For Christians: Which of Spong's "Twelve points" do you agree with?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

EDIT: Number twelve was cut off.  The full text is: All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

For me: 1 (in certain contexts), 3, 6, 11, and 12.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

I vaguely agree with what he seems to mean by 3, 10, 11, and 12. I fully agree with none as phrased.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I vaguely agree with what he seems to mean by 3, 10, 11, and 12. I fully agree with none as phrased.

What aspect of the twelfth point don't you agree with?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

I vaguely agree with what he seems to mean by 3, 10, 11, and 12. I fully agree with none as phrased.

What aspect of the twelfth point don't you agree with?

...none, actually. I misread it because I've been awake for ten minutes (and am a flailing idiot in general the past couple of days). I fully agree with the twelfth point and partially with the third, tenth, and eleventh.

[DemPGH]

Wow. Good one - I have been educated. This man is a theologian, Scott? I had a glass of Chardonnay and I'm on a Cabernet Sauvignon now, but I think I'm reading those right. If so, I checked 13, but I agree with 1-6 and 9-11, disagree with 7, 8, and 12. It would be interesting to know this man's conception of God and, of course, religion. I think you posted some of his talks from Youtube, one of which I listened to. I liked what I heard. I wish that would become the norm in Christianity. If it did, I would find Christianity far less objectionable. My hopes that this catches on.

I would clarify that a virgin birth period is impossible (I'm not sure that he was implying that) and I would say that pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian mythology (pre-fall, post-fall) is nonsense by Francis Bacon's standards, not just Darwin's. But I wouldn't argue too much. Bacon was way advanced, though, and suspected plate tectonics, which is astonishing in an age when they still arrested people for witchcraft, and which fed Lyell's geological research, which fed Darwin's research.

Depending upon who you listen to, there are either 88 or 92 naturally occurring elements. I find greater spiritual edification in the amazing fact that they make basically everything in some form or another than this Medieval notion that God is a type of Santa Claus who sometimes answers prayers and sometimes does not, works miracles, made everything in six days, etc. based upon some unknown criteria. I think Spong is trying to raise Christianity above all that.

[© tweed]

whatever the substance there appears to be immense hubris in the fact that he directly compared these points to Luther's theses & called for their constituent part in a second reformation.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Wow. Good one - I have been educated. This man is a theologian, Scott? I had a glass of Chardonnay and I'm on a Cabernet Sauvignon now, but I think I'm reading those right. If so, I checked 13, but I agree with 1-6 and 9-11, disagree with 7, 8, and 12. It would be interesting to know this man's conception of God and, of course, religion. I think you posted some of his talks from Youtube, one of which I listened to. I liked what I heard. I wish that would become the norm in Christianity. If it did, I would find Christianity far less objectionable. My hopes that this catches on.

I would clarify that a virgin birth period is impossible (I'm not sure that he was implying that) and I would say that pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian mythology (pre-fall, post-fall) is nonsense by Francis Bacon's standards, not just Darwin's. But I wouldn't argue too much. Bacon was way advanced, though, and suspected plate tectonics, which is astonishing in an age when they still arrested people for witchcraft, and which fed Lyell's geological research, which fed Darwin's research.

Depending upon who you listen to, there are either 88 or 92 naturally occurring elements. I find greater spiritual edification in the amazing fact that they make basically everything in some form or another than this Medieval notion that God is a type of Santa Claus who sometimes answers prayers and sometimes does not, works miracles, made everything in six days, etc. based upon some unknown criteria. I think Spong is trying to raise Christianity above all that.

Yep.  He's a retired bishop and one of the leading voices for progressive Christianity.  Personally I find his modernist views a little radical (even Dawkins accredited the guy, for God's sake ), but I generally like him because I find he contributes something far better than what the fundamentalists and New Atheists have to offer.  I think if we had more thinkers like him in the religious conversation, it would be more about things Christians (liberals and conservatives) should talk about, or at least talk about far more often.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What a terribly boring individual.

[Blue3]

3, 8, 11, 12

I could have agreed with a few more if they were slightly altered.

[minionofmidas]

2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, and of course 13.

whatever the substance there appears to be immense hubris in the fact that he directly compared these points to Luther's theses & called for their constituent part in a second reformation.

Hubris? Or self-deprecation?

(Obviously hubris as he's a Protestant.)

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

whatever the substance there appears to be immense hubris in the fact that he directly compared these points to Luther's theses & called for their constituent part in a second reformation.

LOL. That belongs in the Real World Deluge.

What a terribly boring individual.

Yes, he can be quite the blowhard. Kind of the liberal Christian equivalent to Richard Dawkins in that respect (and obviously countless fundamentalists.)

But breaking the points down one by one:

1-This doesn't even make sense really. Disagree.
2-This is based off the first point which I already rejected, so obviously Disagree.
3-Half agree. "Post-Darwinian nonsense" is far too strong.
4-Way to completely miss the point. Disagree.
5-Once again missing the point. Disagree.
6-Somewhat agree but this is rather one dimensional thinking. More disagree than agree therefore.
7-Disagree.
8-Way to completely miss the point again! Disagree.
9-This I partially agree with, though it's a bit too absolute and one-dimensional. Still I'll say I more agree than disagree.
10-Disagree.
11-I agree with the wording here, though I'm sure I disagree with the conclusions he takes from that.
12-This is the only one I fully agree with.

So I half agree with 3, somewhat agree with 6, generally agree with 9 and 11 and fully agree with 12.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Yes, he can be quite the blowhard. Kind of the liberal Christian equivalent to Richard Dawkins in that respect (and obviously countless fundamentalists.)

I've met Spong, and that's a terrible comparison.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Yes, he can be quite the blowhard. Kind of the liberal Christian equivalent to Richard Dawkins in that respect (and obviously countless fundamentalists.)

I've met Spong, and that's a terrible comparison.

I'm sure he's not as much of an asshole personally, but the way of thinking is still the same. Dawkins actually argues things like "It's biologically impossible for someone to raise from the dead, therefore the Resurrection of Jesus is impossible, therefore Christianity is a lie." Spong's position is basically the same, just change the third part to "therefore we need to seriously reinterpret Christianity" and basically ends up making it something so different it's not exactly Christian anymore.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Yes, he can be quite the blowhard. Kind of the liberal Christian equivalent to Richard Dawkins in that respect (and obviously countless fundamentalists.)

I've met Spong, and that's a terrible comparison.

I'm sure he's not as much of an asshole personally, but the way of thinking is still the same. Dawkins actually argues things like "It's biologically impossible for someone to raise from the dead, therefore the Resurrection of Jesus is impossible, therefore Christianity is a lie." Spong's position is basically the same, just change the third part to "therefore we need to seriously reinterpret Christianity" and basically ends up making it something so different it's not exactly Christian anymore.

But what's so objectionable about Dawkins is the fact that he lacks all understanding of the issues under discussion and gives the ineluctable impression of arguing in bad faith, and you don't get that with Spong. He's just swallowed entirely too many basically naturalist/materialist assumptions for a Christian thinker--you'll find no disagreement on my part there.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

You know what, let me do these one-by-one too. (Beware! This is going to be an effortpost!)

Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

Why is theism dead? Who or what killed it? Can it be resurrected? (Our faith proclaims the Resurrection of God, after all, compared to which the resurrection of 'a way of defining God' doesn't seem like such a tall order. But, as we shall see, Spong has odd ideas about the Resurrection of God, too.) If it is 'dead' in the sense of no longer being an idea that serious men doing serious things are capable of taking seriously, why does that have any bearing whatsoever on its value in the life of the Church? I don't see how any of the three sentences here follows from or implies either of the other two.

Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

This relies on assuming the first point, which I don't.

The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

I partially agree with this in that the story of the Fall is obviously mythological in character and import, but there's no reason why that should suddenly change into nonsense after Darwin. Darwin only makes it nonsense if one doesn't take it to be mythological originally. The fact that Spong appears to consider mythology on roughly the same order as nonsense is troubling.

The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

It's not at all clear that one should understand it as literal biology because it's explicitly supposed to be a miracle. Saying that Christ's miraculous conception which suspended the rules of biology is impossible if one assumes that the rules of biology apply is in effect saying literally nothing at all.

The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

Spong's rejection of miracles is, again, begging the question, and this point appears to follow from the first two, which are, as I said above, insufficiently defined and not even internally rigorous. I'm also not sure why Spong cites Newton as the cut-off point. Does he think people were simply unaware that miracle stories describe events that are supernatural and not the normal order of things before Principia Mathematica came out and taught them this fact?

The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

I have no idea what Spong means by 'barbarian' or 'primitive' and certainly don't think that it's automatically the case that something that is 'barbarian' and 'primitive' 'must be dismissed'! It's as if he's unaware that a variety of perfectly staid, orthodox theories of Atonement are already available for him to choose from, work with, or modify to his heart's content, including at least a few that aren't by any means penal or even substitutionary.

Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

This simply makes no sense to me. 'Therefore' isn't adequately explained. The first sentence is obvious, the second sentence strikes me as either adoptionist or New-Age theobabble or both, and the third sentence neither follows from either of the first two nor explains what else the Resurrection would be (although I can hazard a guess at what he's trying to imply).

The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The idea that the important feature of the Ascension is Jesus physically going upwards through the atmosphere is so absurdly literal-minded that I'm afraid I must be missing something here.

There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

This is something of a truism insofar as obviously ethical behavior does in fact change over time regardless of what any given scripture purportedly has to say about it and interpretations of text likewise do in fact change (meaning that there cannot be an 'objective' written standard in the strictest sense), but Spong appears to be embracing a much more radical version of moral relativism than that, which I don't think is compatible with the basics of Christian belief even in theory. I wouldn't say I agree with what it seems he's trying to say here at all.

Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

Agreed to the extent that ultimately it is God's will that is done, not that of the person praying, disagreed in that Spong appears to regard this as saying something about God's capacity to respond to prayers in this way rather than the occasional disinclination implied by His immutability.

The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

The Church must abandon its reliance on guilt, yes, but if people don't feel guilty at all when they've sinned then we're going to have a problem on our hands.

All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

Entirely in agreement.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

God can do what is biologically impossible (such as a virgin birth or raising someone from the dead), so obviously not that one.  I don't think I agree with any of these.

[DemPGH]

Scott and / or Nathan,

How representative would you say Spong is of the American Episcopal Church? Just generally.

I notice that he is retired, so it could be that he might have a great deal of leeway. Nonetheless, I will admit that this is quite impressive for Religion in America, and I will note that I think he pretends to know as little as possible beyond the physical, which impresses me - again, by religious standards. I really cannot stand to listen to people drone on about what they think God thinks or did or does now or wants or whatever. Because they're making it up, IMO. Spong seems to do as little of that as he possibly can. Granted, there are three points here on which I disagree - and I think he probably "makes up ground" with a more religious base with those: 7, 8, and 12. But the overall eclipses it mostly, I think. Because you can say God is the sum total laws of the universe if you want to - not that any Christians would do that, but they could.

I see this thinking as definitely fresh, and while I will not be finding myself in any church, I find Spong worth listening to, and I may recommend him to some folks I know.

Re: the virgin birth: It's a really crucial element in the story. If you take it out, you're probably left with something else. Now unless we're talking about artificial insemination, in which case we'd be talking about human DNA (not Ghost DNA - can Ghost DNA be demonstrated?), any faithful or non-faithful person is very right to call that into question.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Scott and / or Nathan,

How representative would you say Spong is of the American Episcopal Church? Just generally.

Spong is representative of a relatively respectable strand of theology in the Episcopal Church, since he was after all a bishop for a quarter of a century (and most of his work in fact was published before his retirement), but very definitely at the liberal end of the spectrum of what's considered 'normal' Episcopal thought. He's somewhat more liberal than the current Church leadership, which is very liberal indeed, but not as liberal as Kevin Thew Forrester, whose election as Bishop of Northern Michigan was declared null and void by the General Convention back in 2009. Being so liberal as to be practically a Unitarian Universalist on all but ecclesiology and liturgy is forgivable in the Episcopal Church, though not exactly encouraged, thank God. Coming across as a flaky hippie while so being, which Forrester does and Spong doesn't, is not.

Much of the theology being done in Episcopalian seminaries these days is similarly liberal to Spong in terms of its actual conclusions about the things that you would consider political issues, and it's been--rightly, in my view--criticized for not having especially many explicit points of reference to more traditional Christian doctrine, but at the very least it respects the Christian story as a narrative and uses religious language rather than that of the so-called higher criticism. There is also, however, a viciously conservative strain in Episcopalianism, these days present mostly in Southern and Midwestern dioceses and dependent more on support from Anglicans in Latin America and Africa than from the national church bodies, many of whose advocates have been leading their flocks into schism of late in ways that really aren't to anybody's credit.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

A guy who holds to generally orthodox Christian theology (not that Forrester does necessarily, I'm not too familiar with him) but also practices Buddhist meditation would strike me as far more acceptable than someone who preaches what Spong does but doesn't meditate.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Forrester's theological views are similar to Spong's, and he also tried to change the liturgy in a way that did not go over well.

You can read a critique of Spong's twelve points written by Rowan Williams when he was Bishop of Monmouth here, by the way.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

that way being?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

that way being?

He changed the words of the baptismal covenant to replace the Renunciations with 'invitations to let go of self-deceit, fear, and anger' and remove references to Jesus as Savior (instead he becomes, and I'm quoting Forrester here, 'Way of Life') without asking anybody if he could. Spong did the liturgy by the book, if nothing else.

[DemPGH]

Scott and / or Nathan,

How representative would you say Spong is of the American Episcopal Church? Just generally.

Spong is representative of a relatively respectable strand of theology in the Episcopal Church, since he was after all a bishop for a quarter of a century (and most of his work in fact was published before his retirement), but very definitely at the liberal end of the spectrum of what's considered 'normal' Episcopal thought. He's somewhat more liberal than the current Church leadership, which is very liberal indeed, but not as liberal as Kevin Thew Forrester, whose election as Bishop of Northern Michigan was declared null and void by the General Convention back in 2009. Being so liberal as to be practically a Unitarian Universalist on all but ecclesiology and liturgy is forgivable in the Episcopal Church, though not exactly encouraged, thank God. Coming across as a flaky hippie while so being, which Forrester does and Spong doesn't, is not.

Much of the theology being done in Episcopalian seminaries these days is similarly liberal to Spong in terms of its actual conclusions about the things that you would consider political issues, and it's been--rightly, in my view--criticized for not having especially many explicit points of reference to more traditional Christian doctrine, but at the very least it respects the Christian story as a narrative and uses religious language rather than that of the so-called higher criticism. There is also, however, a viciously conservative strain in Episcopalianism, these days present mostly in Southern and Midwestern dioceses and dependent more on support from Anglicans in Latin America and Africa than from the national church bodies, many of whose advocates have been leading their flocks into schism of late in ways that really aren't to anybody's credit.

Really fascinating - I had no idea that it was quite that liberal. Scott's post kind of stopped me in my tracks a little bit. I know very little about the Episcopal Church - I can say that its reputation is of a "more liberal version of the Catholic Church," but it sounds substantially more liberal than that. There is a fairly large Unitarian Universalist church around, and I know several folks who more or less think the way I do and who attend because they find it enriching. Who knows, I may just get curious enough one day to walk in to either of these.

I know there's (well, was - not sure what the status is now) an ideological / schismatic split in the Presbyterian Church with a radically conservative  element trying to break off or else influence the more liberal element, but it's good to see the "liberal majority," at least in the Episcopal case, holding firm!

A guy who holds to generally orthodox Christian theology (not that Forrester does necessarily, I'm not too familiar with him) but also practices Buddhist meditation would strike me as far more acceptable than someone who preaches what Spong does but doesn't meditate.

BRTD, I'm a little confused - you disapprove strongly of Spong, but obviously think very highly of hipster Christianity?

[Robert California]

Not many of these seem very Christian as I've understood the meaning.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

A guy who holds to generally orthodox Christian theology (not that Forrester does necessarily, I'm not too familiar with him) but also practices Buddhist meditation would strike me as far more acceptable than someone who preaches what Spong does but doesn't meditate.

BRTD, I'm a little confused - you disapprove strongly of Spong, but obviously think very highly of hipster Christianity?

Spong isn't a hipster, he's some guy who attention whores while promoting some sort of pantheist theology that most certainly is not Christian.