Christianity and Spong (formerly: Bishop Spong Should Have Been Excommunicated)

[Briny_Deep]

All quotations from “Why Christianity Must Change Or Die.”

The words of the Apostles’ Creed, and its later expansion known as the Nicene Creed, were fashioned inside a worldview that no longer exists. Indeed, it is quite alien to the world in which I live. The way reality was perceived when the Christian creeds were formulated has been obliterated by the expansion of knowledge. That fact is so obvious that it hardly needs to be spoken. If the God I worship must be identified with these ancient creedal words in any literal sense, God would become for me not just unbelievable, but in fact no longer worthy of being the subject of my devotion. I am not alone in this conclusion. Indeed, I am one of a countless host of modern men and women for whom traditional religious understandings have lost most of their ancient power.

The opening phrase of the Apostles’ Creed speaks first of God as the “Father Almighty.” Both of these words offend me deeply. Here the mystery that I treasure in God begins to be filled with limiting cultural definitions. The word Father is such a human word – so male, so dated…

The word Almighty is equally troubling. Almighty has been translated theologically by the Church into such concepts as omnipotence (all-powerful) and omniscience (all-knowing). These two understandings constitute a provocative and disturbing claim. By attributing omnipotence to God, one also attributes to the deity the power to remedy any wrong or to prevent any disaster. Yet wrongs and disasters continue to be a part of life.

Next, this statement of faith calls God “the creator of heaven and earth.” What is heaven? Where is heaven? It is clear that in this ancient world the heaven that God created was thought of as God’s home, and it was located beyond the sky. But those of us in this generation know that the sky is neither the roof of the world nor the floor of heaven. So what are we referring to when we assert that this almighty God created heaven? Are we talking about that almost infinite universe that no one living knew anything about when the Bible was written?

To ascribe to God the power to have created the earth also presents modern men and women with difficulties. We can now date the birth of this planet, rather accurately, by radioactive particles to be four and one-half to five billion years old…

[Jesus] is first called God’s “only son.” Does this mean that none of the rest of us is or can be the son or the daughter of God? That kind of exclusive claim has been made throughout the ages with great power by the Christian Church.

“He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” Certainly if that phrase is to be understood literally, it violates everything we know about biology. Do we not yet recognize that all virgin birth tales – and there have been many in human history – are legendary? They are human attempts to suggest that humanity alone did not have the ability to produce a life like the one being described. All virgin birth stories, including the ones about Jesus, were fully discredited as biological truths by the discovery in 1724 of the existence of an egg cell.

The primary assumption in the biblical story of the virgin birth – namely, that Jesus’ divine nature came to him directly from God through his mother’s impregnation by the Holy Spirit – is a hopelessly sexist idea born in a totally patriarchal world that denied the woman’s contribution to every new life.

Like the stories of his virgin birth, the stories of Jesus’ literal ascension have been equally discredited by the expansion of knowledge…

When those entry and departure adventures of Jesus are accompanied, as they are in the literal biblical texts, by a series of other wonders, which include both a star set in the sky, presumably by God, to mark the birthplace of Jesus (Matt. 2:1-12) and talking angels who inform us that Jesus will return in the same manner that the disciples had seen him depart (Acts 1:10, 11), it is impossible for me to find a believable faith.

What meaning can the phrase “He will come again to judge the living and the dead” have as the third millennium of the common era takes center stage? The New Testament clearly expected the almost momentary return of Jesus to this earth (John 14:3, Matt. 16:27, Mark 9:1). Yet that return has not yet occurred. Was that Gospel anticipation another example of inaccuracies in the biblical account?

Beyond that problem, however, we need to ask what the judgment of God means in the light of the way life is now understood. What is the basis on which what the Bible calls the final judgment will be conducted? When the Bible was written, the people knew little or nothing about social and psychological interdependence. Can anyone be judged today simply as an individual who is solely responsible for who he or she is or for what he or she has done?

I even favor the reopening of the debate between Arius and Athanasius on the nature of the Christ. I also support efforts to reexamine and perhaps even to transcend the trinitarian compromise, if those now-literalized words prove to be no longer capable of leading us into the experience of God towards which they originally pointed. I am increasingly unimpressed with what people call “orthodox” Christianity.

What I am requesting, however, is that modern believers be allowed, and even encouraged, to recognize that the words employed in the theological debate that formed the creeds so long ago have become empty and meaningless to this generation because the way we perceive the shape of reality has changed so dramatically… As a believer, I am not prepared to deny the reality of the underlying Christian experience. Yet I do recognize that the future understanding and the very shape of Christianity will inevitably be different, profoundly different, from that which has come down to us from the past. The real issue for me is whether or not that developing future is or still can be adequately attached to its Christian past.

---

I have been selective in quoting Spong, my point being to show some of what he believes of the Nicene Creed. Any misquotes, or things taken horribly out of context, are entirely my own fault.

[Cardinal]

Hi, people, again.

Wow, what a dust storm.

I feel that some of what I’ve said has been picked apart by concentrating on the grammar of the sentence or something, and not what I still think was the clear intent.

I’ll be back, but the process of wading through all this and making replies to the two dozen or so things that deserve it is just too much at the moment. I’m not mentally up to it.

Furthermore, I think this has taken a turn that shows a basic problem with my OP. I was envisioning a discussion in which people asked me about things they wanted to hear about from a certain point of view, or had always wondered about, which is why I put it in MPSIMS. What we’ve gotten is a GD. I understand why for the most part, but it’s not what I meant to create when I began it way back before the Great Outage.

These GDs never really get anywhere, and I have avoided them as a matter of fairly strict practice. I have obviously provided the grist for the mill here, but it’s not what I meant to do, and at the moment I just don’t have the mental energy, because these things always devolve into intellectual name calling.

I realize that some of you just sat up and yelled, “But that’s what YOU did at the start!”

Hmmmmm… You see, I was trying to give a perspective from this POV, not start a giant argument. It’s very possible that there are legitimate holes to poke in anything I say, any time, including this one. I think I saw a couple of them while reading the replies.

What makes me depressed about the prospect of wading through all this is that I’ve had bad experiences with people even here who are not willing to discuss things without screaming, and are not willing to admit another’s point. I do try to make a real point of it, even if some of you think that couldn’t be possible after reading the OP.

I guess what started this idea was the thread (which I presume is now lost to the ether) about something like “How do people go to hell?” That one was very civil, and people were very willing to simply give different perspectives.

I’ll be back. I don’t own the SDMB, or even this thread, really, but “I’m just saying” that I wish we could do without the jabbing. If it needs to start with me, then fine.

[Cardinal]

Jeez, I didn’t realize the actual title had been changed.

Mods!!! This is a continuation of my now lost thread, “Ask your God/religious questions here”. I was asked specifically about Bishop Spong, and while in the very process of responding, the Great Crashing commenced.

The point here is NOT entirely about Spong. Maybe I should just start another thread, except that I despair of having a nice little discussion. I realize that I may have set the tone where I didn’t want it, and if it’s my fault, then it just is.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread title changed just because a mod thought it didn’t apply. I’ve seen grammatical changes, but I really wish this hadn’t happened. It completely misrepresents my intentions.

[Monty]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *

I cannot say it strongly enough that the ENTIRE conception of God in the Old and New Testament is that of a spirit “person”.

Last time I heard that description of God was from a Mormon.

Poly, old friend; you surely realize that we use that term (actually “Personage of Spirit”) only to refer to the Holy Ghost. To the other two members of the Godhead we attribute the qualities of having a physical body.

[Briny_Deep]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread title changed just because a mod thought it didn’t apply. I’ve seen grammatical changes, but I really wish this hadn’t happened. It completely misrepresents my intentions.

This is all my fault. See above. When I made the comment I did, it was meant as a suggestion to you, perhaps for another time. Cajun Man carried out my suggestion, and your old thread has been successfully hijacked.

Such was not my intent!

[Polycarp]

Cardinal, I was totally unaware you did not intend this as a debate. However, I beg to differ on the “nothing ever gets resolved” aspect. It’s been my experience that these threads regularly contribute to a greater understanding of the differing stances of individuals with divergent views, quite often not on the subject that engendered the debate, and in that sense are highly beneficial. (They also make an excellent position for witnessing that an intelligent person can hold the Christian faith without major mental gymnastics, something that sounds like it might appeal to you, as it does me.)

Masonite, while I certainly cannot controvert Spong’s written words, surely you realize that he often takes strongly polemic positions in his books in order to highlight the unthinking stance of much of “orthodoxy.” I aver to you that I was present (standing about 25 feet from him with a clear line of sight) when, as celebrant of the Eucharist, he recited the Nicene Creed. And from what I know of that man, while he might refrain from saying something which he thinks, feels, or believes, out of concern or respect for another’s stance, he would never say something that he does not believe. So he has some rationale under which he can affirm the Nicene Creed formally and orally. (I can liken this to myself: I hold a strongly heterodox view of the Second Coming as well as a few other minor points addressed by the creed, but can affirm the creedal words as in some sense representing my own views, however poorly, so I can with good conscience recite it as a statement of my faith.

Drastic: My first exposure to Spong was through Living in Sin?, and I would cheerfully recommend this to any thinking person. I liked Why Christianity Must Change or Die as well. I found The Easter Moment somewhat lacking, and felt that A New Christianity for a New World was short on affirmative steps to be taken when I read it prior to hearing him speak on it – but he is absolutly spellbinding as an oral teacher. And a much more compassionate person than one might guess from his books.

Monty: Anybody who takes my words as in any way resembling orthodox LDS doctrine deserves what he gets! (Seriously, thanks for the correction – I do recall “spirit personage” being used in my hearing by a Mormon, probably (in retrospect) w/r/t the Holy Ghost, which is why I said what I did.)

[Cardinal]

This is not meant as a threat:

I’ll respond if I can get get some kind of reassurance that it can be a discussion, and not a name-calling GD. Name calling never gets anyone anywhere.

I have had waaaaayyy too much insensitivity in my life recently, including family members, and I just can’t put up with any more right now. If there’s going to be an almost active attempt to deny a little grace to people, or if I’m not going to be allowed to have a POV without wondering if I’m going to soon be compared to a Nazi, then forget it.

The first steps in this process would be for the thread name to be changed, and for the thread to be moved out of GD. Both give the thread a character I just can’t handle right now, not to mention (again), that my title has been hijacked with no input from me, and makes a statement that I did not say, or intend to discuss.

Again, these are not threats, especially as I don’t suppose anyone really cares whether I come back. I’m just stating a fact as it stands now, so it won’t look like I just ran and hid, and to give people a chance to let me know if this thread can have a character change.

Dave

[John_Kentzel-Griffin]

*Originally posted by ***Steve Wright **

There is provision in most Anglican churches (all the ones I know of) for de-ordination (“unfrocking”), but that’s an extreme remedy, applicable only if the church authorities feel someone is actually unable to continue in their ordained ministry. Presenting views which are out of step with the majority opinion doesn’t really count

As I recall from my Epicopal upbringing, defrocking does not undo an ordination. Once a priest, bishop, or deacon, always a priest, bishop or deacon. It is just that he is no longer permitted to administer sacrements.

[Briny_Deep]

Polycarp, I don’t doubt that he says the words. But he has entirely parted company with the ordinary meaning of the words, which is what most ordinary Christians hold to, isn’t it?

Weren’t the Creeds forumlated to codify the faith, to set the major principles of the faith before the people on a regular basis, in an easy-to-remember form?

When he says the words, maybe he has some deep, spiritual “take” on the Creed that’s beyond the rest of us. Or possibly he’s just mouthing them, because it’s his job. I don’t necessarily accuse him of that kind of cynicism - but his writings show that he has abandoned belief in the ordinary meaning of the Creed. I hold it was dishonest of him to remain a bishop, while no longer believing in the central tenets of the church.

Note I’m not condemning him for his beliefs. What he did wrong was to keep his job, after he couldn’t perform it honestly anymore.

Sigh. I know the foamy-mouths you speak of, Poly, and I hate to line up with them. But I really believe Spong is what used to be called “apostate” before we all got all p.c. Please take my comments in all friendliness and help me to see the good in him.

How’s that for non-confrontational, Cardinal? Are you pursuing changing the title of this thread, or do you plan on opening a new on in MPSIMS? Trying to respect your wishes…

[Steve_Wright]

*Originally posted by DrMatrix *
**As I recall from my Epicopal upbringing, defrocking does not undo an ordination. Once a priest, bishop, or deacon, always a priest, bishop or deacon. It is just that he is no longer permitted to administer sacrements. **

You’re right, of course; once the sacrament of ordination is administered, it can’t be undone (by mere mortals, anyway). However, the administrative practice of forbidding an ordained priest from administering the sacraments is, in some circles, referred to as de-ordination. (I think it’s just because some people snicker at the word “unfrocking”.) It’s still a very serious step, and not (in my opinion) appropriate in this particular case.

(A lot of this argument reminds me of the fuss made in the UK press a few years back over David Jenkins, the then Bishop of Durham. He’d said that the spiritual significance of Christ’s message did not lie in - as he put it - a “conjuring trick with bones”. He got an awful lot of stick for this, but really he was quite right…)

[Homebrew]

*Originally posted by masonite *
Weren’t the Creeds forumlated to codify the faith, to set the major principles of the faith before the people on a regular basis, in an easy-to-remember form?

Not really. It was a rather political manuever. I recommend reading Richard E. Rubenstein’s When Jesus Became God to understand the history of the Creeds. It ain’t pretty.

When he says the words, maybe he has some deep, spiritual “take” on the Creed that’s beyond the rest of us.

Don’t presume to speak for me when you say “the rest of us.” BTW, I won’t recite the Apostles Creed.

Please take my comments in all friendliness and help me to see the good in him.

Perhaps we should have taken the advice of the Council of Sirmium and just accepted that we don’t know what the relationship between Jesus and God is and that it really doesn’t matter.