John Shelby Spong: Example Of Progressive Christian

[bubbleloulicious]

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.

 

I think it just might take me some time to identify something that does not hold a belief in God as being Christian. If Jesus was indeed a real man, it seems insulting to his memory and what was of large importance to him to treat it as such.

 

It's funny that I've begun thinking of it in that way since deciding to separate from christianity, because as a liberal christian I was pretty well inclusive in my thinking. (Go figure.)

 

Maybe that is something everybody goes through when restructuring their ways of thinking about things. It was easier for me to accept undefinable spirit than it is the thoughts of a man and to dismantle the wholeness of that man. (I am having difficulty expressing this.)

[R. S. Martin]

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.

 

I find this thread not going in the exact direction I had planned but it has brought up some issues for myself that I had been unaware of so I assume it's something that needs to be dealt with. In one of the Spong videos I watched (I forget which one, and it might be one I didn't even list in my forums) he talks about his four daughters. He says many men might learn to see the world through the eyes of their mothers or other females relatives, but when it's your daughters you see it differently. He thinks this is why the Catholic Church is so misogynist--its priests have no daughters. He got applause for that one.

 

Now I remember which video it was--

. It's about an hour and a half long.

[Antlerman]

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.

Yes, it can mean patriotic. My analogy was that one political camp underneath an umbrella identity does not have the right to deny those of other opinions that identity. A war-supporter does not have the right to deny someone calling themselves an “American”, or a “French Man,” or what have you because they disagree with them. Likewise, the fundamentalist does not have the right to define what Christianity is for everyone, even though that’s how they approach it.

 

I was struck in that video how Spong was able to recognize the Fundamentalist as part of the greater Christian tradition despite his differences with them, whereas they were unable to get past their tunnel vision and embrace Spong as part of the Christian tradition also. They rejected him. Their approach doesn’t allow for deviations or other points of view. Who exactly seems to be the bigger person for their beliefs in that situation? I think that was a very telling thing revealed in that debate.

 

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.

And that is the beginning of humility and wisdom for them to recognize this. At the very best what they can say is they hold to a very prominent Christian tradition, but cannot lay claim to the beliefs of early Christianity. However that is exactly what the fundamentalist arrogantly does claim! The best of scholar recognizes that there really was no such thing as early Christianity, but is best understood as “Early Christianities”. There was great diversity of beliefs, as has been exposed through the discoveries of many early Christian writings. http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_S...stian_Writings/

 

 

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? )

I wouldn’t call polemics the same as hate speech, nor would I call hate speech polemics. To speak against something is not the same as hate speech. To speak against entire groups of people because of how they are identified (ethnicity, culture, gender, race, religion, sexuality, etc) is hate speech. One is an attack on people, the other a dissent on beliefs about beliefs.

 

Some of the early Church fathers were in fact guilty of that and one was quite Anti-Semitic, calling Jews the scourge of the earth. That’s not polemics at that point.

 

Continued from my last post.

 

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 agree mostly with this, but would like to put this out there for thought. I agree his personality drove him into another way of approaching life, just as it was my personality that moved me beyond fundamentalism. But would he be who he had become without having and practicing faith in the way he does?

 

This is a charged question. I’d be interested in hearing responses to it.

 

Put another way, simply “not believing” in the views of fundamentalism because it doesn’t fit you, doesn’t mean you have found what does work for you. And not having what does work for you, would seem to infer that you (3rd person you, of course) are not realizing the potentials inside because of the lack of enviroment that encourages it. In other words, being out of an environment that has a negative effect does not automatically put you in one that does have a postive effect. Escaping prison doesn’t mean you’ve found home.

 

That’s the point of this question. Would you say that Spong’s faith has helped him become who he is, and that Progressive Christianity had something to offer that in fact gave him the right environment for him to thrive in?

 

 

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.

I wanted to ask you about this. What was the nature of your exposure to a wide range of ideas and cultures? Was it your personal exposure directly with them through meaningful interactions, rather than just simple acts like buying and selling, or was it an exposure in that you were taught about it through your culture? There is a marked difference between those two, where the latter often fails to impart a real understanding.

 

I’d say that the information of those in that debate hearing Spong speak was categorized in their minds in ways that did not reflect the reality of what those views were. I say this, because in a very real sense, I used to be one of those in that audience (metaphorically speaking). It’s not until now, at this point in my life within the last few years actually, that what Spong is saying is actually understood by me.

 

I can pretty much guarantee that they were in a fog about him, and their cheering reactions to hearing Dr. Martin's overly simplistic slogans like “Just follow Jesus”, were so quickly embraced by them, almost like a huge sigh of relief to their being challenged to think by Spong! That’s hard work for the fundi, and why they just want it to be so simple. “Just follow Jesus,” how simple that all sounds! Not.

 

 

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.

I need to clarify for the sake of others that what I’ve said was a tongue-in-cheek statement of irony that, “I find myself more a Christian now that I’m not one, than I ever did when I was one”. It’s a play on words. I don’t identify myself as a Christian. I know you understood that, I’m just clarifying here for others.

 

What I’ve highlighted in bold in your response is what I want to address. This is my view. I could easily devote an entire thread to this alone. In a nutshell, for me understanding that these are systems of symbolic language and culture with humanistic ideals at its heart, allows for there to be an acknowlegement of the legitamcy of all of them. At that point respect can be extended to everyone both Christian and atheist as we embrace the good in the human being as the highest ideal. At that point we can move forward together, rather than further apart.

 

Spong does put it wonderfully that the core of his views is expressed in Jesus’s words, “I come that they might have life and have it more abundantly.” It’s that ideal expressed in those words that is the real message. Not “Jesus is my Flag”. To Spong, to me, it’s the heart of the message, not the vehicle of the mesaage that is either healthy or not. I can and do embrace any faith that has that as the message; unity, hope, peace, belief, etc in life, and I reject those who look and act like those we see in fundamentalism. That is not life abundant. That is rotting fruit, not living ones.

 

It’s all in language, and different words can mean the same thing. I hear what’s being communicated, the intent or spirit of the heart, coming from behind the words put together to express that. God can mean many things. It’s what I hear someone say with that word that I respond to, and not whether they choose that word or not. I show them respect and honor to listen to what they mean by it, and its that act that itself communicates peace and love. It's those things that people respond to; we all respond with our hearts, and learning to listen to what that says to us is how I define the human spirit.

 

Would this have a positive or a negative effect on society? It’s my “faith” if you will that it would be a positive one. I’ve bridged that gap quite a few times with some Christians who see more than their doctrines behind their faith. They respect and embrace me, as I do them. We can see past the systems to the heart of our humanity behind them.

 

 

P.S. Good topic. Thanks for starting this one.

[Vomit Comet]

Yes, it can mean patriotic. My analogy was that one political camp underneath an umbrella identity does not have the right to deny those of other opinions that identity. A war-supporter does not have the right to deny someone calling themselves an “American”, or a “French Man,” or what have you because they disagree with them. Likewise, the fundamentalist does not have the right to define what Christianity is for everyone, even though that’s how they approach it.

 

Spong is an example of what the postmodernists would term "fragmentation." Basically, the word "Christianity" became as devoid of essential meaning as the word "punk." The umbrella has been shredded. Nobody can define what Christianity is because there's nothing left to define. At best you can define what flavor of Christianity you belong to, though it will derive most its meaning from how it differs from all the other flavors.

 

So I could see the fundies uniting under a new name and disowning themselves from the term "Christianity." Hell, that's what I would do if I was the pope of fundamentalism. I'd declare Christianity to be "dead", say "fuck you and fuck off" to all the insufficiently orthodox sects that aren't good enough to join the party, officially change the name of our new and separate umbrella to "Jesusosophy" or something like that, and go from there.

 

Several centuries later, people within Jesusosophy would start saying "you know, maybe we should lighten up a bit, be a little more open to..." and hopefully whoever had succeeded me as the pope of fundamentalism would scream "shut the fuck up and GET THE FUCK OUT!!!"

[The-Captain]

So I could see the fundies uniting under a new name and disowning themselves from the term "Christianity." Hell, that's what I would do if I was the pope of fundamentalism. I'd declare Christianity to be "dead", say "fuck you and fuck off" to all the insufficiently orthodox sects that aren't good enough to join the party, officially change the name of our new and separate umbrella to "Jesusosophy" or something like that, and go from there.

 

Several centuries later, people within Jesusosophy would start saying "you know, maybe we should lighten up a bit, be a little more open to..." and hopefully whoever had succeeded me as the pope of fundamentalism would scream "shut the fuck up and GET THE FUCK OUT!!!"

 

 

 

Good point, very like what we are seeing right now. Also bonus points for making it funny.

[Deva]

So I could see the fundies uniting under a new name and disowning themselves from the term "Christianity." Hell, that's what I would do if I was the pope of fundamentalism....

 

Agree with Doc. I enjoyed that VC. It is funny and also very perceptive of you.

[Neon Genesis]

So I could see the fundies uniting under a new name and disowning themselves from the term "Christianity." Hell, that's what I would do if I was the pope of fundamentalism. I'd declare Christianity to be "dead", say "fuck you and fuck off" to all the insufficiently orthodox sects that aren't good enough to join the party, officially change the name of our new and separate umbrella to "Jesusosophy" or something like that, and go from there.

 

Several centuries later, people within Jesusosophy would start saying "you know, maybe we should lighten up a bit, be a little more open to..." and hopefully whoever had succeeded me as the pope of fundamentalism would scream "shut the fuck up and GET THE FUCK OUT!!!"

Wouldn't it be more like Paulinity for the fundies though since the fundies worship Paul more than Jesus?

[Antlerman]

Yes, it can mean patriotic. My analogy was that one political camp underneath an umbrella identity does not have the right to deny those of other opinions that identity. A war-supporter does not have the right to deny someone calling themselves an “American”, or a “French Man,” or what have you because they disagree with them. Likewise, the fundamentalist does not have the right to define what Christianity is for everyone, even though that’s how they approach it.

 

Spong is an example of what the postmodernists would term "fragmentation." Basically, the word "Christianity" became as devoid of essential meaning as the word "punk." The umbrella has been shredded. Nobody can define what Christianity is because there's nothing left to define. At best you can define what flavor of Christianity you belong to, though it will derive most its meaning from how it differs from all the other flavors.

I imagine hearing this cry from those who saw their flavor of religion being morphed and changed into whatever became what is now called orthodoxy. Though all this is comically dismissive of the force of evolution in how things change, as it has throughout history, it fails to dig very deeply into real issues, like those we're discussing in this thread. Is this a nothing more than a simple case of something deriving its meaning through how it differs from others? I would say with much confidence in my mind that that is not the case here. With the fundamentalist who identifies as "not them", yes that's pertainent. As far as what I saw, and have seen in the likes of what we're talking about in this disccussion, it hardly applies. It's a cleaver rhetoric, but no substance in this instance.

 

As an aside, I can imagine those in the audience of that debate dismissing in a similar way... broad generalizations and characterizations, rather than exploring beyond their doctrines. Funny how I see more to this. Maybe something has escaped me here.

[Vomit Comet]

I imagine hearing this cry from those who saw their flavor of religion being morphed and changed into whatever became what is now called orthodoxy.

 

Those folks are dead and buried, and have been written out of the history by orthodoxy. If someone brings them up, the fundies will trot out their version of history. Whatever historical record there is will not prevail in this instance. Otherwise, the fundamentalists would have been discredited into non-existence by now. They've been discredited, sure, but they're still around.

 

Though all this is comically dismissive of the force of evolution in how things change, as it has throughout history,

 

The Protestants of the Reformation Era were markedly more bat-shit and hardcore than the Catholics of the Renaissance Era -- I used to see the Catholic church of that age as decadent, having lost their way, but now I know that they were progressively being permeated with the humanism of that age... well, relatively speaking -- and after a few turns of events the Catholics mounted the Counter-Reformation to preserve Catholicism, throwing Renaissance humanism right out the fourth floor window of the Vatican. *SPLAT* And then it snowballed. Per capita, more people were butchered in the 30 Year War than World War II. This is not to mention the Crusades, the violent purging of the remnants of Paganism, etc. Hard-and-fast us-vs.-them fundamentalism didn't appear yesterday. Nor did relativism and humanism within the church, for that matter. I'm no church historian, but if I were to venture a guess, I'd say this conflict we're speaking of has its precedent in the time between the Black Plague and the 30 Year War.

 

If I were the Pope of Fundamentalism, my gambit would be tantamount to disowning the tag of "the Universal Church" and then making war on Rome and her allies. I would invoke historical precedent. Martin Luther was, after all, a reactionary and not a revolutionary. It only came to resemble a revolution once it had snowballed far beyond what he had anticipated. Had the church not mellowed out considerably since the time of the Crusades, I doubt he would've bothered in the first place.

 

Is this a nothing more than a simple case of something deriving its meaning through how it differs from others? I would say with much confidence in my mind that that is not the case here. With the fundamentalist who identifies as "not them", yes that's pertainent.

 

Liberal Christianity is liberal compared to "something." It historically broke from "something." Just like the "Protestants" were protesting something. It's a war of interpretation, epistemology, cosmology, and so on and so forth. Why else would Spong bother to debate those guys? It's a contest over what means what. If Liberal Christianity hadn't broken from the rest of Christianity, or at least established itself as an alternative to Christian orthodoxy, it wouldn't be Christianity. It'd be a separate religion that appropriated bits and pieces of Christianity. Christianity is, then, a field of clamoring oppositional positions. The major oppositional camps have little enough in common to where the umbrella of Christianity has been ripped all the way through.

 

As an aside, I can imagine those in the audience of that debate dismissing in a similar way... broad generalizations and characterizations, rather than exploring beyond their doctrines. Funny how I see more to this. Maybe something has escaped me here.

 

Don't know what you mean here. The fundies refuse to explore beyond their doctrines, whereas the libs have been doing so for a while. Hence the incommensurable difference between the two.

 

I say the fundies should take it all the way. Metaphorically speaking, they should shove Spong and Co. right out the window of Prague Castle. *SPLAT*

[R. S. Martin]

is best understood as “Early Christianities”. There was great diversity of beliefs, as has been exposed through the discoveries of many early Christian writings. http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_S...stian_Writings/

 

Thanks for that link. I added it to my Index of Sources.

 

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 agree mostly with this, but would like to put this out there for thought. I agree his personality drove him into another way of approaching life, just as it was my personality that moved me beyond fundamentalism. But would he be who he had become without having and practicing faith in the way he does?

 

This is a charged question. I’d be interested in hearing responses to it.

 

Put another way, simply “not believing” in the views of fundamentalism because it doesn’t fit you, doesn’t mean you have found what does work for you. And not having what does work for you, would seem to infer that you (3rd person you, of course) are not realizing the potentials inside because of the lack of enviroment that encourages it. In other words, being out of an environment that has a negative effect does not automatically put you in one that does have a postive effect. Escaping prison doesn’t mean you’ve found home.

 

I have not yet read the other responses in this thread, and not even all of this post. I suspect I disagree with you on some very basic ideas or principles here. I believe that God does not exist and that "faith" is purely a psychological event. I have not yet seen enough people like Spong to see how that kind of religion plays out in real life. However, my hypothesis or guess or belief (or whatever) is that he would be the kind of person he is regardless of the kind of life philosophy he adhered to. I personally do not think that his "faith" made a difference; I think he made a difference in the "faith." However, I realize this may be a controversial position and I may not have much data to back up my argument. I prefer to leave it open for the time being.

 

That’s the point of this question. Would you say that Spong’s faith has helped him become who he is, and that Progressive Christianity had something to offer that in fact gave him the right environment for him to thrive in?

 

As I said, it would be my hunch that he helped form progressive Christianity, given his age and position in the institution. Re his age, the movement was born during his time as Episcopal priest, wasn't it? I think the wikipedia article said he was ordained in the mid-fifties and retired in 2000. I did not read up on the history of progressive Christianity but I thought it is very new, as in having just arrived on the scene in the last few decades.

 

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.

I wanted to ask you about this. What was the nature of your exposure to a wide range of ideas and cultures? Was it your personal exposure directly with them through meaningful interactions, rather than just simple acts like buying and selling, or was it an exposure in that you were taught about it through your culture? There is a marked difference between those two, where the latter often fails to impart a real understanding.

 

I’d say that the information of those in that debate hearing Spong speak was categorized in their minds in ways that did not reflect the reality of what those views were. I say this, because in a very real sense, I used to be one of those in that audience (metaphorically speaking). It’s not until now, at this point in my life within the last few years actually, that what Spong is saying is actually understood by me.

 

I can pretty much guarantee that they were in a fog about him, and their cheering reactions to hearing Dr. Martin's overly simplistic slogans like “Just follow Jesus”, were so quickly embraced by them, almost like a huge sigh of relief to their being challenged to think by Spong! That’s hard work for the fundi, and why they just want it to be so simple. “Just follow Jesus,” how simple that all sounds! Not.

 

This is really difficult for me to answer. I'm very different from my siblings. I have sisters very close to me in age and we saw and heard and experienced the same things as we were growing up from the time we were babies into the mid teens. Yet we did not get the same "messages." I picked up a lot of things the others didn't. I'll try to stick to the facts as I remember them and hope that answers your questions.

 

First of all there was the immediate neighbourhood. Take a look at this website. I don't know who posted it but the photos are of my home community and I know those places like the back of my hand. Look at the top row of photos. Unless I'm mistaken, it represents four different groups of Mennonites in my home community on a Sunday. From left to right they are: Old Order Mennonite (my group), black car Mennonite using meeting house of OOM on the Sunday that the OOM don't use it, mainline or modern Mennonite, the other horse and buggy group known as the David Martin group.

 

I don't think we had any modern Mennonites in my immediate neighbourhood or school section when I was in the primary grades in the rural public school house. However, there were OOM, David Martins, black car Mennonites, another black car group, and a family of Calvinist evangelicals of Mennonite descent that was similar to the modern Mennonites. They spoke our PA German language. All of these people lived within a one-mile stretch of highway and all of us children went to the same school. And every set of parents was intent on raising their children in such a way as not to get drawn into one of the other groups. It was expected that all of us kids would stay for life with the church into which we were born. The grandparents expected us to be raised this way, and so did the churches standing behind them.

 

The teachers were from town and "worldly." Keeping us from the "worldly" influences of these worldly teachers was a top priority, right along with keeping us safe from the false teachings of all the other churches. I don't know what it would have been like growing up in a situation where everybody believed the same thing and went to the same church. Or where the emphasis on religion was not overt. I remember Mom explaining the different beliefs of the different churches. I remember Dad talking about his discussions with his childhood friend, who was our neighbour two farms over and with whose children we were friends. We understood which beliefs were okay and which were not "like we believed."

 

I don't remember talking religion at school but mockery was rampant, esp. between the two horse and buggy groups. The competition for souls was subtle on other levels, too. The one black car group and the horse and buggy groups did not have Sunday School for their children but the other black car group did. They gave us their old Sunday School literature. I remember reading Wee Lambs.

 

Mom would let us read the stories but she would make sure we knew which parts of the stories were "like we believed" and which parts were not "like we believed." A book saleman came to the door with Uncle Arthur Bedtime Story Books. Mom bought some. Again, she let us read the stories but made sure we knew which parts were and were not "like we believed."

 

As I got older and better understood the sermons I began hearing the preachers warn against the dangerous doctrines of neighbouring churches, most of them evangelical. The warnings against worldliness were built into everyday conversation from the craddle to the grave and also parts of every sermon. How we differed from, and were better than, "the world" was also built into the culture and part of everyday conversation.

 

Twice a year the church held conference meetings at which the rules were reviewed and read publicly. It was these rules that kept and maintained the barriers between us and the other groups that looked and lived so much like us that outsiders couldn't tell the difference.

 

Inside the church there was a social hierarchy based on those who kept the rules best (these were considered better) and those who crowded the fence by living barely inside the rules. I was raised very conservative, very far inside the fence, and I was taught that we were much better than those others in our school section who combed their hair a bit more loosely than we did, and who made their dresses a bit more fancy than we did. Then there were people in the church who were far more fancy than the fancy ones in our school section. We didn't even think to associate with them. This was when I was in my teens.

 

As I got a bit older I was curious if these people really were as bad as my mother had taught me to think. (I think the NT stories about the self-righteous Pharisees might have played a role in this, too, esp. Jesus' condemnation of them.) I began to be friendly with some of them. They seemed really nice. One day one of them said how nice I and my sisters were, that we didn't treat her like she wasn't good enough just because we were plainer than she was. That told me that she was just as humble and just as good as we were, and that it was right for me to embrace others as just as good, no matter how they presented themselves. I realize today that both me and my sisters and she dressed in the traditions that our mothers taught us, which they had inherited from their mothers. That was perhaps my first step outside the "home territory."

 

Does this answer your question, AM?

 

I have to leave the rest of this post for later.

[R. S. Martin]

Would this have a positive or a negative effect on society? It’s my “faith” if you will that it would be a positive one. I’ve bridged that gap quite a few times with some Christians who see more than their doctrines behind their faith. They respect and embrace me, as I do them. We can see past the systems to the heart of our humanity behind them.

 

 

P.S. Good topic. Thanks for starting this one.

 

I read the rest of your post now. I did not respond to every part throughout because I agree with the general gist of it and don't want to be redundant.

 

Here you talk about "bridging the gap." Elsewhere you talked about the fundies being narrow-minded and not getting it, etc. I take it there are people you find it impossible to "bridge the gap" with?

 

I found this video series through a link posted on William Lane Craig's forums. The fundies acknowledged how calm Spong was. Not everyone on those forums is equally conservative and someone said a lot of light came from Spong. That person meant it positively. Another person called it a black or dark light.

 

That is pretty much what I experienced with my siblings. They said, "Satan can give peace, too, you know."

 

I don't know how to get through to people like that. It seems the suspicion is too dense to penetrate.

[R. S. Martin]

Antlerman said:

 

Maybe something has escaped me here.

 

Don't know what you mean here. The fundies refuse to explore beyond their doctrines, whereas the libs have been doing so for a while. Hence the incommensurable difference between the two.

 

I say the fundies should take it all the way. Metaphorically speaking, they should shove Spong and Co. right out the window of Prague Castle. *SPLAT*

 

 

I don't know if I'm right but I'll give it a try. I think AM is coming at this from a Humanist perspective, and also bringing the scholarly perspective of mythology and evangelical theology and biblical studies to the situation. I think VC is coming at it as a person who is fairly newly deconverted from a very superstitious religion (correct me if I'm wrong), and from the scholarly perspective of advanced sociology applied to a casual knowledge of church history. I'm enough of a sociologist at heart to really appreciate his contribution to this discussion. It helps me better understand the church history and history of theology I learned.

 

I know he's joking, or using it as a teaching tool (depending on one's view, perhaps), when he talks about being the pope of fundamentalism and throwing out Spong and Co., but I get his point. I vote to keep Spong et al, but I appreciate VC's input to the discussion and found it constructive or educational for me. That's probably just me drawing the best of opposites but I tend to do that sometimes.

[Neon Genesis]

I say the fundies should take it all the way. Metaphorically speaking, they should shove Spong and Co. right out the window of Prague Castle. *SPLAT*

In some ways I can see what you mean, but if were to do that, wouldn't it make more sense for the liberal Christians to separate themselves from the fundies rather than the other way around as you suggest? The liberals and fundies interpret the bible in such wildly different ways that they're already practically two different religions anyhow and in Bishop Spong's case, he pretty much has already divorced himself from fundamentalist Christianity. In one of the Spong videos, he flat out states he has no interest in being apart of a church that cares more about being united in homophobia, in reference to the Episcopal church's debate over gay bishops, and if I'm not mistaken, someone once here at ex-c said Spong didn't want his books sold in Christian bookstores, although I'm not sure who said that. It would make more sense to me for the liberal Christians to just take all the positive mythological stories and teachings of Jesus they believe in and mix it up with their own humanist teachings. If Islam can create a new religion using Jesus and the bible stories they like, surely it can't be that hard for the liberal Christians to do the same. On the other hand, even if they separate, there's always the possibility that there will be another schism with whatever new religion is created and so we'd end up debating who the true followers of the new religion is and be right back to where we started, so maybe it'd be a waste of time to separate.

[R. S. Martin]

Neon, I'm fascinated by your idea. I better clarify. I doubt it will float but it sounds interesting. Kind of LoTR type of mythology. Like you say, why not? People are funny that way. Maybe you are young enough to live to see it, or something similar, happen. One thing occurred to me as I was watching that series: Spong is doing what so many exCs have said liberal religionists should do. He is speaking out against fundamentalist religion and NOT covering for it.