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

[Ahanu]

Eastern Orthodoxy regards positive theology as always inferior to negative theology, which is a step along the way to the superior knowledge attained by negation. This is expressed in the idea that mysticism is the expression of dogmatic theology par excellence.

This is interesting.

 

[wil]

I rather think such a way already exists, and has been central to theological development since about the 5th century.

I tend to agree... However Spong is not talking about the Fifth century...

Nor is he speaking to you.

He is speaking to the Evangelicals... He is speaking to our American Fundamentalists, Creationists and Literalists. He is speaking to the percentage of our American Society that believes that G!d wipes out New Orleans because of homosexuals, that votes for an adulterer, pussy grabber for President all the while screaming family values.

This is where the divide is Thomas... You need a vacation...become part of the Millions that go to the Creation Museum here in the US and talk about instant canyonification producing the Grand Canyon 6,000 years ago. Come see what we are dealing with here...What the typical Catholic parishioner believes here... in order to understand why Possiblity walked away from the church...and why Spong has been writing books...

It is has nothing to do with your version of Christianity....it has to do with ours... Born of the Puritans that ran away from your country.

 

[Thomas]

When you come forward with something of theological substance, I'll dialogue with you. Until then ... sayonara.

 

[wil]

It is cool thomas....Your thesis is in in your paradigm there is no need for

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.

And that is true for you... But if Christianity continues down the path it has.(on this side of the pond)..with these literalistic fire and brimstone churches leading in growth in a belief system that is losing percentage of the population every year... This is what Jack has issues with, and writes books about... Christianity Changing or Die... Just as the Catholic Church is changing its tune...the statements from the current Pope and JPII would be considered blasphemy by many in the past...

 

[Thomas]

Like I said. I'm here to talk theology, not your politics.

 

[wil]

I understand that fully... I think therein lies another difference between us. I live in the world. The esoteric and unprovable doesn't interest me as much as that which directly affects my life and those around me.

Sure, I enjoy waxing philosophic...but when it comes down to it... the hereafter is a threshold we will cross and learn wow, or not even see the other side of. My belief needs to benefit my life and those around me. And when I say those around me... who is your neighbor speaks volumes... it is the entities on this plane of existence that I can touch, feel and care for.

So you may think it politics to say God Hates ****... my friends think the affects on their lives and those around them are real. Because the hate that spews is also the hate that makes others spewers of hate think such actions are acceptable.

Our family values religious community elected a President that makes White Supremiscists proud and gives them the understanding that they just make take back our nation from the LGTBQ, women, immigrants, and blacks that their collective religions induce a belief that they are ruining their lives.

The american christian theology is affecting our politics...and our lives. The way we are speaking of G!D. That God sends hurricanes to wipe out gays, that God hates ****,

I don't have to go far to find these things... I can find them in many local churches and around the net... And I don't approve.. To me...this is not the way to speak of G!d

What to Hate.... from https://www.gospelway.com/christianlife/hatred.php
F. False Teaching and False Religion
What is true of idolatry is also true of all religious error and false practice. God hates and opposes everything the leads people to practice religious error.

Proverbs 21:27 - The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with wicked intent. Sacrifices are wicked when they are not offered in harmony with God's teachings, or when they are offered by a person who is not serving God in his daily life, or when they are not offered sincerely with a true desire to please and honor God. All such is false religion and God calls it an abomination. [15:8; 28:9]

Jeremiah 7:9,10 - People steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, and worship false gods, then think they can worship God and be delivered to commit all these abominations. Note that nearly everything we have studied is here called an abomination. But the specific abomination here is false teaching that deceives people into thinking they can do all these things and God will still accept them.

Proverbs 17:15 - He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. God hates false teaching that says good people are doing wrong or bad people are doing good.

God hates false religion and false teaching and expects us to hate them too.

What about people who say it is hatred to speak against things other people do? Do they ever disagree with other people religiously? Again, some of them probably don't care either way. But many of them do defend their practices on the basis of religion, including homosexuality and abortion. When they defend their practice on the basis of religion and say people who disagree are religiously wrong, are they guilty of "hate speech" and "hate crimes"? Why is it that only people who oppose practices religiously are guilty of "hate speech," but those who defend them religiously are not?

Here again we get to the real root of the problem. Some people hold to false beliefs. The real problem is not that we are guilty of improper hatred because we oppose sin. The problem is that other people justify sin and get upset when we teach the truth.

But God says that religious error and false teaching are abominations. Is that what we believe?

[Proverbs 24:24; Isaiah 1:13,14]

G. Sexual Immorality
Jeremiah 7:9,10 - The abominations that Judah committed included adultery.

Malachi 2:16 - God hates divorce.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as with a woman he commits an abomination.

God hates the practice of adultery and homosexuality, just as He hates all these other sins we have listed.

What about people who say it is hatred to speak against these things? Do they view adultery and homosexuality as abominations or do they love them? Most of them might not openly defend adultery, but they will defend homosexuality. If they speak against adultery, are they guilty of "hate speech" and "hate crimes"? If not, then why accuse us of improper hatred when we oppose homosexuality?

But the passages again help explain the real root of the problem. The real problem is not that we are guilty of improper hatred because we oppose sin. The problem is that other people justify sin and get upset when we teach the truth.

But God says adultery and homosexuality are abominations. Is that what we believe?

[Ezekiel 22:11; 33:26; 1 Kings 14:24]

Note, I do not think these are your beliefs or the Christianity you promote. It is the Christianity that must change...or DIE... as Grandiose as that may sound to some.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

It is the Christianity that must change

But you are talking about a very specific form of Christianity, but you talk about it as Christianity in general. I would say that it isn't even Christianity at all but bigotry using religious vocabulary. No religion bares the blame for extremism, that lay solely at the feet of men.

 

[wil]

But you are talking about a very specific form of Christianity, but you talk about it as Christianity in general. I would say that it isn't even Christianity at all but bigotry using religious vocabulary. No religion bares the blame for extremism, that lay solely at the feet of men.

When this large of a percentage believes the world to be less than 10k years old... due to their belief system...and then also believes they are superior to minorities, call themselves Christian and use the bible as their support...It needs to be addressed.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

When this large of a percentage believes the world to be less than 10k years old... due to their belief system...and then also believes they are superior to minorities, call themselves Christian and use the bible as their support...It needs to be addressed.

Agreed, but Christianity does not require them to be this, there are too many examples of their opposite in Christianity.

I don't know if this is your reason for turning to Spong but I think you should specify your criticism, if that is the case, because I don't see this as a theological issue.

I'm more cynical than you, I don't think we can take out willful ignorance out of humanity.

 

[wil]

acot, can you tell me how well that has done with Islam?

Leaving alone a sect which interprets scripture in radical ways, that uses scripture to hate?

When I was a young man, Islam was known to be a religion of peace... People used Muslim as a reason to avoid war, avoid killing people...people converted based on their peaceful aspect...

Saudis... One nation, and the house of Saud, promoted Wahhabism, Salifism, the king and his princes and Gov't supported state schools. Couple billion Muslims, most not in the Middle East, only a tiny fraction in Saudi Arabia...big turmoil today

We now have a leader of one nation.. Who has openly supported those with white supreme st ideologies in order to get elected. Openly supported violence at his rallies. Appointed short earthers, and anti science religious folks of the literal interpretation persuasion.

And you wish me to sit down and watch Christianity get bastardized and militarized again?

George bush told us God told him to go into Iraq.. We know now there was no connection to 9/11..no yellow cake... And no order by God to invade... But that rally cry and lies lead our nation into killing hundreds of thousands of people, brought other nations in to help, killed twice as many of our own than died in 9/11 (sweet revenge eh) cost us trillions and sent the world into a global recession.

Yeah, I think this radical view of US born fundie literalist interpretation needs to be called out...and decried as non Christian...

Yeah, I don't accept this theology, or these leaders way of speaking of God... It is unacceptable and a new way of speaking of God must be found.

Or we will be manifesting destiny

 

[wil]

Agreed, but Christianity does not require them to be this, there are too many examples of their opposite in Christianity.

I don't know if this is your reason for turning to Spong but I think you should specify your criticism, if that is the case, because I don't see this as a theological issue.

I'm more cynical than you, I don't think we can take out willful ignorance out of humanity.

Just replace the word Muslim for Christian in your post and then toss up your hands and say oh well.

Muslims are standing up and saying no...that is not what the Quran teaches... As Christians we need to do the same.

I didn't turn to Spong, I turned away from the church that taught me this crap in Sunday school (child abuse) I turned away from a loving God that hates gays and sends hurricanes. I turn away today from religious family values people who vote for pedophiles, liars, and misogynists, who wave the bible...

If we stand by and say nothing our silence votes strong support...I didn't turn to Spong, I simply agree

 

[wil]

A little sunday morning proselytizing found in a friend's front yard this morning... And you guys want me to shut up and accept this as Christian?

 

[Thomas]

A piece of wisdom for you: "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God, the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25).

Your entire discourse is founded on a straw man fallacy.

(Definition: A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy. Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument — usually something extreme or easy to argue against — that they know their opponent doesn't support. They put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.)

Loving one's neighbour when one's neighbour thinks and speaks like you is easy. When he doesn't, that's when the rubber hits the road.

"Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times." (Matthew 18:21-22)

"The teachers praise love most highly, as Saint Paul does when he says: "In whatever tribulation I may find myself, if I have not love, I am nothing." But I praise detachment more than all love. First, because the best thing about love is that it forces me to love God. On the other hand, detachment forces God to love me. Now it is much nobler that I should force God to myself than I should force myself to God. And the reason is that God can join himself to me more closely and unite himself with me better than I could unite myself with God." (O'Neal "Meister Eckhart, From Whom God Hid Nothing" pp.107/8)

Eckhart reinterprets St Paul for a purpose, not to shock, but to highlight the importance of detachment in the contemplative life. The Buddha extolled the centrality of detachment, exemplified by equanimity (upekkha), one of the four 'sublime states' alongside goodwill, compassion, and empathy.

Equanimity is not to be understood as indifference to suffering, but instead a calmness of spirit that enables us to see things as they truly are, as conditioned phenomena.

Buddhism speaks of a quality of mind that is not distracted by outer stimuli when it is engaged in meditation. This is known as samadhi, and is one of the three aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path that leads to enlightenment. From the viewpoint of the Buddha, Eckhart's teaching on detachment can be understood in relation to the Buddhist understanding of samadhi.

Eckhart, the Prince of Mystics, was the foremost spokesman in the West of the Apophatic Way, he speaks of God as 'not-God,' not as a being, nor indeed being-as-such, but 'beyond being' — the utterly transcendent above all forms and categories, and so he speaks, in the same token, of Nirvana.

"Secondly I praise detachment more than love because love forces me to suffer all things for the sake of God, but detachment makes me receptive of nothing but God. Now it is far nobler to be receptive of nothing but God than to suffer all things for the sake of God. For in suffering man pays some attention to the creatures through which he has the suffering. On the other hand, detachment is completely free from all creatures." (O'Neal p.108 - emphasis mine.)

It is precisely to escape this self-determined suffering rejected by Buddhism that Christ calls us to forgive 'seventy times seven'. Until we practice true love, true compassion, true caritas, we will be held captive by the demons of our ego.

A love born of creature-centered awareness will be tainted with self, it is receptive of the self first, and naturally assumes the self is righteous and true:

"And why seest thou the mote in thy brother's eye: but the beam that is in thy own eye thou considerest not? Or how canst thou say to thy brother: Brother, let me pull the mote out of thy eye, when thou thyself seest not the beam in thy own eye?" (Luke 6:41-42)

"Judge not, that you may not be judged (the Golden Rule). For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)

If we are receptive of God first, then we can aspire to a true compassion for suffering creatures.

We can see this now simply by looking backwards instead of forwards and seeing the Emptiness at our heart here and now. (Don't take my word for it, look back at where you are looking from and be completely honest about what you see.)

If we recognize the Emptiness as our true being, rather than these limited and self-limiting egos, then we can see what happens when we meet people from this persecutive rather than the usual egotistic one. If 'I' die into Empty Knowing and am filled with you instead my own sense-of-self, then 'I' am really able to love you, for there is no me to get in the way.

Try this in your own life, every time you meet someone, especially if there's been ill-feeling between you. What happens to that ill-feeling when you meet someone from your Emptiness rather than your ego? (Buddha Space)

So you may think it politics to say God Hates ****... my friends think the affects on their lives and those around them are real. Because the hate that spews is also the hate that makes others spewers of hate think such actions are acceptable.

So any Christian that's not your brand of Christian is therefore filled with hate and spews it forth?

Our family values religious community elected a President that makes White Supremiscists proud and gives them the understanding that they just make take back our nation from the LGTBQ, women, immigrants, and blacks that their collective religions induce a belief that they are ruining their lives.

Does that include the family values Hispanic Christians, who didn't vote for Trump in droves? Or family values Black American Christians, likewise?

It is the Christianity that must change... or DIE... as Grandiose as that may sound to some.

Well it is grandiose, sensationalist and deeply flawed.

You and I both know the hate that you speak of is no part of Christian doctrine, so if 'Christianity must change or DIE' then you are condemning it for something of which it is innocent.

The type of sociopolitical religionism that you speak of is religion hijacked by the Far Conservative Right.

But you, and most certainly Spong, belong to the Far Liberal Left, so it seems to me you're simply replacing one fundamentalist ideology with another, the philosophy and theology of both camps resting on a wilful misreading of Scripture in an attempt to present a Jesus which fits in your ideological box.

And "Christianity must change or Die" is a statement which I very much doubt will appeal to the Right. Nor the centre. Only the Left. So it's no attempt at dialogue, it's preaching to the choir, grandiose certainly, but then it's a call to the barricades!

In terms of Real World Politik, I take my guide, as a Christian centrist, from the Beatitudes, the only viable road to peace and harmony.

Spong declares "Jesus never preached the Sermon on the Mount! Some of the content recorded in that well-known part of Matthew’s gospel may well stretch back to the literal words of the Jesus of history, but there was never a time in the life of Jesus of Nazareth when he went up on a mountain and delivered …" (here Quite how he knows this, without a shred of evidence, I don't even bother asking.)

And the Jesus Seminar voted out for of them, accepting just three which they read as sufficiently PC. (The poor, the hungry and those who weep)

What they both miss is that which is summed by the Zen Master and one time teacher of J.K. Kadowaki. Kadowaki was raised Zen but converted to Catholicism. He went back to Japan and in a discussion with his master, spoke of the Beatitudes. "Whoever said those words was truly enlightened," the old man said. "That's the lesson I've been teaching all my life."

He had the wisdom and insight to see beyond the words to their esoteric significance (from Matthew 5):

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
When He says 'poor in spirit' He means those who detach themselves from the 'spirit' of themselves; their attachment to the world and its sufferings as a means of self-validation ('Look at how bad they are, see how good I am!'). Only when you rise above the tribal barricades will you see clearly, and in the light.

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land."
By 'land' He means the Kingdom, the Emptiness of God (Nirvana), the 'Ground of Being' in which the distinctions between God and man disappear. Theirs is theosis. They seek to possess nothing, and attain the highest.

"Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted."
Because their mourning is a sadness for how the world has been defiled by the Caesars and the 'traditions of men' and how this has taken root in their souls.

"Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill."
Those who seek the Will of God, and in so doing are filled with God.

"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy."
Those who are aware of 'the plank in their own eye' before they leap to condemn their neighbour.

"Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God."
By 'clean' is meant 'empty'. The space is cleared of themselves to allow the Spirit to move them. And they shall see, 'in spirit and in truth'.

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God."
They who make peace in themselves and with themselves, by rising above themselves, and from them flows "... the peace of God, which surpasseth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:7).

"Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
By those He means those who struggle against themselves, the passional and volitive nature of man. (This, by the way, is the esoteric meaning of jihad, according to Moslem commentaries).

"Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake"
Those who stand fast when doubts arise within themselves.

So by being Christian, and a Christian in the world, He means those who "... let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." For the light is His light, and the good works they do are His works, in the sure faith and reasoned philosophy that "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled."

And when it is fulfilled, then the heavens and the earths shall indeed pass away, because the veils will be removed, and we shall see our true selves, and His true self, from whom all good things come.

+++

"But Martha (who knew Jesus) was busy about much serving (busy with the affairs of the world). Who stood and said: Lord, hast thou no care that my sister hath left me alone to serve? speak to her therefore, that she help me. And the Lord answering, said to her: Martha, Martha, thou art careful, and art troubled about many things: But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her." (Luke 10: 41-42)

That one thing is 'detachment', the goal of Buddhahood, the Quest for the Real, the True and the Beautiful.

So speak not of death, but of life.

In the words of John Lennon: Give peace a chance.

 

[wil]

A little sunday morning proselytizing found in a friend's front yard this morning... And you guys want me to shut up and accept this as Christian?

View attachment 1742

I guess you do. But I will not stand aside.

 

[wil]

wil said: ↑
So you may think it politics to say God Hates ****... my friends think the affects on their lives and those around them are real. Because the hate that spews is also the hate that makes others spewers of hate think such actions are acceptable.

So any Christian that's not your brand of Christian is therefore filled with hate and spews it forth?

Really...where did you get that?

I think I was clear...spewing Hate in my mind is not Christian (ie not following the words and ways of Jesus)

(Definition: A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy. Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument — usually something extreme or easy to argue against — that they know their opponent doesn't support. They put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.)

Oh.

 

[wil]

You and I both know the hate that you speak of is no part of Christian doctrine

Yes, and then Christians need to stand up and say something.... We are talking a huge percentage of 'Christians' in my country... And if this brand of Christianity continues... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion-clinic-violence.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ers_killed_at_least_60_in_u_s_since_1995.html

Our kids children will have to deal with the repercussions of our lack of action now.

While it started over a hundred years before my lifetime...we are still preaching it from the pulpit to congregations coast to coast...and the violence continues.

 

[possibility]

Wow. I missed a lot of discussion.

While I understand your anger, Wil, I don't subscribe to it, personally. As far as I'm concerned I haven't left the Catholic church, because I am buoyed by what I see as a gradual progression towards a clearer and more universal understanding of God (particularly under Pope Francis). I do think the church needs to face up to some harsh realities in order to achieve it, though. But that's a personal opinion on church politics, not solid theology or even reasoned dialogue, so I'm probably boring Thomas again. I'll try and get back on topic.

Apophatic theology.
I suggest this because I think everything you're looking for, and more, is there.

Thomas, I finally had a chance to read and research some of these quotes, and I agree that they do point to a similar way of thinking about God. So, once again, I appreciate the reading material.

I realise your aim here is to prove that this kind of 'theological God-talk' does exist, and has done for a long time - obviously I can't dispute that, but I also agree to an extent with Wil - I don't think the existence of apophatic theology negates what Spong is saying here. I question whether this particular theology falls into Spong's 'dead' category of "Theism as a way of defining God", because it does suggest: that God cannot be defined as 'a being' (the central tenet of Theism in my understanding), that perhaps God cannot be defined at all, and that many theologians have therefore been focusing their energies in the wrong place. It appears this understanding is readily forgotten, though because, over 1500 years later, Spong is addressing the same misguided focus.

I have noticed that what is visible in the mainstream, what is portrayed as indicative of Christianity, still fails to recognise this apophatic approach. This is why the meaninglessness of 'most theological God-talk' resonates with those of us who may have only skimmed the 'popular' surface of theological discussion, or, as wil described, are fed up with the narrow-mindedness of the American 'Christian' voice.

Yes, Spong's style is less 'reasoned dialogue' and more rousing oratory, but I think it's supposed to challenge everyday Christians to question what they've been taught, not engage theologians in debate. If I reject a way of speaking about God because it hasn't come from a 'qualified' theologian, is imperfectly stated, narrow-minded or ignorant, then I might as well throw out the entire bible! I also get the feeling the most frustrating thing about Spong (as evidenced by Witt) is that his 'theology' can't be placed into a box and summarily dismissed with a label. I guess I'm not as dismissive as you are of discussions about faith that aren't backed up by 'solid theology'. But if Witt's argument is your idea of 'reasoned dialogue', then I'll pass. My preference is what can be backed up by human experience, personally.

As an aside, Thomas, I am concerned that much of what you've cut and paste is out of quotation and fails to credit your source - either Dierdre Carabine or Wikipedia, for instance. It leaves me with a certain amount of distrust - the words you write are the only connection I have to you, after all. If they're not your words, I'd appreciate you letting me know.

I especially liked this quote (cut and pasted again without credit - are any of these words your own, Thomas - or are you Wikipedia?):

C.S. Lewis, in his book Miracles (1947), advocates the use of negative theology when first thinking about God, in order to cleanse our minds of misconceptions. He goes on to say we must then refill our minds with the truth about God, untainted by mythology, bad analogies or false mind-pictures.

This relates so clearly to my own experience. Could we apply this to Christianity in general, though? Do we have the courage to 'cleanse' Christianity of misconceptions, or is this something we can only do in our own minds? Is that too 'risky' a project, or am I offending Christians by even suggesting that Christianity as it currently defines itself might be seen as 'tainted' in this way? I'm just throwing thoughts around here, and I could suggest this about any religion, as I've yet to find one that isn't 'tainted' to some extent.

Attempting to describe or 'define God' within a single religious or theological discourse is like trying to describe the 'shape' of water in a glass. I think the key is to get beyond any authoritative declarations of what God is and recognise that our current awareness and understanding of the universe limits our awareness and understanding of God. I'm not saying that nobody recognises this already - but we could probably work on bringing this awareness more to the forefront of 'popular' discussions about faith. The occasional resurgence of apophatic theology points to a need to remind theologians of this from time to time.

I think this way of speaking about God might also be relevant to interfaith discussions. It is only in sharing our experiences and recognising that our differences of opinion or of religion/faith/theology place us not at loggerheads but as blind men at different points around the one elephant, that we may ever come close to 'knowing' God.

 

[wil]

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-are-all-christian-denominations-in-decline/

Mainliners may try to comfort themselves by claiming that every denomination is in decline, but it’s simply not true. While conservative churches aren’t growing as quickly as they once were, mainline churches are on a path toward extinction. The mainline churches are finding that as they move further away from Biblical Christianity, the closer they get to their inevitable demise.

. There is that grandiose extinction and demise not written by Spong, possibility or myself... And when you read "biblical Christianity" it is short earth literal a&e 7 day creation...

While Chrisitianity in the US is indeed declining, our non denominational independent churches are on the rise.

This may not be theological or logical, but the US has a strong anti science, anti climate change base that is getting stronger, more vocal, and more political....

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

wil, you're jumping from topic to topic. I'm sure this all makes sense to you but I can't keep up.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Possibility —

I realise your aim here is to prove that this kind of 'theological God-talk' does exist, and has done for a long time - I don't think the existence of apophatic theology negates what Spong is saying here.

I don't think it negates it, rather it answers the objections he raises and illustrates the errors.

As Wit (cited above) says, "The relationship between language, narratives and experience is mutually interdependent."
The apophatic tradition regards the immediate immanent experience as 'dark', as 'negative', as something outside the norms of experience. It is beyond sensory, because the physical senses cannot comprehend or translate what's happening in anything other than analogous terms.

However, as soon as we are conscious of an experience, it has ceased to be unmediated or inarticulate — were it so, it would be at best semi-conscious (as it may well be). Consciousness cannot be anything other than mediated, by the mechanisms of consciousness — and that is proven fragile and fallible.

As Wit goes on: "... there simply are no experiences that are not first made possible by language, narratives, and tradition. Rather than language and enculturation representing an unfortunate secondary interpretive step following on a universal and formless religious experience, it actually works the other way around. Concrete religious traditions with their attendant narratives, conceptual interpretations and understandings make religious experience possible."

Without it, we have no way of making our experiences comprehensible even to ourselves.

(If you think that an over-statement, try conceptualising religion or spirituality without reference to the lexicon of the traditions, from the pre-Biblical to the post-modern.)

Human experience can only be communicated in terms of a language, and any language is set in and by its cultural context. We all know this. Scholars tackle it all the time. That's what the Historical-Critical Method is all about, but Spong's appreciation of the method is well out of date. Like the Jesus Seminar, its early methodology was subject to a number of a priori assumptions which have since been shown to be uncertain at best, false at worst.

“The experience is always primary, the reflective understanding of the experience is always secondary, and the tales that illumine or explain the understanding are always tertiary ... An intense experience ultimately has no form."
OK ... but how do you interpret the formless in any way meaningfully, to oneself and to others?

In some ways, I go beyond Spong. I read St John and St Paul, the Christian apophatic tradition, phenomenalist philosophers of the last century like Murleau-Ponty and Ricoeur, contemporary theologians like Denys Turner, who assert that authentic religious experience is not 'an experience' at all. It's pre-experiential. The terms Spong uses to define the authentic are themselves just contemporary popular expressions set in their cultural mileau, and are no more 'authentic' and offer no real alternative to what has gone before. They might just possibly be the evocations of a perceived ideal state and nothing to do with God at all.

It's not a case of throwing one side out, but rather balancing the two — the apophatic and the kataphatic — to achieve a synthesis of understanding that sees the inexpressible in the expressed.

Again, Wit says: "On the one hand, he knows that there can be no preservation of experience without language; on the other, he seems to believe that there is something inherently evil in the tendency to express timeless experience in propositional terms, and labels all such attempts with his favorite term of opprobrium, 'literalism'.”
He can't have it both ways. And there is a vast resource of evidence, to indicate that it is communicable.

+++

I have noticed that what is visible in the mainstream, what is portrayed as indicative of Christianity, still fails to recognise this apophatic approach.

Always will. It's the nature of man and pastoral concerns. A purely apophatic theology would empty the pews quicker than secularism!

My degree dissertation was on Mystagogia, the on-going process of spiritual formation and deepening which is no hardly practiced at all in the Church. Why? Because there's no appetite for it.

Pope Benedict's XVI’s encyclical Sacramentum Caritatis, Section 64, is entitled ‘Mystagogical Catechesis’. There it says:
"The Church’s great liturgical tradition teaches us that fruitful participation in the liturgy requires that one be personally conformed to the mystery being celebrated... The mature fruit of mystagogy is an awareness that one’s life is being progressively transformed by the holy mysteries being celebrated. The aim of all Christian education, moreover, is to train the believer in an adult faith that can make him a 'new creation', capable of bearing witness in his surroundings to the Christian hope that inspires him."

Pope Francis continues this with his insistence that Christianity is 'on the margins'.

This is why the meaninglessness of 'most theological God-talk' resonates with those of us who may have only skimmed the 'popular' surface of theological discussion, or, as wil described, are fed up with the narrow-mindedness of the American 'Christian' voice.

OK. But you're letting a vocal minority dictate the terms. You'll never succeed that way. Spong runs the risk of becoming the caricature of late 20th century American liberalism ...

The corrective is there. It has been for ever. But you can take a horse to water ... we can only offer, We can't force it down throats. That would make us just as bad. History is full of it, and we're as guilty of that as any other, and moreso than some. But Spong's solution is, in that sense, to fly to the opposite extreme.

Yes, Spong's style is less 'reasoned dialogue' and more rousing oratory, but I think it's supposed to challenge everyday Christians to question what they've been taught, not engage theologians in debate.

If they're going to question, where do they go for answers? Spong would say his are the only viable answers ... I think otherwise.

As an aside, Thomas, I am concerned that much of what you've cut and paste is out of quotation and fails to credit your source - either Dierdre Carabine or Wikipedia, for instance. It leaves me with a certain amount of distrust - the words you write are the only connection I have to you, after all. If they're not your words, I'd appreciate you letting me know.

My bad. Mea culpa.

I especially liked this quote (cut and pasted again without credit)

Nope, I should have credited that.

But he is not saying, as Spong does, that everything is a myth. Rather, i think, he's far more mindful of myth than Spong. Try reading "Fern-seeds and elephants"

This relates so clearly to my own experience. Could we apply this to Christianity in general, though? Do we have the courage to 'cleanse' Christianity of misconceptions, or is this something we can only do in our own minds?

We have to do it for ourselves. And again what misconception? I think Spong is riddled with misconception.

Is that too 'risky' a project, or am I offending Christians by even suggesting that Christianity as it currently defines itself might be seen as 'tainted' in this way? I'm just throwing thoughts around here, and I could suggest this about any religion, as I've yet to find one that isn't 'tainted' to some extent.

Well good scholarship does just that. But good scholarship does not make for popular oratory or hit the NYT best-sellers list.

Were I being a snob, I'd say it's all part and parcel of the dumbing down of culture. Brave New World, and all that.

Attempting to describe or 'define God' within a single religious or theological discourse is like trying to describe the 'shape' of water in a glass.

Yes. The paradigm shapes the revelation. That's a good point.

I think the key is to get beyond any authoritative declarations of what God is and recognise that our current awareness and understanding of the universe limits our awareness and understanding of God.

Until we are there face-to-face we will always be limited ... but that does not mean the authoritative declarations are wrong, quite the opposite. They are what the Buddhists call upaya — expedient means — of addressing the question.

And those 'authoritative declarations' provide a sure bulwark against error on the Spiritual Path.

- but we could probably work on bringing this awareness more to the forefront of 'popular' discussions about faith.

It depends what you mean. Interfaith dialogue is interesting, sometimes enlightening, inspiring, etc. But it is not the Spiritual Path. There is not an Interfaith Spiritual Path, and more than there is a religion that combines all religions. You have to decide which one speaks to you, and give it your all. Else it's trying to ride two horses, and all the other clichés.

The occasional resurgence of apophatic theology points to a need to remind theologians of this from time to time.

I think theologians are aware of it.

It's been going in in the Traditions if you know where to look. 'Nouvelle Theologie' in Catholicism. N.T. Wright, a favourite of mine, in Anglicanism.
I'd love to discuss it here, but my words fall on deaf ears.

I think this way of speaking about God might also be relevant to interfaith discussions. It is only in sharing our experiences and recognising that our differences of opinion or of religion/faith/theology place us not at loggerheads but as blind men at different points around the one elephant, that we may ever come close to 'knowing' God.

Always good.

I'd say lets talk Eriugena: He was talking about subjective experience centuries ago!