The Historical Jesus...

[OzSpen]

There's no evidence in this posting [the link by Oz] other than the fact that liberal Christianity is unpopular.

hedrick,

That is a false statement about my article: Damning evidence against theological liberalism.

The first part of the article deals with the theological differences between evangelicals and theological liberals.

It is only in the second half do I deal with how theological liberalism "kills" churches, John Shelby Spong's example while bishop of Newark, NJ being a climax of the impact of liberalism.

There's no question that the popularity of evangelicalism has attracted people from the mainline churches. But it hasn't increased Christianity as a whole.

You provided zero evidence to support these opinions. Yet, you are the one exalting the need for "evidence" (see #33).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Theologically liberal churches *are* Gospel-proclaiming churches.

What is the "Gospel" they proclaim?

 

[OzSpen]

I can't talk to your local church. I haven't heard what they say. I can only judge based on US mainline churches, whose messages I know reasonably well.

Basically my problem is that without hearing the actual message I can't tell whether you are describing what you're hearing correctly. E.g. I'd bet that they don't deny the authority of Scripture, but rather deny inerrancy. I'd also bet that they don't deny the atonement, but rather penal substitution. (There are a few people who actually do deny the atonement, but it's hard to believe you'd be so unlucky as to hear them in several churches. They aren't typically church pastors.) Furthermore, several of these topics can't be talked about in CF anyway (the Virgin birth and I think the bodily resurrection), but the common liberal position is perfectly consistent with the Gospel, even though I can’t defend that here.

hedrick,

Let's hear the theological liberalism that destroys churches from your own home-grown, John Shelby Spong:

These are some of the viruses against eternal salvation that Spong (a North American) has developed and promoted, some of which relate to core Christian doctrines? Examples include:
The atonement is an ‘offensive idea’ (Spong 2001:10)
‘I am a Christian. I believe that God is real. I call Jesus my Lord. Yet I do not define God as a supernatural being. I believe passionately in God. This God is not identified with doctrines, creeds, and traditions’ (Spong 2001:3, 64, 74).
He rejoices that ‘the blinding idolatry of traditional theism [read, supernatural Christianity] has finally departed from my life’ More than that, he proclaims, “Theism is dead, I joyfully proclaim, but God is real” (Spong 2001:74, 77)
He’s against evangelism and missionary enterprises, the latter being ‘base-born, rejecting, negative, and yes, I would even say evil’ (2001:178). This redefinition of missions as ‘evil’ is associated with his universalism and theory that ‘we possess neither certainty nor eternal truth’ (Spong 2001:179).
‘The idea that Jesus is the only way to God or that only those who have been washed in the blood of Christ are ever to be listed among the saved, has become anathema and even dangerous in our shrinking world’ (Spong 2001:179).
‘There is a strong probability that the story of Joseph of Arimathea was developed to cover the apostles’ pain at the memory of Jesus’ having no one to claim his body and of his death as a common criminal. His body was probably dumped unceremoniously into a common grave, the location of which has never been known-then or now. This fragment in Paul’s sermon in Acts thus rings with startling accuracy…. The empty tomb tradition does not appear to be part of the primitive kerygma. It was attached to the Jerusalem tradition, which I have suggested was quite secondary to the Galilean tradition’ (Spong 1994:225).

‘If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be believed by assenting to the fantastic descriptions included in the Gospels, then Christianity is doomed. For that view of resurrection is not believable, and if that is all there is, then Christianity, which depends upon the truth and authenticity of Jesus’ resurrection, also is not believable’ (Spong 1994:238).
‘I dismiss heaven as a place of reward, and I dismiss hell as a place of punishment. I find neither definition either believable or appealing’ (Spong 1994:288).
‘For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time. None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul’ (Spong 1994:51).
‘Christianity is not about the divine becoming human so much as it is about the human becoming divine. That is a paradigm shift of the first order’ (Spong 2013).

Therefore, it is not surprising that Spong’s salvific disease led to this kind of spiritual ‘death’ in the Episcopal diocese of Newark NJ when Spong was bishop:

Spong [had] been the Episcopal Bishop of Newark [New Jersey] since 1976. He has presided over one of the most rapid witherings of any diocese in the Episcopal Church [USA]. The most charitable assessment shows that Newark’s parish membership rolls have evaporated by more than 42 percent. Less charitable accounts put the rate at over 50 percent. (Lasley, 1999).​

With this kind of salvific disease being spread by Spong, it is a reasonable assumption that this kind of liberal Christianity will lead to the demise of that brand. Of course, Spong’s view is radically different. He wrote:

‘The evidence that God, understood theistically, is dying or is perhaps already dead is overwhelming…. the death of the theistic God was first announced by Friedrich Nietzsche in the nineteenth century…. As this theistic God dies visibly in the very midst of our present civilization…. The old myth of theism has lost its power and its appeal’ (Spong 2001:21, 33, 35).​

Spong has nailed it. His interpretation of the supernatural theistic God is that this view is dying and it is an old myth that has lost its power. Is that the truth or not?

Oz

(from my article:Spong promotes salvation viruses called ‘offensive’ and ‘anathema’)

Works consulted
Lasley, D M 1999. Rescuing Christianity from Bishop Kevorkian, review of John Shelby Spong’s, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, for Anglican Voice, posted June 2 1999. Retrieved on November 4, 2001, from http://www.anglicanvoice.org/voice/spong0699.htm. It is no longer available on Anglican Voice, but is available at: http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pi...stserv.virtueonline.org/1999-June/000415.html (Accessed 25 November 2013).

Spong, J S 1994. Resurrection myth or reality? A bishop’s search for the origins of Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Spong, J S 2001. A new Christianity for a new world: Why traditional faith is dying and how a new faith is being born. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Spong, J S 2013, Gospel of John: What everyone should know about the fourth Gospel. Huffington Post: Religion, The Blog (online), 11 June. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shelby-spong/gospel-of-john-what-everyone-knows-about-the-fourth-gospel_b_3422026.html?ref=topbar (Accessed 25 November 2013).

 

[hedrick]

Do you really have lots of churches preaching Spong’s ideas? He is not representative of mainline Christianity in the US, which is what most people in CF mean by liberal Christianity.

I don't have all the books you cited, but I looked up the atonement. Your summary of his view is correct. But that's not a normal liberal Christian view. He is attacking a view of the atonement that didn't exist for centuries, and treating it as if it were fundamental to Christianity. The liberal Christians I'm familiar with have problems with penal substitution, but they are exploring earlier views of the atonement, rather than getting rid of the idea that Christ's death is for us. Indeed the whole "myth" that Spong thinks is the core of Christianity is actually a caricature of a conservative Christianity that is certainly not essential to Christianity.

Spong shares your disdain for mainline Christianity, because he thinks they're trying to preserve the essential features of Christianity while adjusting it to take into account modern knowledge. He believes this is a mistake: the whole thing is rotten. Does Australian mainline Christianity really take this position?

(There are, of course, some things that Spong says that many liberal Christians would agree with.)

As to the decrease in Christianity as a whole, see http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...als-increasingly-are-driving-growth-of-nones/. Note by the way that in the younger generations the ratio of evangelical to mainline is staying about the same. I.e. it doesn't look like evangelicals are continuing to take mainline members in younger generations. Rather, we're both shrinking. Catholics are shrinking less. But the big gain is "none." If their numbers on younger millennial prove true (they're young enough that they are still influenced by their parents or are in college) evangelicals are the only group that decreases, and mainline the only one that grows. The changes are small enough that I don't think they're significant.

Of course the chart from Pew is for today's members. There's a similar effect over time: church membership has been declining within each cohort over time. I think there is also a shift from mainline to evangelical in the older cohorts over time. I don't have good data on that, but I'll look for it.

 

[hedrick]

What is the "Gospel" they proclaim?

It's hard to give an answer that applies to every liberal church. But I've read a lot of liberal theologians and listened to a lot of liberal church people, and all of them include both major emphases of the NT:

* Jesus was sent by God to establish God's Kingdom, the reign of God, and to forgive and reconcile people to God. We are called to join him in this, and will be held responsible for how we respond. (This is my summary of Jesus' concept of the Gospel.)
* "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (This is my summary of Paul's concept of the Gospel.)

I know many people claim that liberal Christianity is just about doing good works, but I've never read a liberal theologian nor know of any liberal pastors who don't also emphasize God's grace, and in response to that grace, the central role of faith in Christ, and being renewed through him.

Remember that Spong isn't liberal. He's anti-liberal. He thinks liberals are trying to maintain something that isn't worth trying to maintain. If you want to know what liberal Christians teach, you should read actual mainline Christians. For the PCUSA the best introduction is probably Doug Ottati's, "Theology for Liberal Presbyterians and other Endangered Species." It's not the guys you read about in the press that you want. They're the extremists that make good headlines.

 

[jerry kelso]

This is in response to Jack's statement that the Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses. I accept Paul's statement. But these 500 people didn't, as far as we know, write the Gospels. It is very unlikely that any of the Gospel writers were witnesses.

Mark appears to be the earliest. The early Church said that it was based on Peter's accounts. Critical scholars take that seriously. But that doesn't make Mark an eyewitness.

Matthew and Luke are obviously based on Mark. If one of them was an eyewitness, it's hard to believe that they would have done that. Nor is it consistent with when these Gospels were likely written -- late 1st Cent. Their sources were Mark, which I take it to be based on Peter, and a separate collection of Jesus sayings (which could have been a document but in principle could even have been a fixed oral tradition). They aren't witnesses either. It's unlikely that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle, but could well have been based on what he said.

None of this says that the Gospels are wrong. But it certainly doesn't establish that they are inerrant. Even if they were written by witnesses it wouldn't establish that. Indeed comparisons of the Gospels make it clear that each author had his own views on Jesus, which is why Jack called them interpretive accounts. Doesn't mean that they made up Jesus, just that we can see in each a specific interpretation of him.

hedrick,
1. I must have thought he was saying there was no eyewitnesses. I must have been tired or something, sorry about that.

2. Not all the 12 disciples wrote the gospels and that is true.
Mark wrote the book of Mark according to history and Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and Acts; Acts 1:1. They were not of the twelve but Luke was definitely an eyewitness Luke 1:1-4.

3. All the apostles were eyewitnesses of the risen Lord except, Judas who killed himself after he betrayed Christ Matthew 27:3-5; Acts 1:13-26. Matthias took his place v 26.

4. Going back to the writers of the gospels it is said Matthew was a disciple of Christ so he would have personally known Jesus and he wrote The gospel according to Mathew.
Mark was said to be the John Mark in Acts 16:37; 2 Timothy 4:11. They say he might have personally known Christ.
Luke did not know Christ personally but was an eyewitness of the risen Lord.
John wrote the book of John the beloved and knew Christ personally as one of his disciples and was an eyewitness and is the same one that wrote Revelation John 21:21-24. Jerry kelso

 

[hedrick]

There’s an early tradition that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew, which could well mean Aramaic. But the current Gospel isn’t it. It’s possible it was a source. But remember that the major sources are Mark and Q.

 

[OzSpen]

Do you really have lots of churches preaching Spong’s ideas? He is not representative of mainline Christianity in the US, which is what most people in CF mean by liberal Christianity.

hedrick,

The Churches of Christ, Victoria - generally known as a conservative denomination - sponsored a visit by Spong. See my assessment: John Shelby Spong and the Churches of Christ (Victoria, Australia)

While I agree that Spong does not specifically identify with liberalism and opposes some of it, his theology is ultra-liberal. See: Bishop Spong, the Theological Criminal:The Virtual Atheism of John Shelby Spong.

Spong's particular target is fundamentalism - conservative Christians. See his publication: Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (HarperSanFrancisco 1991). He also has a narcissistic view of God and human beings:

We must think about God in the light of our perceptions of divinity.....

We look for and find meaning and divinity, not always so much in an external God as in the very depths of our humanity, but it is divinity nonetheless. We discover a transcending spirit within ourselves....

We have come to the dawning realization that God might not be separate from us but rather deep within us. The sense of God as the sum of all that is, plus something more, grows in acceptability (Spong 1991:33).

That is an abominable, heretical view when compared with biblical Christianity.

Oz

 

[jerry kelso]

There’s an early tradition that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew, which could well mean Aramaic. But the current Gospel isn’t it. It’s possible it was a source. But remember that the major sources are Mark and Q.

hedrick,

1. Matthew was a tax collector and says more about contexts about money and is very organized like a tax collector would be.
Parable of the talents and the Lord’s Prayer in the words forgive us debts as we forgive our debtors and the organizational skills of the kingdom parables Matthew 25:14-30; 6:12; 13.
Matthew was an eyewitness of Jesus and his resurrection.

2. Mark is said to write his gospel first and is said not to be an eyewitness of Jesus ministry and is believed to be the John Mark later mentioned in Acts 12:12. He was said to write from Peter’s perspective of Jesus.

3. Luke definitely was the author of Luke was Luke; Luke 1:3-4.

4. John is for sure the author by his own admission John 21:21-24.
John was called beloved and had much to say about love as in John 13 and 14 as a new commandment etc.
The book of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John with the theme of love. John was an eyewitness of Jesus and the resurrection.
He also wrote the book of Revelation; Revelation 1:1 and the implication in John 21:21-24. Jerry Kelso

 

[timtams]

Why believed to be John Mark? I think this is most unlikely. His name was Mark, and he was a disciple of Peter, but there's no evidence it was John Mark.

 

[jerry kelso]

Why believed to be John Mark? I think this is most unlikely. His name was Mark, and he was a disciple of Peter, but there's no evidence it was John Mark.

Tim tams,

1. Acts 22:12-14 Mary’s son named John and also Mark. Peter was at the door at that time and knew John Mark.

2. Colossians 4:10; Acts 15:37-40; John Mark may have been a cousin of Barnabas.
Because after traveling with him, Paul had great contention with Barnabas because John Mark had forsaken Paul and Barnabas kept John Mark and Silas went with Paul.
So it is possibility.

3. Do you have a scripture for Mark only?
Jerry Kelso

 

[timtams]

Tim tams,

1. Acts 22:12-14 Mary’s son named John and also Mark. Peter was at the door at that time and knew John Mark.

2. Colossians 4:10; Acts 15:37-40; John Mark may have been a cousin of Barnabas.
Because after traveling with him, Paul had great contention with Barnabas because John Mark had forsaken Paul and Barnabas kept John Mark and Silas went with Paul.
So it is possibility.

3. Do you have a scripture for Mark only?
Jerry Kelso

1. Peter knew a lot of people in early Christianity, but the Mark who wrote Mark's gospel was Peter's convert. The gospel Mark never saw Jesus. I doubt it's the same Mark as the one who lived in Jerusalem and was related to Barnabas. Anything is possible, but it doesn't really fit, and in the absence of any evidence, just saying Peter knew John Mark isn't good enough imo. The bible doesn't say that John Mark was Peter's convert.

2. Yes, nothing about John Mark being with Peter.

3. A scripture? Why would you ask for a scripture when discussing traditions about gospel authorship? There's no scripture that says that Mark wrote Mark, or Matthew wrote Matthew. We have tradition. Scripture is silent on the issue. It doesn't identify John Mark as the author of Mark's gospel, and it doesn't identify a convert of Peter who wrote in Italy and never heard Jesus as it's author either, as tradition does.

 

[jerry kelso]

1. Peter knew a lot of people in early Christianity, but the Mark who wrote Mark's gospel was Peter's convert. The gospel Mark never saw Jesus. I doubt it's the same Mark as the one who lived in Jerusalem and was related to Barnabas. Anything is possible, but it doesn't really fit, and in the absence of any evidence, just saying Peter knew John Mark isn't good enough imo. The bible doesn't say that John Mark was Peter's convert.

2. Yes, nothing about John Mark being with Peter.

3. A scripture? Why would you ask for a scripture when discussing traditions about gospel authorship? There's no scripture that says that Mark wrote Mark, or Matthew wrote Matthew. We have tradition. Scripture is silent on the issue. It doesn't identify John Mark as the author of Mark's gospel, and it doesn't identify a convert of Peter who wrote in Italy and never heard Jesus as it's author either, as tradition does.

Tim tam,

1. I don’t think I said a thus saith God but a possibility to a scripture. You gave no scripture.

2. I understand about silence of the scripture and things not mentioned in scripture that can be true, likely or unlikely.
You could be right as I have not really studied out that much. So points taken and I’ll get back to you. Jerry Kelso

 

[timtams]

Tim tam,

1. I don’t think I said a thus saith God but a possibility to a scripture. You gave no scripture.

2. I understand about silence of the scripture and things not mentioned in scripture that can be true, likely or unlikely.
You could be right as I have not really studied out that much. So points taken and I’ll get back to you. Jerry Kelso

cool

 

[JackRT]

As a name "John Mark" is interesting. John is basically a Hebrew name while Mark is a Roman name. Putting the two together suggests a number of possible scenarios.

 

[timtams]

As a name "John Mark" is interesting. John is basically a Hebrew name while Mark is a Roman name. Putting the two together suggests a number of possible scenarios.

Aristocratic Jew?

 

[JackRT]

Being a very liberal Christian I recognize that my testimony does not carry much weight in these quarters but I can say without hesitation that if, I had not found people like John Spong and Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan and others like them, I certainly would not be a Christian today.

 

[JackRT]

Aristocratic Jew?

That certainly is one possibility, another might be a Gentile convert to Judahism. Still another might be a Gentile "God fearer" converted to Christianity.

 

[timtams]

ok

 

[Resha Caner]

Being a very liberal Christian I recognize that my testimony does not carry much weight in these quarters but I can say without hesitation that if, I had not found people like John Spong and Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan and others like them, I certainly would not be a Christian today.

If you're willing, the stark contrast between our views could make for an interesting discussion about various historical persons - assuming we could find some people we both agree existed and with whom we are both familiar.

Take, for example, St. Augustine. If you could sit down and have a chat with him, do you think you would (in general) agree on the major theological issues?