- Feb 8, 2005
- 5,839
- 107
- 38
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
As an inquirer, this is something I have wondered for quite some time.
Peace.
Peace.
He is one of our Atheist Bishops.higgs2 said:Who is she?
gtsecc said:He is one of our Atheist Bishops.
Are you disputing his gender, his being part of ECUSA, what he believes, or his Ordination?anglicancrusader said:Not exactly, but pretty much.
He is the extreme of the extreme.
gtsecc said:Are you disputing his gender, his being part of ECUSA, what he believes, or his Ordination?
gtsecc said:He is one of our Bishops.
As such, his beliefs are acceptable Anglican beliefs.
I can't get my head around that however.
loriersea said: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 said: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 said: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.