DiscussMormonism.com

This is the title of Spong's just-off-the-press latest. Haven't read it yet. But i paste below a paragraph from his recent News Letter. Highly recommend the letter...

Why do we not understand that every explanation of anything is filtered through the presuppositions, the world view and the level of knowledge available to the explainer? That is why every explanation is both time-bound and time-warped. 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. 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. When that truth is realized, all ecclesiastical claims about possessing unchanging and ultimate truth are relativized. Every reformation begins in this understanding. It was my intention in this book first to establish that truth and then to draw from it startling and necessary conclusions.

I think the above should be understood--agreed with or not--so as to get the whole theologigical influence into a reality perspective. Seems folks have little difficulty doing this considering past sciences as simple beginnings to more complex and functionary steps which have led humanity to: blah, blah, blah... You name 'em...

Why do we seem to remain stuck in the quick-sand when it comes to things of the Spirit, as that is defined by religious rigors?? "What fools these mortals be!" Warm regards, Roger

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 wrote: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

I guess the issue that this stems from is that we are at heart small group social animals. Anything that threatens the group could literaly cause you to die due to lack of support. This has been true to most of the world untill only very recently.(even then, only for a pie slice of the world) And since religion usualy is a basis for making those groups. It has evolved to make sure that such groups are elitest and can keep its members within the group as much as possible. The new evolution of this is rather interesting, as such religious areas such as paganism in general re-asserts itself since it is a personalized expression of your beliefs without having a threat on a group if you have views that could be considered dissenting.

Thanks for that Roger.

Someone on Post Mormon.org recommended Spong to me, and it was an exhilarating experience to read his book

'Why Christianity must Change or Die'

He put into words a lot of what I had been thinking about christianity and the Bible.

Great stuff. I shall check his latest work out.

Mary

Why do we not understand that every explanation of anything is filtered through the presuppositions, the world view and the level of knowledge available to the explainer? That is why every explanation is both time-bound and time-warped. 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. 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. When that truth is realized, all ecclesiastical claims about possessing unchanging and ultimate truth are relativized. Every reformation begins in this understanding. It was my intention in this book first to establish that truth and then to draw from it startling and necessary conclusions.

It seems to me that Spong has contradicted himself.

That is why every explanation is both time-bound and time-warped. Does it include this statement?

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?

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

I could go on, but Spong's a pretty stupid cookie. He didn't do very well against Erwin Lutzer of Moody Church on WGN radio in 1998.

Richard. He goes further in some areas than I would go, but I don't think you can call him a 'stupid cooky'.

What I got from him is that he tries to take out the myth from religion and religious works, and see them as they are -
valuable myths. To a great extent I agree with him. Adam and Eve are powerful stories, as is the story of Noah's Ark, but
I don't think many would regard them as fact.

I like his path away from fundamentalism.

Three theologians were on a British TV prog some time ago, and one said

'dogma is the death of spirituality'

I 'think' I understand that, and I think that Spong kind of heads that way too.

Can you be specific on what you think of his ideas?
It's an interesting area..

richardMdBorn wrote:

Why do we not understand that every explanation of anything is filtered through the presuppositions, the world view and the level of knowledge available to the explainer? That is why every explanation is both time-bound and time-warped. 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. 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. When that truth is realized, all ecclesiastical claims about possessing unchanging and ultimate truth are relativized. Every reformation begins in this understanding. It was my intention in this book first to establish that truth and then to draw from it startling and necessary conclusions.

It seems to me that Spong has contradicted himself.

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?

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"?


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?

I could go on, but Spong's a pretty stupid cookie. He didn't do very well against Erwin Lutzer of Moody Church on WGN radio in 1998.

I can't comment on the 1998, interview. I didn't see it. However, i will comment on your statement; "...Spong's a pretty stupid cookie." In my seriously considered opinion, (IMSCO) it demeans you more than it does Spong. Be that as it may.

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...

Mis taken:Roger... What I got from him is that he tries to take out the myth from religion and religious works, and see them as they are -
valuable myths. To a great extent I agree with him. Adam and Eve are powerful stories, as is the story of Noah's Ark, but
I don't think many would regard them as fact. RM: Nor do i.

I like his path away from fundamentalism. RM: So do i!

Three theologians were on a British TV prog some time ago, and one said

'dogma is the death of spirituality' RM: I agree. There is no spontaneity, or warmth in 'dogma'. It is uncompromising, legalistic and "killeth the Spirit".

I 'think' I understand that, and I think that Spong kind of heads that way too. RM: i would say so too. I think Spong attempts to bring justice back into Christianism. A justice that long ago was compromised by social discriminations, prejudices and blatant indifference to the caring-for-all messages Jesus delivered. Caring that even Isaiah expressed: "...to preach good tidings unto the meek...bind up the broken hearted...liberty to the captives...opening the prison to those that are bound..." (Isa. 61:1) Those are things of Conscienced Spirit that should base Christianism. Not Fall, Redemption, and Salvation in Isolation...

Can you be specific on what you think of his ideas? It's an interesting area..

It is a most interesting area AND 'era'! I think Spong is the latest, and the best publicized at the moment, to question with scholarly-common-sense what has been evolving since "Man" dared to question "God's" word... What and how much of Bible text and tale can be taken seriously as anything beyond docudrama? Does accepting it in that light darken its moral significance? Not to anyone who experiences honest loving relationships.

It could however threaten those whose strength comes from authoritative dominion over submissive souls who place their confidence in others, and their loyality to institutions. Only the most noble will abandon their places of power, stepping aside to facilitate humanity's advancement... Blah, blah, blah...

John said, "...one comes greater than i..." Can you imagine a Political, Social, Religious Leader saying the same thing today? Warm regards, Roger

I took a course from the well known scholar Jonathan Z. Smith at the U of Chicago. It was over a decade ago, so I don’t recall the title, but we read a lot of deconstructionists/postmodernists, etc. This section from Spong reminds me of that nonsense.

1950s-1960s comedian Tom Lehrer said

“Speaking of love, one problem that recurs more and more frequently these days in books,and plays,and movies on, is the inability of people to communicate with the people they love. Husbands and wives who can't communicate; children who can't communicate with their parents, and so on. And the characters in these books, and plays, and so on, and in real life, I might add, spend hours bemoaning the fact that they can't communicate. I feel that if a person can't communicate the very least he can do is to shut up.”

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.

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

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 Spong's and am not impressed.

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