The first book I will be reviewing here will be John Shelby Spong's "Why Christianity Must Change or Die". In the following posts I will put quotes from the book in black italics and my thoughts/response in blue. To jump right in, Spong is basically one of the most popular Liberal theologians (I use the term loosely) in our day. This book is seen as his central work and message. That being said I thought that the responsible thing to do would be to read it and give a response as a Christian to the ideas Spong presents.
Recommendations and preface:
On the inside of the book we read an endorsement saying:
"Should be required for everyone concerned with facing the head-on the intellectual and spiritual challenges of the late twentieth-century religious life. By working through his own Christian faith and tradition with honesty, intelligence, and courage, he provides a challenge for others, wherever they are, to do the same. And what is better, he provides hope and guidance for the journey." (Karen King Harvard Divinity School)
I want this up here because I somehow doubt that there is a real message of hope for anybody in this book, all we have is God words like "faith", "god", "hope", "Jesus" and "spiritual" all emptied of any meaning and left to be filled with meaning on a subjective interpretation of them. Further we read:
"Not since Martin Luther has a leader risen from within the church to call for a more powerful reformation than that found in the pages of this book. Here Spong integrates his compelling stands on the Bible, Jesus, sin, and morality into an intelligible creed that today's thinking Christians can embrace."
That's pretty bold to compare Spong to Luther. But since I consider myself a thinking Christian I will read on. Next we are given a sort of outline of what Spong will present in the book:
1) Traditional Theism is no longer credible, we need a new contemporary understanding of God as the source of life and love, not as a superperson running the universe,
2)If theism is no longer a viable way to think about God, then the way we approach the Christ figure has got to be radically revised. Jesus can no longer be the incarnation of a theistic deity.
3)The church as a hierarchical institution was not founded by God or Jesus, what Jesus initiated was a community of faith and service and that's what the church should be,
4)heaven and hell don't exist, but what they powerfully symbolize is that our deeds have eternal consequences-a sobering reality for so-called Christians who persecute gays, marginalize women, and use doctrine to justify their acts of violence.
Wow. Pretty condescending towards "unthinking" evangelicals. This again is a perfect illustration of using God words that have no meaning. It is hypocritical to allow the phrase "so-called Christians" in the book when several times I have heard Spong himself when debating evangelicals who say he simply is not a Christian start whining about how no one owns the corner on the label "Christian". Basically Spong has said they have no right to draw a circle and say "This is historic Christianity, Spong you are way out of the circle!" Yet that is the very thing that is done on the jacket of Spong's book, he puts evangelicals outside of his circle of what Christianity is.
I will tackle the specific issues that are presented as the arise in the book, but this should give the reader a nice overview of what Spong believes. Moving to the preface, in it Spong presents his views in his own words, he denies the divinity of Christ, thinks homosexual relationships are perfectly compatible with Christian morals and talks about the influences upon his thinking. To cite some passages:
(Speaking of the controversy his ideas have made...) "It arises out of the sense that God must be worshipped with the mind as well as the heart. It also reveals that any god who is threatened by new truth from any source is clearly dead already. Such a deceased god needs to be snatched away from threatened believers so that the anxiety of "a god vacuum" at the heart of some people's lives will drive them into honesty and integrity as either believers or non-believers. There is no hope for the revival of worship so long as an idol lives undisturbed in the place reserved for the living God."
I must comment here, this is a thoroughly modernist critique of classical theology. The historical Christian belief system simply does not work any more in a scientific and modern world, therefore we need to scrap it and have a "faith" that is modern. What I find most interesting in a tragic way is the last sentence, because I agree with it completely. Yet I would say that it is Spong's play-dough modernistic god that is the idol and unfit of worship.
Also again Spong seems fond as casting his beliefs as those with intellectual integrity while classical Christianity (which believes in the supernatural action of God in the world which He has made) is simply irrational. I on the other hand would hold that it is irrational to assert that whether someone who is a believer (evangelical) becomes a modernist believer or an unbeliever so long as he becomes modern as Spong basically asserts above is the idol.
"Clifford L. Stanly, one of my theology professors almost 45 years ago, was fond of saying, "Any god who can be killed ought to be killed."
So we see Spong's theological training was thoroughly Liberal and Modernist.
Theology aside, what I find to be the most inconsistent in Spong's writing is how he constantly casts himself and other Liberals as the victims of bigoted fundamentalist Christians. For example he writes:
"I have had a "truth squad" based at an evangelical theological college in Sydney follow me throughout Australia wherever I lectured, handing out their tracts and publications designed to mute my witness. I have lectured with guards protecting me in Calgary, Alberta. [in Liberal Canada eh?] I have walked through shouting picket lines in San Diego, California, to deliver a lecture. I have endured a bomb threat at Catholic University in Brisband, Queensland. I have been the recipient of sixteen death threats, all of which came from Bible quoting "true-believers". Finally I have been attacked in books from the religious right by such people as Alistair MacGrath N.T. Wright, and Luke Timothy Johnson and in a proposed monograph of an essay "Can a Bishop be Wrong"."
Spong then goes on to say the "attacks from MacGrath and Wright were "revelingly hostile and without academic merit." When I read this stuff I can't help but think that this guy is just a big whiner in comparison to the real persecutions that Christians endure throughout the world. As for shouting picket lines and books that "attack" what do you expect when you are one of the most renown "theologians" going around and basically making assertions that the historical Christian faith is a bunch of rubbish?
Also I highly doubt that Wright and MacGrath's books were hostile and lacked academic merit, that is simply a nice brush off, both these men are renown scholars and known for their excruciating integrity. Rather I find just in the introductions and preface that it is Spong who is the hostile one, he is hostile to the evangelical Christian believer. Mr. Spong you can't have it both ways.
He has repeatedly put down evangelicals in an un -subtle manner, basically calling them stupid, all the while portraying himself as the victim of their bigotry. Yet when men like Wright and MacGrath who are intellectual evangelicals critique Spong's ideas they are written off as hostile.
I hope this isn't the way the rest of the book goes, or this won't make for a very exciting review. All I have seen so far is the use of God words that have no meaning, ad hominems against evangelicalism, double standards, and a portrayal of Spong as an intellectual knight in shinning armor who is withstanding the constant buffets from evangelical bigots. This is classic casting the debate.
Recommendations and preface:
On the inside of the book we read an endorsement saying:
"Should be required for everyone concerned with facing the head-on the intellectual and spiritual challenges of the late twentieth-century religious life. By working through his own Christian faith and tradition with honesty, intelligence, and courage, he provides a challenge for others, wherever they are, to do the same. And what is better, he provides hope and guidance for the journey." (Karen King Harvard Divinity School)
I want this up here because I somehow doubt that there is a real message of hope for anybody in this book, all we have is God words like "faith", "god", "hope", "Jesus" and "spiritual" all emptied of any meaning and left to be filled with meaning on a subjective interpretation of them. Further we read:
"Not since Martin Luther has a leader risen from within the church to call for a more powerful reformation than that found in the pages of this book. Here Spong integrates his compelling stands on the Bible, Jesus, sin, and morality into an intelligible creed that today's thinking Christians can embrace."
That's pretty bold to compare Spong to Luther. But since I consider myself a thinking Christian I will read on. Next we are given a sort of outline of what Spong will present in the book:
1) Traditional Theism is no longer credible, we need a new contemporary understanding of God as the source of life and love, not as a superperson running the universe,
2)If theism is no longer a viable way to think about God, then the way we approach the Christ figure has got to be radically revised. Jesus can no longer be the incarnation of a theistic deity.
3)The church as a hierarchical institution was not founded by God or Jesus, what Jesus initiated was a community of faith and service and that's what the church should be,
4)heaven and hell don't exist, but what they powerfully symbolize is that our deeds have eternal consequences-a sobering reality for so-called Christians who persecute gays, marginalize women, and use doctrine to justify their acts of violence.
Wow. Pretty condescending towards "unthinking" evangelicals. This again is a perfect illustration of using God words that have no meaning. It is hypocritical to allow the phrase "so-called Christians" in the book when several times I have heard Spong himself when debating evangelicals who say he simply is not a Christian start whining about how no one owns the corner on the label "Christian". Basically Spong has said they have no right to draw a circle and say "This is historic Christianity, Spong you are way out of the circle!" Yet that is the very thing that is done on the jacket of Spong's book, he puts evangelicals outside of his circle of what Christianity is.
I will tackle the specific issues that are presented as the arise in the book, but this should give the reader a nice overview of what Spong believes. Moving to the preface, in it Spong presents his views in his own words, he denies the divinity of Christ, thinks homosexual relationships are perfectly compatible with Christian morals and talks about the influences upon his thinking. To cite some passages:
(Speaking of the controversy his ideas have made...) "It arises out of the sense that God must be worshipped with the mind as well as the heart. It also reveals that any god who is threatened by new truth from any source is clearly dead already. Such a deceased god needs to be snatched away from threatened believers so that the anxiety of "a god vacuum" at the heart of some people's lives will drive them into honesty and integrity as either believers or non-believers. There is no hope for the revival of worship so long as an idol lives undisturbed in the place reserved for the living God."
I must comment here, this is a thoroughly modernist critique of classical theology. The historical Christian belief system simply does not work any more in a scientific and modern world, therefore we need to scrap it and have a "faith" that is modern. What I find most interesting in a tragic way is the last sentence, because I agree with it completely. Yet I would say that it is Spong's play-dough modernistic god that is the idol and unfit of worship.
Also again Spong seems fond as casting his beliefs as those with intellectual integrity while classical Christianity (which believes in the supernatural action of God in the world which He has made) is simply irrational. I on the other hand would hold that it is irrational to assert that whether someone who is a believer (evangelical) becomes a modernist believer or an unbeliever so long as he becomes modern as Spong basically asserts above is the idol.
"Clifford L. Stanly, one of my theology professors almost 45 years ago, was fond of saying, "Any god who can be killed ought to be killed."
So we see Spong's theological training was thoroughly Liberal and Modernist.Theology aside, what I find to be the most inconsistent in Spong's writing is how he constantly casts himself and other Liberals as the victims of bigoted fundamentalist Christians. For example he writes:
"I have had a "truth squad" based at an evangelical theological college in Sydney follow me throughout Australia wherever I lectured, handing out their tracts and publications designed to mute my witness. I have lectured with guards protecting me in Calgary, Alberta. [in Liberal Canada eh?] I have walked through shouting picket lines in San Diego, California, to deliver a lecture. I have endured a bomb threat at Catholic University in Brisband, Queensland. I have been the recipient of sixteen death threats, all of which came from Bible quoting "true-believers". Finally I have been attacked in books from the religious right by such people as Alistair MacGrath N.T. Wright, and Luke Timothy Johnson and in a proposed monograph of an essay "Can a Bishop be Wrong"."
Spong then goes on to say the "attacks from MacGrath and Wright were "revelingly hostile and without academic merit." When I read this stuff I can't help but think that this guy is just a big whiner in comparison to the real persecutions that Christians endure throughout the world. As for shouting picket lines and books that "attack" what do you expect when you are one of the most renown "theologians" going around and basically making assertions that the historical Christian faith is a bunch of rubbish?
Also I highly doubt that Wright and MacGrath's books were hostile and lacked academic merit, that is simply a nice brush off, both these men are renown scholars and known for their excruciating integrity. Rather I find just in the introductions and preface that it is Spong who is the hostile one, he is hostile to the evangelical Christian believer. Mr. Spong you can't have it both ways.
He has repeatedly put down evangelicals in an un -subtle manner, basically calling them stupid, all the while portraying himself as the victim of their bigotry. Yet when men like Wright and MacGrath who are intellectual evangelicals critique Spong's ideas they are written off as hostile.
I hope this isn't the way the rest of the book goes, or this won't make for a very exciting review. All I have seen so far is the use of God words that have no meaning, ad hominems against evangelicalism, double standards, and a portrayal of Spong as an intellectual knight in shinning armor who is withstanding the constant buffets from evangelical bigots. This is classic casting the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment