The problem of the "written creed" is that people like to make them rules by which to evaluate other people by. I don't like the "written creed" standard of ejecting people, in fact I don't really like ejecting people out of church at all.
If one HAS to have a creed it should be simple like:
quote:
"I believe that God is real and that I live deeply and significantly to that divine reality."
and quote:
"I call Jesus my Lord."
No one is ejecting Spong from the church. He should not, however, have remained a bishop if he no longer believed what the ECUSA sets down as its doctrinal requirements of bishops. And I don't think the ECUSA (or any other church) needs to alter its creeds because some people don't like them. That's what other churches are for.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Which is something that could be construed as a distorted reading of the creed and an abuse of its semantics.
Y'think?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Poulain:
I would judge they would NOT be saying the same thing, or possibly meaning the same thing.
Based on what?
He's right, they're not saying the same thing. Arianism says that the Son is not of the same "substance" as God, or in the same sphere. Arius was more plainly heretical that Spong, whose language wasn't that precise.
It's not entirely clear to me what is meant by the understanding the Virgin Birth as "non-literal". How can an event be non-literal? Was it myth? Allegory? Legend? Well, it's can't be a myth, that's for sure. The story of Jesus' birth comes nowhere near to the style, structure, or content of mythology. Again, this is the difficult thing about Spong: the imprecise language. As Lou said, Spong prefers "credal affirmations as pointers to spiritual meaning rather than a list of literal facts". Whaaaa...?
We also must conclude that, if the Virgin birth was only a non-historical legend, then whatever meaning it was intended to convey could not possibly apply to the historical Jesus. (Unless, for some bizarre reason, we choose to worship and follow the Jesus of legend instead of the one that was really alive at one point in history).
By the way, I'm found the working the Spong/Stott debate, plus Maxine Hancock's response, in the library. I'm working at scanning and textifying it. I'll e-mail it to those who want it when it's done.
--------------------
"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
|
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Poulain:
I would judge they would NOT be saying the same thing, or possibly meaning the same thing.
Based on what?
...like, Arius was taking a realist interpretation of God, and Spong a non-realist one. The latter understanding didn't exist in the former time, and would probably be incomprehensible or meaningless - at least, I think that's what Lou's suggesting...
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730
|
Posted
quote:
Are we stuck in the old ways of metaphorical burnings-at-the-stake, or can we engage in reasonable discourse, clergy or not?
NO.
Ok, yes. Of course you can. But the church is not a debating club, even though that's what it's become. It's about mission, and you can't have a common mission without a common set of beliefs. It's not incoherent to say if you don't buy the beliefs, you can't do the mission.
If you think about it, in terms of organizations, the church is a very odd duck indeed. Companies and clubs have mission statements or value statements. People dissent from them all the time, usually, but not always privately. But rarely do you have people joining organizations already in open disgreement with their value statements, with the committment to change the organization from within. Imagine someone joining the Boy Scouts scheming to get rid of those outdating badges, weekend jamborees, and mini go cart races?
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
like, Arius was taking a realist interpretation of God, and Spong a non-realist one. The latter understanding didn't exist in the former time, and would probably be incomprehensible or meaningless - at least, I think that's what Lou's suggesting...
So? How does that make it any less heretical?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Clearly there is a dichotomy emerging in this debate between those who define the Church in propositional terms and those who define it in relational terms.
The biblical and traditional witness defines the church primarily in relational terms. In scripture it is the Body of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, vine and branches, bride of Christ and so on. In tradition the church is one(united with one another), holy(united to God), catholic(related to all) and apostolic(related to the early church). Furthermore, the creeds (as debated in another thread), are not definitive statements of Christian faith, but rather repudiations of contemporary heresies.
To define the church in terms of the propositions to which members subscribe means that faith ceases to be about relation with God through Christ in the spirit. If the propositions are etched in stone, literal and inviolate, then there is no scope for the spirit to lead the church somewhere new, no chance that the living Christ might break beyond those definitions as he broke free from the definitions of the Israelite God. Propositional belief masquerading as faith does not change lives, only relationship with Christ does that.
I submit that Bishop Spong has chosen relationship with Christ over dry propositionality. Is some of his scholarship suspect? Sure. Is he a bit arrogant? Sure. Does he sometimes push things too far? Sure.
A church which is about relationships, about being a body, means that there are no easy answers and simple responses. It will always exist in tension, the tension of people experiencing the living Christ and seeking to respond to his call. The church is not like a Rotary club or scout troop - in fact to make such comparisons is an affront to the very nature of the church, because it implies that the church is simply one organisation amongst many, with its own set of beliefs and activities for those who are into a bit of religion. The church is called to be, as it were, the salt in the stew and the yeast in the dough, not just one alternative amongst many.
At the end of all things if coming into the presence of God is determinate on subscribing to the Nicene Creed in every detail, or of accepting a set of propositions, then neither I nor Spong will be welcome. If, however, we are serious about being the Body of Christ, we must be prepared to constantly re-evaluate the meaning of our lives and of God in the light of revelation, and to be disturbed, confused and inspired by what we find.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't think we have to define the church propositionally to say that there are certain truths (e.g. the creed) which its members are expected to hold in common.
The Boy Scouts aren't defined by the Scout Oath and the Scout Law, but if you can't say them in good faith, maybe you should find something else to do with your weekends?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
At the end of all things if coming into the presence of God is determinate on subscribing to the Nicene Creed in every detail, or of accepting a set of propositions, then neither I nor Spong will be welcome. If, however, we are serious about being the Body of Christ, we must be prepared to constantly re-evaluate the meaning of our lives and of God in the light of revelation, and to be disturbed, confused and inspired by what we find.
One more time, since some people seem to be still in the mode of reading what they want to read, instead of what's actually been written:
No one is saying that the gates of heaven are dependent upon the creeds.
Is that clear? Or do I need to break it down into one-syllable words?
What I am saying, and others are affirming, is that if you are a bishop in the church, and you have signed an declaration of faith and vowed to uphold the faith as outlined in the creeds, which John Shelby Spong DID upon his consecration as a bishop, then you are NOT a person of integrity and honesty if you continue hold that position while breaking that vow and declaration.
I would suggest that those of you who think Spong did nothing wrong, in the context in which WE are speaking, take some time to familiarize yourself with the Episcopal Church in the USA's 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and the rites and declarations therein.
That is the position that we are coming from. It would be awfully nice if someone other than Mad Geo at least acknowledged what we are ACTUALLY saying, instead of pulling various straw men out of your butts and arguing against them.
--------------------
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
quote:
I don't think we have to define the church propositionally to say that there are certain truths (e.g. the creed) which its members are expected to hold in common.
Expected by whom? God? This sounds like a God who gets frightfully angry and wrathful everytime somebody threatens to rethink the creed. Is that what we're talking about here? A God who gets upset because s/he is not defined using a council statement?
quote:
The Boy Scouts aren't defined by the Scout Oath and the Scout Law, but if you can't say them in good faith, maybe you should find something else to do with your weekends?
So, even if you are "in Christ" transformed by the spirit, seeking justice, experiencing the presence of God as revealed in scripture, an integral part of the church community and loved and respected by millions, many of whom view you as a prophet - you should piss off and do something else?
--------------------
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:
vowed to uphold the faith as outlined in the creeds
Is this the exact wording? Because if it is, Spong could argue that he is upholding the same faith that is outlined in the creeds, simply expressed in a different way.
In a couple of months I will do much the same thing. I have no qualms about affirming that I share the same faith as that outlined in the creed, but that honesty and integrity require the church of 2003 to articulate the same faith differently.
--------------------
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
I already quoted the relevant text of the Rite of Consecration of a Bishop. Saying that the Virgin Birth and Resurrection are "spiritual metaphors" is most assuredly NOT upholding the creeds, much less the tradition and faith of the church. If you want to believe that they didn't ever happen, knock yourself out, but those positions do NOT uphold the creeds. In fact, you yourself just said that the creeds (which include such definitive statements as "born of the Virgin Mary" and "on the third day He rose again") were formulated to combat heresy. If they weren't formulated to combat the heresies of the denial of the Virgin Birth and Resurrection, then what heresies are they addressing?
--------------------
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
I have to say that I am enjoying all the discussion here, and I wish that I could chat with each person about his or her perceptions of what I am saying. Also, I respect those who completely disagree with Spong’s theology and my understanding or lack thereof.
ChastMastr, I take your point as well as Mousethief’s, Divine Outlaw’s, and other “traditional” believers that even today some, perhaps most, Christians can believe without hesitation in the miraculous birth and resurrection of Christ. I understand as well that many make it the defining “core” of Christianity because it firmly establishes Jesus as God, thus elevating him from philosopher/teacher to founder of a religion. It is easy for a traditionalist to go through Spong sentence by sentence and say, “Says who? Not me. What do you mean unbelievable? I believe.” I can’t respond to it other than to acknowledge that a person who easily believes the traditional concept of Jesus as God proven by Virgin Birth and literal resurrection, along with a personal God who forms a Trinity with Jesus is going to see Spong as a non-believer.
Erin, fatprophet, and others who see defense of the literal creeds as a crucial part of the job of a bishop are going to see Spong as a dishonest freeloader. I really think that is too simplistic. I came to the Episcopal church from a non-creedal church, as Spong did. Before joining, I asked a priest about the Episcopal church’s beliefs and he said, “We have no rigid body of doctrine; is there something bothering you?” When pressed, he said, “We do have a Book of Common Prayer with a complete set of all the traditional rites, rituals, and creeds, but we have a wide interpretation on all of these things. The important thing is living a Christlike life, as best we can. I have to believe that some specific thing must be bothering you. Why do you ask about specific beliefs?” The Episcopal churches I attended for 12 years were not like the Catholic church without a pope. They were Unitarian churches with robes (except for the Rite I 8 o’clockers). I can easily see how a bishop like Spong could be appointed, become popular, and make it his mission to get the Rite I 8 o’clockers to live the creeds instead of recite them.
Moo, when I read Spong’s admonishing us to “recreate the experience of the creeds” I believe he means to put ourselves in the minds of those who sat down to write the creeds after reading the Gospel texts that had evolved for a few centuries. Spong’s picture is that while Jesus was not born of a literal Virgin nor did he physically arise after death, he so convinced his followers of his divinity that they concluded that these two miracles happened. While we may reject the literal Virgin birth and resurrection, we do not have to reject Christ as divine embodiment of Truth and Love, which was what spurred the legends of the Virgin Birth and Resurrection. That’s what I hear him saying.
As I write this in Word, I see other posts flying. I’ll try to keep up. Thank you all very much for this discussion. I sincerely mean that.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I can’t respond to it other than to acknowledge that a person who easily believes the traditional concept of Jesus as God proven by Virgin Birth and literal resurrection, along with a personal God who forms a Trinity with Jesus is going to see Spong as a non-believer.
Thank you. You're a breath of fresh air. I don't require people to believe like me (how frustrating an exercise that would be!) but it's nice when they at least see where i'm coming from.
[ 13. August 2003, 04:03: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
The Episcopal churches I attended for 12 years were not like the Catholic church without a pope. They were Unitarian churches with robes (except for the Rite I 8 o’clockers).
Well, they may very well have been. But this has not been my experience of the Episcopal church at all. It's really more how I see the United Church of Christ - I work for a UCC congregation. By contrast the Episcopal church is at the very least what my rector calls a "binitarian" church - we're good with the Father and the Son, but the Holy Spirit kinda gives us the heeby-jeebies. (Not that that's a good thing in my book, mind you!)
On the subject of Spong "recreating the experience of the creeds": I don't think that's really what he's doing. For instance, he says this in Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism:
quote:
Is not the primary message of the Easter narratives that even the barrier of death must not deter us in our quest for life and love? (p. 146)
The creed's summation of the Easter narratives doesn't say a thing about us questing for life and love.
(I dug the Spong quote out of a similar conversation we had on the old boards three years ago - if any old hands want to get sentimental, it's here.)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Saying that the Virgin Birth and Resurrection are "spiritual metaphors" is most assuredly NOT upholding the creeds, much less the tradition and faith of the church.
That is the crucial matter, Erin. It explains why I remain a Unitarian despite my wife's return to the Episcopal church for...the music. I just can't stand there and say the creeds every week, substituting in my personal rewrite. Among other things. So every once in a while I have to sing a Native American chant.
But seriously Erin, do you know how many people over the years have told me there is no need to abandon the Episcopal church simply because I have a view of Christianity much like Spong's? When I say, "You know, in testing people for heresy the church sticks into the creed 'Jesus was born of a Virgin and rose from the dead' without casually inserting that his life is our example" invariably priests will say "If only I could get more people to see it that way!" But if it is illegal for a bishop to see the creeds as metaphor, it is illegal for me. And I've stopped arguing. But I'll let jugular argue on. He's young and full of energy. Knock yerself out buddy. I think you're arguing your side well. One could almost as easily say that the more recent "tradition" of the ECUSA is to ignore the creeds!
Perhaps "liberal" priests, bishops, and congregants should have all left the Episcopal Church in the 19th and 20th centuries instead of trying to remain. The Unitarian church was certainly available and it specifically outlaws creedal tests (about the only law or outlaw it has). If the Episcopal Church had insisted on 100% literal backing of the creeds from all its adherents instead of attempting to hold together a pluralist amalgam, it would it would not be facing this problem. Perhaps the false unity that has been holding the Anglican communion together will finally give way. Gay bishops and nontheist bishops have been "hiding" in it, in open view of the laity and the hierarchy. Now there is no reason to hide. I'll watch the developments with interest.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
like, Arius was taking a realist interpretation of God, and Spong a non-realist one. The latter understanding didn't exist in the former time, and would probably be incomprehensible or meaningless - at least, I think that's what Lou's suggesting...
So? How does that make it any less heretical?
It doesn't - at least not to me (and I guess not to you) - however heretics can differ in their thinking...
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
quote:
I don't think we have to define the church propositionally to say that there are certain truths (e.g. the creed) which its members are expected to hold in common.
Expected by whom? God? This sounds like a God who gets frightfully angry and wrathful everytime somebody threatens to rethink the creed. Is that what we're talking about here? A God who gets upset because s/he is not defined using a council statement?
...erm, the "Creeds" used here tend to date back something like 1500 years at least - they've not changed much, and can be traced back even earlier. As a baseline of orthodoxy in Creedal churches, they don't seem to be bizarre to me.
quote:
So, even if you are "in Christ" transformed by the spirit, seeking justice, experiencing the presence of God as revealed in scripture, an integral part of the church community and loved and respected by millions, many of whom view you as a prophet - you should piss off and do something else?
...erm, sorry, but that's a gross caricature of what's being suggested here. What is being said is that if you don't, e.g., believe that there actually is a God (which makes the above just so much play words) or the particularity of Christ as the Son of God (which means you may believe in the God of the People of the Book, but not necessarily any encarnational theology of redemption as understood in traditional Christology), you're not a Christian as understood by a particular church.
To be frank, to suggest that there are no distinguishing marks of Christianity is as assenine as to suggest that there are no distinguishing marks of, e.g. Scouting. If there are none, about what exactly are you talking?
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
But if it is illegal for a bishop to see the creeds as metaphor, it is illegal for me.
Jim, I think the point many of us are making is this: metaphors are literary devices, we know how to spot them, and the creeds aren't metaphors. No metaphor in the history of time was written like the creeds were written. A metaphor is like, "A sea of rage" or "All the world's a stage" -- not "I believe He died", "I believe He was buried", "I believe He was raised from the dead". You're massaging the creeds to make them say something they don't really say.
I can just imagine the writers of the creeds sitting down and saying to themselves, "Ok, we've got to write these creeds really clearly, so anyone can understand them. I'm telling you, plain-as-the-nose-on-my-face kind of clear. There should be no doubt about what they say or what they mean. Ok, here we go....'I BELIEVE HE DIED'. Hmmm....sounds a bit metaphorical to me, maybe we should strengthen it around the 'DIED' part..."
That's how insane this debate has become. I respect what you and others believe or do not believe, it's fine with me. But to call John Spong, a Bishop in God's church, in accordance with the creeds of his own employer, is to say that language has no meaning. It is no longer possible, under this system, to write or speak a statement that is unequivocal or leaves no doubt as to its meaning.
"I BELIEVE HE DIED". Look at the words. Why is this not clear? Why is it that if I say "That means He really died", you're saying, "Surely you don't mean LITERALLY died!"
--------------------
"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
|
|
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
I don't think we have to define the church propositionally to say that there are certain truths (e.g. the creed) which its members are expected to hold in common.
quote:
Expected by whom? God?
Expected by the community. If parish or national church has a set of beliefs it reads out loud every week as a group, why is it so outlandish for us to expect that they believe what they say, and defend their believes? What kind of a nutbar organization has it any other way? Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
--------------------
"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
|
|
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730
|
Posted
Hey. I'm a shipmate. Wadderyer know?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from JimT quote:
Moo, when I read Spong’s admonishing us to “recreate the experience of the creeds” I believe he means to put ourselves in the minds of those who sat down to write the creeds after reading the Gospel texts that had evolved for a few centuries.
I don't think there's evidence that the Gospel texts 'evolved for a few centuries'. There is almost perfect agreement among very early manucripts from widely-scattered areas.
Moreover, the gospels do not read like stories that have evolved to interpret something of importance. They read like straightforward narratives.
Finally, if more than one person had a hand in the composition of each gospel, I should think that someone would have cleaned up the execrable Greek of John's gospel.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GOTC
Apprentice
# 3400
|
Posted
Good morning, all.
I've been inspired to re-read the Book of Acts. Here is the very beginning of Christianity. I don't think there's a statement from the Apostles concerning the Virgin Birth (that's in the Gospels), but there is unambiguous, declarative statements concerning Jesus's death and (literal) resurrection. Paul and others repeatedly quote the prophets to underscore that Jesus is the Christ (and, in an interesting semantic reversal in the RSV, that "the Christ is Jesus").
At the very least, Spong is the epitome of egotism. Sort of like the Red Queen: the only way is HIS way. I wish he'd taken his toys and gone home.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
quote:
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
I certainly think thats very unlikely to be a literal statement. Heaven isn't another planet 'up there' ; it may not be a 'place' at all in the material sense.
And is Jesus now on a throne next to God ( who, of course, is an old man with a beard) ?
A lot of the creed is metaphor. The Second Coming as well.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
I was caught napping and this thread if far too long for me to weigh in with a genuinely helpful comment, so I'll just say that, in quoting Herbert McCabe, DOD shows excellent taste.
And I suggest everyone who find Spong a scintillating intellect needs to spend a little time with McCabe's essays in God Matters and God Still Matters.
FCB
[ 13. August 2003, 13:18: Message edited by: FCB ]
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
I can just imagine the writers of the creeds sitting down and saying to themselves, "Ok, we've got to write these creeds really clearly, so anyone can understand them. I'm telling you, plain-as-the-nose-on-my-face kind of clear. There should be no doubt about what they say or what they mean. ..."
Actually, that's about right. Look at, say, the Athanasian Creed, which is profound, important, and, well, repetitive. No loopholes, as it were. "...But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty..." ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
And a look at the history of the time shows why this was, in my view as an orthodox Christian, needed; because any point which this and the other Creeds makes can and has, through its denial, been developed into a serious heresy -- so they had to hammer out exactly what was meant by the notions of Jesus' Incarnation, by the Trinity, and so on.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What David said.
The creeds are written very very precisely; not so as to define, or even describe, all of the faith; but so as to make it impossible for someone who held to any one of a very large number of heresies to say them honestly.
They are heresy filters. That's what they were for.
They are also prayers, and liturgy, and part of the collective memory of the Church, and statements of defiance, and battle-cries.
But they are certainly intended to be precise.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
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.
Jim, that is untrue, misleading, and derogatory. Please put up or shut up.
The point at issue is your crack about "Malachi to Matthew" implying that people like me would mock Fundamentalists for believing the OT to contain history. Well, we don't and I don't.
I don't know anyone who thinks the OT contains no
history, and most Christians I know think it contains a lot of history, as do I.
As far as I remember I wrote nothing embarrasing in the Noah thread. If I was scathing it was against yeccies who deserved it - and that is nothign to do with their view of the OT as history it is to do with their view of God as a liar.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
If this is going to turn into a personal conflict, I'm sure you'll continue it in Hell, right?
--------------------
“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
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
By JimT: I just can't stand there and say the creeds every week, substituting in my personal rewrite.
I think this is in effect what I do, at least to some extent. Obviously you can call me dishonest or disingenuous (perhaps both) when I don't necessarily believe in the literal meaning of all the words. My late Grandmother made a point of telling me once that she didn't believe in bodily resurrection, and would consciously refrain from reciting that part of the creed. Omission was her way around the difficult bits.
Reciting the creeds gives me a sense of connection with an early tradition of the church, and with the other people speaking the words. It’s both a personal and a corporate experience whereby I express a baseline of belief with the community, but maintain my own interpretation at the same time. Right or wrong, I guess I tend to approach the Bible in the same manner. Though, as they say, I ain’t a Bishop.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
Jim, I think the point many of us are making is this: metaphors are literary devices, we know how to spot them, and the creeds aren't metaphors.
Let me pause for a moment to address the "precision of language" issue. Knowing that it is very easy for threads to get bogged down in definitions, I let pass Erin's use of the word "metaphor" in substitution for "non-literal" because I was not interested in fighting that issue at that point in my post. You have made a huge issue of it because it leaped out at you, as well it might to someone who uses language very precisely, so let me address it as best I can.
Spong is not really arguing that the Virgin Birth and Resurrection are spiritual metaphors, as Erin said. He sees the creeds more in the way that judicial activists see the Constitution. Erin and others see the creeds more in the way that strict constructionists see the Constitution. When times change, the judicial activist is happy to take original concepts, expand their meaning beyond the literal words and literal intent of the original authors, and apply it to the changed times. Strict constructionists insist that if an issue goes beyond literal meaning and intent, it requires Constitutional amendment. However, even a judicial activist realizes that they can't twist "the right to bear arms" into "the necessity of eliminating arms" because times have changed a people no longer need guns in their houses. If people really shouldn't have any kind of gun at all, we need a constitutional convention and amendment.
I do believe that Spong realizes in defending the notion that firm belief in the scientific knowledge of conception and evolution requires us, in the face of the creeds, to posit ridiculously that "born of a Virgin and resurrected" means "born of a non-Virgin and died." That is why he proposes his 12 theses and argues for a complete and formal New Reformation, that would eliminate literal Virgin Birth and literal Physical Resurrection from the creeds. He appears to both defend and attack the creeds at the same time because although he clearly wants elements eliminated, he proposes replacement with something that preserves what he feels is the core of Christianity: Christ the embodiment of Truth and Love, Christ the Example. He wants to make clear to the faithful that he is not proposing eliminating the creeds so that we are free to be Bacchanals. Thus the appearance of attack and defense at the same time, and thus the appearance of twisting "born of a Virgin and resurrected" to "born of a non-Virgin and died." The same thing might happen to a politician who is saying that the original intent of a right to bear arms was to give personal safety from lawless people and wild animals, getting additional food, and preventing government tyranny via the threat of armed insurrection. He could say he supports a protected, well-fed population free from tyranny but that protection actually argues in these times for elimination of all guns. Thus "true protection" is found in "the necessity of eliminating arms" instead of "the right to bear arms."
He proposes debate and vote to eliminate the gross inconsistency. He realizes that "bishopric activism" has gone as far as it can go. He may just get his debate and vote in the wake of the Gene Robinson confirmation. If he does, it will be interesting to see what role Spong plays and how he reacts to the results, win, lose, or draw.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If I was scathing it was against yeccies who deserved it - and that is nothign to do with their view of the OT as history it is to do with their view of God as a liar.
I obviously misunderstood exactly why you were so scathing and now I understand.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
He appears to both defend and attack the creeds at the same time because although he clearly wants elements eliminated, he proposes replacement with something that preserves what he feels is the core of Christianity: Christ the embodiment of Truth and Love, Christ the Example.
That may be the core of his Christianity, though IMO it bears absolutely no resemblance to how Christianity has defined its own core: that Jesus is God Incarnate. Hell, I can rename a dog a table, but the rest of the English-speaking world would think I was a raving loon.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Having read one of his books during my Post Ordination Training - I missed him somehow during seminary - and having since read 'Rescuing the Bible.....' I'd have to say that I found him simply contentious and not very deep. I thought that 'Honest to God' by the 'other' Bishop Robinson was a much better and more insightful book. Bishops cause waves when they hold certain opinions not because of the opinions per se (which are fairly widely held in academic theological circles) but because they are bishops holding these views.
I've always liked my bishops to be slightly more conservative than me.
I can't help thinking he's a faker....
Raspberry Rabbit
Montreal, QC
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
...Christianity has defined its own core: that Jesus is God Incarnate. Hell, I can rename a dog a table, but the rest of the English-speaking world would think I was a raving loon.
Yes, God “The Father,” who as one being with Jesus will “come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,” part of which will be upon the belief in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”
NT Wright complains in the preface to his debate with Borg that he tires of undergraduates coming to him with a belligerent statement that they will never believe in God as some kind of Almighty Judge whose standards include observance of arbitrary rituals rather than purity of heart and intent toward righteousness. He smugly relates his satisfaction at seeing them drop their jaws when he says that he cannot believe in such a God either. Where do the poor dears get this monstrous notion? From many places, including the literal words of the creed. From there on, he sounds very much to me like Spong on an errand of redefinition. He is no Johnathan Edwards, nor any Fundamentalist, he says. Indeed. He is Spong.
Spong proposes that the traditional notion of Jesus as God Incarnate be retained. He suggests that the conception of God be expanded beyond simply Father, Creator and Judge. God, Spong says, is an essence found in all things but which finds its ultimate expression in humanity sharing Truth in Love. This expansion of definition is similar to NT's: the daddy who is going to spank you if you don't do what he says, found in the literal words of the creed and at the ends of Fundamentalist street preachers bullhorns, is too limiting and in fact inaccurate.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
