Spong's Twelve Theses

Great Debates
101

VileOrb – I just want two simple answers to two simple questions.

In the Pragmatist Philosophy Thread you described your philosophy thus:

I think that is a great philosophy. Then you mentioned the need for protecting those you care about, and the importance of personal responsibility. Then you said:

Now just a simple yes or no first, then whatever tangents or qualifiers you want to add:

1) Do you still believe in that statement?
2) If so, would you keep such a policy secret, as a surprise to those who cause suffering?

102

So, Poly, your core beliefs say nothing about environmentalism, the arts, capitalism, or anything except love God and one another? I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, I’m just saying that you should be sure that you and any who share your beliefs know that this is not a complete set of ethics. I know some people think that “love one another” covers everything, but even if I allow that you must allow that it’s going to take further thought to figure out whether or not to build that soup kitchen on the habitat for the endangered species. The people that I am worried about are the people who take simple doctrines like that and decide that they are complete so anything not specifically forbidden must be ok. So, I think there should be something that says “God want us to use this basis to create an expicit set of ethics for ourselves.” I don’t want those ethics spelled out. I’d even like there to be some way to say that you’re not going to go to hell for choosing a slightly different set of ethics from your fellow Christians as long as you base your ethics on love.

The rest of your beliefs about God and the resurrection and all don’t really touch me. And, I think that is part of what Spong would like to de-emphasize. Modern children have a very strong tendency to doubt. Once they get on the internet and learn about debunking they’re going to need some pretty good evidence of something as farfetched as resurrection. That evidence doesn’t exist except in the hearts of believers. You’re going to be losing a lot of them. That is what Spong wants to stop. I am a bit worried that many people who break away from churches will rebel against all the teachings of the church, all the morality along with the ritual. That would be a bad thing. That is where groups like ‘Atheists for Jesus’ are effective. They teach that non-Christians can see that there are good parts of Christianity that should not be abandoned. These groups are still pretty small and are fairly low profile.

You see what I’m saying? I think there is a pretty good chance that in the not so distant future a large number of young people will be leaving the church because it doesn’t jive with their modern skepticism. It may be that they will all just become Unitarians. It’s already happening. Spong wants to divert that trend. You don’t seem concerned. I’m not all that concerned myself. I’m just interested.

103

jmullaney,

1)yes
2)no

I see that you think that I am trying to enforce my morals. In a way, this is true. But remember, I do not portray this as a perfect solution. I will continue to seek for better solutions than execution. I would only use this as a solution in the most extreme cases, where I am powerless prevent suffering in any other way.

I am not omniscient nor omnipotent and so must fall back on imperfect solutions. The idea of God does not have my limitations.

104

I take your caveat with immense gratitude, V.O.

The whole Jesus thing is supposed to be proof of God’s intent and functionality, together with whatever the Atonement may function as. (I have a huge problem with the “subsitutionary atonement” theory that Jesus took on himself the punishment we were due, but I know that people throughout history have been moved by his death. Without drawing any further parallel than my overt words say, it might be quite reasonable to suggest that the person who advanced gay lib. farthest in the 1990s was Matthew Shepherd. Not by anything he did while alive, but by the “wake up call” that was his death.)

“Love your fellow man” as I understand it covers a multitude of virtues. Capitalism? Nothing wrong with it; not a whole lot right with it either. Be a good steward of God’s bounty, but use it for the furtherance of His will. The environment? Dumping your wastes where they’ll harm someone else is hardly showing them love. A homeless shelter in the habitat of an endangered species? Nice juxtaposition, but human decency should lead to not requiring it…someone, or more likely a group of someones, should keep the habitat free and provide land elsewhere for the shelter. The arts? I’ve never perceived great ethical issues connected with them (contrary to the right-wingers) – they sometimes force to your attention matters ethical in nature, but that would be the extent of it. (Odds are Gaudere has some comments on this issue, which I’d welcome!)

But I do take your point. The thing is, IMHO all Paul was trying to do was spell out how to live a moral life under Jesus’s teachings, and ended up with a whole fresh set of legislating being derived from his writings, probably completely contrary to his intent. I’d hate to see that repeated through going back to the nitty gritty and evolving formally what it implies in particular situations – human nature being what it is, those evolutions start to become laws in their own right, with implications of their own, and suddenly you’re back to legalism again.

So noted. I’ll advise Him of your views when He returns, with due credit given. (As you’ll note from the end of my long answer to you, that’s not intended as sarcasm. I like your formulation of it, and will do my best to see it put in place.) :slight_smile:

I do very much see your point regarding how stories from the past do not impact modern skepticism. And I’d look for a world in which people like you and David and Gaudere, who have no use for a theist metaphysic but share a common ethic and moral system with those who do, can work together with those who do for the benefit of mankind. But, as noted, I suspect that the impact of Events may well make that idea quite moot – if we had tapes of live TV coverage of Passover, ca. 30 AD, people’s views, irrespective of their theology or lack thereof, would be quite different.

105

Thank you for enlightening me with your viewpoint. I, for one, don’t see the Christian God as being omnipotent per se (I won’t bore you with my understanding of a being who is inherently impossible to understand). But it is nice to know someone out there thirsts for righteousness, even if this God and you do not entirely agree on what the causes of suffering are and what the most equitable solution to the problem is. Peaceniks like Polycarp have their merits too, but there are way too many of them around here.

106

Apologies if I’m about to sidetrack what appears to be a rather deep conversation. My main argument against Spong and those in the Episcopal Church who would help him (and others) remake it is directed at their very efforts to alter an established demonination so that it suits THEIR views. Rather than working so hard to transform the Episcopal church, why don’t they start their own demonination? Many, many Episcopalians (myself among them) are dismayed by the effect Spong and others have had on the Episcopal church.

The Episcopal church used to challenge persons interested in the denomination to make some difficult choices about the types of behaviors that were acceptable for Christans to engage in. Now it seems that the Episcopal church is being challenged to make some difficult choices about what it needs to do to be relevant to others - - a bad situtation in my opinion. Likewise, we used to say “Many are called but few are chosen.” Now it seems that “Everybody’s called, and you’re all in!”

At any rate, my 2 cent’s worth. If you don’t like the way Episcopalians view their collective spirtual journey in Christianity, find a different church or start your own.

107

Ivorybill, I can fully accept that. But as an active Episcopalian these past 22.5 years, I’d like to observe that, by and large, those pressing for change are not so much looking to make the Episcopal Church “relevant” as to honor Jesus’s great commission and commandments. What medievalist and early 20th century moralists constructed as a complex ethical structure for doing so turns out, when we examine it closely, to be sinning against a variety of people, and IMHO, therefore needs to be moved from the state of “law” to “guidance” – to be ignored when it fails to keep the core meaning of His Law: love of God and of fellow man. I knew a cradle Episcopalian who married an older, divorced man, found out he was sleeping around on her and generally neglected her otherwise, and divorced him. She remarried. Boom, instant excommunication. (I know that’s no longer the case, but it was then.) She’s been invited back, but says she’ll set foot in an Episcopal church again when Hell freezes over, and I cannot blame her. At the other Episcopal church than the one I attended when I moved here, the son of one of the wardens was gay, and not celibate. This was very carefully hushed up, so that he would not be whooshed out of the church. As it happens, he did a great deal, out of sincere faith so far as I can tell, to benefit that parish and to help the needy of the area. Now, what is the proper response to him? Set me some examples of where we’ve failed to challenge and become all-accepting, and I can probably come up with equal case histories.

IMHO, to love God with all your heart/soul/mind/strength and every other human being as yourself is a tough enough set of commandments that I’ll worry about what else he might have said if I ever get to where I feel I’m satisfactorily doing those two day in and day out, 24/7. And to me that calls for being inclusive. “Tough challenges” other than keeping those two to the fullest are what you face while trying to do so – inside the church – not hurdles for admission.

YMMV, of course.

108

While Poly’s already responded to this in his usual excellent fashion, I thought I’d add my two cents.

First of all, since aynrandlover has already invoked Godel, I think it’s worth mentioning that one of the consequences of Godel is that there is no complete set of ethics.

Second, despite being the cheerfully left-wing sort I am, I have had great difficulty in trying to cite God as the source of my political conclusions. He’s not a tame lion, and I just plain have been unable to extend the Gospel message to, say, a justification for excluding corporations from political activity. The Lord of all creation is for some reason unwilling to be my personal sock puppet. And it was good. :slight_smile:

109

Polycarp wrote:

>“What medievalist and early 20th century moralists >constructed as a complex ethical structure for doing so >turns out, when we examine it closely, to be sinning >against a variety of people, and IMHO, therefore needs to >be moved from the state of “law” to “guidance” – to be >ignored when it fails to keep the core meaning of His Law: >love of God and of fellow man.”

Here’s where you folks lose me. I, for one, believe that we can strive for a high moral standard (even one constructed long ago in different times) without “sinning against a variety of people.” I have friends outside the church for whom I care deeply who engage in behavior that is not sanctioned by the church. I don’t approve of their behavior and wouldn’t do it myself nor want my children to, but that’s their business. Should they be interested in joining the Episcopal church, IMHO they should repent and “go and sin no more.” I see no hypocracy in caring for them but not their “sin” and don’t see how my disapproval of their life choices is “sinning against them.”

For centuries various demoninations of the Christian church have held that certain actions were unacceptable. Some argue that such prohibitions were/are draconian and punitive. I, and many others, see them as an act of love.

Here’s an example: a pot of boiling water has been taken off the stove. The parent cooking supper warns her child not to touch the hot pot. The parent doesn’t want the child to be burned and have pain - - the admonition not to touch the pot is based in concern for the welfare and safety of the child. Let’s suppose the child does touch the pot and gets burned. The burn is inevitable, and is not punishment for touching the pot.

So too with church moral doctrine. Yes, it’s difficult to live up to the teachings of Jesus AND to uphold the moral code set down by our ancestors. However, the moral code is warning us that engaging in certain behaviors are like touching hot pots - - we’re likely to feel pain if we engage in them.
>“At the other Episcopal church than the one I attended >when I moved here, the son of one of the wardens was gay, >and not celibate. This was very carefully hushed up, so >that he would not be whooshed out of the church. As it >happens, he did a great deal, out of sincere faith so far >as I can tell, to benefit that parish and to help the >needy of the area. Now, what is the proper response to >him?”

The appropriate response is to express appreciation for his good works, and to challenge him that to be a member of the Episcopal church he will have to adhere to the moral standards set by the church. If he cannot do so, he is unfortunately not welcome to belong to the parish family. Tough love, I think it’s called. Other demoninations of the Christian faith have a different stand on his behavior and if he wants to engage in his lifestyle choices and be a churchgoing, practicing Christian, he needs to attend a different demonination.

>“IMHO, to love God with all your heart/soul/mind/strength >and every other human being as yourself is a tough enough >set of commandments that I’ll worry about what else he >might have said if I ever get to where I feel I’m >satisfactorily doing those two day in and day out, 24/7. >And to me that calls for being inclusive. “Tough >challenges” other than keeping those two to the fullest >are what you face while trying to do so – inside the >church – not hurdles for admission.”

That’s the C.S. Lewis view. That once I get really good at being a good person like Christ wants me to be, then I’ll worry about the technicalities. And as long as I’m doing good works and trying to be a good person, then my behavior doesn’t matter all that much, especially if I think it conflicts with some of Jesus’ teachings. You can strive to be a good person while doing your best to adhere to the church’s moral code.

110

Hmmm. If I ever have to choose between the loving compassion taught by word and example by Jesus Christ and the “moral standards taught by the church,” guess which way I’ll jump.

It’s your privilege to be legalistically restrictivist, and demand perfection on the way in. But that doesn’t meet the definition of “church” I buy into.

Oh, and my last paragraph, which you quoted, was sarcasm. If I strive to keep those two commandments totally and all the time, as I do, I’m meeting all the other obligations of the Law. That is, I think, what Jesus said and Paul echoed. But by all means, fence the table and deny the publicans and sinners admittance. Unlike us Pharisees, they do not keep the law, and do not deserve God’s grace. But you might find, somewhere between the Gradual and the Creed, that Jesus might have something to say about that attitude.

111

Welcome to the Straight Dope, Ivorybill. Maybe C.S. Lewis forgot that there is none good but God?

Polycarp – Jesus makes rather clear that one should shun an unrepentant sinner in Matthew 18:

Of course, technically he has to sin against you. But if his actions are giving your group a bad name, you don’t need to allow him to be one of its members (as Paul makes clear somewhere IIRC).

112

Right, Joel. Now, are you the same jmullaney who finds it impossible to “be perfect as your/my Father in heaven is perfect”? What is my appropriate response to your continuing to evade this commandment? :slight_smile:

You know what my answer would be, Joel. But I trust you see my point in asking it, however ironically. Hey, and Merry Christmas to you! :slight_smile:

113

Hey, and while we’re on the subject of shunning unrepentant sinners, I need your advice on a situation:

There’s an unwed mother in town, and she’s at full term. I mean, it looks like she swallowed a watermelon seed, and it grew! Now, she’s shacking with her boyfriend – they’re traveling, something to do with the Census Bureau, although she didn’t make it clear what, and they are engaged, but not yet married. And she doesn’t feel the least bit guilty about the baby; says something about it being God’s gift. They just blew into town, and all the motels, she says, are full, what with the Christmas holidays and all.

What is my responsibility toward her?

114

I don’t find that impossible. But I’m not sinning against you – we are sinning against others. No reason we two tax collectors shouldn’t be able to get along OK.

So, what, it is a sin now to be engaged?

It isn’t a sin to be pregnant either, Poly. Don’t judge by appearances. And: Whatever you do to the least of these, you also do to Jesus.

But the Kingdom of Heaven does exclude certain people if they do not repent. You know the commandments. Merry Xmas, Poly. :slight_smile:

115

This is one reason why conservative Episcopalians do not speak up more often then they do: we get painted with a broad “what would Jesus do” brush and folks confuse tough love with no love. Polycarp, you don’t have to choose! You can be loving and compassionate while upholding the moral standards of the church.

I personally am not, and I belive that others who share my views are not seeking perfection from folks “on the way in.” We’re asking that they recognize the church’s position and agree to abide by it. I’m not a perfect follower, although I try to be. When I backslide I repent and attempt anew. That’s all I’m asking in others who want to be part of the Episcopal church. They’re free to belong to other churches, I just wish they wouldn’t try to change our church to suit their views.

I’m not trying to deny anyone admittance. But, is it too much to ask that folks who want to belong to the church repent and meet with church doctrine? Where have I said that anyone doesnt’ deserve God’s grace? Who am I to attempt to grant it?

116

jmullaney, you seemed to have talked yourself into a circle with both the Matthew cite and that last comment, but that’s always the case when we discuss the technicalities of our organized religions, no? Clearly, Poly is referring to someone who is giving birth out of wedlock. Should he take her to the church since she is unrepentant? Should the next course of action be to treat her badly, as a tax collector? But Jesus had a tax collector disciple, and, as you yourself said, we should treat the least folk the same as Jesus. So which is it? Perhaps the question, then, is not as to a universal guide for treatment of sinners, but a technicality of membership addressed to a fledgling, fearful, and unorganized church. But I’m always leery of context, interpretation, etc.

Poly, I think you make an excellent point on the End Times. If Jesus is to come as a thief in the night, when no one expects it, then how would it be possible that we can predict when that will be (a la Nearing Midnight doomsday types). God fooled everyone the first time around, why would the second be any different? Excellent, excellent point. During my confirmation classes (I’m Episcopalian, also) someone asked our rector a question about the Second Coming. He responded that his personal belief was that the Second Coming occurred when each person died, sort of a time is meaningless kind of thing. Pretty interesting church, that. Had one of the first female rectors years back.

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.)

117

::WHOOSH

I got it, Poly! :wink:

118

Ivorybill – Polycarp is a peacemaker. You, perhaps, thirst for righteousness. These are two groups which historically have never gotten along well. Outside of the kingdom, peacemakers end up being moral relativists, and those who thirst for righteousness become, not to put to fine a point on it, fascists. So don’t beat each other up too much!

It is not a sin to give birth out of wedlock, either.

She doesn’t need to repent if she has not sinned. Didn’t I say not to judge by appearances?

Well, I believe Matthew had repented. You should aid those in need. I am not espica… er, well, heck, I can’t even spell epsiciss… er, nevermind… But I imagine should I attempt to enter this church they aren’t checking ID badges at the door. But, there is a difference between being with a group and being welcome in that group. Don’t throw your pearls before swine, as they say.

119

jmullaney, it is my understanding that many Christians (particularly fundamental sorts) do regard birth out of wedlock as a sin. I believe that was an assumption that Poly was taking in the posed modern-day Mary-Joseph story, the questioned issue of which you once again evaded (or rather failed to recognize as valid). But we’re obviously arguing different points here, so let me ask you something else.

It seems to me that Jesus was a peacenik, never getting riled up about much of anything (relatively speaking). But I also remember something about him causing quite a ruckus with the money changers in the temple. Is your religious MO, then, an attempt to strike a balance between the two sides of Jesus? A functional hybrid/middleground of moral relativism and fascism? I’m trying to understand why you don’t think, in a nutshell, a focus on the first two Commandments won’t take care of everything else, as Jesus said it would.

120

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” – Jesus

Jesus seems riled up about a lot of things as best I can tell.

I wouldn’t call these sides of Jesus, but sides of human nature, and not the only sides either. Too much of a good thing in human nature can become a bad thing.

To quote Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount:

All these good tendancies can be misdirected by sin.

Too much sadness can become depression.
Too much meekness can become apathy.
Someone who tries too hard to make peace can not takes sides.
Someone who thirsts too much for what is right and good may end up doing bad things to promote good.
etc. (well, I haven’t worked this all out yet.)

Ah, but some people may not know how to love God so fully. Some work for their other idols as well. Love of neighbor as yourself is easier. But still, people may not know how to love eachother. Simply saying the words do not make them true if the meaning behind them is lost. If someone sins against you and does not acknowledge they have done wrong, they may surely do so again. Avoiding such a person seems wise to me. Not all kingdoms have cells with locks to keep people in. Not all churches have doors with locks to keep people out. A narrow gate seems to do the trick.

Well, see y’all in January. Happy Holidays!