I left off in the last post talking about the intro and Spong's debate casting style of writing. He begins the book itself in chapter one by going through the Apostles Creed and explaining why he doesn't believe a lick of it. It is outdated and has no place in our modern world is basically Spong's synopsis. He goes through it hunk by hunk and argues why it is irrelevant. It his arguments that I find to be bereft of any genuine weight, and I will give my rebuttal to Spong's chapter one arguments in this post. I will try to be as thorough and concise as possible.
Starting with the words "We believe in God..." Spong leaps into an explanation of how he is in fact a believer, he loves God and sees everything with God in mind. I find this hard to be taken as anything more than just that he is a mystic and has irrational upperstory experiences (as Schaeffer would say) and calls these experiences "god". I say this because as we go on we see Spong stands very strongly against any views of Theistic providence. At any rate I think my description of Spong's spirituality is accurate as he himself borrows from Eastern mystical metaphor saying:
"I live in a constant and almost mystical awareness of the divine presence. I sometimes think of myself as one who breathes the very air of God, or to borrow an image from the East, as one who swims in the ignite depths of the sea of God...I am what I would call a God-intoxicated human being."(p.3)
To that I say amen, of course not taking the Eastern metaphor literally but more of a description of our communion with God as believers. But Spong adds at the end of this "YET..." and proceeds to go on to say that propositional forms of describing God are outdated and passe and have no place in our modern world.
If that is the case what is the Christian "faith"? What Spong just described above divorced from propositional truth are mere privatized irrational experiences with "god". There is no Christian faith just a common subjective experience which we really can't communicate to others (propositionally) because they are on their own privatized trip with "god". So to quote Spong:
"The God I know is not concrete or specific. This God is rather shrouded in mystery, wonder, and awe. The deeper I journey into this divine presence, the less any literlaized phrases, including the phrases of the Christian Creed, seem relevant. The God I know can only be pointed to; this God can never be enclosed by propositional statements." (p.4)
So again this is a purely subjective and mystical spirituality Spong is describing, it is a leap into non-reason. Basically Spong is a materialist based upon "reason" but he can not accept these conclusions so he makes irrational leaps and experiences "god".
As for propositional statements not being possible to describe God I think there are a few problems with what Spong says here:
1) The above paragraph is itself propositional, in that it says that propositional language is inadequate to describe God. That is a proposition about God.
2) It misrepresents the classical Christian view about systematic theology. No theologian ever thought that any one creed would encapsulate all that God is, so I would join Spong in saying that to think that it is possible to contain all that God is in propositions via creeds/confessions is simply wrong. However, the Bible is itself propositions about God, it is not exhaustive but it is nevertheless true propositions about the nature of God.
3) Therefore, Spong from the outset has rejected any objective authority to be a sort of map in his Christianity whether it is creeds/confessions or as these notions imply, the Bible itself.
Continuing explaining why he thinks the Apostles Creed is really just irrelevant rubbish, Spong moves to the words "Father Almighty" stating:
"Both of these words offend me deeply...The word Father is such a human word-so male so dated...It shouts of the masculinity of the deity, a concept that has been used for thousands of years to justify the oppression of women by religious institutions." (p.5)
Spong cites some of the historical chauvinism to bolster why he is offended about the word "Father" being attributed to God. Again I agree with the lamentation over the treatment of women throughout history, however that can't be the bases of throwing away theological truth because people have abused it! People have abused justification by faith alone by adopting an antinomianism, that does not mean we throw out the doctrine because it has been twisted by fallen men.
To this I would just simply reply, that in being offended at the Father label of God Spong is offended by the God and Father of Jesus Christ. That is simply the Biblical language applied to God. Of course I am sure Spong would just say that the Bible itself is a culturally entrenched document and that it merely reflects the thinking of 1st century Palestine, which was patriarchal.
Also, if all our thinking is just culturally entrenched what right does Spong even have to criticise the God of the Apostles Creed? Just because he is in a post-feminist culture does not mean his culturally relevant theology is any more "right" than the culturally entrenched theology of the men who wrote the Apostle's Creed. We are left with sheer relativism. So Mr. Spong, you say that the word "Father" offends you, well that is just your subjective opinion.
Moving on to "Almighty" (this is what I find to be the most schlocky):
"The word Almighty is equally troubling [subjective opinion]. Almighty has been translated theologically by the Church into such concepts as omnipotence (all-powerful) and omniscience (all-knowing)...By attributing omnipotence to God, one also attributes to the deity the power to remedy any wrong or to prevent disaster. Yet wrongs and disasters continue to be a part of life." (p.6)
Well this assumes that Spong is operating on a rational foundation of morality. I would challenge him that he has no right to make such assertions as "X is wrong" based upon his subjective and mystical worldview. He can not justifiably make the above statement based upon his non-Christian worldview. I assume he would reject a literal fall of man so man really is in the state in which God intended him to be. That so he can not call what is "wrong", this is just the way things are. Anyway that is a major side note, so how does Spong deal with the problem of evil? By hacking attributes off of God of course.
These following quotes I find to be some of the poorest understanding of a Christian worldview I have heard, Atheists do a better job than Spong when arguing against Christianity:
"If an all knowing God had really made many of the assumptions that the Bible makes, then this God would be hopelessly ignorant. For many biblical assumptions are today dismissed as quite simply wrong. Sickness, for example, does not result from sin being punished. Nor does a cure result from our prayers for God's intervention or from the sense that we have been sufficiently chastised so that the punishment of our sickness might cease...God, called "Almighty", appears. in our time to have little or nothing to do with either our sickness or our cures.
In our generation, we attack viruses, germs, leukemia, and tumors not with appeals to an almighty God, but with drugs, chemotherapy, and surgery. [to appeal to Go alone would be naive]. Epilepsy and mental illness are no longer understood to result from demon possession, even though Jesus was portrayed in the Bible as believing that they did (Mk 5:8 and 9:25). Once again honesty requires that we confront the Bible's limited grasp on truth." (p.6-7)
I in no way think that it is out of bounds to say that everything he just said is absolutely ridiculous and is nothing short of a straw man argument against Biblical Christianity. Spong talks as if God's being sovereign over sickness and the germ theory are incompatible, I as a "thinking Christian" have not at all felt the tension in this area. I rather think it is Spong's understanding of the Orthodox view of Sovereignty and Omnipotence that is naive. God is sovereign over germs, and viruses, therefore He is sovereign over disease and sickness. Spong seems to think that to be a Biblical Christian you must think that sickness can not be explained scientifically but just by mystical forces which only prayer can deliver us from.
You see what it really comes down to and this is the reason why Spong's assertion seems so out of left field, it is because Spong and Liberal theologians for the most part are really mystical materialists. This is why he speaks so mockingly of prayer for the sick, he simply does not believe God really is there. It is through God's common grace that we have doctors and surgeons and medicine, this is in no way in conflict with the Biblical testimony on disease. Luke who traveled with Paul and wrote one of the 4 Gospels was himself a physician, so he did not feel this tension Spong is bringing up.
As for Jesus and demon possession, I have had my Atheist professors bring this up (that should shed some light onto the types of presuppositions Spong is operating upon). They assert that the demon possession accounts in the Gospels were all really forms of epilespy and not demon possession, the 1st century people were basically just so stupid they just labelled all diseases that caused involuntary convulsion demon possession. But this is simply cherry picking the evidence and presupposing materialism. In the examples Spong cites himself there is clearly more going on then just a man with a disease being declared demon possessed because that's all these stupid people understood in their primitive unscientific minds. Jesus actually talks with the demon(s) in the young man and casts them out. What I find odd is that there is no mention of epilepsy whatsoever in the Mark 5 account, Spong just comes to the text and ASSUMES a materialist explanation, because after all we know that there are no such things as demons, nor miracles because God doesn't act in this world, He is just out there for us to experience subjectively, not to call upon.
So as far as honesty goes I think it is Spong who needs to be honest in his reading of the Bible, epilepsy is NOT MENTIONED at all in Mark 5. Rather we read a description of a man who because he was demonized did things that were naturally impossible to do (like breaking shackles). Spong because he presupposes materialism and an anti-supernaturalist closed system ASSUMES that all demon possession accounts are really just some sickness that these dumb people could not explain and just labeled it "possession". This is what it means to be unscholarly.
Anyway, Spong carries his materialist assumptions and does the same for whether, and "natural disasters" saying that we don't need any God to explain these anymore because we have Doppler radar. Again this is very naive, and misunderstands an Orthodox view of sovereignty. I would just assert that upon reading all of this, which presupposes materialism I don't know how the opening phrase "I am a God intoxicated human being" can have any real meaning. Spong sees everything through materialist presuppositions, we know how cancer works, therefore God is not in control of it. We know how Tornadoes work, therefore sovereignty is ridiculous.
Next Spong takes on some of the OT miracles of the Red Sea, and the sun's standing still in the sky in order to basically help the Israelites destroy their enemies. Spong makes the standard claims saying that if these things happened God is not ethical.
Again, this presupposes a standard of ethics by which Spong can look at these actions and say "That is wrong" Spong does not have this, again we are left with just opinion. What Spong meant to say is, "I think if God did X [which I don't of course because miracles don't happen] God would be immoral" This statement without an objective standard is just moral words, empty moral words to aid in polemics against the Christian worldview.
Spong goes on and basically argues against the words "Creator of heaven and earth" by affirming that we are really just cosmic accidents after 5 billion years, I find this to be really tragic as Spong who wants to say that he is a Christian and what being a Christian means is loving others and caring for the downtrodden of the world, unwittingly strips man of his dignity (which only Biblical Christianity can give man) by saying:
"There is also no scientific confidence today that human life was either the purpose or is the end of the creative process. Human beings feel so fragile and so accidental as these insights cascade in upon us." (p.10)
How can Spong with such a view affirm the dignity and worth of man RATIONALLY? He simply can not. This is the tragic. This is tragic because Spong probably really does love people, he probably really does think that human beings have dignity, but in his denial of the special Creation of man in God's image he has stripped man of any rationally explained dignity. I am sure Spong would be quick to affirm to worth and dignity of man, but I would say he can not do so rationally, he must do so by a leap into non-reason, just like he does with explaining the word "God".
"We believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord." Spong takes offense here as well stating:
"He is first called 'God's only Son.' Does that mean that none of the rest is or can be called the son or daughter of God? That kind of exclusive claim has been made throughout the ages with great power by the Christian church...The phrase also seems to suggest that none of the other religious systems of the world can offer its people a point of connection with the divine...This arrogant claim also denies our modern experience." (p.11)
Well yet again a misunderstanding of basic historical Christian doctrine is afoot here. Christ is called the only begotten of the Father, because unlike us He was born directly of God in His incarnation. We are given the right to be called the children of God through faith in Christ alone as Romans 8 clearly teaches. This is because we unlike Christ are not born right with God, but are fallen and in need of redemption.
Also, yes this is exclusive, and I am sorry this doesn't jive with Spong's subjective opinion, but it is either true or it isn't. Christ is portrayed throughout the scriptures as unique, He is the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, and without Him we have no life in us (John 6). What Spong is hung up on is the fact that he is a relativist and pluralist, that comes out clearly in the above statement of his. That said why is he even bothering to write this book? If any old path is fine why is he trying to convince Evangelicals that the path they are on is wrong? He is simply in conflict with his own ideas here.
"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.[all the virgin birth tales are legendary]" (p.12)
Spong goes on and talks about the discovery that discredited "ALL" the virgin birth tales in 1724 that discovery was the female egg. Again Spong is presupposing Materialism, if it can be explained naturally then God is not in control. He goes on and talks about how the virgin birth is sexist (I don't know how it could be sexist but it's a nice phrase to win the Feministically minded) and just frankly how stupid the whole notion is.
My reply: Mr. Spong do you believe that God is really there? Or is "god" just a helpful word to describe you private experiences that give you a pseudo-sense of meaning?
Spong makes little ripples over the phrase "Was crucified under Pontias Pilate." However again because Spong really holds to Materialism he denies the resurrection flat out. He asserts there are contradictions in the Gospels about the post resurrection events in Jesus' life, yet fails to explicitly explain what is in conflict and how.
I of course because I do not come to the Bible doubting the notion that God exists and can and does act in our universe do not need to write of miracles out of hand. I find no conflict in the post resurrection passages but rather just see them as describing different events that ALL happened after the resurrection. So just because say Matthew doesn't talk about Jesus eating fish with the disciples after rising that does not mean that it is in conflict with John because John talks of Jesus eating fish after the resurrection. I mean good night in any court two witnesses never have perfectly identicle stories, but there is enough identicle overlap to gather a picture of what happened. This is what we have in the Gospels.
Anyway I want to get to the end where Spong gives his closing insights for us to live by:
"So while claiming to be a believer, and still asserting my deeply held commitment to Jesus as Lord and Christ, I also reckognize the I live in a state of exile from the presupposions of the religious past. I am exiled from the literal understandings that shaped the creed at its creation." (p.19)
Well, my charge would simply be that all those words in bold are literally meaningless without having any literal content.
"Lord" is just a dead word like calling Jesus "Mr." it is just a polite way of referring to Him. It doesn't mean He rules and reigns and is THE Lord (sovereign) over all of creation and all of my life. It no longer means that He is the one to whom I turn with ALL of my problems whether sickness, or any other "natural" problem. So yes, Spong is exiled from any real and meaningful use of "Lord", it is just a religious sounding word.
"Jesus" is no longer the Biblical God-man, but is reduced to a mere man, who probably existed. That said how can we call him Lord or Christ, he was just some guy. If he is neither the Lord of the universe nor the Christ (Messiah) what makes him worthy of being followed at all? Jesus=a religious sounding word.
"Christ" too is bereft of any real meaning, it too is just a religious sounding word. Spong has divorced it from it's original content of Jesus being "the anointed One" the Saviour of the world basically. The only Saviour, that is what Christ has always meant, now it is just a cute religious sounding word.
This is all we are left with when we reject the Bible as central, God as truly active in our world, and we assume the views of the culture we are surrounded by, we are left with unbelief and empty god words. So yes Spong may say "I am a believer", or "I am a Christian", but these words are empty and meaningless. All that is being said is I am a modern materialist who makes irrational mystical leaps and use religious god words (divorced from their meaning) to describe my mysticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment