Book: Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism

Ahanu said:
Personally I still do not agree at the moment that you can be Christian that does not believe in the "fundamentals" of Christianity. There were some discussions in this book on the Babylonian captivity that may change my mind. I never knew that the temple, which is God's dwelling place, was so important to Judaism.

With what Dondi said in mind, it just seems like the same can be asked about Judaism too. Without Jerusalem, what is left of Judaism? The temple is gone, the three festivals are no more, "the priesthood, their sacred customs, their creedal statements, the social fabric that gave order to Jewish life--were all lost," says Spong. So I can no longer practice my faith now that all of these are gone? The same can be said of Christianity too. Can I still be a Christian without believing in the virgin birth, the resurrection, original sin, and the ascension, for example? My answer would be no. Christianity has become to rigid for me. Rather than being a "believer in exile," I prefer to be apart of a system of beliefs that I do not feel as though I am in constant opposition to.
Click to expand...

was that a freudian slip? 'christianity has become to rigid for me...l prefer to be apart of a system of beliefs that l do not feel as though l am in constant opposition to'.

even religions have to evolve, to integrate new young minds into the fold.
Judaism did not, has not died but evolved into Rabbinic judaism after the temple destruction, hence the temple became the home.

you maybe have to see symbolically rather than literally; the message is even clearer.
 
Ahanu said:
Rather than being a "believer in exile," I prefer to be apart of a system of beliefs that I do not feel as though I am in constant opposition to.
Click to expand...
Namaste Ahanu,

I look forward to your continued comments. I have not read the book you are reading yet, although I do have it available...so if you mention page numbers or chapter content, I'll be able to dig it up to discuss.

I don't feel like a believer in exile. I believe Jesus lead the way, and it is my job to attempt to follow. I was lucky I suppose, I lost the rigidity prior to gaining a new understanding. However Spong didn't, if you sit and talk with Jack you know he is a follower and devout as ever.
 
wil said:
Namaste Ahanu,

I look forward to your continued comments. I have not read the book you are reading yet, although I do have it available...so if you mention page numbers or chapter content, I'll be able to dig it up to discuss.
Click to expand...

I have read both books now. In Why Christianity Must Change or Die, what I most liked was how Spong approached Christianity. Basically we're going to look at Jesus before believers interpreted what they believed to be their Jesus experience, so we look at the declarations of the earliest Christians, like Paul, first. He wasn't going by tradition; all interpretations from the Church Fathers would be wrapt in the language at the time. This is why Spong is saying the theistic image of God is dead. No God is out there, so we get rid of language such as Jesus ascending "up" into the heavens. Also, the theistic God no longer controls diseases, weather, and so on. The non-theistic is a concept of God that is alive. Christians should consider this image, according to Spong.

Do you have a non-theistic concept of God, Wil? I suspect you do.
 
Ahanu said:
I have read both books now.

Do you have a non-theistic concept of God, Wil? I suspect you do.
Click to expand...
Yes I do. I've grown out of my sunday school veiwpoint. Don't believe in anyone keeping tally...I do however believe in universal laws...like gravity and we are not punished for our sins but by them...pendulums do swing...and if you push them and forget you did, they come back and you'll know it if you havn't moved on.

What I'd like to know is your perception of Spong prior to reading and after reading. Did you have any preconceived notions?
 
wil said:
Yes I do. I've grown out of my sunday school veiwpoint. Don't believe in anyone keeping tally...I do however believe in universal laws...like gravity and we are not punished for our sins but by them...pendulums do swing...and if you push them and forget you did, they come back and you'll know it if you havn't moved on.

What I'd like to know is your perception of Spong prior to reading and after reading. Did you have any preconceived notions?
Click to expand...
Gravity is not a universal law. Universal implies that gravity acts the same both in macro physics, as well as micro physics, and we know this to not be correct. (general vs. quantum)

The same can be said of most other "physical laws" pertaining to our "macro vision" of things.

My point is that the Bible is looked at from such a "gross" perspective, that we miss the microcosim of meaning that is there for us to explore, and grow from.

"Fundimentalism" is not fundimental at all. It has been shewn to be a very biased perspective, not built upon an actual "foundation", but rather, a skewed view of preconceptions, to the exclusion of all others who are not in line with that set, of perceptions.

For example: Jesus did not sacrifice for a select few, who decide to follow Him, or accept his sacrifice/gift (according to certain "experts")...he died for all to be saved.

That is a mighty big "all"...
 
yup, ALL. Even those that we can't stand. The ones we dont understand. The ones who are horrible and nasty. The tyrants and the dictators, the beggars, the theives, the worst of humanity and those struggling to be their best.
He died for ALL.
 
GlorytoGod said:
whats wrong with Fundamentalism ?
Click to expand...

Just noticed this tread.

I would like to answer your question with a question, Glory to G-d.

Is it really possible to have serious, deep, honest, interfaith dialogue if you are a Fundamentalist ?

Just the embryo of an idea emerging.

Wil - you always ask the tough questions (the OP) :)
 
wil said:
What I'd like to know is your perception of Spong prior to reading and after reading. Did you have any preconceived notions?
Click to expand...

Spong would come claiming that he is a Christian, but, before reading his book, I thought he is not a Christian at all. Of course I expected Spong would try to reinterpret the miraculous in the Bible. The stories of walking on water is one example. After reading a little bit about his history, I became a little more sentimental to his cause of rescuing the bible from fundamentalism and that he may get by as defining himself as a Christian. For example: I had no clue he lived in North Carolina and faced racial prejudice. Even when people justified it with scripture. I could really understand his point of view here. My grandpa also told me a story of how racially prejudice preachers would use scripture to enforce the worldview that people of color are inferior to those who are not. Anyway, the point is he has been in the Christian religion for a good while now, so I am sure we have both run into the same type of Christianity, since we live nearly in the same regions. This is great, but I still think his Christianity is a blend between Thich Nhat Hanh's version of Buddhism and Christianity. Rather than following the Buddha as teacher, Spong is following Jesus as teacher. I didn't expect him to go all non-theistic in the book, and then make a strong argument for a non-theistic God. Actually, I really like that part of Buddhism, which is pretty silent on the divine (though some say Buddhists, and even many Buddhists themselves, believe in no God). As a Baha'i, I have been wanting to look more into this "concept of God." A Baha'i non-theist? To me, I still don't see him as classifying himself as a Christian. When I think of a Christian, I not only think of one who lives at his fullest potential that they possibly can, but one who believes that Jesus has physically risen from the dead and that Jesus is God embodied in physical form. Christianity is a religion about Jesus, the God-man. Spong's Christianity is about Jesus, but is a very different interpretation of how he experiences him in life. I definitely disagreed with his conclusion that Paul was gay. I mean, I have nothing against gays, but the references of proof seemed so vague.

Just my quick thoughts.
 
Namaste Ahanu,

As to the Paul gay concept. I believe that is what he has it, not a given, but a line of inquiry.

Jack is white, his experience of prejudice in the south was watching it in action, not being on the receiving end. Except for the fact that he was on the side of equal rights and therefor on the wrong side of the bigots. Today he is on the wrong side of those prejudice against gay, he not being gay, but supporting their rights. This is the parallel lines he brings to that discussion, both anti-black civil rights and anti-gay civil rights folks using the bible as their proof.

I have yet to meet anyone who hasn't changed their view of him and his thinking after reading one or more of his books. Like you and I, they may not agree with him hook line and sinker, but they no longer look at him as a blasphemous hereitic tearing Christianity apart but a fellow traveler.

Jack doesn't spend a lot of time reinterpreting...just looking at the changes and the situations and seeing how time has distorted information. A valuable endeavor.
 
Points for reform of Christianity

These "Twelve Points for Reform" come from Spong's book A New Christianity for a New World:

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.
 
For me...I say I am nontheistic as I know longer believe in the G!d of my youth, the G!d of most of my conventional (US) Christian friends, some larger than life passive aggressive old white dude in the sky smiting this people or that and tossing bumper crops and plagues around.
 
Rescuing the Bible from fundamentalism would be a hard, hard job. But I think it could be done. I am a Theosophist, and this is exactly what Theosophy is trying to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top