Theism is Dead. Long live the King
Charley & Melissa Wingate
religious intention is necessarily personal. Pantheism is ever popular
and does not require the divine to have any personality or will at all.
If one is going to adopt thsi pseudoscientific approach, anyway, the
objection immediately arises that the issue of whether the divine is
truly personal is not in fact addressed. It is, as it were, an empirical
question, rather like asking what model car I drive, and the only way to
answer the question is through interaction, direct or indirect, with the
divine. To argue against the reality of a phenomenon without evidence to
the contrary is to admit of a bias against the phenomenon. In this case
there is little more than the fact that personal gods are unfashionable;
all the rationalizations of what the ancients *might* have done simply
are not sufficient, without evidence that they did n fact do these
things.
And this is hardly a new argument; you can find it hashed out in Lewis,
for instance. The issue began to be fought out as soon as "Man is the
measure of all things" began to be understood with the codicil that the
human yardstick is adequate. In this case, it is not.
C. Wingate
Sponger
Like a literal Virgin Birth, 6 day creation, the ascension and a
physically resurrected Christ it ain't long for this world. Adios and
good-bye.
Now Spong, at last, gives us a rough idea what the future holds
for followers of Christ.
and I quote...
T
Thesis #1: Theism as a way of defining God is dead. God can no longer
be understood with credibility as a Being supernatural in power,
dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history
periodically to enforce the divine will. So most theological God talk
is today meaningless unless a new way to speak of God is found.
From my Twelve Theses drawn from the book, Why Christianity Must
Change or Die.
If horses had gods, they would look like horses! That elementary
insight is never fully embraced when human beings talk about God. We
arrogantly suggest we can speak of what God actually is, when all we
can do is describe our experience of God. This theological delusion
prevents us from facing the fact that our "gods" look very much like
expanded human beings. The argument that God is personal, because we
experience God in personal ways, quickly descends to the conclusion
that God is a divine person, who acts like a supernatural human being.
The two assertions are not the same. The God thought of as a
supernatural being is normally conceived of as a male figure living
above the sky. We portray this deity sitting on a throne, keeping
record books on the basis of which he judges the people. This
supernatural being also acts to protect the people in danger. There
are no atheists in foxholes, we say. He also is thought to enjoy human
praises, to hear human petitions and to grant boons to petitioners. To
do so, this Deity is sometimes said to act in miraculous, invasive
ways. It is so obvious in these incidences that believers have simply
expanded human qualities in order to reach an understanding of
divinity.
Human beings, we recognize, are limited in knowledge; but God, we say,
is not limited, so we call God omniscient. God, unlike us, is deemed
to possess infinite power, so we say that God is omnipotent. Human
beings can be in only one place at a time, but God, not bound by such
a limitation, is said to be omnipresent. Human beings are mortal. God
we define as immortal. Surely the qualities that we have traditionally
located in God are reminiscent of those things that mark an expanded
human existence.
This theistic God also seems to act like a tribal chieftain possessing
miraculous power and using it for the benefit of a favored nation. In
the biblical story God was said to work for Jewish goals visiting
plague after plague on Egyptians. God split the Red Sea allowing the
Hebrews to escape to safety, then closed it to drown the pursuing
Egyptians. This God was clearly pro-Jewish! He fed the Jews in the
wilderness with heavenly manna and quenched their thirst with water
drawn from a rock. If the people were obedient to the divine will,
this Deity, the chief priests and prophets said, could be counted on
to fight their enemies so they could win their wars.
As ancient people struggled with the exigencies of human life, they
began to envision a time when the rule of this God would mark the life
of the whole world. The painful and tragic elements of human life
would disappear: the deaf would hear, the blind would see, the lame
would walk and the dead would be raised. Facing the perils of our
mortal struggles, people sought God's intervening power. These are the
human hopes which form the content of our theistic definition of God.
So deeply has this theistic content captured the common definition of
God that one who rejects it is said to be an "a-theist." But this
human God construct, this theistic definition of the deity, has fallen
on difficult days as knowledge has expanded over the last 400 years.
More and more things we once attributed to our invading, external
deity are now understood without any reference to God.
Sickness, we know today, results from germs, viruses or some
physiological or hereditary weakness. It is not the work of a
punishing deity. Cures come through antibiotics, surgery and
chemotherapy, not from divine intervention. To assert otherwise is to
be forced to explain why those who are not cured did not merit God's
favor. As these divine explanations are pushed to the edges of life,
by the advance of science God becomes what Dietrich Bonhoeffer has
called the God of the gaps. That is, God is the explanation inserted
into the gaps of human knowledge in order to explain the inexplicable.
But with every new scientific discovery, the gaps that need a
supernatural explanation have become thinner and thinner, and God
becomes further and further removed from the center of life. Finally
the distance becomes so great that God ceases to be a reality even in
the minds of believers, and the drift into godlessness grows. Very
quickly, after God no longer matters as a coping power, the dismissal
of God follows. In many ways this is the situation in which modern men
and women live today. Faith has been badly eroded. Religious
explanations now seem neurotic. God has become a shaky hypothesis
without any real work to do. God no longer sends the weather, heals
the sick, fights our wars, or protects us from peril. There is little
need for an unemployed deity in our world and so this deity is
increasingly ignored. Theism ultimately gives way to atheism.
But is theism the only way to understand God? I do not think so.
Throughout western history a subterranean minority voice has always
been part of Christianity which has never spoken of God in
supernatural or theistic terms, as a superparent, or a divine Mr.
Fix-it. That tradition is called mysticism. It sees God in the words
of Rudolf Otto, as the "mysterium tremendum," the inexplicable
presence, the symbol of transcendence, otherness, the emerging life
force that produces an expanded consciousness. It portrays the deity
in non-personalistic terms as the source of life, the source of love
and the Ground of Being. It challenges that concept of God as a
heavenly power relating to human beings as a parent relates to a
child, creating passive dependency in the life of the worshiper. This
mystical understanding of God calls its adherents out of childishness
into a radical new maturity. It manifests itself in a human
willingness to accept responsibility for our own actions, to see
ourselves as lives through which the power of the divine can enter and
shape human history. If one listens, one can hear echoes of this
understanding of God even in the New Testament. Paul speaks of the God
"in whom we live and move and have our being." The Johannine Christ is
made to say "I have come that you might have life and that you might
have it abundantly." Jesus is portrayed as arguing against a theistic
understanding of God when he suggested that the people who perished
when the tower of Siloam fell were not more guilty than those who
survived. I believe that a case for the divinity of Christ can be made
apart from the traditional supernatural framework of theism that
defined Jesus as the incarnation of that external God who entered this
world by way of a miraculous birth and departed by way of a cosmic
ascension. The divinity of Jesus was first an experience which later
was interpreted theistically. But the experience of God present in
Jesus is not to be identified with supernatural myths that surrounded
Jesus, but with the God experience that marked his existence. Jesus
lived so fully that he revealed the Source of Life. He loved so
completely that he revealed the Source of Love. He was so completely
true to his own being in the way he lived out his own humanity that
people saw in him the very Ground of all Being. That is why the
ultimate Christian experience is captured in the Pauline exclamation
"God was in Christ" that drives us to the meaning of the life of
Jesus.
Yes, I am convinced that there is a realm of spirit, transcendence and
otherness beyond the limits of my physical existence. I use the word
God to speak of this realm. I experience the inbreaking of this realm
in those moments when life is expanded, when consciousness is enhanced
and when eyes are opened to view dimensions of life beyond our normal
boundaries. I do not expect a supernatural being from this realm to
invade my world to accomplish some miraculous purpose. I do expect
human life to make this realm known in the quality of our lives, in
the wastefulness of our love and in the expansion of our being. I do
believe that in this mysterious realm of the divine, our love and our
caring can loose energy that embraces us, makes us whole, brings
healing power, and invites us to share in that which is timeless. I
further believe that those of us who know this reality are responsible
for acting it out so that it impacts our world and transforms it,
calling us into a new awareness of the holy. Finally, this is what
leads me to say that I see God in Jesus of Nazareth; and he becomes
Christ and Lord for me because he penetrated this realm as no one else
has done and his life made clear what God as the Source of Life, the
Source of Love and the Ground of Being really is.
Those of us who are disciples of this Jesus call ourselves "The Body
of Christ," which means that we are called to be agents of the life,
sharers of the love and enablers of the expanded humanity revealed in
his being. Perhaps the time has come for men and women of faith to
recognize there is no divine supernatural being who inhabits the sky.
There is only a divine presence deep in the heart of life, bubbling up
in each of us, waiting for the opportunity to emerge in the expansion
of our being. So I turn inward to meet God, and the God I find there
is the God I see in Jesus of Nazareth. When I give that God away, I
become a revealer, indeed a bearer of God in this world. In this sense
we human beings are the workers of miracles. We are the persons
through whom that holy presence we call God enters life and invites
others to enter that which we call the realm of the divine. The
incarnation of God, a phrase that we once used to speak of Jesus,
becomes now expanded to include the incarnation of God in each of us.
The Reformation of Christianity, the delivery of this faith system of
yesterday from the irrelevance to which the knowledge expansion has
doomed it, must start here, where passive dependency is removed from
religion and where we come to understand that in our expanded humanity
God is revealed. It was that experience that forced the first
Christians to say Jesus is Lord. In and through his humanity, so full,
so whole and so free, the holy and transcendent God was met. A
Reformation Church will be built on that conviction.
Sponger
<whi...@erols.com> wrote:
>It is, unfortunately for this argument, not true that the object of
>religious intention is necessarily personal. Pantheism is ever popular
>and does not require the divine to have any personality or will at all.
The reality is Spong's God is referenced to Jesus Christ as per
classical Christianity from the beginning. And Jesus made it clear
this Father does have both personality and will. However, God dwells
not in the heights. Rather in the depths of human life/souls.
However, as per classical Christianity no one is equating God with
empirical reality or the "solid world." Remember one of the most
important and authentic utterances of Jesus "the kingdom of God is
among you." or in John "Where two or three are gathered in my
name..."
In my opinion Spong has not outline or proposed a new theology
or way of looking at God. Rather he is suggesting, really stating,
the old classical theistic way is inadequate for modern humans
and is passing away. Spong is also hinting at some new ways
of looking at God. Ways which are already implicit in the sayings
of Jesus and other Church leaders through the centuries. And
ways which require further development in Christian doctrine
and preaching.
Many moons ago a theological professor asked me "Do humans
discover order in the universe and the world or is it all imposed
order. Well, reading some quantum mechanics and theology, too,
I wouldd think most if not all is as much imposed order. A map
of reality.
The imposed order is linked to reality but it seems to always require
some tinkering and updating. In other words, a closer approximation
to the reality being structured for the human brain to comprehend.
This ordering task may seem irksome and equivalent to always
having to roll the stone up the mountl only to have it roll down
automatic. for the millionth + nth time. Such is life in science,
history, and especially theology. That's why we DO theology. It's
not grabbed from the divine hand extended from heaven as per Moses
and the 2 tablets of Mt. Sinai fame.
>If one is going to adopt thsi pseudoscientific approach, anyway, the
psudoscientific" is here loaded and perjorative. Argue the argument
and not the person. Spong is fairly well aquainted with current
science, real science.
armstrong
Sponger wrote in message <380d11fe...@news.orc.ca>...
>A long time Spong has been telling us theism isn't going to last.
>Like a literal Virgin Birth, 6 day creation, the ascension and a
>physically resurrected Christ it ain't long for this world. Adios and
>good-bye.
>
>Now Spong, at last, gives us a rough idea what the future holds
>for followers of Christ.
>
The fruit of Spongiantity is already evident.
If his is truly the way to a new, revitalized and reformed Christianity you
would think that his Newark diocese would be spiritually healthy, vibrant
and growing. But that is not the case. Since 1979, when he became bishop,
the membership rolls have declined by 42% according to some some accounts.
Others report a decline of more than 50%. Spong has killed his own diocese.
The fruit of his Gnostic theology is poisonous.
If the man had any personal integrity he would have exited the Episcopal
Church long ago. When a person no longer believes in the foundational
purposes and mission of an organization, company, church; for God' sake GO!
When he broke the vows of his ordination to "guard the faith, unity, and
discipline of the Church" he ceased to be a bishop of the "One holy
catholic and apostolic Church". He is no more than a wolf in sheep's
clothing, fleecing the flock. The flock he was entrusted with is dying.
The way to a renewed and revived Episcopal Church is for the men who are
still faithful Bishops to grow the spiritual balls to anathamatize every
deacon, priest and bishop who have betrayed their vows and the historic,
biblical, apostolic Christian Church. O Lord, raise up MEN in Your Church
that will stand unashamedly for the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. Raise up
MEN who will boldly defend the historic faith, given to our fathers, against
all asaults of the enemy. Father revive and renew Your people again. Amen.
Daniel Pflager
news:380d9bb...@news.orc.ca...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:29:47 -0400, Charley & Melissa Wingate
> <whi...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >It is, unfortunately for this argument, not true that the object of
> >religious intention is necessarily personal. Pantheism is ever popular
> >and does not require the divine to have any personality or will at all.
>
> The reality is Spong's God is referenced to Jesus Christ as per
> classical Christianity from the beginning. And Jesus made it clear
> this Father does have both personality and will. However, God dwells
> not in the heights. Rather in the depths of human life/souls.
> However, as per classical Christianity no one is equating God with
> empirical reality or the "solid world." Remember one of the most
> important and authentic utterances of Jesus "the kingdom of God is
> among you." or in John "Where two or three are gathered in my
> name..."
>
> In my opinion Spong has not outline or proposed a new theology
> or way of looking at God. Rather he is suggesting, really stating,
> the old classical theistic way is inadequate for modern humans
> and is passing away. Spong is also hinting at some new ways
> of looking at God. Ways which are already implicit in the sayings
> of Jesus and other Church leaders through the centuries. And
> ways which require further development in Christian doctrine
> and preaching.
New & Improved Christianity for the New Millenium!
The religion where people come first!
Obedientia et Pax,
Daniel Pflager
Sponger
wrote:
>
>Sponger wrote in message <380d11fe...@news.orc.ca>...
>>A long time Spong has been telling us theism isn't going to last.
>>Like a literal Virgin Birth, 6 day creation, the ascension and a
>>physically resurrected Christ it ain't long for this world. Adios and
>>good-bye.
>>
>>Now Spong, at last, gives us a rough idea what the future holds
>>for followers of Christ.
>>
>
>
>The fruit of Spongiantity is already evident.
>
> If his is truly the way to a new, revitalized and reformed Christianity you
>would think that his Newark diocese would be spiritually healthy, vibrant
>and growing. But that is not the case. Since 1979, when he became bishop,
>the membership rolls have declined by 42% according to some some accounts.
>Others report a decline of more than 50%. Spong has killed his own diocese.
>The fruit of his Gnostic theology is poisonous.
>If the man had any personal integrity he would have exited the Episcopal
>Church long ago. When a person no longer believes in the foundational
>purposes and mission of an organization, company, church; for God' sake GO!
>
>When he broke the vows of his ordination to "guard the faith, unity, and
>discipline of the Church" he ceased to be a bishop of the "One holy
>catholic and apostolic Church". He is no more than a wolf in sheep's
>clothing, fleecing the flock. The flock he was entrusted with is dying.
This paragraph has been used, with minor variations, to castigate the
progressives of the Church right from the beginning. I.e. - by the
Palestinian Christians about AD 50 who are worried about that free
thinker St. Paul who hardly references anything he writes to the
historic "real" Jesus. Then in the 16th Century the conservatives
were complaining about a "bull lose in the Lord's vinyard." Namely
Martin Luther. And on and on.
No doubt the author of the gospel of Mark would regard the writer
of John's gospel as a bit of a heretic and enticed=seduced from the
way of the Lord by fashionable Greek philosophy. Even within
Christianity one man's fine theology is another Christians heresy
and work of the devil.
Well, I blame God! If I'd been in charge of the universe I would have
regarded job 1, when creating things, to establish a solid criterion
for what is absolute religious truth. A criterion understood by even
babes. And failing that one that smart religious folks could trot out
to assess the likes of Bishop Spong and those of his liberal
persuasion. Obviously, God is of a different mind on this criterion
matter. Sure looks like he don't mind fanaticism, bitter debate
and a touch of hatred in the midst of his truth followers, liberal or
conservative. I must add that God is supremely indifferent when
it comes to a lot of human suffering - mental or physical. I'm not
complaining. Just can't see it any other way. Guess Spong's
diatribes contra "let's pretend theology" has got to my inner soul!
>The way to a renewed and revived Episcopal Church is for the men who are
>still faithful Bishops to grow the spiritual balls to anathamatize every
>deacon, priest and bishop who have betrayed their vows and the historic,
>biblical, apostolic Christian Church. O Lord, raise up MEN in Your Church
>that will stand unashamedly for the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. Raise up
>MEN who will boldly defend the historic faith, given to our fathers, against
>all asaults of the enemy. Father revive and renew Your people again. Amen.
In the phrase "historic, biblical, apostolic Christian Church" there
is only one key word - Christian. And I'm refer specifically to
the Christ part of Christian at that.
All other entities in the phrase are obviously subject in this world
of change and decay to the voice of the everlasting one
who speaks from eternity with the latest game plan and needful
modification of "absolute" truth of yore.
Thus, it is necessary to lay off, for a short season now and then
the virpitudinous ? attacks on one's fellow Christians, and listen
to the voice of Him who sits at the right hand of God almighty.
The latter image referring to the Resurrected Lord of God's people.
Cfortunato
>Palestinian Christians about AD 50 who are worried about that free
>thinker St. Paul who hardly references anything he writes to the
>historic "real" Jesus.
Actually, Paul refers to Jesus life an enormous number of times in the
epistles. The idea that Paul has little interest in the "real" Jesus (which is,
incidentally, the resurrected one), is a falsehood.
Cfortunato
>No doubt the author of the gospel of Mark would regard the writer
>of John's gospel as a bit of a heretic and enticed=seduced from the
>way of the Lord by fashionable Greek philosophy.
How do you know that? Did you ask Mark?
Stephen Denney
I have a suggestion: Most Episcopal churches have Rite I and Rite II
services, to accomodate those who prefer one liturgical style over
another. Implicit in the difference between these two forms of liturgy
there may also be a different theological approach.
Perhaps we should now have a Rite III service for those who share Bishop
Spong's belief that most of what we recite together in either Rite I or
Rite II is bad theology at best and hogwash at worst. For example instead
of the Prayer of Confession, Rite III participants could recite a general
statement on man's inhumanity to man and the surrounding environment. For
the Nicene Creed, Rite III might substitute a kind of New Age statement in
line with Bishop Spong's non-theistic belief system on our relationship
with the universe. Instead of three readings from the Bible -- one from
the Old Testament, one from the Epistles of the New Testament, and one
from the Gospel -- which we do in Rite I and Rite II, Rite III might
combine one or two readings from the Bible (depending on if the Biblical
passage corresponds with our value system today) with a reading or two
from the scripture of another religion or perhaps a statement of a great
philosopher or intellectual.
The "Prayers of the People" might also be reworded, in Rite III, so we
are not actually praying to God but rather making a communal affirmation
of our solidarity with each other and the planet. I imagine the taking of
the Eucharist would also have to be revised, in line with Bishop Spong's
13 theses.
These are a few ideas for Rite III, so the "church alumni" can be
brought back to the Episcopal church, while those of us not quite ready
for the non-theistic "radical reformation" that Bishop Spong proposes can
remain with Rite I or Rite II.
I have not yet had the occasion to visit a Unitarian church so it may be
that some of the above ideas I suggest for Rite III are already
implemented there.
- Steve Denney
;/)
Sponger
Ok. Where is the temptation, the sermon on the mount, the Lord's
Prayer, any live conversation with any of the original disciples,
actual words to his enemies, choosing disciples, talking to Roman,
quote of Jesus re Roman authority vs. God's authority. Paul jumps in
with all authority is of God. Not exactly what Jesus said is it?
Jesus was forever talking bout the dangers of love of money and
mammon. Jesus generally had a postitive view of women. Paul
is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his attitude
toward women. Paul is forever talking about sin and redemption
and saving one's ass eternally. Jesus was centered on fear as
mankind's big enemy. And Jesus was also big on the Kingdom
of God and not personal redemption.
However, both Paul and Jesus agreed on the need to trust and love
God.
Sponger
<sde...@ocf.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
>I have a suggestion: Most Episcopal churches have Rite I and Rite II
>services, to accomodate those who prefer one liturgical style over
>another. Implicit in the difference between these two forms of liturgy
>there may also be a different theological approach.
>Perhaps we should now have a Rite III service for those who share Bishop
>Spong's belief that most of what we recite together in either Rite I or
>Rite II is bad theology at best and hogwash at worst. For example instead
>of the Prayer of Confession, Rite III participants could recite a general
>statement on man's inhumanity to man and the surrounding environment. For
>the Nicene Creed, Rite III might substitute a kind of New Age statement in
>line with Bishop Spong's non-theistic belief system on our relationship
>with the universe. Instead of three readings from the Bible -- one from
>the Old Testament, one from the Epistles of the New Testament, and one
>from
non-theistic does not mean denial of God's existence or, better, that
He IS. Spong no doubt suggests we do abandon certain New Testament
ideas such as blood atonement, eternal Hell and Jesus born of a
Virgin. However, this is far from a denial of God, or the Christ he
has resurrected to eternity. And I'm sure John Spong is as keen as
any preacher to preach atonement with God through the living power and
presence of Jesus in our lives
Look at it this way. We have everything classical Christianity
offered the world from the beginning. Spong merely wants us
to drop some superficial and superflous window dressing.
Such as the Virgin Birth and a God who is know better by
breaking the laws of nature than creating the mind boggling
wonders of the univers. And its obvious right from t he first
century the Church served up both a spiritual resurrection
story and the physical resurrection ones. You can go either
way but it ties your mind in fewer knots to see the physical
resurrection stories as myths in a good cause. Besides
they're later and more elaborate. You know something like
fish stories that get better with the passage of time. Just
like the strands of the early Old Testament describing the
"parting of the Red Sea."
The only way Bishop Spong or his teachings are going away
is if the whole edifice of modern Old and New Testament studies
miraculously should now collapse. You know, two hundred
years of good solid Christian thinking, Roman Catholic and
Protestant, goes down the tube. No way, Hosea!
armstrong
of himself as an "atheist who happens to be a good bishop." His own words
not mine. A deconstructed Jesus and Christianity is no faith at all.
Sponger wrote in message <380f581a...@news.orc.ca>...
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> non-theistic does not mean denial of God's existence or, better, that
> He IS.
Wellllll, to take the word at face value, we must read it to mean
*precisely* that.
> Spong no doubt suggests we do abandon certain New Testament ideas such as
> blood atonement, eternal Hell and Jesus born of a Virgin.
I'm not going to touch "blood atonement" or we'll be here all night. The
other two are dealt with pretty summarily.
Let's start with the Virgin Birth, every modernist's bugaboo. My issue
on this one against the modernists is that they cannot give me any good
reasons why I should *not* believe in the doctrine. Appeals to science
are simply not going to cut it; to do so is to violate the sense of what
the miraculous is. It is science that makes the miraculous *possible*;
miracles must have a natural order to violate.
Hell presents a different issue. It offends Spong's sense of the
goodness of God. (One might very well ask where he *gets* that
notion....) And it has a certain merit. But it isn't as though the
traditionalists haven't been fighting with this for centuries.
There are basically three approaches one can take:
(1) Spong's "man is the measure of all things" approach, in which his
sense of the good is unquestioned and is used to cut back the bible
wherever it offends him.
(2) The opposite extreme which takes scripture uncritically and simply
asserts that Spong's sense of the good is corrupted and defective.
(3) A more subtle approach which uses the discrepancy as a means to
investigate the phenomenon of good and of sinfulness.
Clearly one can combine these. I think flatly preferring (1) is foolish.
> And I'm sure John Spong is as keen as any preacher to preach atonement with
> God through the living power and presence of Jesus in our lives
Well, I can't say that he is, because every time I come across him he is
either pushing one of his books or serving the interests of some secular
social cause.
> The only way Bishop Spong or his teachings are going away
> is if the whole edifice of modern Old and New Testament studies
> miraculously should now collapse. You know, two hundred
> years of good solid Christian thinking, Roman Catholic and
> Protestant, goes down the tube. No way, Hosea!
Well, its archaeological kindred is getting flushed down the tubes, so
why is the repudiation of modernist theology so implausible? In biblical
archaeology, the modernist viewpoint that there is no historical
accuracy in the Bible is being hammered. Every year something new turns
up which ties neatly into scripture. Just a few years back an ossuary
was found which, it seems, contains the bones of Caiaphas.
Modernist theology is similarly prejudiced and speculative. Sure, there
will always be unitarians, but I canot see unitarianism having a bright
future.
C. WIngate
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> However, God dwells not in the heights. Rather in the depths of human
> life/souls.
And what is your authority to say this? My should I believe you? I note
in passing that scripture teaches that God is present everywhere. It
does not teach that He is present *in*the*same*way* everywhere.
> Rather [Spong] is suggesting, really stating, the old classical theistic way
> is inadequate for modern humans and is passing away.
But what is "not theistic" about his version? To say that God is not a
man on a throne in the sky-- that is no achievement at all, and one
could come to any theologian, ancient or modern, for such edification.
The issue is not whether God is thus-and-so, but whether the icons
represent God "well". Spong is trying, among other things, to cut out
all of the threatening aspects of God. I see no way to justify this, and
the fact that he doesn't like them is a condemnation of himself rather
than of (say) the scriptural depiction.
> Many moons ago a theological professor asked me "Do humans
> discover order in the universe and the world or is it all imposed
> order. Well, reading some quantum mechanics and theology, too,
> I wouldd think most if not all is as much imposed order. A map
> of reality.
But maps can be right and wrong. I once lived on a street which the
local maps generally showed as making a connection which simply wasn't
there. The map was wrong; the street was right. Order here cannot be
imposed, but it can be teased out of what appears to be disorder. One
simply cannot impose an arbitrary order, so that the power to impose
order is so limited as to really merit another name. As to whether the
order actually exists, this is, I think, an unjustifiably
anthropocentric view of affairs. Occam's Razor, if nothing else, would
tend to imply that scientific models can be assumed to reflect natural
behavior because the same (or sufficiently similar) ordering is really
present in nature.
> Such is life in science, history, and especially theology. That's why we DO
> theology. It's not grabbed from the divine hand extended from heaven as per
> Moses and the 2 tablets of Mt. Sinai fame.
Easy enough for you to say, but again, who should believe you?
People have a lot of different reasons for doing theology, and the
reasons are reflected in the theology they do. There are a lot of people
who spend a lot of time trying to escape from the commands of Jesus, for
instance. I've come to have a suspicion of theology because, really, the
message of the gospels is that you don't need to do theology. It is
sufficient to do justice, love mercy, and humbly walk with God.
> >If one is going to adopt thsi pseudoscientific approach, anyway, the
> psudoscientific" is here loaded and perjorative. Argue the argument
> and not the person. Spong is fairly well aquainted with current
> science, real science.
You are the one arguing the person. I don't care about Spong's
qualifications (which are, in fact, slim) if they aren't realized in
cogent statements. It's a tired example, but when he says that if Jesus
were ascending at the speed of light, he wouldn't have left the galaxy
yet, that's just a stupid, pseudoscientific remark. It doesn't reflect
the scriptural account, and it imputes to the ancients a belief that
they would have found laughable.
C. Wingate
Cfortunato
>epistles. The idea that Paul has little interest in the "real" Jesus (which
is,
>incidentally, the resurrected one), is a falsehood.
>Ok. Where is the temptation, the sermon on the mount, the Lord's
>Prayer, any live conversation with any of the original disciples,
>actual words to his enemies, choosing disciples, talking to Roman,
>quote of Jesus re Roman authority vs. God's authority.
If we had no gospels - if we knew absolutely nothing about Jesus except what
was contained in Paul's Epistles - we would know about the birth of Jesus, the
death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the two great commandments of Jesus,
the institution of the Eucharist, his Jewishness, the fact that his ministry
was to Jews, that he taught, that he taught against divorce in distinction to
the laws of his time, that he called God "Father", that he died in Judea, that
it was at the hands of both "the Jews" and "the earthly rulers," that it was
before Pontius Pilate, that he had twelve disciples, and (above all) the
self-sacrificial nature of his ministry. This can hardly be called "no
interest" in Jesus life. The fact that he fails to mention certain other
specifics is totally irrelevant.
>Paul jumps in
>with all authority is of God. Not exactly what Jesus said is it?
"All authority is given to me in heaven and on eath" is from the Gospels, not
the epistles.
>Jesus was forever talking bout the dangers of love of money and
>mammon.
And "the love of money is root of all manner of evils" is from the epistles.
>Jesus generally had a postitive view of women. Paul
>is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his attitude
>toward women.
Maybe feminists say that. Most scholars would disagree. Paul the Apostle had
an egalitarian view of women that would have been rather astonishing to the
people of his time. You will notice that there are an enormous number of women
associated with his ministry - Phoebe, Chloe, Priscilla, etc. - and many seemed
to have positions of authority (notice that Paul lists Priscilla's name first,
and her husband Aquila second). "There is neither man nor woman, but all are
one in Christ Jesus" is Paul the Apostle's statement.
Are you under the illusion that women in the Roman Empire had more authority
than they had in the Christian church? They had far, far less, which is part
of the reason why early Christianity attracted far more women than men.
> Paul is forever talking about sin and redemption
>and saving one's ass eternally. Jesus was centered on fear as
>mankind's big enemy.
Where does Jesus mention fear as mankind's biggest enemy? Chapter and verse,
please.
Starbuck
entirity of Paul's teaching and ministry? What has come down to us are 7
letters (refabricated) for certain and a couple of others that he might, or
might not, have written. Therefore, for one to argue that the "Jesus" that
St. Paul references is not the "historic" Jesus is a weak argument. A
reasonable alternative explaination is that St. Paul knew that his hearers
were already familiar with the oral (and perhaps written) Gospel tradition,
and therefore didn't deem it pertinent to repeat in his epistles what the
hearers could obtain from reliable and more direct sources. In any event,
it's a moot point for the Christian community. However interesting the
discussion might be from an academic viewpoint, the Church has long accepted
both the Gospels and Paul's epistles as authoritative FOR OUR COMMUNITY OF
FAITH. Any acedemic conclusions that might indicate to the contrary are
moot at this juncture.
>>>. Paul >is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his
attitude toward women.<<<
So What? Who cares? Feminists howl and scream over Clarence Thomas making
an off hand remark about a pubic hair on a Coke can (sexual harrassment in
the work place), but could care less about much more aggregous behaviors by
a Former Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, and later President.
Are you looking to the situation ethics of this handful of modern Americans
to provide consistant and eternal moral values, by which to live? (IMHO)
that alone would be significant evidence of poor moral judgment.
Contrasting the teachings of Paul with that of Jesus forms an interesting
academic excercise. But what are the significant implications for the
community of faith today? Any at all?
Sponger wrote in message <380f5578...@news.orc.ca>...
>On 21 Oct 1999 14:18:15 GMT, cfort...@aol.com (Cfortunato) wrote:
>
>>> I.e. - by the
>>>Palestinian Christians about AD 50 who are worried about that free
>>>thinker St. Paul who hardly references anything he writes to the
>>>historic "real" Jesus.
>>
>>Actually, Paul refers to Jesus life an enormous number of times in the
>>epistles. The idea that Paul has little interest in the "real" Jesus
(which is,
>>incidentally, the resurrected one), is a falsehood.
>
>Ok. Where is the temptation, the sermon on the mount, the Lord's
>Prayer, any live conversation with any of the original disciples,
>actual words to his enemies, choosing disciples, talking to Roman,
>quote of Jesus re Roman authority vs. God's authority. Paul jumps in
>with all authority is of God. Not exactly what Jesus said is it?
>Jesus was forever talking bout the dangers of love of money and
>mammon. Jesus generally had a postitive view of women. Paul
>is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his attitude
>toward women. Paul is forever talking about sin and redemption
>and saving one's ass eternally. Jesus was centered on fear as
Sponger
<pmdla...@xearthlink.net> wrote:
>Where did you derive the idea that we currently have a record of the
>entirity of Paul's teaching and ministry? What has come down to us are 7
>letters (refabricated) for certain and a couple of others that he might, or
>might not, have written. Therefore, for one to argue that the "Jesus" that
>St. Paul references is not the "historic" Jesus is a weak argument. A
>reasonable alternative explaination is that St. Paul knew that his hearers
>were already familiar with the oral (and perhaps written) Gospel tradition,
>and therefore didn't deem it pertinent to repeat in his epistles what the
>hearers could obtain from reliable and more direct sources.
Well, at the heart of modern New Testament scholarship is the idea
that Paul's epistles are the earlies New Testament writings. Then
Mark and last in the '90's came the Gospel of John. So who is
quoting whom? And Paul does not talk about an empty tomb. Nor
a physically resurrected Jesus. So the central material in Paul is
not an exact repetition of heart of the gospels the crucifixion and
resurrection.
repetition of exactly
In any event,
>it's a moot point for the Christian community. However interesting the
>discussion might be from an academic viewpoint, the Church has long accepted
>both the Gospels and Paul's epistles as authoritative FOR OUR COMMUNITY OF
>FAITH. Any acedemic conclusions that might indicate to the contrary are
>moot at this juncture.
The academic conclusions are not new they go back to the brains and
leaders of the first century. Including their subjective biases,
errors and quaint scientific world view.
>>>>. Paul >is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his
>attitude toward women.<<<
>
>So What? Who cares? Feminists howl and scream over Clarence Thomas making
>an off hand remark about a pubic hair on a Coke can (sexual harrassment in
>the work place), but could care less about much more aggregous behaviors by
>a Former Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, and later President.
>Are you looking to the situation ethics of this handful of modern Americans
>to provide consistant and eternal moral values, by which to live? (IMHO)
>that alone would be significant evidence of poor moral judgment.
>
>Contrasting the teachings of Paul with that of Jesus forms an interesting
>academic excercise. But what are the significant implications for the
>community of faith today? Any at all?
>
It's not really my central interest either.
Sponger
>>Actually, Paul refers to Jesus life an enormous number of times in the
>>epistles. The idea that Paul has little interest in the "real" Jesus (which
>is,
>>incidentally, the resurrected one), is a falsehood.
>
>>Ok. Where is the temptation, the sermon on the mount, the Lord's
>>Prayer, any live conversation with any of the original disciples,
>>actual words to his enemies, choosing disciples, talking to Roman,
>>quote of Jesus re Roman authority vs. God's authority.
>
>If we had no gospels - if we knew absolutely nothing about Jesus except what
>was contained in Paul's Epistles - we would know about the birth of Jesus, the
>death of Jesus,
the resurrection of Jesus, the two great commandments of Jesus,
>the institution of the Eucharist,
Institution of the eucharist may not be exactly as Paul says. Many
scholars will accept a final simple meal and not ritual or the basis
of what has become the mass or eucharist.
his Jewishness, the fact that his ministry
>was to Jews, that he taught, that he taught against divorce in distinction to
>the laws of his time, that he called God "Father", that he died in Judea, that
>it was at the hands of both "the Jews" and "the earthly rulers," that it was
>before Pontius Pilate, that he had twelve disciples, and (above all) the
>self-sacrificial nature of his ministry. This can hardly be called "no
>interest" in Jesus life. The fact that he fails to mention certain other
>specifics is totally irrelevant.
This is not really a biography of the flesh and blood, historical
Jesus. Most men are born and die. Paul does NOT follow the
Gospels of Matt. and LUke as to the birth of Jesus, nor does
he repeat the trial and crucifixion stories which are not historical
fact anyway, and he does not mention the empty tomb, nor the
physically resurrected Jesus. However, he is not centrally
concerned with these matters . Jesus was born and died
and raised to eternity. This resurrected Christ in whom God
acted to reconcile the world is what Paul is really interested.
That is his priority not the flesh and blood Jesus. And he
states so explicitly.
Trouble is when you lose the anchor - what the historical Jesus
actually said and did - you can start turning Jesus the iconoclast
into Jesus the religious icon and pretty well mold him to the point
he become suspiciously like the roman Emperor in power and dignity.
>>Paul jumps in
>>with all authority is of God. Not exactly what Jesus said is it?
>
>"All authority is given to me in heaven and on eath" is from the Gospels, not
>the epistles.
It is not r eally gosple either. It is a later addition. And
definitely not in the style of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus would
probably regard the doctrine of the trinity as anathema. If you
want to have a legitimate use of that word.
>>Jesus was forever talking bout the dangers of love of money and
>>mammon.
>
>And "the love of money is root of all manner of evils" is from the epistles.
>
>>Jesus generally had a postitive view of women. Paul
>>is definitely not appreciated by feminists today for his attitude
>>toward women.
>
>Maybe feminists say that. Most scholars would disagree. Paul the Apostle had
>an egalitarian view of women that would have been rather astonishing to the
>people of his time. You will notice that there are an enormous number of women
>associated with his ministry - Phoebe, Chloe, Priscilla, etc. - and many seemed
>to have positions of authority (notice that Paul lists Priscilla's name first,
>and her husband Aquila second). "There is neither man nor woman, but all are
>one in Christ Jesus" is Paul the Apostle's statement.
I think Jesus was above the patriarchal garbage of ancient Jewish
society. But Paul was still immersed in it. And his words show it.
No doubt the spirit of Christ was leading him toward a more
enlightened view of women and slaves compared to the norm of
that ancient world. As on slavery Paul had a long way to go.
>Are you under the illusion that women in the Roman Empire had more authority
>than they had in the Christian church? They had far, far less, which is part
>of the reason why early Christianity attracted far more women than men.
I would side with you on this one. But it was the example and words
of Jesus that mattered.
>> Paul is forever talking about sin and redemption
>>and saving one's ass eternally. Jesus was centered on fear as
>>mankind's big enemy.
>
>Where does Jesus mention fear as mankind's biggest enemy? Chapter and verse,
>please.
Look at what the angels say at his birth and resurrection. Myths
that convey the essence, thank God, of Jesus' person and ministry.
Of course he did not endorse sin. But his message was often
have faith and trust in God. The opposite of faith is not disbelief
but fear. Healing or just straight teaching Jesus addressed the
central need of man - trust God and put him at the centre of your
life. That's what "consider the lilies, the birds of the air, they
spin not.......
And then the great resurrection scenes. Again, fear not.....
It's all the central message of the Old Testament's 23 Psalm
repeated - though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death
I will fear no evil. For thou art with me.....
Sponger
wrote:
>Apparently you don't know Spong very well. He is no Christian. He speaks
>of himself as an "atheist who happens to be a good bishop." His own words
>not mine. A deconstructed Jesus and Christianity is no faith at all.
The significance of Spong is he pares the errors of
theology and science from the gospels. I guess that
amounts to deconstructing Christianity. But the
Virgin Birth and Ascension are not central Christian
ideas.
Spong also suggests that theism is on its way out. An outdated
conception of God that does not correspond to reality.
So it too goes in file 13.
What you have left is a vital Christianity with all its central ideas
intact - the resurrected Jesus is alive evermore among humans
as their main reference for the will and person of God. And folks
like The Jesus Seminar are, at last, making clear what this
great reference for God actually said and did.
I suppose I'm talking about RECONSTRUCTED Christianity.
And that where I'm putting my faith.
Stephen Denney
spong...@deja.com (Sponger)
>
> The significance of Spong is he pares the errors of
> theology and science from the gospels. I guess that
> amounts to deconstructing Christianity. But the
> Virgin Birth and Ascension are not central Christian
> ideas.
>
> Spong also suggests that theism is on its way out. An outdated
> conception of God that does not correspond to reality.
> So it too goes in file 13.
So could you explain what is a non-theistic conception of God? To put it
another way, what is your concept of God, since you seem share Bishop
Spong's views. No offense intended, I am just trying to understand.
>
> What you have left is a vital Christianity with all its central ideas
> intact - the resurrected Jesus is alive evermore among humans
> as their main reference for the will and person of God. And folks
> like The Jesus Seminar are, at last, making clear what this
> great reference for God actually said and did.
May I ask what you mean by "the resurrected Jesus"? In what sense was he
resurrected and alive today?
I recall in the sixties there was a "God is Dead" theological movement. I
have not studied that but I wonder if some of the non-theistic ideas of
Bishop Spong would be in some ways similar to this earlier movement.
- Steve Denney
Sponger
<sde...@ocf.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> spong...@deja.com (Sponger)
>>
>> The significance of Spong is he pares the errors of
>> theology and science from the gospels. I guess that
>> amounts to deconstructing Christianity. But the
>> Virgin Birth and Ascension are not central Christian
>> ideas.
>>
>> Spong also suggests that theism is on its way out. An outdated
>> conception of God that does not correspond to reality.
>> So it too goes in file 13.
>
>So could you explain what is a non-theistic conception of God? To put it
>another way, what is your concept of God, since you seem share Bishop
>Spong's views. No offense intended, I am just trying to understand.
No offence taken, Steve. In fact, though I've been reading Spong for
several years, I was taken aback last year when Bishop Spong started
telling the world theism as a way of conceptualizing God was on the
way out - a spent force. Intellectually bankrupt.
And for several months I too asked well adios theistic God, but how
are we now to think of God.
And it was only recently I found a passage where Spong addresses
directly our question. I quote -
Source of Love and the Ground of Being really is. "" Bishop Spong
>>
>> What you have left is a vital Christianity with all its central ideas
>> intact - the resurrected Jesus is alive evermore among humans
>> as their main reference for the will and person of God. And folks
>> like The Jesus Seminar are, at last, making clear what this
>> great reference for God actually said and did.
>
>May I ask what you mean by "the resurrected Jesus"? In what sense was he
>resurrected and alive today?
I suggest that you read Bishop Spong's
Resurrection- Myth or Reality? HarperSanFrancisco.
There is no Jesus as a physical being resurrected back from his death
on the cross to time and space. Jesus has been raised into eternity
and the very life of God, although Christians have imaged this as
saying Jesus is seated at the right hand of God. In his resurrected
power and life Jesus is still know to his followers as a spiritual
presence assuring them God's forgives their sins and has invited them
too to share the new life of eternity. To me it is this living
presence that is central to the shared meal of Christianity whether
you call it Mass or Communion. And the assurance of sin forgiven is
secondary to the party spirit and celebration of Him who has conquered
death and made manifest immortality to the world.
So you see, Spong supports the central beliefs of the Christian faith
and merely trims doctrine of ancient outworn imagery (and theological
error such as taking the Virgin Birth literally or thinking God is so
upset by human sin he would even consider burning in hell anyone for
a minute let alone an eternity.
>I recall in the sixties there was a "God is Dead" theological movement. I
>have not studied that but I wonder if some of the non-theistic ideas of
>Bishop Spong would be in some ways similar to this earlier movement.
> - Steve Denney
Again, Steve, the earlier moment is related to Spong's work in that
both the "God is Dead" and Spong theologians realize the game is over
for a lot of the imagery and naive unscientific world view of the
medieval church. That God is dead. And so is the theist God.
Folk really can't see what's the big deal of Jesus born of a virgin.
It merely, nowadays, undercuts a central affirmation of Christianity -
Jesus whatever else he may be is truly and wholly man.
And though humans thirst for fellowship with God, millions and
millions do, they are not any longer interested in atonement with
God through a blood sacrifice of some sacrificial lamb on a cross.
That's merely primitive religion and may have had its place one
to impress less rational beings. But no more. The cross is still
important because it defines Jesus and what kind of Christ/Messiah
he was = the suffering servant. And the cross also assures us there
is no limit to God's love (as told in the parable of the Prodical
Son and the lost coin and the one of the hundred sheep that strayed
into the wilderness) But the cross is not tit for tat offering to God
by God to appease or soften his wrath toward sinners.
I don't agree with everything St. Paul said. However, I do think he
was right on when he in 2 Corinthians our knowledge and our
prophesies (our theology) will pass away. For they like scientific
knowledge often turn out incomplete or just plain misleading.
Or they are often the basis, a building block, of a wider and
more expansive view of reality. Our knowledge of God is no
where as complete and perfect as that great bedrock and
eternal reality of faith - love of God. After all our correcting,
expansion and exploration involved in Christian thinking the
one lasting thing for St. Paul, Augustine, Luter, ST Francis
and Spong is the love of God - to know him and love him
for eternity. Amen.
D. South
Maps can be right or wrong. OK. They, in the real changing world,
can be described as accurate or outdated. I wish to suggest the
ancient maps, gospels and creeds, are not God but point to God.
The ancient maps are only maps. Spong, I think, is suggesting
they be updated. Part of the updating is a paring and leaving behind.
For example the Virgin Birth myth. And the creation myths of Genesis.
>
>> Such is life in science, history, and especially theology. That's why we DO
>> theology. It's not grabbed from the divine hand extended from heaven as per
>> Moses and the 2 tablets of Mt. Sinai fame.
>
>Easy enough for you to say, but again, who should believe you?
>
That's for sure. But the whole project is a community one. It has
nothing to do with me or Spong. But it does have a lot to do with
the Christian community, Protestant and R. Catholic. I'm talking
about the development of modern historical-critical theology.
And I think Spong is passing on a lot of consensus among the
historical-critical theologians (Tillich, Hans Kung, Tom Harpur etc.)
The fundamentalists are involved in the sense of antithesis against
thesis. and have a part in molding the modern theology even though
it may be in a negative way.
>People have a lot of different reasons for doing theology, and the
>reasons are reflected in the theology they do. There are a lot of people
>who spend a lot of time trying to escape from the commands of Jesus, for
>instance. I've come to have a suspicion of theology because, really, the
>message of the gospels is that you don't need to do theology. It is
>sufficient to do justice, love mercy, and humbly walk with God.
>
Ok. But why would you want to divorce that from doing good theology.
One's Christianity only puts the responsibility of cleansing
irrationality from one's faith. Does loving God mean putting your
life and mind on autopilot and robot-like try to please the Big Guy
upstairs? No way, Hosea.
>> >If one is going to adopt thsi pseudoscientific approach, anyway, the
>
>> psudoscientific" is here loaded and perjorative. Argue the argument
>> and not the person. Spong is fairly well aquainted with current
>> science, real science.
>
>You are the one arguing the person.
I'm actually arguing for the person, Spong. For, he is reasonably
and cleary presents the case for modern rational, up-to-date theology.
>
I don't care about Spong's
>qualifications (which are, in fact, slim) if they aren't realized in
>cogent statements.
You are intitled to your opinion. But it is groundless.
>. It's a tired example, but when he says that if Jesus
>were ascending at the speed of light, he wouldn't have left the galaxy
>yet, that's just a stupid, pseudoscientific remark. It doesn't reflect
>the scriptural account, and it imputes to the ancients a belief that
>they would have found laughable.
>
Yes, you may be right. But Spong is trying to avoid a story, the
Ascension, that many, many modern Christians, and non-believers,too,
would find laughable.
Let's face it. What was good enough for Paul, David or 1st century
Christians is not good enough for today's followers of Jesus. Not
the liberal ones anyway. It may be somehow in God's wisdom the
gospels are entirely the Absolute Truth of God. Nevertheless, many
modern Christians are prepared to develop their own Gospel, in
fellowship with God and other Christians. A new Gospel comprehensible
to Christians who insist on the good news of Jesus of Nazareth related
to the modern world view including psychology, history,..... even
economics. God in his mercy no doubt as he has with millions and
billions of other humans accept their limited efforts to know him
and express their experiences of his modern acts. Why not?
You must face reality. Just because a position is framed in scripture
and backed by the Apostles does not make it kosher to many
comtemporaries. Rather, a big turn off. Not on God but religion, no
matter how good, true or beautiful.
>C. Wingate
D. South
<whi...@erols.com> wrote:
>Sponger wrote:
>
>> However, God dwells not in the heights. Rather in the depths of human
>> life/souls.
>
>And what is your authority to say this? My should I believe you? I note
>in passing that scripture teaches that God is present everywhere. It
>does not teach that He is present *in*the*same*way* everywhere.
>
>> Rather [Spong] is suggesting, really stating, the old classical theistic way
>> is inadequate for modern humans and is passing away.
>
>But what is "not theistic" about his version? To say that God is not a
>man on a throne in the sky-- that is no achievement at all, and one
>could come to any theologian, ancient or modern, for such edification.
>The issue is not whether God is thus-and-so, but whether the icons
>represent God "well". Spong is trying, among other things, to cut out
>all of the threatening aspects of God. I see no way to justify this, and
>the fact that he doesn't like them is a condemnation of himself rather
>than of (say) the scriptural depiction.
It seems to me Spong wants to place all his money on the immanence
of God. And represents a total rejection of "God out there" whatever
is entailed in God on the great white throne far above humans in
heaven. He also rejects, rightly the injecting model of theology
where Jesus pops into the world from out there. And then gets
himself lifted back there. Why hasn't God constructed a celestial
elevator long ago???
D. South
Stephen Denney
On Sunday Oct. 24, 1999 dale...@mailcity.com (D. South) wrote:
<snip>
> That's for sure. But the whole project is a community one. It has
> nothing to do with me or Spong. But it does have a lot to do with
> the Christian community, Protestant and R. Catholic. I'm talking
> about the development of modern historical-critical theology.
> And I think Spong is passing on a lot of consensus among the
> historical-critical theologians (Tillich, Hans Kung, Tom Harpur etc.)
> The fundamentalists are involved in the sense of antithesis against
> thesis. and have a part in molding the modern theology even though
> it may be in a negative way.
>
I wonder to what extent Hans Kung would agree with the views of Bishop
Spong. I know he has had problems with the Pope, but is he also a
non-theist? It might be interesting to line up the Internet theses of
Bishop Spong alongside what Hans Kung has said on each point. I also see a
false dichotomy above between fundamentalist Christians on the one hand
and radical theologians on the other hand (or more particularly Bishop
Spong), when most of us who belong to the Episcopal church fall in neither
group.
>
> >People have a lot of different reasons for doing theology, and the
> >reasons are reflected in the theology they do. There are a lot of people
> >who spend a lot of time trying to escape from the commands of Jesus, for
> >instance. I've come to have a suspicion of theology because, really, the
> >message of the gospels is that you don't need to do theology. It is
> >sufficient to do justice, love mercy, and humbly walk with God.
> >
> Ok. But why would you want to divorce that from doing good theology.
> One's Christianity only puts the responsibility of cleansing
> irrationality from one's faith. Does loving God mean putting your
> life and mind on autopilot and robot-like try to please the Big Guy
> upstairs? No way, Hosea.
>
There are many theologians and clergy who would disagree strongly with the
views of Bishop Spong.
<snip>
> Yes, you may be right. But Spong is trying to avoid a story, the
> Ascension, that many, many modern Christians, and non-believers,too,
> would find laughable.
>
> Let's face it. What was good enough for Paul, David or 1st century
> Christians is not good enough for today's followers of Jesus. Not
> the liberal ones anyway. It may be somehow in God's wisdom the
> gospels are entirely the Absolute Truth of God. Nevertheless, many
> modern Christians are prepared to develop their own Gospel, in
> fellowship with God and other Christians. A new Gospel comprehensible
> to Christians who insist on the good news of Jesus of Nazareth related
> to the modern world view including psychology, history,..... even
> economics. God in his mercy no doubt as he has with millions and
> billions of other humans accept their limited efforts to know him
> and express their experiences of his modern acts. Why not?
> You must face reality. Just because a position is framed in scripture
> and backed by the Apostles does not make it kosher to many
> comtemporaries. Rather, a big turn off. Not on God but religion, no
> matter how good, true or beautiful.
>
Yes, indeed, many modern Christians are "prepared to develop their own
Gospel." But I have to wonder, can there be coexistence within the
Episcopal church between radically different theological views? I recall
on Good Friday this year, the seminarian who delivered the homily at my
church said she did not believe in the traditional doctrine that Christ
died for our sins. I was surprised. As I followed her talk I tried to
understand if she meant she did not believe in the traditional church
doctrine on atonement, or if she simply did not believe that Christ died
for our sins. As I left, I felt confused and wondered, maybe I don't
belong in this church. I was confirmed as an Episcopalian only two years
ago. So now I am trying to find another Episcopal church which might be a
tad more conservative in its theology and liturgy -- not fundamentalist,
but not denying the basic doctrines of Christianity either.
If I lived in Bishop Spong's diocese, I think it would be difficult to
remain within the Episcopal church. The priest, and even more so the
bishop, is supposed to unite the community of believers. But Bishop Spong
comes across to me as more of a divisive force, not really interested in
reconciling with Christians who are more conservative in their views.
- Steve Denney
D. South
<whi...@erols.com> wrote:
>D. South wrote:
>
>> It seems to me Spong wants to place all his money on the immanence
>> of God. And represents a total rejection of "God out there" whatever
>ct is a community one.
>
>Well, it isn't really. I mean, if one extends the reach of the community
>to include all of Christendom, then what we have is a lot of little
>sects in which the modernists figure as a really rather minor group.
>Even if one limits affairs to those with some pretense of scholarship,
>the field as it appears to me is rather one-sided. THe modernists simply
>fail to engage the other camps to the degree that the other camps engage
>the modernists. The modernists tend to misrepresent their numerous
>opponents as a monolithic bloc of untoughtful cretins, but the reality
>is that there are a wide variety of attacks on modernism, and they deal
>with the historical-critical issue differently.
>
Though I don't want or like the title "modernist" I am one. For many
Christians of conservative bent it is a handy label applied to anyone
disagreeing with their theologicial position and allows them to
dismiss their opponents as disconnected entirely from Christ's
Church and incapable of entertaining any orthodox or true Christian
doctrine.
For instance, Bishop Spong does believe God was in Christ
reconciling the world to himself. To this points the Virgin Birth
story, miracles, cross and resurrection. However, Spong
maintains we don't have to, actually should not, go one expressing
the central tenets of Christian faith in the same way the writer
of Mark or Matthew or John did. In fact John rightly points out
their world view and myths no longer connect to modern folk informed
by the science of Hawkings/Einstein, the thinking of Freud and
Jung, and Darwin/S.Gould etc.
At this point "modernist" is heaped on Spong and me. Not to
mention heretic. However, even within the New Testament
canon we see wide divergences in interpretation of the Christ
event. Thus, the Jesus Seminar will not allow one word of the
beloved Gospel of John to be considered red = the actual
words of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact for me and lots of
Jesus Seminar folk the gospel of John is a great authentic pointer
to God and the real meaning of the person and ministry of Jesus.
Still, you would have to be out of your tree to state the gospel
of John doesn't possess its own peculiar theological biases
and myth constructions that differ mightily from the gospel of
Mark, the earliest gospel. And it would be interesting if we
could put St. Paul and the author of any one of the gospels
together today for a long debate on what actually are the merits
of the various gospels compared to his (Paul's). I would
suggest the debate be moderated and a policeman be handy
too.
>> > I've come to have a suspicion of theology because, really, the
>> >message of the gospels is that you don't need to do theology. It is
>> >sufficient to do justice, love mercy, and humbly walk with God.
>
>> Ok. But why would you want to divorce that from doing good theology.
>
>Begging the question of whose theology *is* the "good" theology, the
>answer is: because for most people theology is a distraction.
>
Good theology is in service of God and his creation the Church. Of
course, what is good theology is debatable. Still, in fellowship with
God and part of the Church, I want to love God with my whole being
including my mind. Besides, the 20th century gives many, many
examples round the world where poor thinking about ultimate matters
and basic justice resulted in death and destruction that made the
apocalyptic writings of the Bible itself seem like a Victorian Sunday
School picnic. When pressed I would like to think very few
Christians want to view theology as distraction. Right from the
beginning of the Church your "distraction" has been fussed and
feuded over, mega big time. To the point of busting and wrecking
nations.
>And then there's your example here:
>> One's Christianity only puts the responsibility of cleansing
>> irrationality from one's faith. Does loving God mean putting your
>> life and mind on autopilot and robot-like try to please the Big Guy
>> upstairs? No way, Hosea.
>
>The problem with this is that, in reality, most people have no choice
>*but* to do this. One can pick and choose among theological authorities,
>but in the end most people are limited in their ability to evaluate what
>the various theological camps are trying to sell them.
>
>Spong's whole line of argument is particularly bad on this point because
>one of his points is that he thinks that traditional thelogy is going to
>be increasingly hard to sell. Take the Virgin Birth again (please). He
>essentially argues from the assertion that "we" don't believe it anymore
>(which isn't true anyway), and then argues that we should mold our
>theology arong this. But one could just as well argue that what is
>needed is to reinvigorate our belief in the Virgin Birth. FOr most
>people, in this wise, the choice is thus between no belief at all or
>utter trust; Spong's attempts at shading look, to them, like no belief
>at all.
>
I admit one BIG problem of all theology including Hindu, Moslem etc
is the lack of a obvious, ultimate criterion whereby one evaluates the
truth value of a particular statement re God or his will. I mean a
empirical critierion. To posit the Bible or anything else invites a
reassertion of the problem How do we know this Bible or verse is
100% kosher on this matter? This is one reason we have a glut of
denominations and Christian sects. And why we are discussing the need
for good theology.
>> >. It's a tired example, but when he says that if Jesus
>> >were ascending at the speed of light, he wouldn't have left the galaxy
>> >yet, that's just a stupid, pseudoscientific remark. It doesn't reflect
>> >the scriptural account, and it imputes to the ancients a belief that
>> >they would have found laughable.
>
>> Yes, you may be right. But Spong is trying to avoid a story, the
>> Ascension, that many, many modern Christians, and non-believers,too,
>> would find laughable.
>
>And _Star Wars_ is *less* laughable, in this regard?
>
>I think the modern intolerance for the miraculous is vastly overstated.
>In terms of the populace at large, it is essentially nonexistent. It
>seems largely a disease of intellectuals and some scientists. And a very
>strong case can be made for it being a disorder, rather than
>intellectual health.
>
I suppose Darwins evolution, Freud's study of the psyche etc etc
are distractions too. Speaking of Freud why don't you read some
thing on the herd instinct. Say The True Believer. I believe
with Abraham Lincolm God loves the common man. For, he made
so many of them. And Jesus himself was a peasant with an
attitude. But sometimes the masses are not well served by their
political or religious leaders. And so it calls for Christian leaders
to encourage critical thinking of all theologies along with political
and philosophical positions too. Thus much pain will be avoided.
>To put it in concrete terms: WW I was devastating to the intellectual
>life of Britain. But it is conspicuously forgotten that, as well as
>Robert Graves and Wilfred Owen, there was also C.S. Lewis and J.R.R.
>Tolkien. The alienation of the former was not a foregone conclusion.
>
>> Let's face it. What was good enough for Paul, David or 1st century
>> Christians is not good enough for today's followers of Jesus. Not
>> the liberal ones anyway.
>
>But if one is not willing to confront the question of whether one should
>*be* a liberal in the first place....
>
>> A new Gospel comprehensible to Christians who insist on the good news of Jesus
>> of Nazareth related to the modern world view including psychology,
>> history,..... even economics.
>
>The history of this sort of theology, in fact, is one of faddishness and
>cheap grace. It gives a religion in which the Wolrd talks and God does
>not.
Well, I will never tire of emphasizing the love of God over his wrath.
Just like Jesus until the writer of Matthew and his ilk got hold of
the gospel and started to put the pedal to divine judgement and
eternal hell fire. And if I'm wrong, it still seems a good position.
Thus, when the good Lord on his judgement throne thunders D.S,
why did you spread this theology emphasizing my love and downplaying
my hatred of my enemies and my everlasting cruelty toward them.?
I'll step up and say well Spong and I got a little tired of those
Church fear mongers down scaling your mercy and gracious personality.
So John and I decided after 2000 years of that garbagewe would take
a different tack. Thus, John and I looked at the authentic words of
Jesus....................
D.S.
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> It seems to me Spong wants to place all his money on the immanence
> of God. And represents a total rejection of "God out there" whatever
> is entailed in God on the great white throne far above humans in
> heaven. He also rejects, rightly the injecting model of theology
> where Jesus pops into the world from out there. And then gets
> himself lifted back there. Why hasn't God constructed a celestial
> elevator long ago???
You say, "rightly", as though you had some defense for this assertion.
Not that I want to belabor it, but you're making (on Spong's behalf)
empirical assertions? Do you have a source of data, or not??
It is perhaps arguable that the old Orthodox way of stating things
tended to lead on transcendence too much. You can hardly argue that the
fundamentalists, or American protestants in general, pay too little
attention to immanence. Indeed, about the only relentlessly
transcendentalist posture I can find is Jack Chick. But he is most
atypical; much more typical of American Christianity is the focus on the
Holy Spirit within the believer.
> Maps can be right or wrong. OK. They, in the real changing world,
> can be described as accurate or outdated. I wish to suggest the
> ancient maps, gospels and creeds, are not God but point to God.
Well, there's an assumed step here which is, in fact, precisely where
the problem lies. You *start* by calling scripture a "map". If you want
an analogy (and it's still notably flawed), I would suggest that
scripture is more like the aerial photographs from which the street maps
are made. There is a sense in which the aerial phto is itself a "map",
but this is a change from a geographical sens eto a mathematical sense.
But the second sense lacks an essential intentionality present in the
geographical notion of mapping.
That figures here in the phrase "point to God". This reduces the
scriptures to theology. The Orthodox position explicitly rejects this;
it holds that some of scripture, at least, is God pointing at *us*. And
if one takes the form of it at face value, most of it is clearly written
either in this direction or in a more meutral, narrative mode. Very
little of scripture is written in the heavily mythological voice of
Genesis.
So I would argue that your assertion that
> The ancient maps are only maps.
Is not only indefensible but demonstably wrong. The only way you can
argue that is to posit scripture as a willfully fraudulent map.
> For example the Virgin Birth myth. And the creation myths of Genesis.
Well, Spong does *not* leave Genesis behind. His arguments for the
acceptability of homosexuality *rely* on Genesis 1.
As for the Virgin Birth, again, nobody has ever given any demonstration
that as a "map" the Virgin BIrth is inaccurate.
> But the whole project is a community one.
Well, it isn't really. I mean, if one extends the reach of the community
to include all of Christendom, then what we have is a lot of little
sects in which the modernists figure as a really rather minor group.
Even if one limits affairs to those with some pretense of scholarship,
the field as it appears to me is rather one-sided. THe modernists simply
fail to engage the other camps to the degree that the other camps engage
the modernists. The modernists tend to misrepresent their numerous
opponents as a monolithic bloc of untoughtful cretins, but the reality
is that there are a wide variety of attacks on modernism, and they deal
with the historical-critical issue differently.
> > I've come to have a suspicion of theology because, really, the
> >message of the gospels is that you don't need to do theology. It is
> >sufficient to do justice, love mercy, and humbly walk with God.
> Ok. But why would you want to divorce that from doing good theology.
Begging the question of whose theology *is* the "good" theology, the
answer is: because for most people theology is a distraction.
And then there's your example here:
> One's Christianity only puts the responsibility of cleansing
> irrationality from one's faith. Does loving God mean putting your
> life and mind on autopilot and robot-like try to please the Big Guy
> upstairs? No way, Hosea.
The problem with this is that, in reality, most people have no choice
*but* to do this. One can pick and choose among theological authorities,
but in the end most people are limited in their ability to evaluate what
the various theological camps are trying to sell them.
Spong's whole line of argument is particularly bad on this point because
one of his points is that he thinks that traditional thelogy is going to
be increasingly hard to sell. Take the Virgin Birth again (please). He
essentially argues from the assertion that "we" don't believe it anymore
(which isn't true anyway), and then argues that we should mold our
theology arong this. But one could just as well argue that what is
needed is to reinvigorate our belief in the Virgin Birth. FOr most
people, in this wise, the choice is thus between no belief at all or
utter trust; Spong's attempts at shading look, to them, like no belief
at all.
> >. It's a tired example, but when he says that if Jesus
> >were ascending at the speed of light, he wouldn't have left the galaxy
> >yet, that's just a stupid, pseudoscientific remark. It doesn't reflect
> >the scriptural account, and it imputes to the ancients a belief that
> >they would have found laughable.
> Yes, you may be right. But Spong is trying to avoid a story, the
> Ascension, that many, many modern Christians, and non-believers,too,
> would find laughable.
And _Star Wars_ is *less* laughable, in this regard?
I think the modern intolerance for the miraculous is vastly overstated.
In terms of the populace at large, it is essentially nonexistent. It
seems largely a disease of intellectuals and some scientists. And a very
strong case can be made for it being a disorder, rather than
intellectual health.
To put it in concrete terms: WW I was devastating to the intellectual
life of Britain. But it is conspicuously forgotten that, as well as
Robert Graves and Wilfred Owen, there was also C.S. Lewis and J.R.R.
Tolkien. The alienation of the former was not a foregone conclusion.
> Let's face it. What was good enough for Paul, David or 1st century
> Christians is not good enough for today's followers of Jesus. Not
> the liberal ones anyway.
But if one is not willing to confront the question of whether one should
*be* a liberal in the first place....
> A new Gospel comprehensible to Christians who insist on the good news of Jesus
> of Nazareth related to the modern world view including psychology,
> history,..... even economics.
The history of this sort of theology, in fact, is one of faddishness and
cheap grace. It gives a religion in which the Wolrd talks and God does
not.
C. Wingate
dale...@my-deja.com
<Pine.SOL.4.20.991026...@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
Stephen Denney <sde...@ocf.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday Oct. 24, 1999 dale...@mailcity.com (D. South) wrote:
> <snip>
> > That's for sure. But the whole project is a community one. It has
> > nothing to do with me or Spong. But it does have a lot to do with
> > the Christian community, Protestant and R. Catholic. I'm talking
> > about the development of modern historical-critical theology.
> > And I think Spong is passing on a lot of consensus among the
> > historical-critical theologians (Tillich, Hans Kung, Tom Harpur
etc.)
> > The fundamentalists are involved in the sense of antithesis against
> > thesis. and have a part in molding the modern theology even though
> > it may be in a negative way.
> >
> I wonder to what extent Hans Kung would agree with the views of Bishop
> Spong. I know he has had problems with the Pope, but is he also a
> non-theist? It might be interesting to line up the Internet theses of
> Bishop Spong alongside what Hans Kung has said on each point.
Well, I for one, would not describe the theologicial position of Hans
Kung as being congruent with that of Bishop Spong. However, Hans Kung
would be very reluctant to say there is no myth in the gospels. So,
he would side with Spong's non literal interpretation of the Jesus'
birth stories in Luke and Matthew. And I don't think Kung thinks of
Hell in the literal sense of the author of Matthew or give it as much
emphasis as that gospel writer does. Also I would be surprised if
Kung does not subscribe to modern critical theology's dating of the
gospels or the existence of the hypothetical "Q" document which is
central to modern New TEstament studies.
However, when I read lots of Kung 8 years back I was suprised that
a modern theologian with such breath of knowledge seemed to have a ]
hard time letting go of a lot of classical Christian ideas. Spong
certainly does not have this problem.
I also
see a
> false dichotomy above between fundamentalist Christians on the one
hand
> and radical theologians on the other hand (or more particularly Bishop
> Spong), when most of us who belong to the Episcopal church fall in
neither
> group.
That is indeed a wide gulf with lots of distance in between. Not to
imply anyone's in the abyss.
>
> >
> > >People have a lot of different reasons for doing theology, and the
> > >reasons are reflected in the theology they do. There are a lot of
people
> > >who spend a lot of time trying to escape from the commands of
Jesus, for
> > >instance. I've come to have a suspicion of theology because,
really, the
> > >message of the gospels is that you don't need to do theology. It is
> > >sufficient to do justice, love mercy, and humbly walk with God.
> > >
> > Ok. But why would you want to divorce that from doing good
theology.
> > One's Christianity only puts the responsibility of cleansing
> > irrationality from one's faith. Does loving God mean putting your
> > life and mind on autopilot and robot-like try to please the Big Guy
> > upstairs? No way, Hosea.
> >
> There are many theologians and clergy who would disagree strongly with
the
> views of Bishop Spong.
>
> <snip>
I don't agree with his development of the way the Resurrection tradition
developed after Jesus death, myself. But, I don't claim to have any
theory of that myself. However, like Spong, I'm sure it wasn't too
long after Jesus died that his close followers were reporting they
were still experiencing, like today, his presence and power in their
lives. Spong has his theories how the risen Christ tradition originated
but they are his. And worth considering. For evidently even in the
New Testament times there were various ideas floating around. Ideas
and theories that have been "harmonized" many times, no doubt. But
they, as literal way it happened, are a little off key to my ear.
And Spong too.
> > Yes, you may be right. But Spong is trying to avoid a story, the
> > Ascension, that many, many modern Christians, and non-believers,too,
> > would find laughable.
> >
> > Let's face it. What was good enough for Paul, David or 1st century
> > Christians is not good enough for today's followers of Jesus. Not
> > the liberal ones anyway. It may be somehow in God's wisdom the
> > gospels are entirely the Absolute Truth of God. Nevertheless, many
> > modern Christians are prepared to develop their own Gospel, in
> > fellowship with God and other Christians. A new Gospel
comprehensible
> > to Christians who insist on the good news of Jesus of Nazareth
related
> > to the modern world view including psychology, history,..... even
> > economics. God in his mercy no doubt as he has with millions and
> > billions of other humans accept their limited efforts to know him
> > and express their experiences of his modern acts. Why not?
> > You must face reality. Just because a position is framed in
scripture
> > and backed by the Apostles does not make it kosher to many
> > comtemporaries. Rather, a big turn off. Not on God but religion,
no
> > matter how good, true or beautiful.
> >
> Yes, indeed, many modern Christians are "prepared to develop their own
> Gospel."
Don't, please, say Gospel. The gospels are purportedly eye-witness
accounts. They are not. Even if they were they do not escape
biases and subjective assessments of the events. Anyway, Spong
is not talking about gospel but Resurrection here. And at bottom
it is the same Resurrection you have - God has raised Jesus to
eternity where he continues to impinge in different ways upon the
lives of those who believe in him. This is part of the good news.
But I have to wonder, can there be coexistence within the
> Episcopal church between radically different theological views? I
recall
> on Good Friday this year, the seminarian who delivered the homily at
my
> church said she did not believe in the traditional doctrine that
Christ
> died for our sins. I was surprised. As I followed her talk I tried to
> understand if she meant she did not believe in the traditional church
> doctrine on atonement, or if she simply did not believe that Christ
died
> for our sins. As I left, I felt confused and wondered, maybe I don't
> belong in this church. I was confirmed as an Episcopalian only two
years
> ago. So now I am trying to find another Episcopal church which might
be a
> tad more conservative in its theology and liturgy -- not
fundamentalist,
> but not denying the basic doctrines of Christianity either.
>
Well it is easy to deny Jesus died for our sins in the traditional
appeasement blood sacrifice sense. That is bad theology and insulting
to God.
If you believe Jesus is the Christ, then the death of Jesus is very
important for it tells us what kind of Messiah he was. It was really
totally at variance with the traditional nationalistic Jewish concept.
So we are clearly left with a Messiah who was defined in terms of Is.
53, the suffering servant and not the Davidic Messiah of scripture
but still wrong.
If I lived in Bishop Spong's diocese, I think it would be difficult
to
> remain within the Episcopal church. The priest, and even more so the
> bishop, is supposed to unite the community of believers. But Bishop
Spong
> comes across to me as more of a divisive force, not really interested
in
> reconciling with Christians who are more conservative in their views.
> - Steve Denney
Unfortunately, the traditional Christian ideas are not working anymore.
Spong knows it and is making moves. If the ship is sinking don't
run around rearranging the deck furniture. Plug the hole or get
in a life boat and salvage what is worth while and portable.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Stephen Denney
dale...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
> > > Let's face it. What was good enough for Paul, David or 1st century
> > > Christians is not good enough for today's followers of Jesus. Not
> > > the liberal ones anyway. It may be somehow in God's wisdom the
> > > gospels are entirely the Absolute Truth of God. Nevertheless, many
> > > modern Christians are prepared to develop their own Gospel, in
> > > fellowship with God and other Christians. A new Gospel
> comprehensible
> > > to Christians who insist on the good news of Jesus of Nazareth
> related
> > > to the modern world view including psychology, history,..... even
> > > economics. God in his mercy no doubt as he has with millions and
> > > billions of other humans accept their limited efforts to know him
> > > and express their experiences of his modern acts. Why not?
> > > You must face reality. Just because a position is framed in
> scripture
> > > and backed by the Apostles does not make it kosher to many
> > > comtemporaries. Rather, a big turn off. Not on God but religion,
> no
> > > matter how good, true or beautiful.
> > >[me]:
> > Yes, indeed, many modern Christians are "prepared to develop their own
> > Gospel."
[dalesouth]:
> Don't, please, say Gospel. The gospels are purportedly eye-witness
> accounts. They are not. Even if they were they do not escape
> biases and subjective assessments of the events. Anyway, Spong
I put it in quotations because it was your statement. See above (>>>). I
guess in retrospect you feel that wasn't the best choice of words.
People within the Episcopal church have different understandings of the
atonement and the meaning of Good Friday. But as I see Holy Week and Good
Friday, it is a time for us to reflect on our own shortcomings and on the
ultimate sacrifice that Christ paid on the cross for us so that we might
be reconciled to God. It is a time of penance followed by rejoicing on
Easter.
So we each have to find the church that is most consistent with what we
believe and how we wish to practice our faith. Within the Episcopal
church, I guess, one also has to find the particular parish, as views on
such basic doctrinal issues can vary widely.
>
> If I lived in Bishop Spong's diocese, I think it would be difficult
> to
> > remain within the Episcopal church. The priest, and even more so the
> > bishop, is supposed to unite the community of believers. But Bishop
> Spong
> > comes across to me as more of a divisive force, not really interested
> in
> > reconciling with Christians who are more conservative in their views.
> > - Steve Denney
>
> Unfortunately, the traditional Christian ideas are not working anymore.
> Spong knows it and is making moves. If the ship is sinking don't
> run around rearranging the deck furniture. Plug the hole or get
> in a life boat and salvage what is worth while and portable.
>
I guess driving people off the ship is one way to prevent it from sinking.
And I feel that is the effect of Bishop Spong's approach. A bishop's role
is to be the shepherd of the diocese, to encourage unity and
reconciliation. From what I have seen of Bishop Spong's dismissive, even
hostile, way of treating the views of more conservative Christians, he
does not fulfill that part of his role as a bishop.
- Steve Denney
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> Unfortunately, the traditional Christian ideas are not working anymore.
> Spong knows it and is making moves. If the ship is sinking don't
> run around rearranging the deck furniture. Plug the hole or get
> in a life boat and salvage what is worth while and portable.
This to me is the central issue in all of this. It is a *premise* of the
liberal destruction of Christian theology that Orthodox positions "don't
work". But it is clearly a testable premise, and the tests do not tend
to rule in the liberals' favor.
Let's start with the rawest test: what is more attractive to converts.
Here the numbers are quite telling. Churches which have abandoned
orthodox positions have lost members; those that have doggedly stuck
with orthodoxy have burgeoned.
It doesn't get any much better when you move to more objective tests.
The assertion that traditional ideas "aren't working anymore" is nothing
more than that, an assertion, until some demonstration of failure is
provided.
C. Wingate
D. South
<whi...@erols.com> wrote:
>dale south wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, the traditional Christian ideas are not working anymore.
>> Spong knows it and is making moves. If the ship is sinking don't
>> run around rearranging the deck furniture. Plug the hole or get
>> in a life boat and salvage what is worth while and portable.
>
>This to me is the central issue in all of this. It is a *premise* of the
>liberal destruction of Christian theology that Orthodox positions "don't
>work". But it is clearly a testable premise, and the tests do not tend
>to rule in the liberals' favor.
>
>Let's start with the rawest test: what is more attractive to converts.
>Here the numbers are quite telling. Churches which have abandoned
>orthodox positions have lost members; those that have doggedly stuck
>with orthodoxy have burgeoned.
>
>It doesn't get any much better when you move to more objective tests.
>The assertion that traditional ideas "aren't working anymore" is nothing
>more than that, an assertion, until some demonstration of failure is
>provided.
>
>C. Wingate
The conservative Christian cause flourishes and the liberal, mainly
mainline, cause wilts. To my mind, this does not prove the
conservatives have a theology purged of ancient errors and outdated
myth. It show Billy Graham has a better story to tell. More
interesting. It's really hard to beat the old myths such as those we
build our Christmas celebration around. And Easter too.
The liberal Christians think they can zap the myths as literal
truth. Then, turn around and say to the Christian congregation this
is all picture language and not literal, historical truth. They say
this picture story means so and so and he/she explains it in
scientific or philosophical terms (prosaic). The liberal may be 100%
correct in their assessment of traditional doctrine and gospel story.
But who cares and who is listening.?
This is why my position is not exactly Spong's. Spong wants
to demythologize the Bible. That means no Virgin Birth and no
physically resurrected Jesus Bible stories. Obviously, though for
all Christians Jesus was born and also raised to eternity. I want to,
with Spong, deny the myths as literal historical (empirical) truth.
Then, juice them up, put the theological pedal to the metal, and
remythologize the core truth of the ancient myth in terms of a
modern myth. Why not? It already done a number of times
in the canonical gospels and probably a number of times in
separate other gospels of the first century not in the canon.
I think the gospel of Peter actually describes the Resurrection.
But it is so wild and obviously myth in the common perjorative
sense. The gospel of John's Resurrection story is surely
a modern updated (relatively within the first century) compared
to Matthew, or Lukes. God's knows when the Resurrection
story in Mark was written and added. It's simple enough
in Mark but itself is an upgrade on the original version of
our earliest canonical gospel which did not really have
a Resurrection story. Not to worry. St. Paul is our
earliest witness to the Resurrection and he does have
a resurrection story and affirmation..
I have no idea to write a modern Resurrection scenario.
Spong has written a theological, historical explanation of
how the Resurrection idea germinated in the head of St.
Peter. I would say in response (Peter's) to the same presence of
the eternal resurrected Jesus that showed up in Paul's
life/mind on the road to Damascus. I don't think Spong's
concept of Resurrection will sell big in pulpits in the forseeable
future.
Furthermore, the great Christian expert on New Testament
mythology, Rudolph Bultmann says my idea of remythologizing
is a big no no. Bultmann asks "If you create a new modern
myth then you have to explain it like the old one." You don't
want to do this so you opt to created a new myth again. One
up to date to the second, so to speak. And thus you involve
yourself in a infinite series of myth making. Ad infinitem and
ad nauseum!!
Well, maybe Bultmann is right.
And maybe he is wrong. After all a myth is really, in Christian
terms, a pointer to God. A story that tells an Act of God.
So what's wrong in saying no myth really captures forever
the absolute truth of God's particular involvment in history.
For one thing our ideas of history and the natural world where
history transpires are always changing. Upgrading was foisted
on the world by God and not Microsoft. And if you can't finally
capture history and empirical experience how are you going to
capture God. So telling the truth by an series of stories,
upgraded theology, that stretches out in the future to infinity
may be sign 1) humans don't own infinity and 2) we are
really dealing with God, the Infinite, in relating our religious
experiences.
So, I think if liberals did stop philosophizing ? about God
and started telling modern sacred stories they probably
would give Billy Graham a go for his money.
In any case, many, many folk in the modern world are
fed up and annoyed, too, by the ancient myths (creation
and Virgin Birth for two) and if they have to swallow them
to be a Christian, then they are not going to be disciples of
Jesus Christ. Right, wrong or whatever category you care
to discuss here. And God bless the conservatives with
their Resurrection and Creation stories literally understood.
Thank God for being easy to get along with.
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> Though I don't want or like the title "modernist" I am one. For many
> Christians of conservative bent it is a handy label applied to anyone
> disagreeing with their theologicial position and allows them to
> dismiss their opponents as disconnected entirely from Christ's
> Church and incapable of entertaining any orthodox or true Christian
> doctrine.
This is a political categorizaton, which is worth less than nothing in
the realm of truth. It is possible to stick to a straight taxonomical
usage and still identify some as modernists, others as various sorts of
traditionalists. When I talk about someone being a modernist, I mean
that they subscribe to a certain set of beliefs about how theology is to
be done. Likewise, I can identify certain different traditionalist
theories-- Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, fundamentalist-- based on how
*they* would have theology be done. And there are others who are neither
traditionalists nor modernists (such as the Neibuhrs). These divisions
can be made quite objectively before any mud is slung, and students of
the history of theology make them as a matter of course.
What is most characteristic of modernism is the way it handles "source
material". All of the traditionalist positions hold in common the notion
that the substance of religion must be passed down through the ages. It
is therefore important to protect the integrity of what is passed down.
You say that
> For instance, Bishop Spong does believe God was in Christ
> reconciling the world to himself. To this points the Virgin Birth
> story, miracles, cross and resurrection.
One can, however, ask whether these things do more than point-- that
they actually *accomplish* what is to be done. The modernist dismissal
of salvific actions, as scripture tells them, is facile. We keep beating
around this bush incessantly. I do not think modernism is defensible if
it cannot defend this point. Never mind the resurrection: I fail to see
any justification of the dismissal of the Virgin Birth.
> However, Spong maintains we don't have to, actually should not, go one
> expressing the central tenets of Christian faith in the same way the writer
> of Mark or Matthew or John did. In fact John rightly points out
> their world view and myths no longer connect to modern folk informed
> by the science of Hawkings/Einstein, the thinking of Freud and
> Jung, and Darwin/S.Gould etc.
We can leave Freud and Jung out of this, as the adequacy of their
science is below dubious. As for the "modern folk", the statement is,
after all, empirically falsifiable by the existence of "modern folk" for
whom the claims of modern science are not in conflict with traditional
faith. Those people do exist: hence the assertion is false.
The touchstone of anglican traditionalism is the scriptural standard. It
is one thing to try new fomulae of faith. But they have to be consistent
with the scriptural tellings. The same holds true in science: one of the
validations of relativistic mechanics, for instance, is that, as
velocities and energies tend towards zero, the formulae converge on
Newtonian mechanics.
> However, even within the New Testament canon we see wide divergences
> in interpretation of the Christ event. Thus, the Jesus Seminar will not allow
> one word of the beloved Gospel of John to be considered red = the actual
> words of Jesus of Nazareth.
The Jesus Seminar is so baldly biased and methodologically bankrupt that
it serves as a disrecommendation. Really: the scholarly community thinks
it a load of dingo's kidneys.
> Still, you would have to be out of your tree to state the gospel of John
> doesn't possess its own peculiar theological biases and myth constructions that
> differ mightily from the gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel.
Well, without disagreeing outright, I will not two problems of
assumption that tend to defeat the whole project. In the first place,
phraseology like "myth constructions" implies an intentionality in the
ancients which certainly needs demonstration. I find it hard to believe
that John intended to create "myth" in the sense that Spong uses the
word, and with the Synoptics the analogous assertion is less plausible.
Second, if I may resume flogging yet another dead horse, there is no
reason to accept *any* modern's assertions about the intent of the
ancient.
> I suppose Darwins evolution, Freud's study of the psyche etc etc
> are distractions too.
Even Darwinians are extremely chary of trying the extract a social
meaning out of evolution. Frued I do not consider either scientific nor
particularly accurate, so you need not waste your time dropping his name
again.
> Well, I will never tire of emphasizing the love of God over his wrath.
Well, that merely makes you an inaccurate purveyor of the deposit of
faith. I mean, when all is said and done, the authority for the goodness
of God is the same as the source which lays out his wrath, namely
scripture. There is nothing exalted about picking out only the parts
that you want to have said. Again, it still comes down to the *reason*
behind the picking and choosing. In your case, it seems to be nothing
more than you don't like the idea of a wrathful God. Obviously, there is
another solution to the problem besides editing scripture to suit you,
and that is accepting that the wrath is really there and learning to
live with it.
C. Wingate
Charley & Melissa Wingate
essentially being ignored. So let's get right to the matter. Here we
have a collection of assertions from Dale South:
> [....] To my mind, this does not prove the conservatives have a theology purged
> of ancient errors and outdated myth.
> [....] I want to, with Spong, deny the myths as literal historical (empirical)
> truth. Then, juice them up, put the theological pedal to the metal, and
> remythologize the core truth of the ancient myth in terms of a modern myth.
> Why not? It already done a number of times in the canonical gospels and
> probably a number of times in separate other gospels of the first century not
> in the canon. [....]
> In any case, many, many folk in the modern world are fed up and annoyed, too,
> by the ancient myths (creation and Virgin Birth for two) and if they have to
> swallow them to be a Christian, then they are not going to be disciples of
> Jesus Christ.
All of this comes down, in the end, to whether modernists have a valid
case for the rejection of the traditionalist presentation of the faith
as a deposit. It is a necessary starting point, but here, again, I see
it being taken as an article of faith. That's not good enough; if
modernism is going to make its case on the basis of intellectual
advance, then it has to play by the rules of intellectual discourse. In
simply presuming the superiority of its perspective, it fails to do so
and may be summarily rejected until it produces concrete justifiction.
C. Wingate
Darnay2
do with trating people hostilly.
I applaud Spong for refusing to indulge the ignorance of a corrupt and
politically constructed theology.
If, by refusing to endorse a doctrine that is continually a catalyst for
injustice and murder entails rubbing some folks the wrong way...so be it.
Our traditional theology is murderous to innocent people, unfair to most and
utterly meaningless to a modern society. If you think you feel alienated by
Spong, try homosexuals, blacks, women, the physically and mentally ill, the
poor and oppressed through the ages and today who are marginalized as a matter
of course by our beleifs,all for our religious comfort.
JT
Gra...@webtv.net
O0 = He reigns!
D. South
<whi...@erols.com> wrote:
>This is starting to get rather repetitive, in that my chief challenge is
>essentially being ignored. So let's get right to the matter. Here we
>have a collection of assertions from Dale South:
> In
>simply presuming the superiority of its perspective, it fails to do so
>and may be summarily rejected until it produces concrete justifiction.
>
>C. Wingate
Actually the superior perspective has been painstakingly established
by intensive Bible studies (Old, New Testaments plus extracanonical)
over the last two or three centuries. Thus, the modernist position is
based on volumes and volumes of research by some of the best
modern Christian minds. This historical-critical approach (not
modernist) to scripture and doctrine does not come with a guarantee
of infallibility and it's development continues apace.
So if you want a one line statement and proof of the modernist
position, like the fundamentalist God wrote the Bible and its 100%
correct, you are out of luck. The historical critical position is
built up on common sense assumptions re historical and literary
research and incorporates the latest archaeological findings and
brings to bear scientific and psychological insights. (The fundies
are always talking about the nearly infallible memory of ancient
religious story tellers. However, internal Bible evidence as well
as tests on modern humans don't paint such a rosy picture of
"infallible memory."
At the heart of the historical-critical approach is the successful
dating of the canonical gospels and also the postulating of a
hypothetical gospel source the Q document and the high probability
of a oral tradition re Jesus circulating among various Christian
communities in the first century. In the Old Testament various
strands of differing ages were isolated long ago by simply referring
to the name used for God (and careful attention to literary style,
historic detail colloborated or modified in the light of secular
history of the ancient middle East.)
I'm not prepared to put 20 or more university courses in any of my
posts. But I seriously encourage folk to take one or two of these
courses, or join an adult Bible study that supports the historical
critical position, or go to a library and buy text book used for
basic courses on the Bible in mainline seminaries and secular
universities, too. Or read the books of Bishop John S. Spong,
The Jesus Seminar, or Tom Harpur.
Of course, to me, the historical critical assessment of much Bible
material as simple myth is correct. It's only common sense.
Do you really think Jesus was born of a Virgin. And who would
know if he had been? And why did he not bring up the subject
a little more often in his preaching tours? Or even treat his
still Virgin mother with a little more respect when she and family
came to take the "crazy" home. The truth that unties a lot of knots
and lets us see the historical, real Jesus is that he was a normally
born guy. Man and woman stuff. (The really big battle in early
Christianity was to preach Jesus as truly man and not divine)
So anyone who was anyone in the ancient world had to be born of
a virgin. Why not Jesus since he is our supreme reference for the
divine? But now we are in the modern world and we like more
emphasis on the factual, historical and prosaic turth and lets ditch
the Virgin Birth. Or at least recognize it for what it truly is
- theology an not biology. Let the Caesars and petty rulers of
the ancient world revel in their virgin mothers. The one at the
center of the Christian kingdom, God's imperial domain, needs
not such petty props to be number one in the hearts of his people.
Nor does he need myths of a physically resurrected sort to be
experienced and heeded by millions and millions of his followers
who are connected even now to eternity through him.
So when I cite historical-critical positions I'm not inviting you to
accept them without reasonable evidence. I'm inviting you to
take a close look at extensive "modernist" Bible studies which
are widely available in North America and Europe in bookstores,
university and city libraries and by looking up on the World Wide
Web such names as Bishop Spong, R. Bultmann, .......
Brendan O'Sullivan-Hale
: On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:33:54 -0400, Charley & Melissa Wingate
: <whi...@erols.com> wrote:
: >This is starting to get rather repetitive, in that my chief challenge is
: >essentially being ignored. So let's get right to the matter. Here we
: >have a collection of assertions from Dale South:
: > In
: >simply presuming the superiority of its perspective, it fails to do so
: >and may be summarily rejected until it produces concrete justifiction.
: >
: >C. Wingate
<SNIP>
: So when I cite historical-critical positions I'm not inviting you to
: accept them without reasonable evidence. I'm inviting you to
: take a close look at extensive "modernist" Bible studies which
: are widely available in North America and Europe in bookstores,
: university and city libraries and by looking up on the World Wide
: Web such names as Bishop Spong, R. Bultmann, .......
Agreement with Bishop Spong does not necessarily follow from
acceptance of the historical-critical approach. The evidence for
this approach to Scripture is quite strong, and I see little reason
to doubt, for example, the probable existence of Q and its use in
Matthew and Luke. However, it is a tremendous logical leap to
suggest that the validity of the historical-approach justifies the
pseudoacademic circus known as the Jesus Seminar or the various
attempts by Spong and others to make faith rational. Luke Timothy
Johnson offers a refreshing approach to the Bible in his books, which
accept the academic work that has led us to our present understanding
of how the Bible was written, but likewise respect the integrity of
the biblical authors.
What modernist theology is good for is pointing out those places
where the Church is failing some people in nurturing their faith.
Clearly people have a hard time with the notion of the Virgin Birth.
As a church, we need to reaffirm this doctrine, and take care to
explain why it's important in terms that make sense today. Likewise
the physical resurrection of Jesus. This is a doctrine that the
church so takes for granted, that we forget why it's important that
Jesus is risen--and risen physically. We don't need to explain these
things away, as Spong seems to do; we need to explain them so that
they are meaningful. This means we may need new ways of telling the
stories of our faith--on Holy Cross Day, the priest suggested that it
would wake us up to the true meaning of our faith if we started
depicting Jesus in an electric chair, the modern equivalent of the
cross. I agree with this suggestion, and I hope that we can mount an
intellectually honest apologetic--sans knee-jerk proof-texting-- that
takes into account the challenges of the modern day.
--
-----------------------
Brendan O'Sullivan-Hale
bren...@kiva.net
Brendan O'Sullivan-Hale
: Remember that Spong's being dismissive of traditional theology has nothing to
Traditional theology has been used for terrible things; that is true.
But the same fire that fueled the Inquisition also fueled the Catholic
Workers movement, and inspired the civil rights movement. The task of
faithful people is not to gut the faith because of its abuses, but to
build on its triumphs and its liberating message of freedom and
resurrection.
D. South
O'Sullivan-Hale) wrote:
>D. South (dale...@mailcity.com) wrote:
>: On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 22:33:54 -0400, Charley & Melissa Wingate
>: <whi...@erols.com> wrote:
>: So when I cite historical-critical positions I'm not inviting you to
>: accept them without reasonable evidence. I'm inviting you to
>: take a close look at extensive "modernist" Bible studies which
>: are widely available in North America and Europe in bookstores,
>: university and city libraries and by looking up on the World Wide
>: Web such names as Bishop Spong, R. Bultmann, .......
>
>Agreement with Bishop Spong does not necessarily follow from
>acceptance of the historical-critical approach. The evidence for
>this approach to Scripture is quite strong, and I see little reason
>to doubt, for example, the probable existence of Q and its use in
>Matthew and Luke. However, it is a tremendous logical leap to
>suggest that the validity of the historical-approach justifies the
>pseudoacademic circus known as the Jesus Seminar or the various
>attempts by Spong and others to make faith rational. Luke Timothy
>Johnson offers a refreshing approach to the Bible in his books, which
>accept the academic work that has led us to our present understanding
>of how the Bible was written, but likewise respect the integrity of
>the biblical authors.
I appreciate the above. Perhaps, I should say Bishop Spong is
rather creative re his assessment of the 4 gospel authors and their
respective gospel. Yet, at the same time its obvious he
is strongly informed by the historical-critical approach to the Bible.
Likewise, the Jesus Seminar.
Look at the New Testament - the writer of Mark and John both center
on Jesus of Nazareth. Still, both Christians are writings from
different perspectives in time and local. Not to mention different
power allegiances within the early Church. So the Jesus of Mark is
not exactly congruent with John's view. So even in the 1st century
2 influential Christian thinkers with the SAME allegiance to the SAME
Jesus Christ are not agreeing on many things or they diverge
remarkably in their interpretation of the Christ event. On the
surface, for one thing, Mark seems to stick to the facts. And John
does anything but.
>What modernist theology is good for is pointing out those places
>where the Church is failing some people in nurturing their faith.
>Clearly people have a hard time with the notion of the Virgin Birth.
>As a church, we need to reaffirm this doctrine, and take care to
>explain why it's important in terms that make sense today. Likewise
>the physical resurrection of Jesus. This is a doctrine that the
>church so takes for granted, that we forget why it's important that
>Jesus is risen--and risen physically. We don't need to explain these
>things away, as Spong seems to do; we need to explain them so that
>they are meaningful.
Spong would say the myths are nothing but meaningful and touch on
all important reality and God's truth. It's not the truth, God,
pointed to that's in doubt. Rather the outdated (mode of expression)
that has to be now left behind. Like goodbye fleshpots of Egypt. And
don't look back if you don't want to end up in a salt shaker.
Yes, the Church needs to reaffirm the Virgin Birth's truth = Jesus is
our supreme central reference for God and the stories of the
resurrection. But, not as literal truth and newspaper reporting but
myths and pointers to the nature of Jesus and the reality of his
eternal life in God and our hearts since Calvary.
> This means we may need new ways of telling the
>stories of our faith--on Holy Cross Day, the priest suggested that it
>would wake us up to the true meaning of our faith if we started
>depicting Jesus in an electric chair, the modern equivalent of the
>cross. I agree with this suggestion, and I hope that we can mount an
>intellectually honest apologetic--sans knee-jerk proof-texting-- that
>takes into account the challenges of the modern day.
>
AMEN
Andreas Höfeld
381A5912...@erols.com...
> All of this comes down, in the end, to whether modernists have a valid
> case for the rejection of the traditionalist presentation of the faith
> as a deposit. It is a necessary starting point, but here, again, I see
> it being taken as an article of faith. That's not good enough; if
> modernism is going to make its case on the basis of intellectual
> advance, then it has to play by the rules of intellectual discourse.
In
> simply presuming the superiority of its perspective, it fails to do so
> and may be summarily rejected until it produces concrete justifiction.
>
> C. Wingate
I think it is not the adherents of a historical-critical approach who
need to justify their point. Rather those who want us to believe that
the words of the bible are not dependent on the historical situation in
which they were written but are absolute messages from God, commandments
to be obeyed literally under any social circumstances, and information
on historical events that are infallible no matter what the writers
could have known of them (e.g. creation, Sinai events, virgin birth
etc.). This medieval approach was dropped by the vast majority of
educated people long ago, and you should tell us why it is necessary for
Christians to stick to it. And please: don't say because the bible tells
us so. It doesn't, and if it did it were a circular argument.
Andreas
--
Andreas Höfeld (a.ho...@gmx.de)
Click here to reply directly.
It is easy to bring those who are mislead back to the right way; but
when someone diligently fights the truth, who can bring him to his
senses? Martin Luther
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> I think it is not the adherents of a historical-critical approach who
> need to justify their point. Rather those who want us to believe that
> the words of the bible are not dependent on the historical situation in
> which they were written but are absolute messages from God, commandments
> to be obeyed literally under any social circumstances, and information
> on historical events that are infallible no matter what the writers
> could have known of them (e.g. creation, Sinai events, virgin birth
> etc.). This medieval approach was dropped by the vast majority of
> educated people long ago, and you should tell us why it is necessary for
> Christians to stick to it. And please: don't say because the bible tells
> us so. It doesn't, and if it did it were a circular argument.
This is to a degree a fair criticism, yet I think it has three fatal
flaws.
The first is in something it hints at: that these are not alternatives,
but endpoints on a range. If I may lock deconstruction out of the room
for a minute so that I can talk of authorial intent, it is, I think, a
trivial point that a speaker may have a varieity of intents with respect
to the context of his speech; likewise, the relevance of the context may
also vary widely. To take an example: Euclid, when it comes to geometry,
slips quite free of any political or social context. The hist-crit folks
have tended to take an extreme view on this, using "context" as a
deconstructive tool to escape from the meaning of the texts.
The second is that taking *a* hist-crit approach doesn't compell you to
take *the* approach that he hist-crit folks have actually taken. What
you get out of this depends heavily on what presuppositions you put in.
Many of these are indefensible.
Before we get to that, let's take on the third flaw: that this is a
progessivist view of human thought. I'm sorry, but the calendar simply
isn't a valid way to measure truth. Condemning something as medieval is
chronological snobbery and insufficient for proof or even for suasion.
To pull this all together, let's bite down on what is rather obviously
the sticking point: the miraculous. The hist-crit people baldly operate
from a presupposition that the miraculous is a best severely limited, if
not utterly absent, and certainly not concrete. Now obviously one can
take a range of positions on this. For instance, certain OT miracles
present serious problems in conceptualization, such as the sun being
stopped while Joshua's hands were held up. On the other hand the Virgin
Birth, for example, provides no such problems. Furthermore, one can put
the NT virgin birth in the context of other virgin birth stories in a
variety of ways. Finally, the failure of (some) moderns to accept the
V.B. could be interpreted as a regressive failure of vision rather than
as a progessive increase in wisdom.
The point is that the hist-crit position is hardly the inescapable
alternative to inerrancy that its proponents like to portray it as.
C. Wingate
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> Actually the superior perspective has been painstakingly established
> by intensive Bible studies (Old, New Testaments plus extracanonical)
> over the last two or three centuries. Thus, the modernist position is
> based on volumes and volumes of research by some of the best
> modern Christian minds. This historical-critical approach (not
> modernist) to scripture and doctrine does not come with a guarantee
> of infallibility and it's development continues apace.
All this comes to naught if all this monolithic advance is seen for the
patchwork of competing claims that it is.
Let's start with the centerpiece of the hist-crit school: the "Q"
solution to the synoptic problem. Let me start by saying that positing
the existence of a lost source is a neat and obvious solution to the
synoptic problem. It also, in itself, is not particular threat to the
traditionalists. But not everybody accepts the "Q" hypothesis. There are
several other theories that have wide acceptance, and at this point I
don't accept that the matter can be declared closed.
What is far worse, however, is that there are a lot of "scholars"
running around out there now who erect all sorts of theological edifices
on theories of what this "Q" contained and its origins. The sheer
speculativeness of making claims about a text of which, if it even
existed as a single text, we have only fragments comprising an unknown
porition of the whole-- it makes the head spin. It cannot shown to be a
document at all, much less a single document or one of which the
material we have is a representative portion.
And the fact is that these edifices are *very* different. Even those
that confine themselves to the unquestionably extant gospels depict
Jesus qute contradictorily.
> The historical critical position is
> built up on common sense assumptions re historical and literary
> research and incorporates the latest archaeological findings and
> brings to bear scientific and psychological insights.
Well, the issue of common sense is, I think where there are the greatest
problems. Plenty of people in the traditionalist camp reject this
"common sense"; certainly common sense is bilge when it cannot be
defended when a defense is demanded.
As far as archaeological finds are concerned, this is quite easy. Of
late they have heavily favored the traditionalists over the
traditionally skeptic modernists. Indeed, it could be argued that
modernism has its origins in an era where archaeological ignorance
allowed a degree of doubt which is increasingly indefensible in the face
of accumulating evidence. (As an example, the section of the OT from I
Samuel to Nehemiah is proving to be a basically reliable historical
record, contrary to what the early modernists liked to believe.)
> (The fundies are always talking about the nearly infallible memory of ancient
> religious story tellers. However, internal Bible evidence as well as tests on
> modern humans don't paint such a rosy picture of "infallible memory."
That is besides the point; fundamentalism does not even begin to exhaust
the possibilities of a traditionalist approach.
> At the heart of the historical-critical approach is the successful dating of
> the canonical gospels and also the postulating of a hypothetical gospel source
> the Q document and the high probability of a oral tradition re Jesus
> circulating among various Christian communities in the first century.
And here we have another example of modernism declaring "success" when
nothing of the kind has happened. The facts are that this is, again, a
topic of extreme controversy with a lot of speculation, and that, again,
the extreme skepticism of
early modernism has been beaten back over the years.
For example, it was once held that the Gospel of John was extremely
late, possibly the youngest portion of the NT. This view has largely
been abandoned, and most scholars (in the spirit of the age) tend to
explain its deviation from the synoptics in terms of community rather
than time.
The reality is that the issue can only be settled with physical texts.
The oldest substantial texts are too recent to provide guidance in this
way. There is a fragment which seems to be from Matthew which, if the
paleography bears out, suggests a possible origin in the AD 50s, a date
that is way too early to fit with most popular modernist theories.
In the end what it boils down to that there is no science here. THe
propositions of modernism are largely untestable.
> In the Old Testament various strands of differing ages were isolated long ago
> by simply referring to the name used for God (and careful attention to literary
> style, historic detail colloborated or modified in the light of secular
> history of the ancient middle East.)
Well, this only works in the Torah, and again, it's still largely
speculative. I personally think this analysis stands on firmer ground,
but again, there is no way to test it.
> Of course, to me, the historical critical assessment of much Bible
> material as simple myth is correct. It's only common sense.
> Do you really think Jesus was born of a Virgin. And who would
> know if he had been?
His mother? And is it not hinted very strongly in Luke that she is, in
fact, his ultimate source?
It should be blazingly obvious that the phrase "common sense" here
conceals a substantial lack of self-criticism. *My* common sense tells
me that any self-respecting God isn't going to have any difficulties
with arranging a Virgin Birth-- I can even think of several modalities.
The failure to at least entertain the possibility of the same bespeaks a
fundamental lack of intellectual integrity. If your presuppositions
differ so radically from your opponents's, if you cannot defend your
presuppositions, you have no case. Appealing to "common sense" in this
context is invalid and a dodge.
C. Wingate
Andreas Höfeld
382102F5...@erols.com...
>Andreas Höfeld wrote:
>> I think it is not the adherents of a historical-critical approach who
>> need to justify their point. Rather those who want us to believe that
>> the words of the bible are not dependent on the historical situation
in
>> which they were written but are absolute messages from God,
commandments
>> to be obeyed literally under any social circumstances, and
information
>> on historical events that are infallible no matter what the writers
>> could have known of them (e.g. creation, Sinai events, virgin birth
>> etc.). This medieval approach was dropped by the vast majority of
>> educated people long ago, and you should tell us why it is necessary
for
>> Christians to stick to it. And please: don't say because the bible
tells
>> us so. It doesn't, and if it did it were a circular argument.
>
>This is to a degree a fair criticism,
Thanks.
>yet I think it has three fatal flaws.
Oh!
>The first is in something it hints at: that these are not alternatives,
>but endpoints on a range.
I don't think so. Either you believe the biblical writers had some
supernatural access to events they could not have had in ordinary ways
(see my examples above) or you don't.
>If I may lock deconstruction out of the room
>for a minute so that I can talk of authorial intent, it is, I think, a
>trivial point that a speaker may have a varieity of intents with
respect
>to the context of his speech;
I'm not quite with you. Do you speak of what the biblical writers want
to say or are you aiming at some "Divine intent"?
And can you give an example for that "variety of intents with respect to
the context"?
>likewise, the relevance of the context may
>also vary widely. To take an example: Euclid, when it comes to
geometry,
>slips quite free of any political or social context. The hist-crit
folks
>have tended to take an extreme view on this, using "context" as a
>deconstructive tool to escape from the meaning of the texts.
"escape from the meaning of the texts". Being one decidedly of the
"hist-crit folks" - do you think the "meaning of the texts" is after me?
Or is there a hidden polemic involved? ;-)
And as for Euclid: nowhere in the bible do I see a kind of "abstract
geometry of the holy" that is quite free of any political or social
context. On the contrary. The social, historical, political context is
everywhere. The bible is about "paleontology", history, regulations of
human behaviour. Even when it pictures the sublime realms of heaven it
uses pictures from its contemporary political life.
>The second is that taking *a* hist-crit approach doesn't compell you to
>take *the* approach that he [cj. "the", AH] hist-crit folks have
actually
>taken. What
>you get out of this depends heavily on what presuppositions you put in.
>Many of these are indefensible.
The results of hist.-crit. researchers may differ, but the point is:
they document the way they arrived at their conclusions, so you have a
means to weigh and assess different results, as long as you share their
common premise that the bible has evolved in a historical process that
followed the rules of any other hist. process.
>Before we get to that, let's take on the third flaw: that this is a
>progessivist view of human thought. I'm sorry, but the calendar simply
>isn't a valid way to measure truth. Condemning something as medieval is
>chronological snobbery and insufficient for proof or even for suasion.
Well, er ... I don't live in the Middle Ages, neither do my
contemporaries to whom I try to witness the Gospel of Jesus. And I think
it's your turn to bring proof why we should adopt the views of that time
(or earlier if you prefer) while exchanging messages on Usenet.
>To pull this all together, let's bite down on what is rather obviously
>the sticking point: the miraculous. The hist-crit people baldly operate
>from a presupposition that the miraculous is a [cj. "at" AH] best
severely limited, if
>not utterly absent, and certainly not concrete. Now obviously one can
You touched an important point, indeed. If you see the miraculous at
work in biblical tradition (it could be anywhere), you cannot say
anything reliable about how biblical faith came about. The strands of it
that we seem to see could be just something that God put in just to
confuse - how did you say - progressivists like me. Just as he (or the
devil) might have put the fossils with the correct c14 mix into the
ground to give those unbelieving non-creationists over to their idle
rationalizations. Welcome to the Middle Ages. I don't mind if you prefer
to live there.
>take a range of positions on this. For instance, certain OT miracles
>present serious problems in conceptualization,
If I understand the word c. correctly (forming concepts, ideas, terms
that adequately describe experiences, observations) I don't think
there's my problem with that story:
>such as the sun being
>stopped while Joshua's hands were held up. On the other hand the Virgin
>Birth, for example, provides no such problems. Furthermore, one can put
>the NT virgin birth in the context of other virgin birth stories in a
>variety of ways. Finally, the failure of (some) moderns to accept the
>V.B. could be interpreted as a regressive failure of vision rather than
>as a progessive increase in wisdom.
Again I'm at a loss. What's so different with VB and why is it
regressive not to make it a central point of Christian faith?
>The point is that the hist-crit position is hardly the inescapable
>alternative to inerrancy that its proponents like to portray it as.
So what other possibilities are there?
>C. Wingate
Andreas Höfeld