Bishop Shelby Spong and evidence for resurrection, etc

[JohnClay]

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia
The late bishop "rejects the historical truth claims of some Christian doctrines, such as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus"
He seems to even be against the existence of a traditional God, etc.

9 Things You Should Know About Martin Luther King, Jr.
The pastor Martin Luther King Jr
"held unorthodox views on theology, which he expressed during his time at Crozer Theological Seminary. In a paper he wrote for a systematic theology class he cast skeptical aspersions on the doctrines of divine Sonship, the Virgin Birth (”. . . the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is too shallow to convince any objective thinker”), and the Resurrection (”. . . the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting”)

Did they reject those things because they thought there wasn't enough evidence? If the evidence is overwhelming why did they reject it? Were they tricked by Satan?

“the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19).

Were they using the "wisdom of this world"?

edit:
Would you consider MLK and the bishop to be Christians? Some Chrsitians say you have to believe in the resurrection to be a true Christian....

 

[Jonaitis]

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia
The late bishop "rejects the historical truth claims of some Christian doctrines, such as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus"
He seems to even be against the existence of a traditional God, etc.

9 Things You Should Know About Martin Luther King, Jr.
The pastor Martin Luther King Jr
"held unorthodox views on theology, which he expressed during his time at Crozer Theological Seminary. In a paper he wrote for a systematic theology class he cast skeptical aspersions on the doctrines of divine Sonship, the Virgin Birth (”. . . the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is too shallow to convince any objective thinker”), and the Resurrection (”. . . the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting”)

Did they reject those things because they thought there wasn't enough evidence? If the evidence is overwhelming why did they reject it? Were they tricked by Satan?

“the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19).

Were they using the "wisdom of this world"?

I'm not sure about John Shelby Spong, but I remember hearing that MLKJ was quite liberal in his beliefs, which surprised me at first. I would be curious to know the answers to those questions myself.

 

[Carl Emerson]

We are in a spiritual battle.

The Truth is spiritually discerned.

The deceiver is at work - like rust he never sleeps.

It seems neither of these persons had a healthy Fear of God that comes when one is truely born again.

The Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom.

 

[Aussie Pete]

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia
The late bishop "rejects the historical truth claims of some Christian doctrines, such as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus"
He seems to even be against the existence of a traditional God, etc.

9 Things You Should Know About Martin Luther King, Jr.
The pastor Martin Luther King Jr
"held unorthodox views on theology, which he expressed during his time at Crozer Theological Seminary. In a paper he wrote for a systematic theology class he cast skeptical aspersions on the doctrines of divine Sonship, the Virgin Birth (”. . . the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is too shallow to convince any objective thinker”), and the Resurrection (”. . . the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting”)

Did they reject those things because they thought there wasn't enough evidence? If the evidence is overwhelming why did they reject it? Were they tricked by Satan?

“the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19).

Were they using the "wisdom of this world"?

We are in the last of the last days. 1 Timothy 4:1
"Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons....."

The Bible is a spiritual book for spiritual people. "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18

"The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

John Shelby Spong was not a Christian. We shouldn't feel bad about rejecting him and his connection to Christianity. It might offend some minority of Episcopalians, since he was a Bishop in their Church, but in denying the literal truth of Christianity he ceased to be a Christian.

If MLK denied core doctrines of Christianity he too was not a Christian.

 

[BravoM]

Anyone who cherry picks God and the Bible like they do is not a Christian.

 

[Occams Barber]

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia
The late bishop "rejects the historical truth claims of some Christian doctrines, such as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus"
He seems to even be against the existence of a traditional God, etc.

9 Things You Should Know About Martin Luther King, Jr.
The pastor Martin Luther King Jr
"held unorthodox views on theology, which he expressed during his time at Crozer Theological Seminary. In a paper he wrote for a systematic theology class he cast skeptical aspersions on the doctrines of divine Sonship, the Virgin Birth (”. . . the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is too shallow to convince any objective thinker”), and the Resurrection (”. . . the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting”)

Did they reject those things because they thought there wasn't enough evidence? If the evidence is overwhelming why did they reject it? Were they tricked by Satan?

“the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19).

Were they using the "wisdom of this world"?

edit:
Would you consider MLK and the bishop to be Christians? Some Chrsitians say you have to believe in the resurrection to be a true Christian....

Sounds like Spong and MLK are two Christians I could learn to live with.

OB

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Sounds like Spong and MLK are two Christians I could learn to live with.

OB

Don't know about MLK but Spong wasn't a Christian.

 

[Occams Barber]

Don't know about MLK but Spong wasn't a Christian.

That reminds me of a similar quote about Scotsmen.

OB

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That reminds me of a similar quote about Scotsmen.

OB

So a Christian can be anything? Why have these words at all if they don't mean anything? Spong denied basic Christian teachings. His God was not the God of the trinity or the Lord Jesus but something else.

There's no fallacy here. At a certain point you can distinguish between a Scot and and Englishman.

 

[Occams Barber]

So a Christian can be anything? Why have these words at all if they don't mean anything? Spong denied basic Christian teachings. His God was not the God of the trinity or the Lord Jesus but something else.

There's no fallacy here. At a certain point you can distinguish between a Scot and and Englishman.

And yet he remained a celebrated Anglican Bishop until his death in 2021.

If his own Anglican Church accepted him as a Christian, who am I to argue?

OB

 

[PloverWing]

Did they reject those things because they thought there wasn't enough evidence?

I expect that's part of the picture. It's difficult at a distance of 2000 years to verify the miracles reported in the Bible, simply because it was so very long ago. To some extent, it depends on how much you trust the early church to have reported the events accurately.

As a side note on King: I don't know that I'd want to be held responsible for every term paper I wrote in college.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

And yet he remained a celebrated Anglican Bishop until his death in 2021.

If his own Anglican Church accepted him as a Christian, who am I to argue?

OB

The Episcopalian Church USA foolishly tolerated an open heretic (and in my opinion a non Christian) who undermined historic Anglican teaching. He was no C.S Lewis, he was no Alistair Mcgrath, he matches none of the great Anglican divines. His entire mission in life was to deconstruct faith along lines materialists and secularists find acceptable.

If you maintain he was an actual Christian, please tell me what was Christian about him. How does he compare to a truly great Christian like Augustine or Gregory the great? Compared to them the Episcopal Church's judgement means little.

 

[Occams Barber]

The Episcopalian Church USA foolishly tolerated an open heretic (and in my opinion a non Christian) who undermined historic Anglican teaching. He was no C.S Lewis, he was no Alistair Mcgrath, he matches none of the great Anglican divines. His entire mission in life was to deconstruct faith along lines materialists and secularists find acceptable.

If you maintain he was an actual Christian, please tell me what was Christian about him. How does he compare to a truly great Christian like Augustine or Gregory the great?

As an atheist I'm obviously not the one to determine who is or is not a Christian. That's for you lot to determine.

From my point of view it's a choice between the opinion of 'some anonymous guy on the internet' vs the Episcopal Church of the USA.

I'm indifferent either way but, if I must choose, the more rational choice is to go with the Church's opinion.

OB

 

[JohnClay]

The Episcopalian Church USA foolishly tolerated an open heretic (and in my opinion a non Christian) who undermined historic Anglican teaching. He was no C.S Lewis, he was no Alistair Mcgrath, he matches none of the great Anglican divines. His entire mission in life was to deconstruct faith along lines materialists and secularists find acceptable.

If you maintain he was an actual Christian, please tell me what was Christian about him. How does he compare to a truly great Christian like Augustine or Gregory the great? Compared to them the Episcopal Church's judgement means little.

I think his books are relatively famous. As far as being a true Christian goes - I think it is just about whether you are saved. So it comes down to whether believing the resurrection is just metaphorical is enough.... (though he also lacks a lot of other typical Christian beliefs)

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

As an atheist I'm obviously not the one to determine who is or is not a Christian. That's for you lot to determine.

From my point of view it's a choice between the opinion of 'some anonymous guy on the internet' vs the Episcopal Church of the USA.

I'm indifferent either way but, if I must choose, the more rational choice is to go with the Church's opinion.

OB

If you as an Atheist cannot determine who is and who is not a Christian, how do you determine yourself to not be one and Spong to be one? Does Christian mean anything as a noun? Or is it essentially nonsensical in that it describes nothing? I've seen Atheists claim to be Christians. I've seen Pagans and witches claim to be Christians. Do you agree with them or wait for some ecclesiastical authority to determine for you who is and who is not a Christian?

I may be a random internet person, but if the random internet person is right when the public facing actions of the Episcopalian Church are wrong, what does that say about the latter? If I take Episcopalians at their word, they claim adherence to the Nicene Creed. A Creed which Spong rejected in it's crucial articles. He neither believed in the concept of God in the creed and he could not bring himself to believe in the resurrection from the dead. He was a thorough going materialist who denied every supernatural state of faith encapsulated there.

One can be honest about this and admit Spong was something of a fraud. He presented himself as a Christian specifically to undermine Christianity from within (I believe this was his life's mission). His legacy is such that he only appeals to anti-Christian Materialists and Atheists. There are some liberal Christians he appeals to but even they have to deny his theological positions, lest they also be regarded as non-Christians. Those minority Anglicans/liberals, if they adhere to classical Anglicanism/Christianity at all, have a difficult problem in trying to rehabilitate Spong and make him acceptable. Because in making him acceptable they have to admit what their Church teaches is not absolute. Why bother having a Church then? It's merely a social club, not a sacred assembly of the faithful.

Why rely on the judgement of a Church which was cowardly in it's refusal to punish Spong or adhere to a Christian stance by excommunicating a heretic (and non-Christian) from among their ranks? Episcopalians who defend Spong can't offer any Christian reasoning rooted in scripture, tradition or even logic for accepting him, so their judgement is untrustworthy.

 

[PloverWing]

If you maintain he was an actual Christian, please tell me what was Christian about him.

I remember seeing some interviews with him, when he was Bishop of Newark. What I saw there was a pastor deeply concerned for the people in his diocese, many of whom were in need, and many of whom had been hurt by the church. That kind of care is Christlike.

His theology, of course, went way off the deep end by the end of his life. But I don't see him as a fraud out to undermine Christianity. Rather, I see him as a person trying to engage the central truths of Christianity in conversation with the scholarship and philosophical concepts of his own era -- a task that Christians must undertake in every generation.

We have room for that kind of exploration in the Episcopal Church (and in the Anglican Communion more generally). We don't go for heresy trials very often. Philosophical debate is more our style, and Bishop Spong was debated and critiqued by other Anglican theologians and bishops.

The summary of all this is: While his theology is not representative of mainstream Anglican thought, I saw great caring in his pastoral ministry, and even in his theological efforts. For these reasons, I am glad he served as Bishop of Newark, and I count him as my brother in Christ.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I remember seeing some interviews with him, when he was Bishop of Newark. What I saw there was a pastor deeply concerned for the people in his diocese, many of whom were in need, and many of whom had been hurt by the church. That kind of care is Christlike.

His theology, of course, went way off the deep end by the end of his life. But I don't see him as a fraud out to undermine Christianity. Rather, I see him as a person trying to engage the central truths of Christianity in conversation with the scholarship and philosophical concepts of his own era -- a task that Christians must undertake in every generation.

We have room for that kind of exploration in the Episcopal Church (and in the Anglican Communion more generally). We don't go for heresy trials very often. Philosophical debate is more our style, and Bishop Spong was debated and critiqued by other Anglican theologians and bishops.

The summary of all this is: While his theology is not representative of mainstream Anglican thought, I saw great caring in his pastoral ministry, and even in his theological efforts. For these reasons, I am glad he served as Bishop of Newark, and I count him as my brother in Christ.

If you count a non-Christian as your brother in Christ, I wonder what you make of Christianity in general. I guess Christianity to you, can be anything, we can reject the resurrection, we can reject the Trinity and all of those things Christians before us defended and upheld. If one doesn't need to be a Christian in order to be an Episcopalian, can it be said that your Church is still a Christian Church? It might be a majority Christian Church at this point in time, but not exclusively a Christian one. See the problem when you allow equal membership and status to non-Christians like Spong?

Spong might have cared for his dioceses and people, but was it Christlike? His mission in life was to undermine what Anglicanism actually teaches, deconstruct the faith along a materialist lens and morally progressive lens. He was both a coward and fraud for not leaving the Church. His intellectual journey had taken him beyond Christianity, even if he was somewhat connected to it emotionally and in his background. It's a temptation many of us can be sympathetic to, no one likes to leave a position of prominence, but he should have.

All Churches need room for exploration, but Spong went too far. In abandoning Christianity he should have faced some consequence by the Church. But the Episcopal Church refused, probably out of intellectual sympathy to him and cowardice. It is not a sin to excommunicate people, in fact for the body of Christ, it becomes essential, especially when said person undermines faith in our Lord. Why habour a man like Spong? It's like giving Richard Dawkins the position of Archbishop of Canterbury. Completely counter intuitive to the point of the Church itself.

 

[Sketcher]

I find Spong's expressed views to be inconsistent with the Apostle's Creed, so I don't see how he's Christian.

 

[Lukaris]

The OP said it when posting,


the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19).

Were they using the "wisdom of this world"?

Answer: Yes.