I’ve been wondering since last fall with Gene Robinson’s elevation to Episcopal bishop- why is the elevation of an openly gay man whose other theological positions I don’t know (he may be totally orthodox in all other areas, far as I know) the last straw for many ECUSA conservatives when nobody threatened schism over John Shelby Spong’s episcopal consecration? From a Biblical/Creedal perspective, his denials of cardinal C’tian doctrines is every bit as objectionable as
the approval of homosexual activity. Was Spong as open about his views before that consecration? If so, why not the outrage?
This is just addressed to conservative Episcopalians/Anglicans. It’s not an invitation for gay-rights advocates to lambast them as being more homophobic than orthodox.
But seriously, I am officially WHOOSHED. I have no idea what your talking about. I was just expressing that this is the PIT and I don’t think it really matters who you invite to respond, we all have a right to …well not a right, but permission, to respond to comments on the boards.
Personally your post seems like one posted by a martian that said "iewuryb jugriwb hegfwe hduwhiloqluggn wiuegfriqjbf jureuw " I would think that while he certainly is welcome to post it here(I think) he would have better responses posting his comments on a Martian forum.
Askeptic, John Spong is a retired Episcopalian Bishop that advocates an interpretation of scripture that differs radically from how a fundamentalist would interpret them. For example, he doesn’t believe in a physical, bodily ressurection of Christ, thinks St. Paul may have been a repressed homosexual, etc. To someone like myself, he made Christian belief possible; to many, he’s downright heretical.
FriarTed is limiting the audience is question is addressed to conservative Episcopalians because they’re the ones who are most inclined to split from the church over Bishop Gene Robinson’s (a non-celibate homosexual) ordination. He’s trying to explore what he perceives has a contradiction: from his understanding of a conservative point of view, Spong was just as much a heretic as Robinson, but the reaction to Spong’s ordination didn’t prompt the calls for a schism like Robinson’s did.
I’m not a conservative Episcopalian (or and Episcopalian at all), but from what I can tell, except for the ordination of women issue, it doesn’t seem like Spong was all that controversial a figure when he was ordained Bishop. He didn’t really start becoming controversial until he started talking about sexuality in the early 80s.
I’ve never gotten the whole Spong “Christianity for a New Age” rot. You, Xianity ain’t true, but I’m a bishop. Etc.
Talk about wanting to have your atheist cake and eat it theistically too. But I guess bishop is a good gig, and they’ve got some nice clothes.
As for the OP, I agree that there is a contradiction in there somewhere. My guess, based upon my knowledge of human nature and psychology, is that with Spong it was a gradual escalation, and, in a way, he preserved deniability along the way. (I am not aware of the facts, just guessing based on the slight fudginess I noticed when checking out a link to an ad for his book. The goal seems to be to slide people gently into this new atheist Xianity.)
A lot of conservative, rich people have been Episcopalian, more as a kind of social thing than as a real religion (cite is Vance Packard’s The Status Seekers–great read). Same thing with the Unitarians: liberal, even less “into it” than the Episcos. A rich person can tolerate a bit of atheism.
But I suspect that neither the rich folk nor the true believers really appreciated the homosexual deal. That just wasn’t cool–hence the backlash. Maybe someone who really knows what s/he’s talking about will come along and comment.
He doesn’t say “Xianity” isn’t true, he just understands God and Jesus in a way that’s different from what one would walk away with after reading the Gospels and interpreting in a very literal manner. Theologically speaking, fundamentalism is actually a relatively recent (and American) invention. It’s likely that the authors of many canonical books never intended that their work should be taken literally!
I don’t think even the most fervent of Spong’s detractors have argued that he devoted his life to the church for the pay (!?!?!) and clothing (!?).
Maybe you should try to become aware of the facts before you make such incredibly inflamatory accusations, eh?
Please provide a cite showing that a significant proportion of the “rich folk” in the Episcopal church are behind the backlash.
Sorry, I just find the ultra-liberal Christians to be simply absurd. Xianity was founded on the belief that certain things pertaining to God and Jesus were true. I don’t find the whole “well it’s not true, but it’s meaningful” thing to be aesthetically pleasing.
The rest was just my opinion and idle speculation. Sorry to have infuriated you.
Spong doesn’t say “it’s not true, but it’s meaningful”. I won’t continue this hijack anymore, so I won’t respond to any further responses to this tangent here.
First of all his beliefs have come out gradually. I am not an expert on his career and I am not sure what he stated as his beliefs at his ordination but if you read his books you can see that even his beliefs have evolved over time. At least he has gradually revealed what he believes over time. Had he come out and held a press conference before his ordination in which he stated all of his differences with the Bible and traditional teaching then perhaps it would have more of a stir.
Secondly, most Episcopalians aren’t aware of him. At least not in my area. I brought him up in conversation at Sunday School a few months ago and most of my classmates had either not heard of him or they were unaware of the extent to which he disagrees with the tradition of the Church. Many of my classmates did not believe me – they thought that I must be exaggerating – that it couldn’t be true that a Bishop (retired) could hold those views in the church. Our priest assured them that I was correct. I believe that if more Episcopalians were aware of his teachings and the Church’s implicit acceptance of those teachings then it would be a very big deal. My parents left the church (to join the United Methodists) in 1994 after reading Rescuing the Bible. I stayed because my preist dosen’t share Spong’s views – if he did I would leave my church in an instant.
I hope that this Bishop Robinson debate helps more people in the church discover the teachings of Spong as I see them as much more a threat to the Church than Robinson.
As for Christianity – Spong is not a Christian in any traditional sense. He really has helped found a new religion that is a splinter of Christianity. I like to call it spiritual Christianity in that it wishes to hold on to the spiritual grace of Christ while denying his deity. One could argue the merits of this religion but can not in all seriousness compare it to the beliefs of the vast majority of Christians both alive today and from the past. The belief that Christ was literally God incarnate, that he died to forgive our debts to God, and that he then literally rose from the dead has been the core belief of Christianity for the past 2000 years. For Spong and his followers to deny those three things and still call themselves Christians is just silly. The other post said it well – they want thier cake and to eat it too. If Anglican Church continues to accpet these teachings then those of us who do still belive in the diety and resurrection of Christ will have to leave the Church. Call us divisive if you want – we will be divisive in the way that was Martin Luther.
This is a rediculous statement. Please give us an example in which authors of the New Testament did not believe in the literal deity and resurrection of Christ. Also give an example of a mainstream European Church leader from the past who expressly stated that Christ was not God and that the resurrection was not meant to be taken literally. This is why we call you revisionists.
Finally I think that media attention has caused most of the controversy. Had Spong’s views been given as much mainstream media attention as the Robinson issue then the church would have made a big deal out of it.
WOW! I’ve never seen so much straw in a single paragraph. It’s downright “rediculous”.
I never said the authors of the New Testament did not believe in the literal deity and resurrection of Christ, nor did I say Christ was not God. And what’s with the “mainstream European Church leader”? Are American church leaders theologically inferior then Eurpean’s by default?
You are the one who made the assertion that fundamentalism is “a relatively recent (and American) invention.” I ask you to give an example of a European leader so that you can prove that statement that you just made. IF (as you assert) fundamentalism is a recent American invention then give a good example of a dated European Church leader that disagrees with it. It is simple – all I ask is for you to back up your arguments with facts. How is that straw?
You didn’t – but Spong did (does). You were making an argument about what he believes not about what you believe. Here is your quote:
and
You made the statements – now back them up. I am asking you to prove that the “authors of many canonical books” never intended that thier work should be taken literally.
The reason Spong is controversial is that he doesn’t believe in the literal diety and resurrection of Christ. You defended him with your above statements by saying that–
– his beliefs are more in tune with non-American, non-recent Christianity because he dosen’t take the canonical accounts of Christ literally. How else could I interpret this quote of yours?:
HumptysHamhole hit on a lot of the points I was going to make. I would also add that as far out there that Spong’s theology has become, one could always argue that he didn’t have official endorsement of the church hierarchy. Kind of like the college professor who embarasses the university, but has tenure and can’t be gotten rid of. That is, as frustrating as it was that he was never rebuked or disciplined (to my knowledge), the General Convention never got together and voted that his views were correct, either.
When Robinson was simply a Canon in a small diocese, the orthodox conservatives could tell themselves that he was an aberration - objectionable, perhaps, but really only a problem if you happened to be in that diocese. But when the General Convention voted to approve him as Bishop, the conservatives suddenly realized how far out of touch most of the bishops were with mainstream Anglicanism.
For a long time, Spong was the reason I refused to have anything to do with Episcopalianism (I was introduced to him when I had to read Recuing the Bible in college). It wasn’t until I realized he was far on the fringe that I was able to embrace the denomination.
I was composing a more complete reply, then I got to here.
I DID NOT SAY that the “authors of the New Testament did not believe in the literal deity and resurrection of Christ”. You did. I’m not going to debate someone who puts words in my mouth and then claims I spoke them.
Just to clarify: When I say “You did” I mean “You did by attributing it to me, both explicitly and implicitly.” Didn’t mean to say that it’s your position on the issue.
I think our main point of contention is what is the definition of “fundamentalism”. You did state this right?:
It was posted by you at 11:07 am Central Time. So what is it that wasn’t to be taken literally by the “authors of many canonical books”? I assumed that since we were discussing the theology of Bishop Spong that we were talking about the literal diety of Christ and the resurrection. If I assumed incorrectly then I apologize. If that is not what you were referring to as “not literal” then what were you referring to and how is that relevant to Bishop Spong’s points of contention with most of the Church?
Since you believe in the literal diety and resurrection then how can do defend Bishop Spong’s teachings that they are not literal?
If you aren’t defending his assertions on that matter then I don’t understand for what you are arguing.
I can come up with several more but it just sidesteps the issue. The passage you quoted in more context:
This looks to me to refer to final judgement and not the ability to discern what is true and not true. Surely you don’t think that Christ was saying in that passage that I am not allowed to decide whether or not Bishop Spong’s teachings are equable to Christ’s own teachings. I never made any judgement on what will be Bishop Spong’s final fate – if you assumed I did that was your mistake. Scripture not only allows us to make judgements on right and wrong beliefs – it implores to do so and to do so carefully. Personal judgement is what is forbidden.
