# Spong's Twelve Theses **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2000, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spongs-twelve-theses/45975 "2000-12-17T03:16:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2000, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spongs-twelve-theses/45975/121 "2000-12-26T15:59:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jumblemind \* > It seems that Spong is stating what is obvious to many, but simply making a public declaration. It seems to me that he loves what Jesus was trying to say, the overall message, and is endeared to the Episcopal Church. (You have to like something to invest enough time and energy to ascend to bishop.) I think therefore has no desire to break off and create another religion; perhaps he believes that it is within the power of Episcopal Church above others to lead the way. It always has, **ivorybill** , and I don’t see why you would feel so threatened by that. (Neither do I see where you get your claim of the Church’s stance on homosexuality as it relates to morality. All that is on the verge of complete change, as well.) \*\* _Disclaimer_ If I have my facts confused here, if so, someone please correct me… and, of course, I can’t say what’s really on Spong’s mind, but here goes… I seem to recall that Spong’s father was an Episcopal priest at a rural North Carolina parish. Also, I seem to recall that Spong and his father didn’t have a very close relationship. It may be that Spong worked his way up to be an Episcopal bishop (which has more to do with political skills than piousness as a priest, BTW) so that he could work out his frustrations with the church and father he grew up with by working to reform it to suit his views. I think some key words in your post are “It seems to me that he loves what Jesus was trying to say, the overall message…” Maybe I’m getting too deep into semantics here, but Jesus wasn’t trying to say anything. He said things quite clearly. I don’t think Spong’s interpretation is likely to be any more accurate than my own, or others, despite the amount of love for Jesus’ teachings. Finally, I wouldn’t say that I’m threatened by the direction the leadership of the Episcopal church is taking. More that I’m saddened and frustrated. If this trend is taken to its logical conclusion, the church will stand for nothing - - the Episcopal/Unitarian church, if you will. (Not that there’s anything wrong with Unitarians!) Respectfully yours, IB ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2000, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spongs-twelve-theses/45975/122 "2000-12-27T13:33:13Z")
Ivorybill, we seem to be at odds over certain **social** questions which we have invested with ethical qualities. I can hear loud and clear that you find it incumbent on people who wish to be Christian (much less Episcopalian) that they ought to follow the morality which our Lord prescribed. And I do not disagree with you on that premise. What I have been saying is, what exactly **is** this morality which Jesus taught. And to my mind, it consists in a total commitment to God and, in keeping with that, a standard for behavior towards one’s fellow man that is based on “loving thy neighbor as thyself” and expresses itself as set forth in the Baptismal Covenant: “to seek and serve others, to respect the dignity of every human being, etc.” And to avoid judgment of others. To this I am in fact committed. You cite “moral standards” as though we have common agreement on them, yet what I’ve had to say appears to disagree, in your view, with your terminology. To what moral standards do you refer? Where do they come from? What is their authority over us? These questions are not, as they might appear, intended as argumentative, but to see if we have common ground and failure to communicate, and to remedy the latter. Joel, I respect your analysis. I’m not sure I’m tending towards a “moral relativism” – although if you consider, in the physical sphere, general relativity as saying that _everything_ is relative except the value of “c” – the speed of light in vacuum – and is modified by its relation to “c”, then I would see Jesus’s teachings of love of God and fellow man as the moral equivalent of “c” and all else as relative to it. In that case, I’d **glory** in the term; anything less would fail to be what Jesus commanded, IMO. And may I ask what translation you found that rendering of the Beatitudes in? I like it very much, and would like to read more in it. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spongs-twelve-theses/45975/123 "2001-01-02T19:59:42Z")
Mainly to answer your question, but as long as I’m here… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > I’m not sure I’m tending towards a “moral relativism” Peacemakers, in general, just tend to want “peace and security” enough that they are willing to make certain compromises. You for example, insist you do not wish to judge others, yet, you pay tax dollars for a system that does judge others, casts people into prison, engages in war against “the bad guys” for “the greater good” and so on. You are really just passing the buck, washing your hands of the whole thing, in effect. > [@](#): > > And may I ask what translation you found that rendering of the Beatitudes in? Worldwide English. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spongs-twelve-theses/45975.md?page=6)