John Shelby Spong: A Question

[The Sentry]

Unless you are a fundamentalist you have much in common.

No offense meant - I don't think that Spong-supporter or fundamentalist are the only two options. I'm just much more of a traditionalist than he is. From what little I know of him, he rejects or revises much traditional theology. We're just not on the same page. In that sense, we have little in common.

 

[MKJ]

Unless you are a fundamentalist you have much in common.

One helping of excluded middle, please.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

No offense meant - I don't think that Spong-supporter or fundamentalist are the only two options. I'm just much more of a traditionalist than he is. From what little I know of him, he rejects or revises much traditional theology. We're just not on the same page. In that sense, we have little in common.

I offer the following list of things many people here who don't care for Bp. Spong+ probably have in common with him:

• You love Jesus
• You love the Church
• You do not want to see the Church die
• You do not believe that many portions of the Bible were ever intended to be taken literally (though you may disagree on which portions)
• You desire that every person come to know Jesus Christ and the salvation He offers.

I could be wrong, but I think the above list is probably true for almost everyone who regularly posts here. And as far as I know, this is also true of Bp. Spong+.

I would also like to offer just the simple morsel of food for thought: outside of the first item listed, does anything else matter? It seems to me that we can disagree about an awful lot, but if we hold a love for Jesus in common, that's enough to be sisters and brothers in Christ.

 

[The Sentry]

I was just trying to answer the original question (which I thought was a theological one). How well accepted is he? For me, I don't accept his theological revisions or speculations as right or necessary. That's the extent of how far I am going with this. Just trying to give the OP an answer. I've never met the man. Nor, in the interest of full disclosure, have I read much of what he has written (a little bit, but not much).

And your list is a good one. The difficulty lies in terminology. People might well have radically different beliefs about all of those excellent points - Jesus, the Church, how to prevent the Church's continued dwindling, the nature and authority of Scripture and its various parts, and what salvation is and means. Ultimately, that's what makes it so tricky to discuss theology with a revisionist (and I don't mean to use that term in an insulting way at all). If he and I can say the Creeds together, that's wonderful. That's what Anglicanism seems to be these days. But if we mean quite different things in professing those Creeds, we find ourselves in a messy situation!

So, yes - you and I love Jesus and the Church and desire that our Lord will save the lost. If Spong does too, that's great! But it does still seem that he and I have little in common. I didn't realize that was such a controversial statement to make!

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I take it my posts are to be disregarded in favor of third-party critiques then?

This is your first post on this thread, so how are your posts being "disregarded in favor of third-party critiques?"

I have personally with my own eyes and ears watched Bp. Spong recite the Creed at the Eucharist, and he is not the sort of man to mouth platitudes he does not believe. He may attach different meanings to its statements than you do...

Considering the fact that Bishop Spong denies both the Virgin Birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc..., it is clear he gives different meaning to those portions of the Creeds. I defined what I meant by believing the creeds this way, "as they have been historically understood by Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches."

For Spong to recite either creed it is clear that he has to define their meanings in ways that would be alien the church prior to the rise of modern theological liberalism.

One of the things I like best about Anglican/Episcopal churches is their allowance for a good deal of diversity. I do believe that today that acceptance has been stretched beyond the breaking point (which is evident all around us).

Without the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead--there is no such thing as the Christian faith. To deny the resurrection is to place oneself outside the faith.

One thing I respect about the 17th and 18th century New Englanders who were descended from the Puritans is, when they ceased to believe the historic doctrines taught in the creeds, they admitted the fact and became Unitarians. That was honest.

Today, we have many Christians who deny all, or most, of the doctrines that Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians have considered essential for 2 millennia.

I am glad to know that Bishop Spong is well liked in his old churches and I am sure he has many friends and supporters. I am all so certain that he has done some good in his life. These are good things, but his teachings are, at a number of points, antithetical to the Christian faith as it has been understood since the Apostles.

I have no ill feelings toward the man, and I am sure we could have a nice visit were we to meet in person, but these things do not change the reality that he believes and teaches ideas that are a clear denial of the Christian faith as it is found in the through the ages.

A denial of the virgin birth and resurrection ( etc.) does but him in a closer relationship with many groups outside the Christian faith. Gnostics denied both those doctrines, modern Unitarians also reject these teachings, as do a number of other non-Christian faiths.

Anyway, I have likely already said too much.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[christopherdombrowski]

Not that i necessarily disagree, but i think when we start down that line of thinking when can very easily end up in the sticky situation Rome has found herself in regarding doctrines of our Lady.

How is that?

belief in the virgin birth is not an issue upon which our salvation depends.

Hmmmmm. I think I understand what you mean, but your actual conclusion I do not think is true. Yes, it is true that Christ being the Only-Begotten Son of God is the core doctrine upon which our salvation depends. However, the virgin birth is a necessary implication of this belief, and any belief that is a necessary implication of a doctrine upon which our salvation depends is logically also a doctrine upon which our salvation depends.

To use an example, the doctrine of the hypostatic union as was found in Saint Cyril of Alexandria is a necessary logical implication of the homoousios doctrine of Saint Athanasius. The latter was defined as necessary for salvation. The former must be as well if it is a necessary implication of it.

Though it's a slippery when you begin to rank doctrines of the Church, the physical resurrection of Christ is profoundly more important than the virginal state of Mary. In that sense they are simply not comparable issues.

Perhaps we are actually talking about different issues. It is not the "virginal state of Mary" in a general sense that I am talking about, but rather particularly the "virgin birth" itself, the reality that Christ had no human biological father. Of course the former is of lesser importance. However, Christ having no human biological father is of similar importance, as the idea of him having one would essentially necessitate Nestorian Christology.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

Unless you are a fundamentalist you have much in common.

If you are meaning what it seems by the term "fundamentalist", I will glady wear the label, thank you.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

If believing the Nicene and Apostles Creeds makes one a fundamentalist, than you are correct.

If you do believe these creeds, as they have been historically understood by Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, than you do have major differences with Bishop Spong.

Kenith

 

[christopherdombrowski]

I take it my posts are to be disregarded in favor of third-party critiques then? I have personally with my own eyes and ears watched Bp. Spong recite the Creed at the Eucharist, and he is not the sort of man to mouth platitudes he does not believe. He may attach different meanings to its statements than you do, but that has been common Anglican practice almost from the beginning -- we share one Cup, not one Credal exegesis.

Because relativizing the meaning of the Creed is so much better than denying it.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

I offer the following list of things many people here who don't care for Bp. Spong+ probably have in common with him:

• You love Jesus
• You love the Church
• You do not want to see the Church die
• You do not believe that many portions of the Bible were ever intended to be taken literally (though you may disagree on which portions)
• You desire that every person come to know Jesus Christ and the salvation He offers.

I could be wrong, but I think the above list is probably true for almost everyone who regularly posts here. And as far as I know, this is also true of Bp. Spong+.

Perhaps according to his own understanding and sentiment. But for what I understand Jesus and the Church to be, Spong is rendered among the greatest of enemies.

does anything else matter? It seems to me that we can disagree about an awful lot, but if we hold a love for Jesus in common, that's enough to be sisters and brothers in Christ.

He holds an entirely different doctrine to the point that he doesn't even know who Jesus really is. That seems incredibly important to me.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

Considering the fact that Bishop Spong denies both the Virgin Birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc..., it is clear he gives different meaning to those portions of the Creeds. I defined what I meant by believing the creeds this way, "as they have been historically understood by Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches."

While I agree that Spong cannot be understood to be a believer in most of the Creed, I must say that these groups do not even have perfect unity in their understanding of the Creed. For instance, I don't think most "Christians" understand correctly what it means for the Church to be One.

Without the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead--there is no such thing as the Christian faith. To deny the resurrection is to place oneself outside the faith.

One thing I respect about the 17th and 18th century New Englanders who were descended from the Puritans is, when they ceased to believe the historic doctrines taught in the creeds, they admitted the fact and became Unitarians. That was honest.

Today, we have many Christians who deny all, or most, of the doctrines that Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians have considered essential for 2 millennia.

I am glad to know that Bishop Spong is well liked in his old churches and I am sure he has many friends and supporters. I am all so certain that he has done some good in his life. These are good things, but his teachings are, at a number of points, antithetical to the Christian faith as it has been understood since the Apostles.

I have no ill feelings toward the man, and I am sure we could have a nice visit were we to meet in person, but these things do not change the reality that he believes and teaches ideas that are a clear denial of the Christian faith as it is found in the through the ages.

A denial of the virgin birth and resurrection ( etc.) does but him in a closer relationship with many groups outside the Christian faith. Gnostics denied both those doctrines, modern Unitarians also reject these teachings, as do a number of other non-Christian faiths.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

While I agree that Spong cannot be understood to be a believer in most of the Creed, I must say that these groups do not even have perfect unity in their understanding of the Creed. For instance, I don't think most "Christians" understand correctly what it means for the Church to be One.

I agree with what you say on the point you bring mention. Still, on the resurrection, the virgin birth, there is unity between these branches of the faith and what has been believed on these issues have been consistent through the centuries.

Kenith

 

[Polycarp1]

This is your first post on this thread, so how are your posts being "disregarded in favor of third-party critiques?"



Considering the fact that Bishop Spong denies both the Virgin Birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc..., it is clear he gives different meaning to those portions of the Creeds. I defined what I meant by believing the creeds this way, "as they have been historically understood by Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches."

For Spong to recite either creed it is clear that he has to define their meanings in ways that would be alien the church prior to the rise of modern theological liberalism.

One of the things I like best about Anglican/Episcopal churches is their allowance for a good deal of diversity. I do believe that today that acceptance has been stretched beyond the breaking point (which is evident all around us).

Without the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead--there is no such thing as the Christian faith. To deny the resurrection is to place oneself outside the faith.

One thing I respect about the 17th and 18th century New Englanders who were descended from the Puritans is, when they ceased to believe the historic doctrines taught in the creeds, they admitted the fact and became Unitarians. That was honest.

Today, we have many Christians who deny all, or most, of the doctrines that Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians have considered essential for 2 millennia.

I am glad to know that Bishop Spong is well liked in his old churches and I am sure he has many friends and supporters. I am all so certain that he has done some good in his life. These are good things, but his teachings are, at a number of points, antithetical to the Christian faith as it has been understood since the Apostles.

I have no ill feelings toward the man, and I am sure we could have a nice visit were we to meet in person, but these things do not change the reality that he believes and teaches ideas that are a clear denial of the Christian faith as it is found in the through the ages.

A denial of the virgin birth and resurrection ( etc.) does but him in a closer relationship with many groups outside the Christian faith. Gnostics denied both those doctrines, modern Unitarians also reject these teachings, as do a number of other non-Christian faiths.

Anyway, I have likely already said too much.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

This is a kind and fair response, Kenith, probably more irenic than my somewhat snarky post warranted, and I thank you for it. With your clarifications, I can agree with your points. For what it's worth, I've posted extensively about Spong here in earlier threads over several years. I try not to repeat myself incessantly on any topic, and so minimized my comments here. It was to them that I referred by "my previous posts."

 

[MKJ]

OT a bit, but I wonder if one might see more defections to Unitarianism if they still consisted of actual Unitarians?

 

[christopherdombrowski]

I agree with what you say on the point you bring mention. Still, on the resurrection, the virgin birth, there is unity between these branches of the faith and what has been believed on these issues have been consistent through the centuries.

Kenith

Indeed.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

OT a bit, but I wonder if one might see more defections to Unitarianism if they still consisted of actual Unitarians?

Also, I think you might see more defections to the Universalists if they still consisted of Trinitarians.

 

[MKJ]

Also, I think you might see more defections to the Universalists if they still consisted of Trinitarians.

Yes, I suspect we would.