A Response to Spong's 'Twelve Points for Reform'

[Thomas]

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...

 

[wil]

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.

yup bold, yup bombastic... lol...the man is in his 70's or 80's... Retired Episcopalian Bishop... Is no longer afraid of the hierarchy to speak his mind... author of umpteen books on the subject. not a considered theological argument? I believe he has considered this theological argument for decades.

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.

yup, he is patently disagreeing with the G!d of the old testament, an off his meds passive agressive anthropomorphic invisible entity with tossing lightning bolts and plagues or bumper crops.... tis not magic or miracles but man placing blame or praise on some unknown because they don't understand forces of nature...bugs are bugs...infestations happen without a hand from above.

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.

Episcopalians are more Catholic Light, not Evangelicals

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.

He does? Avoid debate? got google?

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.

every is wrong...most is absolutely true...me thinks you are in denial..as the bible does it regularly...G!d walks, he talks, he can't even find A&E in the garden...oh...did I say "He"??

"... 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...

Racist? really? Did you post his offhand racist dismissal? I missed it.

Who would you like him to debate? I believe Jack would be more than willing.

 

[wil]

Spong ends this article by saying:
"So I set these theses today before the Christian world and I stand ready to debate each of them as we prepare to enter the third millennium."



The complete document in Bishop Spong introduces the 12 Theses is his "Call for a New Reformation"

The 12 Theses
1. 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.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

 

[wil]

Me still without the ability to edit... I found your link to the commentary... and see your point.. however also see his and don't see it as racist. When you look at how Christianity evolved in Africa, South America, the Caribbean.... it incorporated the existing 'pagan' religions... I can go into any shop around DC and find these cheap candles in glass tubes with glitter on them, each designed to ward off this or that, or to accentuate one thing or another (prosperity, health, evil spirits whatever) light the candle and pray to Mary or a saint, say a chant and come back and buy more candles.... Christianity mixed with voodoo or whatever.

While will be quick to agree his statement is not in any way interfaith, we don't often find preachers, preaching interfaith. He is stating that the existing version of Christianity/Catholicism has been watered down and mixed with the beliefs that came before them... when missionaries came the people were not ready to get rid of their old gods and simply accept the good news...and to get more converts the missionaries allowed the mixture and it continues today.

When we can find the entire texts of his comments...I'd love to discuss again...but the commentary you posted is from an apologist who has taken a few statements out of context of the entire statement... something that you rant against constantly...frankly surprised you pick that as something to stand on.

I thank you immensely for starting the conversation.

 

[wil]

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.

I dare say it is the other way around... he has been absolutely willing debate... and it aint hard to find folks who disagree without sound reason and are willing to talk derisively about him...unfairly and inaccurately... even in this forum lol



I invite you, my audience, including academics, scholars, pastors, faithful and disillusioned people alike in the pews and even those who have long ago given up any religious commitments to take up citizenship in “The Secular City,” to join in this journey and to engage this debate.

~John Shelby Spong

https://johnshelbyspong.com/sign-up/



The Twelve Theses

1. God

Understanding God in theistic categories as “a being, supernatural in power, dwelling somewhere external to the world and capable of invading the world with miraculous power” is no longer believable. Most God talk in liturgy and conversation has thus become meaningless.

1. Jesus – the Christ.

If God can no longer be thought of in theistic terms, then conceiving of Jesus as “the incarnation of the theistic deity” has also become a bankrupt concept.

1. Original Sin – The Myth of the Fall

The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which we human beings have fallen into “Original Sin” is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

1. The Virgin Birth

The virgin birth understood as literal biology is impossible. Far from being a bulwark in defense of the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth actually destroys that divinity.

1. Jesus as the Worker of Miracles

In a post-Newtonian world supernatural invasions of the natural order, performed by God or an “incarnate Jesus,” are simply not viable explanations of what actually happened.

1. Atonement Theology

Atonement theology, especially in its most bizarre “substitutionary” form, presents us with a God who is barbaric, a Jesus who is a victim and it turns human beings into little more than guilt-filled creatures. The phrase “Jesus died for my sins” is not just dangerous, it is absurd.

1. The Resurrection

The Easter event transformed the Christian movement, but that does not mean that it was the physical resuscitation of Jesus’ deceased body back into human history. The earliest biblical records state that “God raised him.” Into what, we need to ask. The experience of resurrection must be separated from its later mythological explanations.

1. The Ascension of Jesus

The biblical story of Jesus’ ascension assumes a three-tiered universe, which was dismissed some five hundred years ago. If Jesus’ ascension was a literal event of history, it is beyond the capacity of our 21st century minds to accept it or to believe it.

1. Ethics.

The ability to define and to separate good from evil can no longer be achieved with appeals to ancient codes like the Ten Commandments or even the Sermon on the Mount. Contemporary moral standards must be hammered out in the juxtaposition between life-affirming moral principles and external situations.

1. Prayer

Prayer, understood as a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history, is little more than an hysterical attempt to turn the holy into the servant of the human. Most of our prayer definitions of the past are thus dependent on an understanding of God that has died.

1. Life after Death

The hope for life after death must be separated forever from behavior control. Traditional views of heaven and hell as places of reward and punishment are no longer conceivable. Christianity must, therefore, abandon its dependence on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

1. Judgment and Discrimination

Judgment is not a human responsibility. Discrimination against any human being on the basis of that which is a “given” is always evil and does not serve the Christian goal of giving “abundant life” to all. Any structure either in the secular world or in the institutional church, which diminishes the humanity of any child of God on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation must be exposed publicly and vigorously. There can be no reason in the church of tomorrow for excusing or even forgiving discriminatory practices. “Sacred Tradition” must never again provide a cover to justify discriminatory evil.



Can a new Christianity for a new world be forged on the basis of these Twelve Theses? Can a living, vital and real faith that is true to the experience of the past, while dismissing the explanations of the past, be born anew in this generation? I believe it can and so to engage this task I issue this call to the Christian world to transform its holy words of yesterday into believable words of today. If we fail in this task there is little reason to think that Christianity, as presently understood and constituted, will survive this century.

Having laid these Twelve Theses out in the briefest of ways, I will start next week to address each one until we begin to catch a glimpse of what the Christianity of tomorrow might be. I will not stop until the case is clear, at least to me. I invite you, my audience, including academics, scholars, pastors, faithful and disillusioned people alike in the pews and even those who have long ago given up any religious commitments to take up citizenship in “The Secular City,” to join in this journey and to engage this debate.

~John Shelby Spong



This is Part III in a provocative new series. To read Part I, II and the upcoming essays in this series, sign up for his column here: https://johnshelbyspong.com/sign-up/

 

[Thomas]

... yup bombastic...

Quite. Hardly a sound basis for good theology. If you can't make a case without bombast, you probably haven't got a case.

Is no longer afraid of the hierarchy to speak his mind...

LOL, you're beginning to sound like him! Anyone who doesn't agree with me must be afraid of the hierarchy to speak his mind?

author of umpteen books on the subject. not a considered theological argument? I believe he has considered this theological argument for decades.

Nah, not really. He writes ideological tracts for a populist audience.

yup, he is patently disagreeing with the G!d of the old testament, an off his meds passive agressive anthropomorphic invisible entity with tossing lightning bolts and plagues or bumper crops....

The problem is, only you and Spong see God like this! Contemporary theology certainly doesn't.

He does? Avoid debate? got google?

Yes. The comments are almost universal. Spong doesn't debate, he's a soap-box orator.

... me thinks you are in denial...

You see, you're doing it now!

as the bible does it regularly...G!d walks, he talks, he can't even find A&E in the garden...oh...did I say "He"??

C'mon now. You insist the Bible is all metaphor! Are you saying that it's all metaphor for you, but the rest of us take it absolutely literally, that we lack the insight to see something utterly transcendent being spoken of in simple, accessible, anthropological terms assume then that it's literally true?

Racist? really? Did you post his offhand racist dismissal? I missed it.

Huh?

Spong: "They've (African Christians) ... yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we've had to face in the developing world. That's just not on their radar screen."
Poor old Africans! I bet they believe the earth's flat! I wonder what Bishop Desmond Tutu would make of this?

Spong: "If they (Africans) feel patronised that's too bad. I'm not going to cease to be a 20th Century person for fear of offending someone in the Third World"
Yep, them Third World folks!

 

[Thomas]

Spong ends this article by saying:
"So I set these theses today before the Christian world and I stand ready to debate each of them as we prepare to enter the third millennium."

OK. Then where does he? I see invective, ridicule, accusations or all sorts against those who dare to suggest his position is flawed ... I don't see a debate.

As for the rest of the twelve, we haven't got past No1 yet.

 

[Thomas]

I found your link to the commentary... and see your point...

Thank you.

however also see his and don't see it as racist.

Don't you? We have a different sensibility here in the UK then, because we would say it most undoubtedly is racist, it's branding an entire continent based on a stereotype.

(In fact my beloved, were she reading this over my shoulder, would 'tear you a new one', so if you're going to defend Spong on that, I'd be discreet about it.)

When you look at how Christianity evolved in Africa, South America, the Caribbean.... it incorporated the existing 'pagan' religions...

Did it? Where in the Catechisms. Show me.

I can go into any shop around DC and find these cheap candles in glass tubes with glitter on them, each designed to ward off this or that, or to accentuate one thing or another (prosperity, health, evil spirits whatever) light the candle and pray to Mary or a saint, say a chant and come back and buy more candles.... Christianity mixed with voodoo or whatever.

OK. And who buys this stuff? Dream Catchers? Rune Stones? Goddess bric-a-brac? Tarot Cards? Crystal Balls? Halloween outfits? I bet they're primarily white, primarily middle class, primarily liberal ... but would you therefore declare they have 'yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein'? I think not.

While will be quick to agree his statement is not in any way interfaith, we don't often find preachers, preaching interfaith.

So that makes it OK? Who sounds like a man in denial now...?

He is stating that the existing version of Christianity/Catholicism has been watered down and mixed with the beliefs that came before them...

I know he is. Does he offer evidence? No. He doesn't have to. Everyone knows that. Again, it's the appeal to the 'not-my-tribe' instinct ...

... but the commentary you posted is from an apologist who has taken a few statements out of context of the entire statement...

Really?

 

[wil]

Who would you like him to debate.. you get your theologian that is WILLING and I'll contact Jack...he is 86 and doesn't travel as easily as he used to... don't waste anytime finding the person. I posted two debates...I've seen others.

And you know I do not see the entire bible as metaphor...I see it as a collection of 66 books much of which contains metaphor, allegory, metaphysics, parables, mythology and outright dream sequences...

Spong: "They've (African Christians) ... yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we've had to face in the developing world. That's just not on their radar screen."
Poor old Africans! I bet they believe the earth's flat! I wonder what Bishop Desmond Tutu would make of this?

Spong: "If they (Africans) feel patronised that's too bad. I'm not going to cease to be a 20th Century person for fear of offending someone in the Third World"
Yep, them Third World folks!

I'll repeat.

When we can find the entire texts of his comments...I'd love to discuss again...but the commentary you posted is from an apologist who has taken a few statements out of context of the entire statement... something that you rant against constantly...frankly surprised you pick that as something to stand on.

I see invective, ridicule, accusations or all sorts against those who dare to suggest his position is flawed ...

lol...seems to be the nature of this thread... It is your goal right? to suggest is position is flawed? and are you not using invective, ridicule and accusations to do so?

http://video.tsemtulku.com/videojs/...emtulku.com/videos/ArchbishopExplainsHell.jpg

 

[Thomas]

OK ... Let's do this.

Let's start at the top. Point One:

Point 1.
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.

I refute this statement.

By way of evidence I cite the Fathers, the Western Philosophical Tradition (primarily Platonism), as an entirely reasonable, rational and still-relevant lexicon for a contemporary discussion on the nature of God.

I cite the theology of a Paul Ricoeur or a Bernard Lonergan or John Polkinghorne. I cite the metaphysics of Erich Przywara.

I would happily pick Augustine or Aquinas to show their thinking is as relevant today as ever.

Specifically, I would refer to the Bible's use of the Greek term 'en arche' ('principle', cf John 1:1) to define God, the term 'logos' to define the dynamic of creation, and the Term 'Father', indeed in its less-formal and more-familial Aramaic 'Abba' (cf Mark 14:36 and twice in Paul), to speak of a relation between creature and creator that is utterly Transcendent yet simultaneously totally Immanent, and the most profound and meaningful expression of that one-to-one relationship is Love (cf 1 John 4.)

Discuss...

 

[wil]

Any of them alive to debate Jack? The G!d of the era of ignorance of science is gone... Father, Abba....not anthropomorphic? hmmmm.... Creator or created? man in G!ds image or G!d in man's image?

You named names...not points you wish to stand on. So..hell, I'll name Jack. While it is true many men of the past were forward thinkers...that is not the basics of belief today. Ask laymen on the street, and preachers from the pulpit... (here in the states) I can't speak to what the thinking is in England or Europe except point to percentage of population who attend church and those who have moved agnostic and atheist.

God is dead, long live G!d. But let us continue. Their definitions of G!d that you stand behind please?

luv ya brother!

 

[Thomas]

Any of them alive to debate Jack?

Sadly all but Polkinghorne have passed ... but that just reinforces my point ... Christian theism as a way of defining God found a lexicon in the first centuries that is as cogent, relevant and viable today as it was then.

Living theologians? Er, me. I'm no publishing heavyweight, but I'll take him on.

The trouble is, he's lost his credibility as a scholar because of his methods, and that's no-one's fault but his own. Opposing schools and scholars do manage to debate without resorting to insults and invective. Any scholar who dismisses those who holding contrary views as ignorant, intellectually incompetent, fearful, racist, fundamentalist, defenders of the religious right etc, etc, will soon lose the respect and credibility of his contemporaries.

+++

The G!d of the era of ignorance of science is gone...

The point rather is, your idea of 'G!d' is not the God of Christianity. It's a straw man.

Father, Abba....not anthropomorphic? hmmmm....

Anthropomorphism is one of the many ways of talking God, it's not the only way by a long way, but even so, there's nothing wrong with that.

Animism is something else. Both you and Spong seem to conflate the two.

Creator or created? man in G!ds image or G!d in man's image?

Interesting point.

I would defend the traditional position that Christianity defines man in relation to God. We are created in His 'image' and 'likeness' (Genesis 1:26-27), and that is a Biblical statement we should investigate, as patently it's not a physical image or likeness. God is 'Spirit' (John 4:24), and in Genesis 2:7 man is animated by the 'breath of life' (chay neshamah) and became a 'living soul' (chay nephesh) — as neshamah is associated with the intellect, and nephesh with the will, that would be a good place to start, as is a reflection on whether there is a distinction between a soul, and a living soul ...

Spong defines God as the exemplar of the liberal idealism of his time — how is that not anthropomorphism writ large?

You named names... not points you wish to stand on.

I have. I repeat: Theism is not dead.

Ask laymen on the street, and preachers from the pulpit... (here in the states) I can't speak to what the thinking is in England or Europe except point to percentage of population who attend church and those who have moved agnostic and atheist.

Immaterial. I'm talking the flaws in Spong's theology, not the man in the street.

 

[Thomas]

luv ya brother!

Love you, too, bro, don't ever doubt it!

Their definitions of G!d that you stand behind please?

OK, in the spirit of kinship, let's go forward and depersonalise this discussion to keep on an even footing.

Objection 1.1:
"Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead.

I answer that theism as such is far from dead. Indeed, as Bishop Spong continues to talk about and express a belief in God, so continues to talk in terms of a theism — so even for him, theism is not dead.

Objection 1:2:
"So most theological God-talk is today meaningless.

I answer that this statement falls on the term 'most', which in this context copywriters call 'a weasel', that is a word to plant an idea in readers’ minds that exagerates the actual claim being made. It's a vague, indeterminate assertion without substantiating fact. How much is 'most' and what does that cover?

Objection 1.3:
"A new way to speak of God must be found.

I answer that news ways to speak of God are constantly being found. His is one of them, but it is not the only way.

If, however, he means the old ways of speaking about God are not true, or no longer adequate, or inaccurate, then I cannot agree, and by way of example I refer to the first and therefore foundational proposition of the Christian Creed:

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen."

"... one God ... "
Monotheism. Again, I'm taking this as a given.

"... the Father ... "
Christ told his listeners to pray to God as 'Our Father' (Matthew 6:9, Luke 11:2). To dispute this term, therefore, really obliges one to dispute the words of Jesus, or at least dispute the idea of man's relationship to and with God as expressed in the Christian Tradition as so close, so intimate, that the term 'Father' or 'Abba' (Aramaic) is really the best and most expedient expression.

What Buddhists would call an 'upaya', a means by which one might overcome incomplete reasoning. The implication is that even if not 'true' in its most literal sense, it is still a valid and viable way to realisation/enlightenment.

I recall your good self having referred to being nurtured in the lap of the Mother ... but I don't assume you think the Mother is an actual woman sitting on a cloud, etc., etc. It's a metaphorical description.

"... the Almighty ..."
That is all-powerful, omnipotent, pre-eminent — that which is unsurpassed and without equal. In Greek philosophical terms I would say Absolute, Infinite, or apeiron, the Boudless. Without peer or equal.

"... maker of heaven and earth ... unseen."
In short, the Creator.

 

[Thomas]

Addendum:

Theism can be broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a deity or deities.

Derived from the Greek theos meaning 'god', 'theism' was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688): "(they are) strictly and properly called Theists, who affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other things".

Types of theism:
Monotheism: such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Baha'i Faith, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and some forms of Hinduism.

Polytheism —
Hard polytheism: the gods as being distinct and separate beings, such as in certain schools of Hinduism.
Soft polytheism: the gods as being subsumed into a greater whole, again evidenced in certain schools of Hinduism.

Pantheism: The belief that the physical universe is equivalent to god, or that the physical universe is a mode of divine existence.

Panentheism: Like Pantheism, but unlike in the sense that in some manner god is utterly transcendent of the physical universe which remains, nevertheless, a mode of divine existence.

Deism: a creator exists, but is disassociated from the cosmos. It rejects every mode of revelation, holding that religious beliefs are founded on observation and the reasoning of the physical universe, which itself indicates the existence of a supreme being as creator.

Pandeism: The belief that a god preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it.

Polydeism: The belief that multiple gods exist, but do not intervene in the universe.

Autotheism: whether divinity is external or not, it is inherently within 'oneself' and that one has the ability to achieve 'godhood' by practices according to the statements attributed to ethical, philosophical, and religious leaders, such as altruism, detachment, the virtues in general.

Autotheism: oneself is a deity, within the context of subjectivism.

 

[wil]

Any scholar who dismisses those who holding contrary views as ignorant, intellectually incompetent, fearful, racist, fundamentalist, defenders of the religious right etc, etc, will soon lose the respect and credibility of his contemporaries.

This is yet another attack without support. So let us do that... please provide the quotes, and the link to the entire text so we don't take anything out of context...you know, one for each adjective you've chose to accuse him of accusing others. Earlier you called him racist, now you are saying he accuses others of being racist if they disagree with him.

What he is saying is those scholars of centuries ago did not have the knowledge we have today...

Anthropomorphism is one of the many ways of talking God, it's not the only way by a long way, but even so, there's nothing wrong with that.

"... Every human being that describes God will inevitably do so as a human analogy ..."
Again, simply factually wrong.

Seems that was his exact point that you denied. I said most (obviously that most includes you) and it appears factually wrong is the only the world "every", replace it with most...and it is factually right.

Immaterial. I'm talking the flaws in Spong's theology, not the man in the street.

Spongs theology is the result of the man in the street being taught wrong from pulpits around the world... From Sunday schools which teach fire and brimstone, heaven and hell, controlling BS... He is saying Christianity must change or die... because of this very fact...the man in the street...the students are telling us what they are learning from their teachers in church.... their lack of understanding is showing us the very issues.

Objection 1.1:
"Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead.

I answer that theism as such is far from dead. Indeed, as Bishop Spong continues to talk about and express a belief in God, so continues to talk in terms of a theism — so even for him, theism is not dead.

Objection 1:2:
"So most theological God-talk is today meaningless.

I answer that this statement falls on the term 'most', which in this context copywriters call 'a weasel', that is a word to plant an idea in readers’ minds that exagerates the actual claim being made. It's a vague, indeterminate assertion without substantiating fact. How much is 'most' and what does that cover?

Again...most is not a weasel word... it is the word required so you don't jump all over 'every'. Most of your students are failing your class!! Is that because of your students being stupid? Or your failed teaching methods?

Objection 1.3:
"A new way to speak of God must be found.

I answer that news ways to speak of God are constantly being found. His is one of them, but it is not the only way.

If, however, he means the old ways of speaking about God are not true, or no longer adequate, or inaccurate, then I cannot agree, and by way of example I refer to the first and therefore foundational proposition of the Christian Creed:

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen."

Aquinas relies on everything is created therefor there must be a creator... again, the almightly is shown in the book to be so weak in controlling his creations that he has to resort to killing almost the entire human race (flood) or poisoning their water, or telling his faithful to kill the entire town...or when they come back and didn't go back and kill the all the women, old men, children...but keep the virgins for yourself.... That G!d view is dead...the time of "G!d told me", or "The devil made me do it" is dead... yes, the Father...but we will just point this out, we won't beat that anthropomorphic horse again that all people don't use.

What Buddhists would call an 'upaya', a means by which one might overcome incomplete reasoning. The implication is that even if not 'true' in its most literal sense, it is still a valid and viable way to realisation/enlightenment

And he is simply saying we are no longer children..no longer centuries ago with misquided understandings of reality... even if not true, need no longer be the excuse.

 

[Thomas]

This is yet another attack without support.

Well I think it's pretty well evidenced online. You check it out, or if not bothered, just let it go ... it's not really to the point of the discussion anyway.

What he is saying is those scholars of centuries ago did not have the knowledge we have today...

I know. What I fail to see is how what those scholars were saying is now redundant. Please provide examples, links to texts, etc... ()

Seems that was his exact point that you denied.

I wasn't denying it, I am saying its too vague.

Spongs theology is the result of the man in the street being taught wrong from pulpits around the world...

Irrelevant. It's the content of the theology that's under discussion.

From Sunday schools which teach fire and brimstone, heaven and hell, controlling BS ...

Straw man.

Aquinas relies on everything is created therefore there must be a creator...

He's relying on Cause and Effect, and a First Cause ... a sound philosophical principle.

again, the almightly is shown in the book to be so weak in controlling his creations that he has to resort to killing almost the entire human race (flood) ...

Oh dear .... ... your opinion of Scripture now ...

... the time of "G!d told me", or "The devil made me do it" is dead...

This is so far away from the kind of reasoned and rational dialogue I was hoping for.

I'm out.

 

[wil]

Thomas said: ↑
Any scholar who dismisses those who holding contrary views as ignorant, intellectually incompetent, fearful, racist, fundamentalist, defenders of the religious right etc, etc, will soon lose the respect and credibility of his contemporaries.

This is yet another attack without support. So let us do that... please provide the quotes, and the link to the entire text so we don't take anything out of context...you know, one for each adjective you've chose to accuse him of accusing others. Earlier you called him racist, now you are saying he accuses others of being racist if they disagree with him.

Well I think it's pretty well evidenced online. You check it out, or if not bothered, just let it go ... it's not really to the point of the discussion anyway.

This is not like you...first making a string of accusations against a guy...all the while complaining that is what you object about his stance. I ask you to support it and you say look it up? You of all people know that is not how debate and discussion works.

This is so far away from the kind of reasoned and rational dialogue I was hoping for.

In his book he makes a point (one of 12) and then goes on with support of his point. You seem to wish to pick apart the chapter heading and not the reasoning behind it.

I get it. He is far from Catholic Doctrine, I realize that. He is watching his beloved church crumble due to the holding on of thoughts and words of ancients. Society, people, knowledge moves forward with time. Sure we can still ride horses, use flint and steel to light fires, chip arrow and spear heads if we must... but just as Judaism, Christianity, Islam over ran the concept of a chariot dragging the sun across the sky...just as we saw norse, greek and roman mythologies move by the wayside with new information.

Spong presents an understanding based on the year 2000....not the year 200 or 1500, nor 2000 bc. You are correct...progressive Christianity is not the evangelical bible thumping of rural america, nor the Catholic we are all sinners needing confession and intermediaries...not the invisible guy in the sky pulling strings don't look behind the curtain. Spong is challenging the old and living in today fully knowing his understanding is not complete either.

Just as you disagree with Mormon Church, Jehovah's witness, and Protestants of all varieties... It is not unusual or unexpected for you to disagree with Spong...as if any of them are right....the Catholic Church may be wrong.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

This is so far away from the kind of reasoned and rational dialogue I was hoping for.

You dreamer, you...

 

[wil]

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.

Not Thomas's quote, but Spongs...

Let us start ...In the beginning....the Genesis of it all if you will...

Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead.

Google God created the world in 6 days and you get websites purporting the world to be less then 10k old and that G!d did indeed create the world in 6 ordinary days...

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/could-god-really-have-created-everything-in-six-days/

Christian apologists going on that the biblical account is literal... Welcome to America.

This is what Spong is talking about. With today's knowledge of creation of the universe and the earth and evolution of our planet... This is completely counter to everything we know. Yet it is preached in the majority of churches in the US today...Including the Catholic and Episcopalian churches of which Bishop Spong was most familiar.

If you are holding onto this belief... Obviously you don't agree with Spong.

In the US which became quite literalist in this regard in the past couple centuries of using the bible to keep blacks enslaved, women quiet, fight civil rights, fight intermarriage of the races and of similar genders.. losing that literal bible is losing just one more battle towards Sodom and Gomorrah. However this is also slipping according to the latest polls. his

So most theological God-talk today is meaningless...

Meaningless if we continue down that path above to Man being created out of mud, whole and complete as man is today...and woman out of his rib... this is taught to preschool and elementary school children... Not as allegory, not as a parable, not as metaphor, not with metaphysical underpinnings...

Do you believe this is a worthy pursuit? These are the beliefs that Spong is referring his objection....that these actions, this version of creation does not Define G!d.

So when you start out with this....and then learn reality...is there any reason the youth is rejecting religion as it is taught to them??

A new way to speak of G!d must be found.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

wil, I question your view of scientific progress. You seem to promote that theology should take after natural science in it's paradigm shift, discarding old theories for new ones. But theology is more alike to the social sciences where ancient thoughts can still be as relevant as new thoughts. I apologize for being very condescend now: I think you should check out the relationship between natural and social science before going further with is, as I think you are building your philosophy on a misunderstanding of science.

I think it is very natural for wil to dismiss existing theology since his view is that it was some guys around a campfire. I enjoy this thread but I don't think any argument will change that fact.