|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Jack Spong Dishonest and Wrong?
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
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.
But that expansion is a personal one. It's an interpretation which, IMO, the creeds do not lend themselves to.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
He suggests that the conception of God be expanded beyond simply Father, Creator and Judge. God, Spong says,
Who has ever claimed that God is 'simply' Father, Creator and Judge? Classical Christianity has been far more stringent in stressing the 'otherness' and inexhaustible richness of God than Spong ever is. In the light of our experience of salvation in Christ, however, we are drawn to profess that the inexaustible mystery of God subsists in three 'persons' (who, I should immediately add, are not 'persons' in any sense like that of the modern 'individual' - Spong's idea of a 'personal God' which he claims his opponents hold, and which some of them probably do, is a straw man in relation to the classical tradition.)
Like others, I am unimpressed by Spong. In as much as he raises valid questions, about the being and action of God, for example, these have been dealt with by far more profound thinkers than Spong, often several centuries ago.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
But that expansion is a personal one. It's an interpretation which, IMO, the creeds do not lend themselves to. (emphasis added)
I think that "IMO" is both honest and crucial. This is a matter of opinion and opinions differ. In a case of differing opinions over what is an acceptable interpretation of the creeds, surely it is the role of the church to judge the truth of the matter? That the ECUSA did not formally do so implies that Spong's opinion falls within an acceptable range.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Well, if the church was in the habit of actually using its testicles, I would agree with that, Scot. But let's face it -- the ECUSA wusses out on the fundamentals while making huge ordeals over the extracurricular.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Well, if the church was in the habit of actually using its testicles, I would agree with that, Scot. But let's face it -- the ECUSA wusses out on the fundamentals while making huge ordeals over the extracurricular.
This pretty much sums it up.
Chast: re: no poem. Thank you. The Management.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Like others, I am unimpressed by Spong. In as much as he raises valid questions, about the being and action of God, for example, these have been dealt with by far more profound thinkers than Spong, often several centuries ago. [/QB]
I think that my response to "unimpressed by Spong" and similar comments is: so what.
My response to many of the so called "profound thinkers" that have been mentioned on this thread in comparison to Spong is "Who is that?".
In other words, you can be the most profound thinker in the world and if you are not widely read enough to say, have your own thread with your name in it (i.e. "Is Jack Spong Dishonest and wrong") well then you aren't necessarily "all that".
There is something to be said for stating your case well and simply written. Spong does that. More importantly he delivers good points to a wide audience.
--------------------
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
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But as has already been said, he is a populist writer rather than a particularly original or academic thinker. He does communicate his views effectively, however, to a 'mass' audience.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
But as has already been said, he is a populist writer rather than a particularly original or academic thinker. He does communicate his views effectively, however, to a 'mass' audience.
If one is the most original academic thinker in the world and three people read one's writings, well then one needs to learn to write.
--------------------
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
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
He suggests that the conception of God be expanded beyond simply Father, Creator and Judge. God, Spong says,
Who has ever claimed that God is 'simply' Father, Creator and Judge?
It is the creed which reduces God to simply these three concepts, and it is the Episcopal church that drives home this limited distortion week after week by requiring its recital at every single worship service, every week, by every member. A bishop, says Erin, cannot challenge this practice but must as part of his vows uphold it. You are very correct that the Church has a far greater picture of God than that reflected in the creed. But that is partly my point: the creed is a distortion in that it is an artificial condensation as likely to mislead away from the truth rather than to winnow the false from the true. A person whose only conception of God is that He is Almighty and willing to judge the unbaptised is in 100% conformance with the creeds. Something seems wrong to me in that.
Two critical words are missing from the creed: Truth and Love. As a product of the decidedly heretical Pentecostal Holiness movement, I stripped what I was taught down to this truth: in terms of the life that we are to live, our objective is to personify a fusion of Truth and Love. In Old Testament terms, this is "doing justice" and "loving mercy." The trick is to do both at the same time. At times, I tell the truth and flame people in anger. Bad boy. At times, I withhold the truth to spare hard feelings out of love for the other person. Bad boy. God is Love. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. The two were fused in the person of Christ and so should be in us. That was the best I could do as I heard all the people around me speaking in tongues with their hands raised and their faces streaming in tears.
Can it possibly be advisable to have a central creed, repeated every week, that does not even mention those two words? Must Love be inferred indirectly from "for us and our salvation he came down from Heaven" and "for our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate?" And we are to look past the fact that the Love will not forgive our sins if we are not baptised? The only relevant creedal facts about Christ surround his birth and death. Nothing about his life, nor by implication, ours.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
But let's face it -- the ECUSA wusses out on the fundamentals while making huge ordeals over the extracurricular.
As to the comments about the timidity of the Episcopal Church, perhaps a truth has been uncovered on this thread. It seems that perhaps there is consensus from different sides of the argument that the Episcopal church has recently preferred silent hypocrisy to vocal criticism. It may just be that the proper way to view Spong is not the Hypocrite Who Became Bishop but the Bishop Who Refused to Descend to Hypocrisy.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
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.
You're comparing apples and oranges. There is tremendous difference between a creed and a constitution. A creed is a set of beliefs about a set of facts; a constitution is the application of a set of values. What you're talking about re: gun laws refers to a particular application of values. But a creed has nothing to do with application. A creed is the affirmation of a fact.
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ". That's a creed. "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, therefore idol worship is illegal". That's a constitution. How creeds applied to our everyday lives is up for debate, but what is not up for debate is that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and there's only one.
I suspect that beneath the claims you are making is the implication that there can be no such thing as langauge that refers to literal meaning. If you wanted to communicate a literal meaning of something ("the dog is in the car", for instance), how would you do it in such a way as to eliminate doubt as to where the dog was located?
--------------------
"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 JimT:
It is the creed which reduces God to simply these three concepts
In your dreams. The creed gives a sine qua non, not an exhaustable definition of God's attributes.
Further it has a lot more to say about God than those three things.
Finally, it makes absolutely no statement about WHAT we will be judged according to. Only that a judgment will come.
--------------------
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 JimT:
It may just be that the proper way to view Spong is not the Hypocrite Who Became Bishop but the Bishop Who Refused to Descend to Hypocrisy.
No, the proper way to view Spong is someone who basically gave the ECUSA the finger.
I find it interesting that just about all of the people on this thread who think Spong is a really deep thinker and all-around swell guy all belong to non-creedal faith traditions. And the two Spong apologists who do belong to a faith tradition that subscribes to the creeds don't actually adhere to them.
[ 14. August 2003, 01:04: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
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."
This has been asked before by other people (eg ChastMastr), but I really don't know why intelligent people still say things like this.
What bearing has the scientific knowledge of conception on the virgin birth? (I assume that evoluion got thrown in there as a red herring). Mary, Joseph, the apostles and the early church councils knew that virgins don't have babies - you really don't need to study biology to know that.
Would it not be a lot more accurate to say "because materialist worldviews (positing a closed, cause-and-effect universe) have become increasingly popular since the advance of the scientific era, along with the predominance of the 'heuristic of suspicion', it has become a lot harder for many people to accept such elements of the Christian creeds such as the physical resurrection of Christ, or the virgin birth"?
(I realise this is a side issue to the point you were making here, Jim, and I don't want to take this thread in several directions at once, but I just wanted to point this out).
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But Spong isn't on his own ; there are a proportion of liberal Anglicans (and liberals in other denominations, for that matter) who think on the same lines.
As I have already said, I found Spong helpful at a particular time in my life when I needed to know that there was another way of reading the bible. His book helped me to do that.
That doesn't mean that I am necessarily enthusiastic for all his ideas, but I don't wish to demonise him either. If its a choice between the Bishop of Pittsburgh in the USA who has acted as sabre-rattler in the recent debate, and Jack Spong, then I'd rather have Spong. That doesn't mean I'm an enthusiast for ev erything he says. But I do think he is a very good popular writer.
--------------------
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
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I think the discussion of the creeds has gone about as far as it can go. Moo asked me to respond to her earlier post about Spong’s view of the evolution of the gospel texts.
I misquoted Spong by saying that the texts "evolved for centuries." He doesn't really say that; he is aware that the Gospels and epistles were written in the decades soon after Christ's death. I rolled the evolution of the text and subsequent interpretations of them into centuries and didn’t mean to do that.
Here is a grossly condensed picture from Spong of how the literal, physical resurrection story emerged in the epistles and Gospels, from Resurrection: Myth or Reality?
Paul's epistles: mid 60's. No empty tomb, no bodies returning to this life, except for one uncorroborated story that Paul and 500 others actually saw Christ after his death. In most of Paul's descriptions, Jesus is raised from death directly to the presence of God. Consistently Paul uses ophthe or visionary revelation, not physical sight, to describe his experience of encountering Christ. Later, "Paul inserted himself into the resurrection tradition."
Mark: written 70 CE. Schillebeeckx suggests the empty tomb story was originally a recitation of liturgy, not historical fact. The visitors come to the empty tomb to commemorate the death of Christ and a liturgist, representing an angel, tells them that Christ is “risen” and no longer here. The “young man in white” is not identified as a literal angel. There are no guards, no emergence of one from the grave, no burial clothes left behind. The reaction to the news of Jesus’ absence from this world and entry into the next is not faith, but fear. The visitors simply disperse. The ascension story at the end of Mark was not reliably written at the same time as the original Gospels.
Matthew: written in middle 80's CE. Matthew was a scribe trained in “midrash,” which involves connecting persons of importance in the present to important persons in the past, somewhat akin to saying, “Blair is a Churchill, not a Chamberlain.” Mark’s young man in white becomes an angel with a face like lightening, descending in an earthquake. Guards are added and are struck dumb. The angel rolls the stone away and sits on it in triumph. Now, when the visitors disperse, they actually see Jesus, who speaks to them.
Luke: early 90’s CE . Now the women actually enter the tomb, explore it, and vouch for the fact that it was empty. Two angels appear and now ask, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” This is a subtle but significant change from “he is risen” to “he is alive.” Now the women go and get Peter and John, the most influential of the apostles, and they visit the tomb as well. Peter’s visit adds the description of grave clothes with no body, expanding the literal and physical nature of the resurrection rather than the honoring with an ascension directly to Heaven. Jesus now walks, talks, and eats after death.
John: written and revised, perhaps in layers, from the time of Paul to Luke. Now the resurrection story affirms John as the first believer, even though Peter was the first to enter the tomb. Thus, Peter is the authority for the future church, but John is the center of its faith. John is contrasted with Thomas, the most doubting of the apostles, who not only witnesses the bodily Jesus, but physically inspects the wounds of the crucifixion. The literal physical resurrection legend is complete. In addition, Jesus’s Sonship of God predates his Baptism, as described in Mark and his conception, as described in Matthew and Luke. He was now eternally with God from the beginning of time.
Thus, says Spong, it was that the creedal words were established that Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father, born of a literal Virgin, and literally resurrected and ascended into Heaven.
If Spong is a lightweight, I am an ultra-lightweight, and in no way capable of debating this condensation point by point with real historians and theologians. I can only say it makes more sense to me than anything I’ve ever heard. Like Hume, when I am confronted with miraculous claims, I accept the less miraculous explanation. Because of that, I accept being characterized as a Post-Enlightenment “non-believer” while Spong thinks of himself as a Post-Enlightenment Christian.
I put this together mainly because Moo asked me to respond to her post and I thought others might like a bit of substance behind the ad hominem attacks against Spong that he is a lousy historian. I would encourage anyone who wants to decide exactly how lightweight he is to read his books in his own words and to read other's criticisms. I've not yet read many criticisms. What I have read basically says that this historical development is completely speculative or downright incorrect and Spong's arguments fall apart without this exact chronology.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I would encourage anyone who wants to decide exactly how lightweight he is to read his books in his own words and to read other's criticisms. I've not yet read many criticisms. What I have read basically says that this historical development is completely speculative or downright incorrect and Spong's arguments fall apart without this exact chronology.
I would second that motion, now being part way into two of his books (a bad habit probably related to flipping channels on television as a child too much) I am enjoying his writings immensely. I would also add that I am an ultralightweight too, but JimTs/Spongs Historical Jesus brief above fits in with what I have read along those lines by other academic authors.
In general I have not found Spong to be out of keeping in general with the biblical lit/criticism academics that I have read, but I would not claim to have read BibLit exhaustively either.
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Paul's epistles: mid 60's. No empty tomb, no bodies returning to this life....
Paul's epistles were written to people who were already familiar with the story of the resurrection. He refers to it only when he's making a point about something else.
quote:
Mark: written 70 CE. Schillebeeckx suggests the empty tomb story was originally a recitation of liturgy, not historical fact. The visitors come to the empty tomb to commemorate the death of Christ and a liturgist, representing an angel, tells them that Christ is “risen” and no longer here.
I find it extemely difficult to believe that a first century liturgy would arbitrarily assign such a prominent role to women.
quote:
Matthew: written in middle 80's CE. Matthew was a scribe trained in “midrash,” which involves connecting persons of importance in the present to important persons in the past...
Is there evidence anywhere else in Matthew's gospel that he was a "midrash"?
quote:
John: written and revised, perhaps in layers, from the time of Paul to Luke.
What evidence is there that John was written and revised, perhaps in layers? I find that especially hard to believe because the Greek grammar is so poor. Repeated revision should have taken care of those errors.
I don't want to read Spong unless I am convinced that his sources are accurate. Otherwise, reading his work would be a waste of time.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
I'm an ultramiddling light to flyweight, depending on what I've eaten for breakfast.
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Paul's epistles: mid 60's. No empty tomb, no bodies returning to this life, except for one uncorroborated story that Paul and 500 others actually saw Christ after his death.
A few points on this. First, mid-60's is an outrageous claim, and frankly it's one I haven't heard before. Perhaps you meant to say that they were written up to the mid-60's. The second point is, well, just as outrageous, and looks pretty typical of Spong's approach - "Paul says nothing about the resurrection (except for the bits I choose to arbitrarily ignore)".
quote:
Mark: written 70 CE. Schillebeeckx suggests...
I can't go on with this, sorry. It's just that it is very hard to counter something that is pure speculation. A few points though:
1. There's no point arguing about dates for the Gospels (as opposed to the Paulines); while the dates you've listed are on the late-ish side of the median, and assume that traditional authorial ascriptions are incorrect, they aren't out of the mainstream. Luke and Matthew are a bit later than standard, but I doubt it makes much difference his arguments. It's the order that's important.
2. Anyone who says that Matthew or parts thereof are "midrash" do not know what midrash is and, most especially, what it was in 1st Century Judaism. Suffice to say that quote:
...“midrash,” which involves connecting persons of importance in the present to important persons in the past
is not a correct description of midrash at any point in known history.
3.There is precisely nil evidence that John was "written and revised, perhaps in layers". None, not a skerrick.
4. None of this is Spong's original work - that isn't a criticism by the way. The thing is, as far as I know no Proper Historian™ has bothered to refute Spong, not because they can't, but because there is no point in wasting time knocking down sandcastles. So really all you're ever going to get is people who are reasonably lightweight arguing against what he writes, because a Proper Historian™ would not be interested. They aren't even interested in attacking the positions he bases his arguments on, because they've mostly been dealt with ages ago.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
<M.G. goes home to break out his Historical Jesus books.> ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Spong's source for midrash in Matthew:
Michael Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew, (London: SPCK, 1974).
Spong does not name a specific book for citing the possibility of a "layered" writing of John. His chapter on John seems to have mainly used
Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: McMillan, 1971)
In looking back at the chapter, it appears that I misread a line about "assertions of the Johannine community" to mean that Spong was considering the possibility of multiple authors. I was quickly condensing a 300 page book and may have made other errors as well. I have not read the book for more than five years.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Spong's source for midrash in Matthew:
Michael Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew, (London: SPCK, 1974).
I already knew that ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
There's a very good corrective for that view here. Indeed, I was very surprised to find something of that quality on the internet!
Now this rebuttal (and the one published by France and Wenham, I think they were editors on that) have been around since the early 80's, and really there hasn't been anything reworked since. I'm reasonably sure that Goulder has pretty much abandoned that side of his work***; I really have seen nothing in the literature that suggests the idea being revisited. I could be wrong though.
Interestingly, if I remember correctly Spong didn't even know of Goulder's work until the early 90's! And come to think of it, doesn't Spong claim a definition of "midrash" that is admittedly nothing like midrash? I'll see if I can dig a web document out to support that - there's plenty of pop-critiques of Spong out there, and I don't own any of the books myself.
quote:
Spong does not name a specific book for citing the possibility of a "layered" writing of John. His chapter on John seems to have mainly used
Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: McMillan, 1971)
That rings a bell, although not really for John. I think Fuller's work is more on how the resurrection narratives were built up in layers.
quote:
In looking back at the chapter, it appears that I misread a line about "assertions of the Johannine community" to mean that Spong was considering the possibility of multiple authors. I was quickly condensing a 300 page book and may have made other errors as well. I have not read the book for more than five years.
Damn fine effort for that amount of elapsed time. I think you made fewer errors than were in the original ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
*** Goulder's real work seems to be in showing that Q is unnecessary - his early work on lectionary and midrash was done with the idea that if he could show that Matthew used that methodology he'd have shown that Q wasn't required as a source.
Here is some more recent work. FWIW, Goulder is an Anglican priest turned atheist.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rebekah
Shipmate
# 2748
|
Posted
Reading Spong's autobiography Here I Stand might help to understand him more (despite the hubris of the title!!)
I found the first half inspiring, as he deals with institutionalised racism in ECUSA and the psychiatric problems of his wife. Later, he reveals himself as becoming a rather unpleasant self-absorbed vitriolic character.
He is light-weight, and a lot of his earlier work is lifted (without attribution) from an earlier writer whose name escapes me at the moment sorry, ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) but I remember being shocked by the apparant plagiarism.
When he visited Perth (my then home city)I thought that he was addressing some real questions that bothered and troubled people, but that his answers were not deep or rigorous enough.
For example, his claim that Jesus was married, probably to Mary Magdalene, was based on John's account of the wedding at Cana. Spong said that the only wedding HE'D attented with both his mother and hos friends was his own, so this must have been Jesus' wedding!All this shows really is that Spong hasn't lived in a samll community. Scholarship it ain't!!
--------------------
grow in grace
Posts: 117 | From: rural Western Australia | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rebekah:
For example, his claim that Jesus was married, probably to Mary Magdalene, was based on John's account of the wedding at Cana. Spong said that the only wedding HE'D attented with both his mother and hos friends was his own, so this must have been Jesus' wedding!All this shows really is that Spong hasn't lived in a samll community. Scholarship it ain't!!
Sorry, that's too bizarre. Can you provide a cite?
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
That line of reasoning would also lead us to think that John was married to Mary.
Polyandry alive and well in southern Syria.
Hmmmm....
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
quote:
Originally posted by rebekah:
For example, his claim that Jesus was married, probably to Mary Magdalene, was based on John's account of the wedding at Cana. Spong said that the only wedding HE'D attented with both his mother and hos friends was his own, so this must have been Jesus' wedding!
Sorry, that's too bizarre. Can you provide a cite?
Perhaps I can explain without wishing to "defend." I dimly recall Spong drawing that illustration but cannot find it in the three books I have. What I did bump into while putting together the hypercondensation of Resurrection: Myth or Reality was this quote:
quote:
Mary Magdalene in this Gospel [John] was first presented as the sole woman at the tomb. Next she was presented as the chief mourner. Then she was portrayed as laying a claim to the body--an action appropriate in the customs of Jewish people only for the nearest of kin. Was John hinting that the romantic liaison between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, whispered about through the centuries, was in fact real? Was he portraying Mary as Jesus' wife and now his widow? It makes for a fascinating and, I believe, life-affirming speculation, powerfully and innocently lifting women into the account of the resurrection.
Here he footnotes an entire book he wrote on the subject, Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1992).
It's clear that Spong's speculation about Mary Magdalene goes far beyond a quote that "I don't know about you, but the only wedding I attended with my mother and every single one of my friends was my own." I would speculate that Spong picked up the popular Southern US style of preaching I heard as a kid where personal asides are often used instead of scholarly exegesis. I'm sure I heard evangelists say something like, "You can talk all day about 'God would never make a Hell' but when I did wrong my daddy gave me a good spankin'." It's provocative illustration.
But I'd like to make another point, a much more serious one that probably deserves a whole thread. Look at the Mary Magdalene quote again and you see Spong in a nutshell. It is decidedly not "scholarship." It is more "rationalized speculation." You can call it laughable, you can scorn it as utterly unfit for a serious theologian and Churchman, but you have a harder time demonstrating that it is not what most people, short of dedicated full-time historians do: start from internal values and suppositions and then go back to the scriptures to look for any possible justification of those values and suppositions.
Spong does not deny his speculation nor that he does so in order to rationalize existing values. He emphasizes it. This is "fascinating" and "speculative" thinking that “lifts” women into a prominent role of the most significant story in Christianity, the resurrection, in a "life-affirming" way. Knowing Spong, I have no doubt that he injects themes of the equality of women, the full acceptance of sexuality in religious leaders, and probably all other kinds of themes in this almost-but-not-quite-idle speculation in his complete work on the subject.
Spong does not say, "I found a new piece of hard evidence proving that Jesus was in fact married and with this discovery we must now rethink the role of women in the church and the reality of sexual desire in our religious leaders.” He is honest that he has not rooted out the Real Truth in an objective manner that all must now believe. Instead, he has found some grounds for thinking that his values are to be found in the scriptures.
I understand this is hugely problematic to the last 2000 years of Christians studying the Bible from the standpoint that in contains real, objective truth, given once by God for all to believe. I understand the scorn and indignation that causes them to say things like, “this is just an excuse to twist God into saying what you want him to!” I understand that it leads to the possibility of people coming to the communion rail with utterly and completely different views of what they are doing and what is going on.
But I also know from 18 years in a parsonage and 10 years on the vestry that this huge plurality of significantly different views does in fact exist and it does because more people ground the scriptures in their faith than ground their faith in the scriptures. You can declare it heresy, you can mock it as “lightweight”, you can rail against it as “stubborn and rebellious,” you can warn of the peril it creates to the Eternal Fate of the deceived “non-believer” but you can never, ever, legislate it out of human nature nor out of the church.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I understand this is hugely problematic to the last 2000 years of Christians studying the Bible from the standpoint that in contains real, objective truth, given once by God for all to believe. I understand the scorn and indignation that causes them to say things like, “this is just an excuse to twist God into saying what you want him to!” I understand that it leads to the possibility of people coming to the communion rail with utterly and completely different views of what they are doing and what is going on.
But I also know from 18 years in a parsonage and 10 years on the vestry that this huge plurality of significantly different views does in fact exist and it does because more people ground the scriptures in their faith than ground their faith in the scriptures. You can declare it heresy, you can mock it as “lightweight”, you can rail against it as “stubborn and rebellious,” you can warn of the peril it creates to the Eternal Fate of the deceived “non-believer” but you can never, ever, legislate it out of human nature nor out of the church.
I do agree that this plurality exists; the question of whether it is a good thing, when it comes to the claims assented to in the Creeds in particular, and especially by a Bishop, is another matter.
David
--------------------
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
Chast, my dear friend and brother in Christ. I could almost believe that a personal God with a plan for revealing Truth in Love prompted you to make your post after mine. I can think of few other Shipmates with as much kindness fused with a thirst for righteousness. You know I mean that sincerely and I have no cause to bring you into embarrassment or criticism.
Yet, the Truth requires me to say that I can think of no better example of grounding faith in scriptures than your explanation of how you justified certain "specific physical" acts as “non-sexual” acts thus allowing your self-classification as a “celibate” homosexual (see how closely I followed your exact usage of words? ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ). It stretches even my exceptionally nimble imagination to speculate that you went about your Biblical exegesis without presuppositions and predefined values. True, sexuality is not creedally defining to Christianity. Spong goes all the way to redefining the creeds in a New Reformation for those who cannot see God as a Person and thus have a radically different view of Jesus as the Incarnation of God. I accept it as open to debate whether the Reformed entity could be thought of as "Christian."
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
rebekah
Shipmate
# 2748
|
Posted
Sorry, can't provide a cite for Spong's Mary magdalene story, I heard him say it one of the two times I've heard him in person.
I know that everyone (even me probably) has a tendency to ground their biblical understanding in their faith rather than vice versa, but the problem is when a popular author actually models that rather than models the other way around.
Haven't figured out how to do the quote format in a reply yet, am humble apprentice, but will learn.
--------------------
grow in grace
Posts: 117 | From: rural Western Australia | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonm
Shipmate
# 1246
|
Posted
I know that NT Wright deals with the theory discussed by Rebekah above in his book "Who Was Jesus" (indeed he actually quotes the passage) so there must be a reference in there, but I can't lay hands on my copy at present..
Jonathan
--------------------
"My God, My God, why hast thou accepted me?"---Caedmon's Call
Posts: 264 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Spong's source for midrash in Matthew:
Michael Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew, (London: SPCK, 1974).
I already knew that
There's a very good corrective for that view here. Indeed, I was very surprised to find something of that quality on the internet!
Interestingly, if I remember correctly Spong didn't even know of Goulder's work until the early 90's! And come to think of it, doesn't Spong claim a definition of "midrash" that is admittedly nothing like midrash? I'll see if I can dig a web document out to support that - there's plenty of pop-critiques of Spong out there, and I don't own any of the books myself.
A statement by Spong about midrash occurs in the introduction to his book on Jesus being a jew. (in the mid1990s he seems to have thought this a radical new discovery!)
Roughly speaking, because I don't have the book with me, the sequence he describes in the introduction is as follows:
Jewish scholars use a technique called "midrash" to interpret the scriptures.
Therefore I will use "midrash" to interpret the scriptures.
All the Jewish scholars I have consulted tell me that what I am doing and calling "midrash" has nothing to do with what they meadn by the term.
Nonetheless, I am going to continue using my technique and calling it "midrash"
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So the relationship between Spong and midrash is similar to the relationship between Spong and Christianity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
As a bit of an aside, it always annoys me that people, especially certain liberal theologians I could name, seem so eager to turn Mary Maggie into Jesus' girlfriend. I think they think this is somehow an improvement on the story as we have it, whereas I've always thought that this approach diminishes her. She was one of the few named female disciples, and one of the most faithful of all of Jesus' followers. Why can't certain folks seem to accept that she may have been truly a follower, and not just a girlfriend groupie?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Why can't certain folks seem to accept that she may have been truly a follower, and not just a girlfriend groupie?
Because as a sex object she's easier to objectify and downplay. In fact according to our tradition she was a bold evangelist and even took the gospel to the then-emperor (forget which one it was). She is highly respected in Orthodoxy, but not as Jesus' wife (or floozie).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
If “God took human flesh” and “was fully human in every way” doesn’t it seem odd, or an omission, or an incompletion, if he did not experience sex or child-bearing or family-rearing? Holding to the validity of coming to the Biblical text with presuppositions, I would think that presupposing full reproductive function and interest would prompt one to search deeply in this direction rather than giving a shrug to a superficial literal reading of the surviving text. This is especially so in a culture where the physical body is sometimes looked upon as a sullying influence upon the soul, as hinted at in the writings of Paul, and might tempt followers to disguise or downplay it.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
If “God took human flesh” and “was fully human in every way” doesn’t it seem odd, or an omission, or an incompletion, if he did not experience sex or child-bearing or family-rearing?
No, not really, unless one wants to argue that to be fully human one has to beget offspring... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
If “God took human flesh” and “was fully human in every way” doesn’t it seem odd, or an omission, or an incompletion, if he did not experience sex or child-bearing or family-rearing?
The only reason we assume he did not is we read it through Christian culture. Jews on reading the New Testament assume that Jesus was married and had children. Why? Simply because it does not say he did not. Same record differing culture.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
If “God took human flesh” and “was fully human in every way” doesn’t it seem odd, or an omission, or an incompletion, if he did not experience sex or child-bearing or family-rearing?
So people who have not had sex or children are not fully human? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Jesus as a human could not experience every possible aspect of humanity - he didn't get old either.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
humblebum
Shipmate
# 4358
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie:
The only reason we assume he did not is we read it through Christian culture. Jews on reading the New Testament assume that Jesus was married and had children. Why? Simply because it does not say he did not. Same record differing culture.
Hmm. Well we know there was an awful lot of fuss in the early days of Christianity over whether or not Jesus was God incarnate. But Jesus' kids don't get a mention in any of the early literature, apparently because the writers didn't think they were relevant enough to mention?
I can see where the Jews are coming from on this one, but it sounds to me like a rather dodgy heuristic on their part...
--------------------
humblebum
Posts: 584 | From: Belfast | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
On the most recent T'n'T board, there was a thread discussing people in their thirties who were still virgins.
Some shipmates said they fell into this category.
Would you say they were not fully human?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Not fully normal maybe.
<JOKE, JOKE!!!!>
--------------------
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
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I am nearly 50, fully human, and have no children. I was not giving a definition of fully human, I was responding to Mousethief's swipe that speculation about her relationship with Jesus happens "because as a sex object she's easier to objectify and downplay" and Laura's annoyance that some "seem so eager to turn Mary Maggie into Jesus' girlfriend." My response was that I could see a perfectly understandable reason for the speculation about Mary M. that is based not on a desire to somehow degrade her nor to turn her into a girlfriend. It could be based simply on probability and expectation, as Jengie said.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
But does anyone who believes that Jesus was and is the incarnate Son of God who died and rose again -- do any of those people believe that He was married?
David
other than to the Church as His bride, of course, but that's yet to come
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
My response was that I could see a perfectly understandable reason for the speculation about Mary M. that is based not on a desire to somehow degrade her nor to turn her into a girlfriend. It could be based simply on probability and expectation, as Jengie said.
Actually, it was based not on "probability and expectation" but an error in interpretation by a pope who confused an unnamed "sinful woman" who wept at Jesus' feet with Mary Magdelene.
This misinterpretation has become a urban legend of sorts, right down there with Jonah being swallowed by a whale instead of a big fish, Adam and Eve eating an apple instead of an unspecified fruit, and David killing Goliath with a slingshot stone rather than merely stunning him and then decapitating Goliath with his own sword.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
The thing is doesn't really matter whether he was married or not. Spong is more than welcome to explore that idea, and I enjoy it when people take risks of that kind to see where it goes. What he shouldn't be doing is to mangle the record we do have by having Jesus invited to his own wedding, the implication being that the gospel writers either deliberately changed it or got it wrong, whereas Spong in his wisdom has got it right from a universe away. That is his major mistake. IMO.
quote:
Qutoing Jim's quote:
...It makes for a fascinating and, I believe, life-affirming speculation, powerfully and innocently lifting women into the account of the resurrection.
Woman have are already been lifted into the resurrection. It's right there, in the resurrection accounts.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
With respect to Spong's relative eagerness to find a "better" interpretation than the traditional one, I would say that is a fair cop. As one might predict, Spong was out front in support of ordination of women, and went digging for anything he thought might help the cause. The battle is over, but he continues to fight it and to reminisce about it. But it was an exaggeration to say that he based his speculation on one fact, and I gave a cite when it was asked for.
Interestingly, I found some praise from NT Wright for the challenge offered by postmodern interpretations in this excellent interview.
quote:
...the postmodern academy sees questions like this bubbling up in fresh ways means those of us who do want to be holistic about how we read the text can say there are some insights here that we've got to factor in. We won't go with a newly limited way of doing this but we'll take all their insights and put them in the larger pot and see what sort of meal we can make out of it.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I am avidly reading "A new Christianity for a New World" and was intrigued by Spong's statement as I passed through the end of Chapter One:
quote:
......Those are my goals. Can they be acheived? Or is this the fantasy of one who can see the dying embers of a faith-tradition and even of a life's work, but is unable to admit that they cannot be revived? I leave that for my readers to decide. As for me I beleive that this is the only way I can continue to be faithful to the baptismal vows I took do long ago: "To follow Christ as my Lord and Savior, to seek Christ in all people, and to respect the dignity of every human being."
What if Spong is being true to his earlier baptismal vow in the face of his perceived error of the creeds?
Just a thought.
--------------------
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
The Apostle's Creed is part of the baptismal covenant in the ECUSA, so he doesn't get an out that way.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
... continuing to agree with Erin... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
... without even making a poem about it... ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
I have been praised by Laura! 
