This was mentioned elsewhere, so I thought I'd have a look.
Point One:
Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
A bold and rather bombastic opening statement, which owes more to the populist soundbite than a considered theological argument.
A 'new way' rather implies that theism is not dead, so there's a contradiction right from the get-go, unless he's going to argue that God is not God.
I wonder, when he says 'most theological God-talk is today meaningless', who he is referring to? I rather think he's aiming his barbs at his own congregation, the Evangelical Christian, so beloved target of Richard Dawkins.
Like Dawkins, he avoids theological debate with contemporary Christian theologians, but chooses rather to dismiss them, usually derisively, unfairly and inaccurately, without offering any sound reason, other than they disagree with him.
In a commentary, he has said:
"God cannot be external to ourselves, because to talk about God you may as well look in a mirror ..."
Simply, this is nonsense. The Christian philosophical tradition, rooted in Scripture and its Hellenic — and principally Platonic — heritage, does exactly that, and draws the distinction between God and anthropomorphic principle right from the off!
"... Every human being that describes God will inevitably do so as a human analogy ..."
Again, simply factually wrong.
"... What I am trying to say is that the theistic definition of God no longer identifies with this day and age."
No, what he's actually trying to do is put words in the mouths of those he contends with, and then refute them. In other words, to paraphrase, 'What I am trying to say is that Spong's definition of God no longer identifies with the contemporary debate in day and age'.
At this point, I read the entire text of the 'commentary' linked to above.
I don't know about you, but I find his offhand dismissal of African Christianity, and presumably the continent in general, to be utterly racist, devoid of reason and rationale ... At best it's unacceptable, at worst it suggests a rather disturbing egoistic suprematism...
Point One:
Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
A bold and rather bombastic opening statement, which owes more to the populist soundbite than a considered theological argument.
A 'new way' rather implies that theism is not dead, so there's a contradiction right from the get-go, unless he's going to argue that God is not God.
I wonder, when he says 'most theological God-talk is today meaningless', who he is referring to? I rather think he's aiming his barbs at his own congregation, the Evangelical Christian, so beloved target of Richard Dawkins.
Like Dawkins, he avoids theological debate with contemporary Christian theologians, but chooses rather to dismiss them, usually derisively, unfairly and inaccurately, without offering any sound reason, other than they disagree with him.
In a commentary, he has said:
"God cannot be external to ourselves, because to talk about God you may as well look in a mirror ..."
Simply, this is nonsense. The Christian philosophical tradition, rooted in Scripture and its Hellenic — and principally Platonic — heritage, does exactly that, and draws the distinction between God and anthropomorphic principle right from the off!
"... Every human being that describes God will inevitably do so as a human analogy ..."
Again, simply factually wrong.
"... What I am trying to say is that the theistic definition of God no longer identifies with this day and age."
No, what he's actually trying to do is put words in the mouths of those he contends with, and then refute them. In other words, to paraphrase, 'What I am trying to say is that Spong's definition of God no longer identifies with the contemporary debate in day and age'.
At this point, I read the entire text of the 'commentary' linked to above.
I don't know about you, but I find his offhand dismissal of African Christianity, and presumably the continent in general, to be utterly racist, devoid of reason and rationale ... At best it's unacceptable, at worst it suggests a rather disturbing egoistic suprematism...