Bishop Spong?????

[Ima Knerd]

Jesus did not "believe in"
God. He knew God. This is an important difference.

 

[Christsoldier]

He was God in the flesh.

 

[Ima Knerd]

The heresy known as "docetism" comes from the Greek word dokeo, which means "to appear" or "seem." Docetism is the notion that though Jesus appeared to be human, he was really God.

So ironically, one of the earliest heresies in Christian tradition is still thought by many people--Christians and non-Christians alike--to be the orthodox Christian position.

 

[Christsoldier]

Let me ask you this: If Jesus wasn't God in the flesh, why were all the early Apostles so willing to die for a myth? Why has christianity stuck around as long as it has?

 

[Ima Knerd]

Martyrdom is not always an indication of Jesus being seen as "God in the flesh," as Jonestown, Waco and even the suicide hijackers of September 11th keep reminding us.

What we now call "Christianity" took root in first-century Palestine when it was still being called "the Way." It arose in the context of profound economic and social dislocation and was as much a political movement as it was a spiritual one. Jesus' "Kingdom of God" message resonated with a people suffering from Roman domination and tyranny. Paul's auditory message framed the Nazarean's parabolic message into a Greco-Roman Hellenistic theology which brought it to the far corners of the Roman empire. Mark's gospel was written some 20 years later and formed the basis for Matthew and Luke's accounts. The fact that the codex (small, book-like texts) began to replace the large and awkward scrolls around this time also ensured the gospel could (and would) be spread easily and economically.

Ironically, Jesus' vision of oppositional healing and sharing soon became wedded to the very government it once resisted after the Council of Nicea met in 325 AD. The Protestant Reformation at the end of the Middle Ages split the church and its message again and the continual splintering of denominations after Martin Luther continues to this day to over 350. Christianity in Europe is basically dead; churches are museums for tourists more than they are places of worship. The faith is spreading rapidly in Third World countries--particularly Africa and South America--but in the United States the fastest-growing group has been called "the unchurched"--those to whom the traditional orthodoxy and dogma no longer have any meaning for.

Humans are "hard-wired" for religion and, although we as Christians seem to be caught up in a time of incredible change, it is my view that "faith"--in one form or another--will survive. Faith in Jesus survived even after his crucifixion, and even among those who were unaware he had been killed (remember the two travellers at Emmaus?).

Bishop Spong upsets many believers because he is already ahead of the curve. He is not afraid to speak his mind and heart--even though the rest of us have not caught up yet. The reason we are left behind is because the church leadership has been seriously remiss in passing along the results of centuries of biblical scholarship to those of us in the pews. Those who know are just happy not to tell, and those who tell truly do not know. Biblical illiteracy is rampant. We do indeed stand on the edge of a "new Reformation," as Spong asserts. The first Reformation led by Martin Luther resulted in the Bible being taken from the province of the church's priestly authorities and finally made available to the average person.

The "new Reformation" demands no less, but on a deeper and more authentic level.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Christsoldier

His ideas that evolution is how God created and that the Virgin birth wasn't virgin and that the miracles didn't really take place leave me wondering just exactly what he leaves to worship.

Well... God? Forgiveness of sins?

Look at a sunset, and how can you possibly wonder what there is to worship?

I was raised Lutheran, but I never even *knew* that anyone thought creation was literal until high school or later; I always assumed everyone accepted the theory of evolution as the best going theory. I don't really care either way on the virgin birth issue; it doesn't seem important to me.

Miracles? I believe in miracles, but I don't care *how* God does them. If you tell me that the Red Sea parted because of an earthquake, well, I'm pretty impressed by a God who can arrange for an earthquake when His people need to cross the sea. I just don't see it as mattering. I think some of them sound like they were "just miracles", and I don't really care which are which.

I guess I come from a different background than a lot of people here. I've never been much concerned with the detailed explanations of history of two thousand years ago. Faith is about how we interact with the world *TODAY*. Next time a friend of yours is sick, call up, and volunteer to go shopping and bring medicine or easy to prepare food. *THAT* is a miracle.

 

[Christsoldier]

Aikido,

I think one of the things that most of us keep forgetting is worshiping God is about worshiping God. It's not about what "we" get out of it or what "we" experience.

We may be standing on the edge of another reformation, but I sure hope it's not one where we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Know what I mean? : ) Why must God be remade in order to be worshiped? While I do think there are a lot of people who need to rethink where they are with God, it's them that have to change. Not God.

 

[Ima Knerd]

I totally agree. Thanks for understanding! We have our work cut out for us. Amen!

 

[kiwimac]

Actually,

I both like and admire John Spong. He is not frightened of asking difficult questions. Frankly, I believe God is making use of this "vexatious man"

Kiwimac

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"Trinity is not in the Bible. Spong will tell you that."

I wouldn't believe a thing Spong told me. He's a false teacher and his fruit shows it. He's just a sign of how corrupt Christianity is becoming.

 

[Ima Knerd]

First, let's talk FACT. "Trinity" is NOWHERE in the Bible.

Now we can talk BELIEF, OPINION and CONJECTURE. I have read Spong extensively. Much of what he talks about has been known by clergy trained in theological schools and seminaries for years. Biblical scholarship began in the early 1800s with Raimerus. All one has to do is read and study the New Testament in parallel (instead of reading the texts one after another) and the careful student can
see for him or herself how Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark in front of them when they wrote their accounts. Luke and Matthew aren't even primary sources, but VARIATIONS of Mark! Re-read the first few verses of Luke if you don't believe me.

It is a travesty how this fundamental knowledge of our sacred texts has been ignored or deliberately minimized by the clergy. It makes me think they must feel we are too ignorant or fragile on our own to read and understand our own truths!

The only thing that helps me put this in perspective is that it has only been about 450 years since the people have been allowed to read the Bible for themselves.
Before Martin Luther and the Reformation, only the clergy was allowed to read and interpret scripture for the masses.

"Bible Study" is actually "studying the Bible."

 

[kern]

That's going a bit too far -- Matthew and Luke are making use of traditions outside of Mark (including the Q source and the so-called M and L traditions), so they do add things Mark does not provide, and they are written from a different perspective.

-Chris

 

[Ima Knerd]

Chris,

Mainline scholars of biblical studies have known for decades that Matthew and Luke had totally different theologies which can be recognized whenever they are not following Mark. The Q source and proto-Luke and -Mark also reflect the theologies of different early Christian groups.

The gospels are deliberate interpretations of Jesus rather than a biography. By careful comparison and study, one can watch the development of inspiration through time.

For example, the letters of Paul--the earliest manuscripts in the New Testament canon--show Jesus becoming Son of God at the crucifixion. Later, Mark's gospel--the earliest of the four accounts of Jesus' words and deeds--has Jesus designated Son of God at his baptism. Luke and Matthew move the event even further back to his conception. John's gospel, which is probably the last to have been written, shows a very developed cristology: even Genesis is rewritten by John to show that Jesus was exhalted before the creation.

Matthew and Luke do add things not mentioned in Mark. They were different writers writing for different communities of believers facing different problems.

Why this common-sense idea is not taught in most churches today is regrettable, though understandable. The clergy who do know about this are probably more comfortable not talking about it and the clergy who don't know probably have no more curiousity to learn more. It is the average Christian in the pew who is the loser when "biblical literacy" is reduced to proof-texting and out-of-context homilies during church services.

 

[kern]

Well, it doesn't help that some people hold theories like this to impossible standards of proof -- i.e. if you cannot produce a copy of the document Q, then you have just imagined its existence and there is no proof whatsoever that it's not the work of a single author. Such opinions show a lot of contempt for the large amount of work done on Biblical criticism.

(Of course, it is probably the work of a single author working from multiple sources.)

-Chris

 

[covenant914]

aikido/kern,

I think you both right.  "Q" seems to be a viable explanation for the common material in Matt/Luke that is not found in Mark - whil eboth    writers added their own perspective.

It is a shame that Bible scholarship is not taught in most churches - rather a "literal/historical/biographical" slant is either taught or assumed.

I have run into difficulties in my Sunday School class(I teach High School SS) by showing the chronology of writing and examining the texts against one another.

You should have  seen the looks on the parishioners faces when I started Revelations - I told the kids that Tim LaHaye/Hal Lindsey were wrong.

 

It was a hoot.

 

[Polycarp1]

FWIW, this thread was an Anglican "inheritance" from the old P/R/E forum. I thought it might be interesting to resurrect it for further discussion of Bp. Spong.

The man is highly controversial, and thrives on controversy -- his stance is one that fundamentalism works an injustice on the individual Christian, and hence he combats it with a very personal and highly controverted theology.

First, it's important to note that he is a Tillichian through and through -- much of the theology he does is done in a context that is very easy to misunderstand. For example, he condemns "theism" -- but what he means by it is not the dictionary definition of belief in an active God, but Tillich's specialized use of "theism" to describe belief in a supernatural entity where the Christian God is in some ways similar to Zeus or Brahma -- one entity "with an outside" -- as opposed to the fundamental ground of existence, the loving One who made all and who encompasses all.

And his stance has always been one of Christ and Christians for the outcast, the discriminated against, the rejected and pariah. In this he stands with historical Christian figures and with Christ himself.

However, he is a Dynamist in the sense that term was used to name a heresy in early theology -- Jesus, for Spong, was a man in whom the Christ-power indwelt, and after whose death the Christ-power lived on in the hearts and minds of His followers. This is of course contrary to Nicene-Chalcedonian orthodoxy, even taking the implications of I Corinthians 15 into account.