Jesus For The Non-religious

[_Gazelam]

Roger, how long have you been following Spong? it sounds like his ideas are very similar to those expressed in your book. Very interesting read bytheway. Alot to take in on every page.

Q: Why does a man like Spong, who is a supposed Christian, deny that Christ is the only way? What are his views regarding Baptism? How does he interpret John 3:3-5?

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Rich, am i to take this statement of yours seriously? (Looks like i messed up on the "Quote" button? So i'll improv with """"xyz""""....
""""If you believe, like Spong, that there is no such thing as a creed, then don’t give me your own version of a creed. If you think that all arguments are time bound, then spare me and shut up."""" (Bold Added)

Please answer this for me, "to be taken seriously"? Yes or no? Respectfully, Roger

Hi Roger,

Thanks for your reply. My new responses start with my name is Caps.

Hi Rich, you have an interesting perspective. I'll attempt my response to your response in UL
That is why every explanation is both time-bound and time-warped. Does it include this statement?

RM: Do you think it could do otherwise?

RICH If every statement is time bound, why should I pay any attention to Spong? Even if his statement is true today, it may be false tomorrow.

That is also why there can be no such thing as an infallible set of human propositions called a creed or an inerrant piece of human writing called a Bible. Is this Spong's infallible proposition?

RM: Do you think Spong pretends "infallibility"?

RICH Well, he was pretty obnoxious to conservative Anglican theologians from Africa.

Spong was interviewed for The Church of England Newspaper by its deputy editor, Andrew Carey, who happens to be the Archbishop of Canterbury's son. Africans, said Spong, had "moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity." They had not "faced the intellectual revolution" of the West or the discoveries of Copernicus and Einstein.
The Africans, understandably, were furious. "He is really looking down on us," fumed a Ugandan bishop. "I am portrayed as someone who does not know Scripture or doctrine."

"If they feel patronized, that's too bad," replied Spong. "I'm not going to cease being a twentieth-century person for fear of offending somebody in the Third World."

"Scientific advances," Spong also said, "have given us a new understanding of homosexual people." The Bishop of Enugu in Nigeria, on the other hand, flatly told the General Secretary of the Gay and Lesbian Christian Movement, "You will go to hell." No spin-doctor could spin that sort of disagreement away. An evasive resolution was dropped, and, after a courteous debate, a resolution declaring homosexual practice to be "incompatible with Scripture" was passed by an unexpectedly large majority of 7 to 1. This, announced the gay lobby, was "the unacceptable face of Christianity." The American liberals made it clear they were not going to change their position -- any more than Bishop Spong is going to tell Africans, let alone Afro-Americans, in any other context that they are only just down from the trees.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_21123144

RM: Obviously you have a negative opinion of Spong. So be it. I think you tend to word bandering that i find far below the discussion level i expect from claimants of advanced education: "...only just down from the trees" ... really Rich!!?

AND, what is your position re our Homosexual kin? Do you think, "...(they) will go to hell"?

Clearly, Spong thinks that he is right and people me are wrong. But I argue that his position makes it impossible to assert that certain things are right or wrong.

It is, therefore, nothing but an illusory power play when the church claims that its sacred formularies have somehow escaped the obvious subjectivity of words. Does it apply to this statement

RM: What makes you think it wouldn't?

RICH The fact that Spong takes the trouble of arguing.

Rich, i don't know your background. (Care to fill me in? LDS? Non?) Do you consider youself to be a 'thinker' or a 'believer'? I assume from your comments, the latter??? Why not "think" about Spong's propositions? He is after-all a more leading "Thinker" than either You or Me...

RICH I’m an evangelical and never was LDS. I grew up in the DC area. My father played a major role in the space program. He invented GPS for example (and received the National Medal of Technology from the President last year). I have degrees from Brown U and the University of Chicago. I finished the course work for an MA in church history from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. As I wrote in my previous post, I’ve read a lot of similar texts to Spongs and am not impressed.

[b]RM: Congratulations to your Dad! I use a GPS on my boat. But have to admit there are things 'it' can do, that 'i' haven't mastered as yet. Maybe you could do a book "GPS For Idiots"...i think it would be a BIG seller ;-)

I’m busy working on a history of GPS. See my article:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/626/1[/b]

As you are an Evangelical, i understand your objection to Spong on all fronts. I'm sure he is an offence to all that you believe to be "God's" word. The migration of a small number of Episcopalians/Anglicans to attach to an African Dioceses to distance themselves from its New NA Christian positions on social issues is common knowledge. And not unexpected. I could send you some stats as to #s etc. FYI, ex-Bishop Tutu, and other prominents, strongly support Spong on the homosexual issue. As for his other propositions they are up for discussion. Of interest to you???

I hope you don't find these few minutes unworthy of your time... Warm regards, Roger

[_Roger Morrison]

Roger, how long have you been following Spong? it sounds like his ideas are very similar to those expressed in your book. Very interesting read bytheway. Alot to take in on every page.

Q: Why does a man like Spong, who is a supposed Christian, deny that Christ is the only way? What are his views regarding Baptism? How does he interpret John 3:3-5?

Hi Gaz: I'm glad you're finding my book an "interesting read" :-) It was a work-in-progress for more than a decade. Spong came after the book. Actually i gave him a copy after a lecture he gave in Canada a few years ago. Yes, we do share some similar thoughts. Although, i think he MIGHT stop short of where i am tending to go... As for Baptism, i think we both see it as symbolic and an initiatory rite. That it has inherant Spiritual power, i doubt. It could however mean more to one individual than another. That individual might then 'feel' a significance that another would not...

Not sure what Spong says about John 3:3-5. But here's how i interpret it: "a person be born again...of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of "God" Shortened to emphasis the significant--change of character is essentially Spiritual. The Kingdom is a place of peace and goodwill. A place that would discomfort a brutish, fearful person. Turning away from past practices that demeaned others towards the Two New Commandments demonstrates purpose AND accomplishment.

The 'water' is, IMSCO, simply a symbol and ritual... An outward sign, that may or may not be followed with an inner change... There is no magic in the water. It isn't holy. Thus the mode, immersion, sprinkling, etc is immaterial. The Spiritual change is all that is important--as i understand it... Many watered that bear rather poor fruit... Ya know what i'm saying, Bro?? Warm regards, Roger

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi Roger,

As you are an Evangelical, i understand your objection to Spong on all fronts.

It goes beyond that. As someone who thinks that words have meaning, Spong is an offense to me. The deconstructionists were an offense to me. It’s similar to Marx discussing how arguments are bound by class consciousness but exempting himself.

I'm sure he is an offence to all that you believe to be "God's" word. The migration of a small number of Episcopalians/Anglicans to attach to an African Dioceses to distance themselves from its New NA Christian positions on social issues is common knowledge. And not unexpected. I could send you some stats as to #s etc. FYI, ex-Bishop Tutu, and other prominents, strongly support Spong on the homosexual issue. As for his other propositions they are up for discussion. Of interest to you???

List one that’s of particular interest to you.

[_Mary]

Roger, apologies over mistaking your name with Richard's.
I have now corrected my post.

Hope you guys carry on. This is an interesting conversation.
I'll have to organise my thoughts a bit more before I chip in.

Mary

[_Mary]

Before I go out for the day.

One thought that comes to mind is whether or not Spong's works have any relevance today.

I think they do. Christianity over here is (other than in name only) very much dying on the vine.
Many can't relate to it in terms of the reality of their own culture and needs.

In this way I see Spong as trying to bridge the gap between today's scientific advances and what really is
a very antiquated and inaccessible culture such as is portrayed in the Bible.

His message, and hopefully the message of Jesus of Nazareth is still the same though in dynamic terms.
The core message of Jesus to love others and yourself and in so doing love God is the same.
Everything else is just fluff.

Just a few thoughts.

Mary

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Roger,

As you are an Evangelical, i understand your objection to Spong on all fronts.

It goes beyond that. As someone who thinks that words have meaning, Spong is an offense to me. The deconstructionists were an offense to me. It’s similar to Marx discussing how arguments are bound by class consciousness but exempting himself.

I'm sure he is an offence to all that you believe to be "God's" word. The migration of a small number of Episcopalians/Anglicans to attach to an African Dioceses to distance themselves from its New NA Christian positions on social issues is common knowledge. And not unexpected. I could send you some stats as to #s etc. FYI, ex-Bishop Tutu, and other prominents, strongly support Spong on the homosexual issue. As for his other propositions they are up for discussion. Of interest to you???

List one that’s of particular interest to you.

Rich, i don't take offense from words. They simply transport thoghts that i might agree, or disagree with. Then i go on from there. BUT always with a better understanding--from my perspective, right or wrong--of the person i'm communicating with. Always more 'enlightened'... One thing though, among others ;-) that does trouble me is 'labels': "Deconstructionist/ism" as an example... they too often seem elitist or parochial... You know what i'm saying???

You haven't answere my question re "Homosexuality"??? Were you in a snitt when using the term "shut up!"??? Whatever... "List one..."
How about "Biblical literacy"... Eve from Adam's rib??

Mary, thanks for your interest, and thoughts. I look forward to sharing with You.

Pasted below is a paragraph from Spong's response to a question re his understanding of "life everlasting". I think it will interest both You & Richard, as well as others:

Don Cupitt has written many books since The Sea of Faith, but all of them assume the analysis developed in this monumental and groundbreaking work. Over the course of these successive books he developed his concept of "Non-Realism." He says that all God talk is conducted in a language that human beings have created and therefore all God talk is a human creation. With that I am in full agreement. He then concludes that God is, therefore, only the creation of human language and that there is no reality to which that language points. With that conclusion I totally disagree. While I am certain that the word "God" is a human attempt, in admittedly human language, to describe a human experience, I affirm that the experience is real. We call the God experience "otherness," "transcendence," or even "the holy." We recognize that this reality is not capable of being defined, but that inability does not make this experience unreal. I will not claim for my language or the language of the Bible, creeds or doctrines any sense of ultimacy, inerrancy or infallibility. I do believe, however, those words point to a reality that is transforming and consciousness-raising and that this reality invites me into having the courage to be more than I have been before. So I stand before this undefined presence that I call God, in awe and wonder. God is real to me. I create my definitions of God, but I do not create the God experience. So I am theologically a "Realist" not a "non-Realist." I still admire and profit from Don Cupitt's work and I still claim him as a special friend.

I think this displays Spong as being less off-the-mark than some might think... I haven't read Cupitt as yet, but a visit to the library should remedy that... Warm regards, Roger

[_richardMdBorn]

My new comments are in bold.

Roger Rich, i don't take offense from words. They simply transport thoghts that i might agree, or disagree with. Then i go on from there. BUT always with a better understanding--from my perspective, right or wrong--of the person i'm communicating with. Always more 'enlightened'... One thing though, among others ;-) that does trouble me is 'labels': "Deconstructionist/ism" as an example... they too often seem elitist or parochial... You know what i'm saying???

Richard If you don’t like generalities all we will left with are specifics.

Roger You haven't answere my question re "Homosexuality"??? Were you in a snitt when using the term "shut up!"???

Richard I wasn’t upset with you. I was upset with Spong. I rarely get upset with folks from the MB, as those who have interacted with me form ZLMB can attest. Sorry, I missed your new comments in the long quote. I thought it was just repeating our previous discussion. You need to highlight your new text for me. Let’s deal with homosexuality rather than Adam and Eve. I think that will be of more general interest to the MB than Genesis.

Roger Obviously you have a negative opinion of Spong. So be it. I think you tend to word bandering that i find far below the discussion level i expect from claimants of advanced education: "...only just down from the trees" ... really Rich!!?

Richard You are confusing the quote with my original text.
“in any other context that they are only just down from the trees.” was from the article. I cited the source just underneath it.

Roger AND, what is your position re our Homosexual kin? Do you think, "...(they) will go to hell"?

Richard We need to back up a level or two. Is there any sexual relationship that you consider wrong? Is there any sexual relationship forbidden in the Bible which is still forbidden? I assume that you would agree that rape is wrong. How about incest? If the prohibition on homosexuality is to be reinterpreted, how do you justify continuing the prohibition against incest. Can sons and mothers get married? How about the possibility of two or more women marrying two or more men. If the world sets the agenda for the church, where does it end?

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Rich, i just sat down, and up you came! Timing or what :-) Thanks for the clarifications... You say:

Richard You are confusing the quote with my original text.
“in any other context that they are only just down from the trees.” was from the article. I cited the source just underneath it.

Right, i missed the source: A Spong detractor. I'm sure they're not Spong's words. Glad they weren't yours.

Let’s deal with homosexuality rather than Adam and Eve. I think that will be of more general interest to the MB than Genesis.

I think your opinion of "Adam and Eve" in Genesis MIGHT be quite germain to your position on Homosexuality. Certainly literalism, and biblical inerrancy will be the trust of both of our positions--i suspect?? Actually, i think the MB would be VERY interested in the Genesis roots of a lot of the confusion in both the religious and secular communities. As it ever has been... IF you will indicate your sentiments re Adam & Eve & Genesis, it will be very helpful to all...

Richard We need to back up a level or two. Is there any sexual relationship that you consider wrong? Is there any sexual relationship forbidden in the Bible which is still forbidden? I assume that you would agree that rape is wrong. How about incest? If the prohibition on homosexuality is to be reinterpreted, how do you justify continuing the prohibition against incest. Can sons and mothers get married? How about the possibility of two or more women marrying
two or more men. If the world sets the agenda for the church, where does it end?

I'm disappointed you chose to "...assume..." so much of what i might consider "wrong". To then surreptitiously relate that to suppositions and imaginings irrelevant to the specific, "homosexual relationships" seems a bit manipulative. Can you see that from my side? At the negotiating-table we might consider that "bad-faith-bargaing". Be that as it may, you've played your hand... Where to from here???

Do you believe "Homosexual Relationships" to be evil, and leading those involved to Hell? "IF" so, can you substantiate that--other than from biblical text? How do you see the Homosexual community as a part of our greater society? Warm regards, Roger

[_Sam Harris]

Hey Roger, I like Spong. I just started reading some of his stuff. I find it refreshingly amazing that a bishop can take such an honest look at his faith. This is the type of honest belief I've been looking for within my own walk. I cannot insist that Christianity is THE ONLY WAY (and boy have the effigies been hauled out at that one!), it's just MY WAY, my choice.

I wonder what is so frightening about admitting that what you see is merely your perception?

GIMR, good question. Could it be insecurity? Lack of confidence? Fear of the dark? The last not meant to be facetious. Rather 'dark' brings a tendency that compels folks to pull their blinds down, lock their doors and cover their heads until sun-up...

Suppositions; but en mass we're not adventurous, exploratory, creative, inventive nor thinkers... Generally speaking, we are conditioned to BELIEVE. Extremely so in LDSism where the "iron rod" rules. Just hang-on-tight, follow the leaders, and don't ask critical questions...

Threaten/challenge our beliefs, or the system that substantiates our beliefs, can do anything and everything to us, from cause embarrassement to make us kill; defensively AND offensively!

Such a pityful state of humanity, IMSCO, displays our faith-based Christianism to be diametrically opposed to the ways-and-means of Jesusism. Hence we flounder in an ineffectual philosophy scrambling to justify its existance by appealing to human weakness and fears while debilitating too many with guilt and self-doubt. In the case of LDSism they offer the one-and-only fix-all IF YOU Believe and OBEY. That too is frightening...

Yikes! They are threatening my beliefs!!!! How embarrassing :-) Warm regards, Roger

LOL. I have thought about this a lot, and I think that science, and all that it has brought into our lives has really been an affront on Christianity. That's why there's such a huge war against it, that's why there are folks in Christianity who are saying that global warming is a hoax. Why worry, Jesus will be here soon! Where in space is God? Can we still see God as being "up there" (up there is down on the other side of the planet, are they wrong, or are we?). Are cancer patients really being punished for sin? I mean, WTH, are we still stuck in such prosaic beliefs?

What about those folks down the street who pray to Allah? Should we be friends with them? How about those Buddhists?

I cannot for the life of me find where Jesus taught to hate and be suspicious of other people. Yet, we see this in fundamentalist Christianity. And since the Bible is supposed to be the WORD of God, it's ok to quote Paul, or Deuteronomy to make your point, and say Jesus said it. When asked to quote Jesus, you get a workout (the runaround).

I think that for many people, the role of religion is to provide spiritual safety in numbers. Since none of us are dead, and we don't know what comes next, it's reassuring to see people doing what you're doing, even if what you're doing is cruel and spiritually disenfranchises another. Instead of looking to see if your beliefs are indeed ethical, many turn to fantasies of the rewards they'll get in heaven to blot out the ring of their hypocrisy.

en mass we're not adventurous, exploratory, creative, inventive nor thinkers... Generally speaking, we are conditioned to BELIEVE.

The very first class I took in school this year said just that. We are conditioned to believe...even claims of not believing are in themselves a belief.

Extremely so in LDSism where the "iron rod" rules. Just hang-on-tight, follow the leaders, and don't ask critical questions...

And don't let your life pose a critical question to them, either. I have a friend who is LDS, and it seems that the only way I can see him these days is at an FHE. I go for the food, nothing else really "feeds" me there. Talks on the importance of tithing and missionary work just don't do it for me anymore, there are people out there starving in more ways than one, and this is all that can be discussed?

Well, the last dinner I was at, people recognized me from the old ward. To save the atmosphere (*gasp* apostate in our midst), I told a half-truth. I said that the reason why I was no longer LDS was because I was studying to become a pastor. The call has come, but I haven't answered yet, due to questions I pose about the content of my own character in such a vocation (I lack many things, patience being number one). Well, my friend who just loves to judge and analyze the world (who also cowers when I chew him out about it, but keeps doing it) has now held me to that. Since I'm studying to be a pastor, I need to do and behave as he sees fit according to his stringent LDS beliefs.

Perhaps I should have let the cat out of the bag and said the real reason(s) why I left the church. But that caused a three-ring-circus the last time.