Does Shelby Spong represent the beliefs of the Episcopalian Church?

[Matthew777]

As an inquirer, this is something I have wondered for quite some time.

Peace.

 

[higgs2]

Who is she?

 

[gtsecc]

Who is she?

He is one of our Atheist Bishops.

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

He is one of our Atheist Bishops.

Not exactly, but pretty much.

He is the extreme of the extreme.

 

[gtsecc]

Not exactly, but pretty much.

He is the extreme of the extreme.

Are you disputing his gender, his being part of ECUSA, what he believes, or his Ordination?

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Are you disputing his gender, his being part of ECUSA, what he believes, or his Ordination?

Well, from what I understand, he still believes in some sort of deity-like-force, so I wasn't sure if atheist was the proper term. However, I could be wrong. I've only read a few things about him.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Bishop Spong is on the extreme left wing of the Episcopal Church. He does not represent mainstream Episcopalian thought.

John

 

[gtsecc]

He is one of our Bishops.
As such, his beliefs are acceptable Anglican beliefs.
I can't get my head around that however.

 

[TomUK]

I couldn't comment on what the Episcopalian Church believes, but certainly he doesn't represent the views of the larger Anglican communion.

 

[gitlance]

WHO VOTED YES?!?

Don't make me come over there...

 

[Matthew777]

He is one of our Bishops.
As such, his beliefs are acceptable Anglican beliefs.
I can't get my head around that however.

Isn't he retired?

Peace.

 

[TomUK]

He is retired, but if you are a Bishop then you are a Bishop for life (unless something terrible happens that is- of course, many believe that Bishop Spong is more than deserving for a 'defrocking')

 

[loriersea]

I voted yes. He doesn't represent the beliefs of all or the majority of the Episcopal Church, but his views are within the bounds of what is acceptable theology within the church, and as such they do represent the beliefs of the church. When you have a church that allows for a diversity of theological beliefs, then a wide range of theological beliefs will be representative of the church.

Now, if someone wanted to read ONE author who represented the Episcopal Church, I obviously could not recommend Spong. Although he's not part of the ECUSA, I'd probably pick N.T. Wright, who I think does a very good job of articulating a moderate theological position that is acceptable to most Anglicans. But if they wanted a reading list that represented the range of views to be found within the ECUSA, I'd definitely put Spong on the list.

I've said this before, but I really think the ire shown to Spong is misplaced. Spong and people like him are not trying to destroy the faith of anyone. Their audience is not people who are happy with the church as it is, or people who feel at home with traditional theological beliefs. Their audience is people who feel that the church has no place for them, especially as conservative voices in Christianity become more and more dominant. Spong is an evangelist. He writes his books not to drive people from the church, but to bring them back. To disagree with his theology is one thing, but (not here, but in other places) I've seen an animosity towards him that I just don't understand, since his goal is to bring people who have been alienated from the church, often for very valid and understandable reasons, back home.

 

[gitlance]

I voted yes. He doesn't represent the beliefs of all or the majority of the Episcopal Church, but his views are within the bounds of what is acceptable theology within the church, and as such they do represent the beliefs of the church. When you have a church that allows for a diversity of theological beliefs, then a wide range of theological beliefs will be representative of the church.

Now, if someone wanted to read ONE author who represented the Episcopal Church, I obviously could not recommend Spong. Although he's not part of the ECUSA, I'd probably pick N.T. Wright, who I think does a very good job of articulating a moderate theological position that is acceptable to most Anglicans. But if they wanted a reading list that represented the range of views to be found within the ECUSA, I'd definitely put Spong on the list.

I've said this before, but I really think the ire shown to Spong is misplaced. Spong and people like him are not trying to destroy the faith of anyone. Their audience is not people who are happy with the church as it is, or people who feel at home with traditional theological beliefs. Their audience is people who feel that the church has no place for them, especially as conservative voices in Christianity become more and more dominant. Spong is an evangelist. He writes his books not to drive people from the church, but to bring them back. To disagree with his theology is one thing, but (not here, but in other places) I've seen an animosity towards him that I just don't understand, since his goal is to bring people who have been alienated from the church, often for very valid and understandable reasons, back home.

How can beliefs that openly deny the creeds be within bounds? Or beliefs that openly deny the scriptures? They are not within bounds, and if you think they are, you better go read the BCP...

 

[loriersea]

How can beliefs that openly deny the creeds be within bounds? Or beliefs that openly deny the scriptures? They are not within bounds, and if you think they are, you better go read the BCP...

I would think that the ECUSA leaders who never moved to remove Spong from his position are in a better position to determine what is acceptable theology than any of us are. Taking the creeds literally is not a requirement for acceptable theology. Obviously Spong doesn't take them literally, but that doesn't mean he rejects them. My question would be whether or not he recognizes Jesus as Lord. I don't know, but I would suspect that he does, or else he would not be a Christian.

But I'm certainly not going to support drawing lines saying who is in or who is out, especially when they would leave out a man who has tried so hard to bring people who feel unwelcome in. If his views offend some people who don't want to be associated with the ECUSA, then so be it. That has to do with them, and not with Spong or anything he writes or preaches. Spong never asked that anyone agree with him, or accept his beliefs, or think his way or the highway. Unlike some other leaders of other denominations, as well as the ECUSA, he didn't use his position to try to purge the church of those he doesn't agree with; he simply wanted to open the door to more. I don't agree with much of his theology, but I respect his work and I especially respect his mission: to bring the disillusioned and alienated back to the church, and to make a home for them there. God's table is open to all, and I certainly don't think the ECUSA should limit who it opens its doors to because it wants to be popular. Just because belonging to an exclusive club appeals to people doesn't mean that the church should turn itself into one.

 

[artrx]

Thank you, and Amen, loriersea. That diversity of theological beliefs was part of what brought me to the Episcopal church. You can't learn and grow, intellectually or spiritually, without being willing to challenge your own beliefs.

 

[erin74]

If he doesn't believe can he be said to have beliefs?

I think the nature of the OP's question was whether spong represented what many of us believe, and I think we can safely say no on this one.

 

[scraparcs]

I would think that the ECUSA leaders who never moved to remove Spong from his position are in a better position to determine what is acceptable theology than any of us are. Taking the creeds literally is not a requirement for acceptable theology.

It isn't? I always thought that it was an assumption that Anglicans at least took the Nicene Creed literally.

Obviously Spong doesn't take them literally, but that doesn't mean he rejects them. My question would be whether or not he recognizes Jesus as Lord. I don't know, but I would suspect that he does, or else he would not be a Christian.

From what I've read of him so far (too little, I fear), it seems like he doesn't even recognize a corporeal deity.

But I'm certainly not going to support drawing lines saying who is in or who is out,

But let's face it -- there are lines. Some make the lines a bit narrower, some a bit broader, but we all make lines somewhere. If someone believed that Jesus was a two-headed hydra, could they still be in the Anglican communion if they said they believed the creeds non-literally?

especially when they would leave out a man who has tried so hard to bring people who feel unwelcome in. If his views offend some people who don't want to be associated with the ECUSA, then so be it.

What if he offends people who do want to be associated with ECUSA?

That has to do with them, and not with Spong or anything he writes or preaches. Spong never asked that anyone agree with him, or accept his beliefs, or think his way or the highway. Unlike some other leaders of other denominations, as well as the ECUSA, he didn't use his position to try to purge the church of those he doesn't agree with; he simply wanted to open the door to more. I don't agree with much of his theology, but I respect his work and I especially respect his mission: to bring the disillusioned and alienated back to the church, and to make a home for them there. God's table is open to all, and I certainly don't think the ECUSA should limit who it opens its doors to because it wants to be popular. Just because belonging to an exclusive club appeals to people doesn't mean that the church should turn itself into one.

No, but there are certain beliefs that one should adhere to as part of ECUSA. You can't bring people back to the church if what you are giving them is outside the bounds of the church.

His mission is quite respectable, but he tries to bring back people by giving them something that is outside of ECUSA. And that is where the danger lies.

 

[PaladinValer]

+Spong, while a bishop, doesn't speak for the ECUSA.

 

[trooper]

I just went to one of his talks here in Minnesota. He seems to be a quite personable fellow. Though, if you have read any of the Screwtape Letters, that won't surprise you. The Devil can be a pleasant dinner companion.

Frankly, he was shockingly full of himself. At one point, he compared his suffering at the hands of traditionalists, with Jesus' suffering on the cross. He also seemed a tad to wrapped up in how many books he has sold.

Maybe he brings the disaffected back... but back into what?

Offensive final thought: he's a(n) Unitarian without the balls to loose his pension.