John Shelby Spong: Example Of Progressive Christian

[R. S. Martin]

I realize this is quite a mouthful of a question. I'll break it down.

 

A. My personal position is that if a person identifies as Christian that person is a Christian and it is my job to figure out what "being Christian" means to him or her.

 

B. First of all, I'm posting this in the Theology section because I believe it needs to be looked at from a philosophical/theological perspective. As shown in the following post, we tend to look at "what constitutes a Christian" by "what people believe." That is theological. In my understanding humanism is a life philosophy. I think that would make it a philosophical/theological perspective.

 

And this is something that my years in liberal Christian did teach me -- Christianity, as a religion, has very little to do with what Jesus taught. Jesus never defined what a Christian was or was not. He never told anyone how to become a Christian. It's my belief that Paul turned "following Christ" into the systematic religion we know as Christianity. This is what bothers me about liberal Christianity: they so much want to be known as Christians. They want their "piece of the pie" so that they can proudly wear the label "Christian" and, perhaps, be considered orthodox. "After all, we are Christians TOO!" they say. Modern Christianity is dominated almost exclusively by Augustinian thought, which many liberals reject. So let's be honest, why would a liberal "follower of Christ" or a humanist want to be a "Christian"?

 

I think most people do it for social acceptance, because to wear an "Atheist" label openly is to be outcast. If there wasn't so much outright prejudice against Atheists and other non-Christian groups, I think more people would be comfortable with at least admitting they were Agnostic or Deist.

 

That is Post 50 from What Do You Think of Liberal Christians?

 

C. For an example of liberal or progressive Christian I will use Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong because:

1. there are quite a few videos online,
   
2. he speaks on a wide variety of topics, including his views on the Bible,
   
3. it is clear that he hopes to bring a Christian message to the world,
   
4. he is possibly the most liberal or progressive Christian alive who expects to be taken seriously as a Christian,
   
5. he participated in a debate with a very conservative Christian of equal learning and expertise.
   

I found the last one yesterday through a link posted on William Lane Craig's forums. He debates a fundamentalist Dr. Walter Martin in Dallas, Texas for a John Ankerman program.

 

One thing that really hits me is the sincerity of Spong's beliefs. The contrast between progressive and fundamentalist Christian beliefs is underscored like I've never seen anywhere before. I've watched atheists debating fundies but never a progressive or liberal Christian. The topic is sexual ethics.

 

D. There are 15 YouTube videos as follows:

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Spong expresses my reasoning on the situation, i.e. that no one would choose a life of the deep prejudices to which homosexuals are automatically subjected in our society.
  
• 
  
• Young gay man Roger Montgomery, age 29, dying of AIDS, tells his story.
  
• Montgomery talks about being changed into a hetersexual. In Video 9 he said he does not know if he really was a homosexual or whether it was all because of his background. This raises the question for me re whether he was a real homosexual person. He feels Jesus gave heterosexuality to him as a gift.
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

These videos are not all that great but the message is really good, in my opinion, if viewed for the reasons I stated. The program is aired over a number of weeks. The video series runs nonstop from Day 1 through the end of the last day. Reels end in the middle of a sentence or word, as the case may be, rather than at the end of a lecture, and the next one kicks right in. I found all of them worth watching but felt to post a few notes with Videos 7, 9, and 10.

E. Bishop John Shelby Spong on "Terrible Texts of the Bible"

 

That link will take you to the thread on my forums where I posted a number of videos featuring Spong. (Some of this post is copied from that thread.) There is also one on Marcus Borg and the Bible. Borg is also Episcopalian. I was better able to understand Spong's position on the Bible after hearing Borg's explanation.

 

In the "terrible texts" video, Spong calls himself a progressive Christian. He quotes from the Gospel of John, "I have come that they might have life and that they might have it abundantly." He quotes that verse as being central to Jesus' purpose for coming. Spong believes that anything that violates or interferes with the ability of humans to live life fully cannot be of God. Earlier, he spoke against slavery, intolerance of other religions, abuse of women and children and minority groups. He also spoke for gay and women's rights.

 

He talks about a journey through the sacred text, shattering the texts of hatred to reveal the God of Love. He uses the story of Hosea and Gomar (recorded in the book of Hosea) to illustrate love. If I correctly understand, the theme of his entire speech is to move beyond the tribal mentality to love all people.

 

So he seems to be Christian.

 

F. 'Hell' as an Invention of the Church

 

That video, also linked from the thread above, has me asking how he differs from a humanist. I see nothing in the entire video that reminds me of his position as a Christian. In fact, his argument would fit very nicely on these, or any other nonreligious, forums. I had to remind myself that all we see is one tiny snippet of a man's life, less than four minutes of interview he is having with a fundy. Even that is interspersed with a scene or two in which he is preaching. The topic is so narrow and the time so short that the maker of the video can make him say pretty much anything he wants to make him say.

 

G. If we approach this from the perspective that a person who identifies as a Christian is a Christian, and that "being Christian" equals what a person believes, where is the line between Christianity and humanism? Or is there a line? Is humanism of necessity atheist?

 

If the question is too complex, feel free to respond to any part of it. I've been thinking about this stuff quite a lot recently and would enjoy discussion. Thanks.

[bubbleloulicious]

G. If we approach this from the perspective that a person who identifies as a Christian is a Christian, and that "being Christian" equals what a person believes, where is the line between Christianity and humanism? Or is there a line? Is humanism of necessity atheist?

 

If the question is too complex, feel free to respond to any part of it. I've been thinking about this stuff quite a lot recently and would enjoy discussion. Thanks.

 

 

Due to the history of christianity, I am beginning to think that it is more advantageous for humanism to be strongly secular. Otherwise, it might be "swallowed up by the beast". Although fundamentalist christians view humanism as a form of "the beast", or so it is looking that way to me. For the most part, both are rejecting the other side.

 

But, there are some who seem to be able to walk that line between the two and make it work. I think the line is fictitious and socially imposed and that these are the people who challenge it. I'm uncertain if it can be changed, but I like that some are trying to cross a myriad of barriers.

 

(Sorry that's all I have to offer at the moment, being one who is questioning that very thing as well.)

[Babelfish]

I'm only on the sixth video so far, but the debate between Mr. Martin and Mr. Spong is very telling. Mr. Martin seems incapable of rational argument. He constantly resorts to ad hominem attacks, mockery and the toppling of strawmen. The host, as well, is not at all impartial. In the third or the fourth video he spent several minutes ranting at Mr. Spong and deliberately or ignorantly mischaracterizing Mr. Spong's arguments so as to belittle them. Mr. Martin and the host effectively shouted Mr. Spong down, keeping him from expounding on any of his points. It was interesting to hear Mr. Spong's thoughts when he was able to get a word in.

 

One remark from Mr. Martin in response to a point on archaeological evidence really showed his inability to argue reasonably: "Throw your archaeological jargon in the trashcan and follow Jesus Christ."

[R. S. Martin]

G. If we approach this from the perspective that a person who identifies as a Christian is a Christian, and that "being Christian" equals what a person believes, where is the line between Christianity and humanism? Or is there a line? Is humanism of necessity atheist?

 

If the question is too complex, feel free to respond to any part of it. I've been thinking about this stuff quite a lot recently and would enjoy discussion. Thanks.

 

 

Due to the history of christianity, I am beginning to think that it is more advantageous for humanism to be strongly secular. Otherwise, it might be "swallowed up by the beast". Although fundamentalist christians view humanism as a form of "the beast", or so it is looking that way to me. For the most part, both are rejecting the other side.

 

But, there are some who seem to be able to walk that line between the two and make it work.

 

Are you suggesting that this may be what Spong is doing--walking the line between the two and making it work?

 

I think the line is fictitious and socially imposed

 

Socially imposed for sure but for those of us--which is all humans--who are social animals, "socially imposed" lines are the reality we are obligated to live with. It's a different realm of reality than climate, I guess. Climate and terrain would be physical while social constructs (socially imposed lines, etc.) are emotional, or impact our emotional lives and ties with other humans. I think that is why excommunication, shunning, and ostracization are so effective to keep people "in the fold." I think that may also be part of the reason fundies hate exChristians, atheists, and even progressive Christians like Spong so much. We cannot/will not be controlled. We do not submit to the impact of ostracization like most people do and therefore they cannot control us.

 

and that these are the people who challenge it. I'm uncertain if it can be changed, but I like that some are trying to cross a myriad of barriers.

 

If I'm right in what I say above, then those are some of the people who challenge it. Somehow, even though I don't share Spong's belief in God, I like him for his courage to stand up for his beliefs and "face the wolves," and also because he takes such a humanistic view of the Bible and God.

 

(Sorry that's all I have to offer at the moment, being one who is questioning that very thing as well.)

 

It stimulated my thinking. Thanks for sharing your ideas.

[R. S. Martin]

I'm only on the sixth video so far, but the debate between Mr. Martin and Mr. Spong is very telling. Mr. Martin seems incapable of rational argument. He constantly resorts to ad hominem attacks, mockery and the toppling of strawmen. The host, as well, is not at all impartial. In the third or the fourth video he spent several minutes ranting at Mr. Spong and deliberately or ignorantly mischaracterizing Mr. Spong's arguments so as to belittle them. Mr. Martin and the host effectively shouted Mr. Spong down, keeping him from expounding on any of his points. It was interesting to hear Mr. Spong's thoughts when he was able to get a word in.

 

One remark from Mr. Martin in response to a point on archaeological evidence really showed his inability to argue reasonably: "Throw your archaeological jargon in the trashcan and follow Jesus Christ."

 

I forget what was in which video but I remember that. I thought to myself, "Spong IS following Jesus Christ as he understands following Christ is supposed to be done. And he's doing a much better job of it than any of you fundies are doing. If you'd only listen to him you might understand."

 

Did you notice that in the first video Dr. Martin is introduced as the "late" Dr. Martin? On William Lane Craig's forums I found out that he died a few days after the last of these shows. You know what? I replied that this almost makes me believe there must be a God. It's almost as if God gave Martin one last opportunity to apologize to Spong but he didn't take it so God struck him dead for being so hateful to God's child Spong.

 

I asked whether he had a heart attack or got into a fatal car accident. They didn't tell me of what he died but they assured me he died peacefully.

 

I figure they'd have to say that. It's part of their religion. He was "faithful to the end." He was a "valiant soldier of the Lord." Etc. He took on that anti-Christ Spong so he had to be. (Nobody said that stuff to me but I know Christians say this kind of thing.)

 

If you get a chance to watch through the series to the part where the man comes on who is dying of AIDS, you will see some more stuff. Ankerman (host) drips with sympathy as he guides the young man through his story. One thing that story proves is that the Bible lies when it says if we curse God there is no more hope of salvation for us. That guy (who is reportedly dying of AIDS) says he cursed God to his face. He looked at heaven and cursed God because God did not change him from homosexual to heterosexual. Some years later he came to the end of his rope and Jesus came to him and he got born again and Jesus gave him the gift of heterosexuality.

 

The fundies try to use this story to trip up Spong but Spong handles it very well. He affirms the young man's experience but insists that the many homosexuals who do not have this experience must be accepted and loved for who they are.

[Babelfish]

Yes, the whole thing was a farce. I was outraged at the way they used the tragedy of that man's experiences to imply that homosexuality leads to nothing but ruin. He had every reason to be bitter, but homosexuality was the least of his problems. Through the first couple videos I at least had some hope for an interesting debate, but by the time they actually got to the issue of homosexuality it was quite clear that the only intention was to discredit and poke fun at the reasonable Christian.

[bubbleloulicious]

Yes, the whole thing was a farce. I was outraged at the way they used the tragedy of that man's experiences to imply that homosexuality leads to nothing but ruin. He had every reason to be bitter, but homosexuality was the least of his problems. Through the first couple videos I at least had some hope for an interesting debate, but by the time they actually got to the issue of homosexuality it was quite clear that the only intention was to discredit and poke fun at the reasonable Christian.

 

 

I was writing the same ideas and my pc bombed out on me. I found myself getting very irritated with the "debate" (which I use that word loosely).

[R. S. Martin]

Montgomery (I wonder if anybody today actually has that name or if it's a fake name) says homosexuality never gives; it only takes. I thought, well of course! You were into prostitution. Clients of prostitutes pay their dues and expect services. It's a contract (I assume; I have no experience), so what do you expect. It's not a loving relationship between two committed adults intent on making each other happy. The common story of prostitutes (females, anyway) is that they age and are no longer wanted. This seems to have happened to him, too, so that he had to find another means by which to stay alive. I'm glad he found a life better suited to him.

 

Prostitution is often a career of desperation--at least, that is the impression I'm under. Possibly for some people it is the career of choice. Anyway, my question is: Why didn't Jesus answer his pleas earlier in life? Why did Jesus let him go till he was this low--so low that he could not even work as a prostitute anymore?

 

Or is this a doctored up story? He does not look to me like a person who is dying. He looks like he's almost jumping out of his chair.

[bubbleloulicious]

G. If we approach this from the perspective that a person who identifies as a Christian is a Christian, and that "being Christian" equals what a person believes, where is the line between Christianity and humanism? Or is there a line? Is humanism of necessity atheist?

 

If the question is too complex, feel free to respond to any part of it. I've been thinking about this stuff quite a lot recently and would enjoy discussion. Thanks.

 

 

Due to the history of christianity, I am beginning to think that it is more advantageous for humanism to be strongly secular. Otherwise, it might be "swallowed up by the beast". Although fundamentalist christians view humanism as a form of "the beast", or so it is looking that way to me. For the most part, both are rejecting the other side.

 

But, there are some who seem to be able to walk that line between the two and make it work.

 

Are you suggesting that this may be what Spong is doing--walking the line between the two and making it work?

 

I think the line is fictitious and socially imposed

 

Socially imposed for sure but for those of us--which is all humans--who are social animals, "socially imposed" lines are the reality we are obligated to live with. It's a different realm of reality than climate, I guess. Climate and terrain would be physical while social constructs (socially imposed lines, etc.) are emotional, or impact our emotional lives and ties with other humans. I think that is why excommunication, shunning, and ostracization are so effective to keep people "in the fold." I think that may also be part of the reason fundies hate exChristians, atheists, and even progressive Christians like Spong so much. We cannot/will not be controlled. We do not submit to the impact of ostracization like most people do and therefore they cannot control us.

 

and that these are the people who challenge it. I'm uncertain if it can be changed, but I like that some are trying to cross a myriad of barriers.

 

If I'm right in what I say above, then those are some of the people who challenge it. Somehow, even though I don't share Spong's belief in God, I like him for his courage to stand up for his beliefs and "face the wolves," and also because he takes such a humanistic view of the Bible and God.

 

(Sorry that's all I have to offer at the moment, being one who is questioning that very thing as well.)

 

It stimulated my thinking. Thanks for sharing your ideas.

 

 

Yes, it seems so to me. He doesn't appear to reject medical possibilities, updated historical information or opinions, etc. He also appears to think that christianity should not be held so static and that doing so prevents human/spiritual growth. I've never heard of him except for what is here, but it does seem so to me.

 

Fundamentalists do not like to be challenged by anyone, that's for certain. To them things are all wrapped up with a bow on top. No room for anything new, and when presented...well...

 

I too admire Spong's courage to stand up for his beliefs. On the one hand, I would love to have such courage. On the other hand, I don't. I just want to live life as peacefully as possible.

 

Now wasn't there a story written somewhere, where another man stood up for his beliefs as well? Wasn't he accepted by only a few, and didn't he anger those he opposed...much like this man? Oh...how the few became so many and in doing so, he was lost amongst them and incorporated back into the pack. A different pack, but...the same. *shakes head* Assuming the story is, in some, part true.

[bubbleloulicious]

Montgomery (I wonder if anybody today actually has that name or if it's a fake name) says homosexuality never gives; it only takes. I thought, well of course! You were into prostitution. Clients of prostitutes pay their dues and expect services. It's a contract (I assume; I have no experience), so what do you expect. It's not a loving relationship between two committed adults intent on making each other happy. The common story of prostitutes (females, anyway) is that they age and are no longer wanted. This seems to have happened to him, too, so that he had to find another means by which to stay alive. I'm glad he found a life better suited to him.

 

Prostitution is often a career of desperation--at least, that is the impression I'm under. Possibly for some people it is the career of choice. Anyway, my question is: Why didn't Jesus answer his pleas earlier in life? Why did Jesus let him go till he was this low--so low that he could not even work as a prostitute anymore?

 

Or is this a doctored up story? He does not look to me like a person who is dying. He looks like he's almost jumping out of his chair.

 

Isn't it odd that they could not have found someone who was not as dysfunctional as Mr. Montgomery?

 

I think it is insulting if they are presenting him as the average homosexual. That sort of thing is offensive to me.

 

By the way. I've been checking out the sites in your signature. Very interesting.

[Neon Genesis]

Now wasn't there a story written somewhere, where another man stood up for his beliefs as well? Wasn't he accepted by only a few, and didn't he anger those he opposed...much like this man? Oh...how the few became so many and in doing so, he was lost amongst them and incorporated back into the pack. A different pack, but...the same. *shakes head* Assuming the story is, in some, part true.

Watching Spong debating with fundies reminds me of the bible stories where the Pharisees would try to trap Jesus with their deceitful lies and immoral tactics, but he would always find a way to answer honestly without falling into their traps. Maybe we should start a new religion and call it Spongism?

[R. S. Martin]

Now wasn't there a story written somewhere, where another man stood up for his beliefs as well? Wasn't he accepted by only a few, and didn't he anger those he opposed...much like this man? Oh...how the few became so many and in doing so, he was lost amongst them and incorporated back into the pack. A different pack, but...the same. *shakes head* Assuming the story is, in some, part true.

Watching Spong debating with fundies reminds me of the bible stories where the Pharisees would try to trap Jesus with their deceitful lies and immoral tactics, but he would always find a way to answer honestly without falling into their traps. Maybe we should start a new religion and call it Spongism?

 

And be known as the Spongists.

 

Why don't we just join his church?...Oh I see in wikipedia that he retired in 2000. He was born in 1931 so he's older than my parents.

 

bubbleloulicious, I know what you mean. I've seen the same thing in my own life, as have many others on these forums. It really messes with the Christies' heads when I use THEIR sacred scripture for MY defense against THEM. I've done that and it would have been fun to watch if it weren't so serious.

[Antlerman]

Just wanted to say I'm working my way through those video links Ruby supplied us with. Thanks for that Ruby. When I finish I'll comment my thoughts.

 

Interstingly at this point, I had recently watched a series with Dr. Martin on the Ankerberg (sp?) show in the 80's against my former pastor, where Martin crushed him, essentially. However in this series, Spong is so vastly far outside Martin's ability to comprehend it's almost tragic to watch how blinded those conservative folk are against this. I'll share my thoughts later, but I am amazed at how advanced Spongs thoughts are compared to the party-line evangelical fare is.

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks for watching them, AM. You might be able to address the larger question. I look forward to your thoughts regardless.

[bubbleloulicious]

G. If we approach this from the perspective that a person who identifies as a Christian is a Christian, and that "being Christian" equals what a person believes, where is the line between Christianity and humanism? Or is there a line? Is humanism of necessity atheist?

 

When first looking into humanism and the possibility of it having a religious aspect to it I ran across this website:

 

http://christianhumanist.net/default.aspx

 

 

The question he attempts to resolve is "Is it possible to be a Christian without a belief in God?"

 

I don't think Christianity can be Christianity without a belief in God, but certain aspects of Christianity can certainly be applied to humanistic philosophies.

 

It might seem a silly analogy, but I keep thinking of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim religions as being "a dragon swallowing it's own tail". So, where at the beginning I thought "Why not", I am not even as confident as that about it anymore.

[Antlerman]

A. My personal position is that if a person identifies as Christian that person is a Christian and it is my job to figure out what "being Christian" means to him or her.

I would agree with this. It’s really more a question of what kind of Christian are they, not if they can really call themselves a Christian if they don’t believe what some deem as the only correct way of believing.

B. First of all, I'm posting this in the Theology section because I believe it needs to be looked at from a philosophical/theological perspective. As shown in the following post, we tend to look at "what constitutes a Christian" by "what people believe." That is theological. In my understanding humanism is a life philosophy. I think that would make it a philosophical/theological perspective.

I would say that someone who follows a humanistic philosophy using the Christ as a symbol for that in their lives, can and should call themselves a Christian. Adhering to various doctrines which are deemed orthodox is not what gives someone the right to claim the name Christian. That would be like saying if you don’t support President Bush’s policies of war, you can’t call yourself an American. That’s an argument framed from only one political camp. It’s the same thing saying that non-orthodox Christian views means they aren’t Christian.

 

To me the qualifying criterion for one to call themselves a Christian is that they use Christ as the primary symbol of their faith. In a true sense of the word, Christian is a follower of Christ, not of the church and its doctrines. This has been the cry of reformers, yet in the debate against Spong below, it was the core of argument from the fundamentalist side that he can’t call himself a Christian if he sees things differently than them.

One thing that really hits me is the sincerity of Spong's beliefs. The contrast between progressive and fundamentalist Christian beliefs is underscored like I've never seen anywhere before. I've watched atheists debating fundies but never a progressive or liberal Christian. The topic is sexual ethics.

I wholeheartedly agree. It is quite apparent how Spong’s faith helps produce in him genuine humility and grace in contrast to the railings of those who merely define themselves by their religious doctrines. One is an internal working, the other an external trapping. For Spong belief in Jesus helps him find that in himself, just as other systems help others “find God”, so to speak. He recognizing that the fruit of a life is what is important, not the doctrines they hold to. So do I.

 

These videos are not all that great but the message is really good, in my opinion, if viewed for the reasons I stated.

 

It struck me how for the majority in that audience, Spong’s thoughts must have just sounded “weird” or “crazy”, because they come from such a completely different perspective on it than what they’ve been exposed to. Even Dr. Martin who was the most knowledgeable there was out of his class in dealing with Spong. Not that Spong is “brilliant” per se, but just wise in that he has allowed himself to think outside the box, and let his heart and conscience be his guide.

 

Theologically speaking also, there is very much legitimacy in how he approaches reading his sacred texts. It is with a balanced perspective which incorporates modern understandings of the world, as opposed to denying them. He himself said as much in the debate. His sacred texts become a way to inspire something within himself, rather than defining himself by it. As I said before, the question is not a matter of factuality, but relevance. You never once sense him judging others by his beliefs, and allows for what he understands “God” to be, to not be limited to his particular beliefs, unlike his opponents in that debate who do.

 

E. Bishop John Shelby Spong on "Terrible Texts of the Bible"

 

He talks about a journey through the sacred text, shattering the texts of hatred to reveal the God of Love. He uses the story of Hosea and Gomar (recorded in the book of Hosea) to illustrate love. If I correctly understand, the theme of his entire speech is to move beyond the tribal mentality to love all people.

 

So he seems to be Christian.

Had I encountered him as a guide on my quest for God in my youth, I would likely have not found reason to reject Christianity and would have grown as a human instead of what I got from it.

 

There is a difference between faith and being religious. He makes that apparent with his life, as opposed to theology by your more “orthodox” Christian preachers.

G. If we approach this from the perspective that a person who identifies as a Christian is a Christian, and that "being Christian" equals what a person believes, where is the line between Christianity and humanism? Or is there a line? Is humanism of necessity atheist?

Here’s the crux of the question. I would say that “being Christian” should be a case of how a person lives, not “what they believe”. Where is the line between Christianity and humanism? If someone uses the Christian system of symbols in order to live fuller and more meaningful lives, in themselves and the world as part of that, then that line is indistinguishable, IMO. It’s at that point that we can set aside the wide gulf of “beliefs” that separate and divide.

 

However it is the fact the “orthodox”, particularly Conservative flavor of Christianity which creates and promotes division and war against humanity and being human. The line between them and humanism is quite wide and clear. And to be fair, the secularist who rejects any belief that doesn’t square with secular doctrine, is themselves merely the flip side of that same coin. Humanism really began as a result of Christians with Western ideals wanting to preserve and maintain the “Jesus on a good day” bits of their faith when the social conservatives wrested control of Christianity away from these progressives in the church and defined Christianity as the same as right wing, socially conservative Republicans.

 

Someone like Spong is basically aiming for the same thing, except from within the church. He was able to do so because his organization allowed him to. So, in short those that got tossed out, the Humanists (socially moderate to liberal Christians), and progressives like Spong are very close to each other – the sole difference being the means to the end, which if you consider the end result being of the greatest value, than I would support him in his “faith”, as opposed to those whose views lead to division, whether that’s religious or secular in nature.

[bubbleloulicious]

Someone like Spong is basically aiming for the same thing, except from within the church. He was able to do so because his organization allowed him to.

 

 

This is what I respect the most. The fact that he seeks to work within the church instead of bailing out. If he, and others like him, can change a small corner within the church, there is no telling how much that might expand over time.

 

I find that very inspiring.

[R. S. Martin]

Antlerman, I see I have not responded to your thoughtful post yet. I read it much earlier today and then got sidetracked. I had wanted to read it again but for now, thank you for an inspiring "sermon."

 

Someone like Spong is basically aiming for the same thing, except from within the church. He was able to do so because his organization allowed him to.

 

This is what I respect the most. The fact that he seeks to work within the church instead of bailing out. If he, and others like him, can change a small corner within the church, there is no telling how much that might expand over time.

 

I find that very inspiring.

 

Me too. He was at the right place at the right time. Others got kicked out. In earlier times they got executed in various creative ways. Unless you were Martin Luther or John Calvin--then you got to do the executing. Menno Simons (father of the Mennonites) escaped execution in some pretty creative ways which included lying about his identity. He was sitting outside on the driver's seat of the stage coach when the burgomaster and soldiers demanded to know whether Menno Simons was inside. This was centuries before photographs and it seems they did not recognize his face. He claimed not to know. While they searched the inside of the coach he disappeared. I think that is how the story goes. He dragged his sickly wife and their babies all over Europe. John Shelby Spong somehow managed to be in the right place at the right time to stimulate a reformation of sorts without killing/excommunicating or getting killed/excommunicated.

 

Someone mentioned Christian Humanist. I looked up that website. It's a lot like Christian Atheist. It seems we've got people on both sides of the theistic line saying practically the same thing. We like the symbols and culture of Christianity but we cannot and will not retain what has hardened into fundamentalist Christianity. I do not think that pre-Enlightenment Christianity was quite as cut and dried as the fundies, and those of us raised fundy, think it is. No wonder the fundies are screaming. Also no wonder the people doing polls come up with seriously confusing data.

 

If a person identifies as a nontheistic Christian, which box is that person going to check? If the question asks: Do you believe there is a god? the answer is No. If there is a list of words with check boxes beside them, and one of those words is "Christian" and another is "Other," the person just might check "Christian." This might especially be the case if the word "Atheist" is not on the list. I don't know if the word "Atheist" ever appears on those lists or not. And if it does, which box will the person decide to check? I personally might base my decision on whether or not I think I will get a hostile response from the person doing the poll if I check athiest. I'm not going to risk my life, or equivilent, just for some stupid poll. Take that as coming from a social scientist of sorts.

 

Maybe sometime I will get over my fear but it's going to take a while.

[Neon Genesis]

I found this article about Christian humanism on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism The article claims that Christian humanism dates back to the second century and that Justin Martyr may have been one, but does anyone know how accurate this info is?

[R. S. Martin]

Just now I reread my post and came to the "god" question. If I was seriously concerned for my safety or well-being, I'm not sure what I would say in response to it, given the position people like Spong are taking. "God" can be interpreted in so very many ways.

 

About a week ago I meet with a homosexual couple in their home. Two men. Both were very religious though they do not attend any church or ceremonies at this time. One believes in the Great Spirit and calls it the Long House religion; he is Native. The other calls himself a Christian but he is very seriously against organized religion; he is of German Irish decent. The Native talked about Jesus or God saying "Come unto me" and meaning all the children. Actually, I'm not sure which god he was referring to--if it was the Christian God or the Great Spirit, but he believes all the children were called, not just the straight or certain ethnic group, etc.

 

When I asked the German Irish what his evidence was of God's existence he said he believes it's life, because we have no other explanation than that life comes from God. He is of RC background but seems to be just as bitter at the RC as I am at the Mennonites and many people here are at the fundies.

 

Because he put it in terms of his own beliefs, rather than a fact that I must accept on pain of hell, I found it to be an acceptable answer. I forget exactly how Spong describes God but it's probably similar. In one of the videos I listened to he emphasized the verse in the Gospel of John where Jesus says he came so that people might have abundant life, and that he (Spong) thinks this is the main reason Jesus came to earth.

 

I certainly believe in life and love and honesty or truthfulness. If we want to go by abstract embodiments and call it God, well, I can do that. Jesus did say "I and the Father are one," and he also said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

 

I also read about the emerging church in another thread on these forums. I looked it up at the wikipedia link that was provided in the post. I know a modern Mennonite church that is local that sees itself as an emerging church and it does fit the description in wikipedia. I know one or two "progressive" Christians in that church.

 

With all of this coming together in my head and heart I'm asking myself: Should I go to church after all? Is that what I really want?

 

At the same time, I am settling into the routine of the local humanist gatherings and events. I've never felt this comfortable in any church. I don't have to measure up to any beliefs, I don't have to twist my brain to make it think the right way. All I have to worry about is social ettiquette--not my strength being the strong introvert that I am. At churches, social ettiquette is on top of right beliefs. And with right beliefs goes my own conscience. My conscience goes with me everywhere I go and it won't let me go when I pretend to believe something I can't, or when I attend a church where I have to twist my brain to fit in half decently.

 

Even if I know that the people won't criticize me for wrong beliefs, I still have to live with my own conscience. At one point I did go back after a long absence and the reception was so overly positive it might as well have been a rebuke. Besides, I didn't believe a word of the service; I just went for the fellowship. So I could not really appreciate the joyful reception. I don't think there's too many progressive Christians in this area at this time.

[Neon Genesis]

If you want a church community to be apart of but don't feel comfortable in a Christian-targeted church Ruby, what about a Unitarian Universalist church? I've never been to a UU church before, but I've heard a lot of positive things about them and from what I understand about them, they accept everybody regardless of your faith and they even accept atheists, so you don't have to believe in God to be a member of a UU church. But I've never been to a UU church myself, so I don't know what they're like, but here's the Wikipedia page about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalist

[R. S. Martin]

I would say that someone who follows a humanistic philosophy using the Christ as a symbol for that in their lives, can and should call themselves a Christian. Adhering to various doctrines which are deemed orthodox is not what gives someone the right to claim the name Christian. That would be like saying if you don’t support President Bush’s policies of war, you can’t call yourself an American. That’s an argument framed from only one political camp. It’s the same thing saying that non-orthodox Christian views means they aren’t Christian.

 

I think we're mostly talking the same thing here but not quite. Citizenship normally, so I understand it, is bound to a geographical location. I understand that "American" means a person who has citizenship in the United States of America. I'm reading your statement again. Maybe I misunderstand your meaning. Is that something people say when they mean patriotic? IOW, when used that way, does "American" equal "patriotic"? I agree that political ideologies can be on a par with religion.

 

Re orthodox Christian doctrine. My professors used to raise the rhetorical question: How do we know that what ended up being known as orthodox really was orthodox? I forget what they said the word actually means--is it something like "original" or "traditional"? That professor said we really cannot know that what ended up being known as orthodox really met that definition because they killed off all the others and destroyed all their literature, burned their libraries. A few books have been found in recent centuries but they did a really thorough job of it. It is impossible to prove which was the largest or earliest or most prevalent group, or the most of anything else.

 

We know the Gnostics had large and strong communities. We also know that they did not all believe the same thing. For example, there were the Valentinians and the Manicheans, to mention two. And we also know that it was possible to belong to more than one community at the same time.

 

According to one passage I read in the Early Christian Writings after the NT, someone went to both "orthodox" and Gnostic events. This was just a regular person, I think. But Eusebius, or someone famous, seems to have experimented and decided that Gnostic was evil. He became a bishop and wrote much polemical literature against the Gnostics. (What is the difference between polemical literature and hate literature? Is it polemics when famous religious leaders do it and hate speech when nonreligious nobodies like us do it? )

 

To me the qualifying criterion for one to call themselves a Christian is that they use Christ as the primary symbol of their faith. In a true sense of the word, Christian is a follower of Christ, not of the church and its doctrines. This has been the cry of reformers, yet in the debate against Spong below, it was the core of argument from the fundamentalist side that he can’t call himself a Christian if he sees things differently than them.

 

That is what drives me nuts when I'm with Christians who dress and live like mainstream society (drive cars of any shape, size, and colour; wear store-bought clothing, have TV, radio, and internet; women cut their hair and wear slacks; etc.) and they rant and rave about being separate from the world AS THOUGH THEY WERE BETTER THAN THE WORLD. They ARE the world!!!!!

 

I grew up on the poem:

 

The Church and the World walked far apart

On the changing shores of time,

The World was singing a giddy song,

And the Church a hymn sublime.

When you're driving a horse and buggy, and speak a language the car people don't understand (Pennsylvania German), you have no problem knowing who "the world" is. It's those English-speaking people whizzing past you in cars. If you ever get to the point where you understand that God might like those people, too--if for no other reason than the fact that you can't live with the idea that all your good neighbours will sizzle in hell for eternity, you arrive at the insight that there is more than one right way to be Christian.

 

I keep wanting to shake those fundies--in real life or otherwise--until it settles into their heads. But they won't get it! They just tell me that my church was such a terrible situation and that their church is far superior. LIKE FUN IT IS! If their church is so much better they should be better people. And they aren't.

 

(If I push it, they tend to remind me that Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. Yeah right. *eyes glazing over*)

[R. S. Martin]

Continued from my last post.

 

One thing that really hits me is the sincerity of Spong's beliefs. The contrast between progressive and fundamentalist Christian beliefs is underscored like I've never seen anywhere before. I've watched atheists debating fundies but never a progressive or liberal Christian. The topic is sexual ethics.

I wholeheartedly agree. It is quite apparent how Spong’s faith helps produce in him genuine humility and grace in contrast to the railings of those who merely define themselves by their religious doctrines.

 

The way I see it is that Spong would be that kind of person even if he had never been religious. He was raised fundamentalist in South Carolina. I think it is his personality that drove him to become this progressive Christian. I'm thinking if he were born fifty years later, maybe he might have deconverted who knows.

 

One is an internal working, the other an external trapping.

 

Agreed...partly. The way I would put it is that Spong is being true to himself, while the others are defining themselves by their religious trappings, like you said.

 

It struck me how for the majority in that audience, Spong’s thoughts must have just sounded “weird” or “crazy”, because they come from such a completely different perspective on it than what they’ve been exposed to.

 

This is something I can't identify with, possibly for the reason described. I was exposed to a very wide range of ideas and cultures from birth.

 

Even Dr. Martin who was the most knowledgeable there was out of his class in dealing with Spong. Not that Spong is “brilliant” per se, but just wise in that he has allowed himself to think outside the box, and let his heart and conscience be his guide.

 

Oh okay, so there you said it. He was true to himself.

 

Theologically speaking also, there is very much legitimacy in how he approaches reading his sacred texts. It is with a balanced perspective which incorporates modern understandings of the world, as opposed to denying them. He himself said as much in the debate. His sacred texts become a way to inspire something within himself, rather than defining himself by it.

 

The bolded part is something that struck me the minute I started attending modern Mennonite churches, or just heard sermons at funerals. It makes the modern Mennonite sermons radically different from the Old Order sermons...I'm going to have to keep my eyes open for this in the future to see where, or in whose theology, or to what degree, I see this theme.

[R. S. Martin]

Continued again. I had way too many quotes and it wouldn't let me post.

 

As I said before, the question is not a matter of factuality, but relevance.

 

So that's what that means about relevance. Thanks for explaining.

 

You never once sense him judging others by his beliefs, and allows for what he understands “God” to be, to not be limited to his particular beliefs, unlike his opponents in that debate who do.

 

I find myself looking for examples on how to talk with Christians. I thought he was a good example even though he does believe in God. Maybe it's fundamentalists I need help with, since they are so extra-ordinarily difficult. And he was in a seriously difficult situation. Whew! Talk about a lamb among the wolves. At least, that is how I felt at one point. I was so tense I could hardly breathe. Then I realized that all this is in the past and he lived through it; all I had to do was watch it play out and learn from his example. A few times I could hear him draw a deep breath before responding but I felt he did an excellent job. I was especially impressed with his way of dealing with the gay man's situation, the way they imposed it on him and used it against him.

 

There is a difference between faith and being religious. He makes that apparent with his life, as opposed to theology by your more “orthodox” Christian preachers.

 

The others preach it but loose the living in the preaching.

 

G. If we approach this from the perspective that a person who identifies as a Christian is a Christian, and that "being Christian" equals what a person believes, where is the line between Christianity and humanism? Or is there a line? Is humanism of necessity atheist?

 

Here’s the crux of the question. I would say that “being Christian” should be a case of how a person lives, not “what they believe”. Where is the line between Christianity and humanism? If someone uses the Christian system of symbols in order to live fuller and more meaningful lives, in themselves and the world as part of that, then that line is indistinguishable, IMO. It’s at that point that we can set aside the wide gulf of “beliefs” that separate and divide.

 

The bolded part agrees with what you have said in the past about being a better Christian since deconverting. The underlined agrees with the Christian Humanist, and also with the Christian Atheist, concepts I've seen. To put all of that together, if we want religious freedom--both for and from--and if we also want freedom of speech, it seems we are going to be in a situation where the line between Christianity and atheism disappears.

 

It seems to me that there will be consequences for such a thing but I'm not sure what those consequences will be or whether they will be positive or negative for society.

[bubbleloulicious]

Continued from my last post.

 

One thing that really hits me is the sincerity of Spong's beliefs. The contrast between progressive and fundamentalist Christian beliefs is underscored like I've never seen anywhere before. I've watched atheists debating fundies but never a progressive or liberal Christian. The topic is sexual ethics.

I wholeheartedly agree. It is quite apparent how Spong’s faith helps produce in him genuine humility and grace in contrast to the railings of those who merely define themselves by their religious doctrines.

 

The way I see it is that Spong would be that kind of person even if he had never been religious. He was raised fundamentalist in South Carolina. I think it is his personality that drove him to become this progressive Christian. I'm thinking if he were born fifty years later, maybe he might have deconverted who knows.

 

 

I was struck by Spong mentioning that he wanted something more expansive for his daughters, briefly mentioning one who is involved in the sciences. I don't exactly recall what he said, but it reminded me of what I want for my daughter (a life without irrational fear). Having children can certainly make you think even more deeply on things than you might have otherwise, at least for me it has. It has really caused me to draw a harder line than I once did, because of that protectiveness I have of her.

 

(Then, I wonder if I am over protective...which might be just as bad.)

 

I apologize if this is a little off the path here, but I felt it worth mentioning.