tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post6853398709604787640..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: An interview with John Shelby Spong: "I am very orthodox after all!"Ben Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1897330411642394872010-06-11T16:57:06.958-04:002010-06-11T16:57:06.958-04:00Thanks for posting this excellent interview.
I al...Thanks for posting this excellent interview.<br /><br />I always had trouble understanding Bishop Spong and his brand of believers, who somehow think that by changing Christianity into some sort of wishy-washy dispensible consumer-friendly New Age spirituality, this religion would be saved from certain doom. At least this interview has provided me with a little insight into his theology/philosophy, and with that a little more sympathy to his cause.<br /><br />Still, I wish that he could somehow leave Christianity out of this... Can't help quoting this passage:<br /><br />"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."<br /><br />I guess it's about time to assemble a New New Testament.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-84000402656015722132009-04-25T06:17:00.000-04:002009-04-25T06:17:00.000-04:00Thanks for posting the entire interview. I found i...Thanks for posting the entire interview. I found it interesting and revealing, however much I disagreed with it.<br /><br />I think Bishop Spong is full of it. But I'm more amused than upset by his ideas, so I don't get some of the less polite objections expressed by commenters.<br /><br />I never would have been attracted to the Xianity described by Bp. Spong -- just as surely as I wouldn't have been attracted to the Xianity described by John Hagee. I started reading the Bible to prove it wrong, and found it to be unexpectedly believeable (unlike Spong or Hagee).<br /><br />Bp. Spong was polite in the interview because the interviewer was polite (and somewhat sympathetic, apparently). But, a few years ago, I saw Bp. Spong in an interview with a polite but clueless Diane Sawyer, where he was anything but polite in his opinions of those with a different view of Xianity than his. He was as condescending and uncharitable as any conservative Fundamentalist.<br /><br />It's funny how those who twist things out of context, to make science appear to support a literal reading of Genesis 1-3, are called all sorts of insulting names. But Bp. Spong's complete twisting (and rejection) of orthodox Xian doctrine, to try to make it compatable with the latest scientific theories, is praised as <I>progressive</I>. But I think both kinds of Fundamentalism tend to ultimately be empty, ridiculous, unsatisfying, and damaging to many Xians' faith. <br /><br />He believes none of the basic tenets of the Xian faith. So why use the name Xian? His explanation why rings very hollow. The claim that it's because he loves Xianity (or the Church) so much is just nonsense -- and, ironically, is just what the most obnoxious of his conservative opponents say when defending themselves. It's just another Fundamentalist using Xian/Biblical terminology, but making up their own definitions.KnotOnABloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560852606427373884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1047763284765570022009-01-28T00:50:00.000-05:002009-01-28T00:50:00.000-05:00Amazing the aggression and depth of feeling religi...Amazing the aggression and depth of feeling religious discussion can reveal. Yes, I'm another of Spong's fans. We have a world with no discernible intervention by an unknown God based on a book written 2 thousand years ago by people with pre-scientific mindsets trying to sell us their view of Jesus. (With the first half of that book full of God-sponsored violence). Spong at least gives us a way to retain our credibility as we search through Jesus teaching for true pearls of wisdom.<BR/><BR/>Take the sacrificial death as a perfect example of Spong shedding light on a strange ancient teaching. Why would a loving creator ever require death in order to forgive ? I couldnt work it out. UNTIL, Spong pointed out the evolutionary nature of this teaching. Primitive societies dependent on rain and sun to survive want to have some control over their environment. So they decide that they need to offer 'things' to their God. He will then look after them. Now they have control ! (I wont mention how debased this teaching became when Abraham was about to murder his son as a sacrifice). Such a simple and an obvious human response to our fragile existence. A religious theme that makes no sense if God is the supreme being but makes a lot of sense when viewed through history as a human invention. Thank goodness Spong explained it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-78609992593563566522008-08-18T09:30:00.000-04:002008-08-18T09:30:00.000-04:00ErratumThe final line above should of course read ...Erratum<BR/><BR/>The final line above should of course read 'Whilst inevitably I do NOT agree...'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-73903593313003902932008-08-18T09:21:00.000-04:002008-08-18T09:21:00.000-04:00One of Bishop Spong's key insights is that 'there ...One of Bishop Spong's key insights is that 'there is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time'. This seems to chime with the Pauline conviction that we see 'through a glass darkly' (I Cor 13:12). Consequently it is no surprise that the history of Christianity has been characterised by dissent, and the possibility of reaching universal accord in the future remains remote. Given this scenario, it is sensible to debate beliefs constructively in the hope of advancing understanding.<BR/><BR/>However, important as beliefs undoubtedly are, I venture to suggest that they are less important than the results that flow from them. Ideally these will be the fruit of the Spirit which St Paul has obligingly listed in Gal 5:22 - love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance. The list is not exhaustive. We might add grace, mercy, compassion, gratitude, generosity and forgiveness. In passing it is clear that these are practical virtues, not the prerogative of an abstract spirituality.<BR/><BR/>If our personal beliefs do not tend in this direction, be they ever so orthodox, we may arguably need to modify them. This is not a comment on the relative value of differing beliefs; rather it is a simple recognition of human diversity. I guess we all know people of transparent holiness whose views we could not possibly share! No doubt the divine can encompass us all.<BR/><BR/>Of course the quest is on-going. Whilst inevitably I do agree with Bishop Spong on every particular, I am deeply grateful to him for the invaluable help he has provided for my personal journey of faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-88649941317159078122008-08-15T09:26:00.000-04:002008-08-15T09:26:00.000-04:00Kerry said: "What's the point of attacking him so ...Kerry said: "What's the point of attacking him so ferociously?"<BR/><BR/>Because Spong's points, valid ones in my opinion—I like him and agree with the positive posters here—threaten the security of many. Spong has said many times that religion is mostly a "search for security not truth." He seeks to change that motivation.<BR/><BR/>He has also said that we don't need to be "born again" but need to "grow up and become mature adults." I could not agree more. Most churches wish to keep us as dependent children it seems to me.<BR/><BR/>I feel his views are rational, logical and lead to truth.jackfatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02540814635211092728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-81243154755503652122007-09-29T19:16:00.000-04:002007-09-29T19:16:00.000-04:00I'm currently attending St Matthew-in-the-City's (...I'm currently attending St Matthew-in-the-City's (Auckland, New Zealand) Conference for Progressive Christianity. Here, Spong is guest speaker, basing his talks on his book, 'Jesus for the non-religious'.<BR/>Spong treats Scripture as layered myth superimposed on a lost, Jewish Jesus of the 1st century.<BR/>There is no disagreement with Spong that the Scriptures were written from a point of view. No material is written from a neutral point of view. I'm not sure Spong knows this. So it is not surprising that the Gospel writers were pursuing their take on Jesus life.<BR/>Among his deprecating (and somewhat disturbing) attitudes to other New Testament and Biblical scholars, Spong purports to have stripped away the layers of male, chauvinist, patriarchal bias from the Gospel record.<BR/>However, he only succeeds in adding his own middle of the road, humanistic and naturalistic layers.<BR/>For example he contends that the crucifixion did not take place in the northern spring (March) of 30CE. He claims, that the reason it was recorded as happening at passover is that the early church wanted to equate Jesus with the Passover lamb of sacrifice. And why not in spring? Because the people would not have had leafy branches to wave on Jesus procession into Jerusalem, a week before his death.<BR/>For someone who claims to be in touch with the world, who holds to the current popular, humanist worldview, he has little understanding of biology. It is the first month of spring here in New Zealand and outside most trees are sporting new, leafy branches! Furthermore, he claims that the type of branches used would have been myrtle and palms. Both these trees are evergreen!<BR/>In addition, he claims that the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree at that time of the year is strange, spurious and shows Jesus to be cruel. Spong claims that fig trees don't bear fruit in spring. Well, Mr Theologian, figs bear fruit for up to 9 months of the year and often hold their fruit over winter, and develop fruit before the leaf. It would have been easy for Jesus to see the the fig tree he cursed, was unfruitful and displayed no 'faith' in the summer to come.<BR/>And so he goes, one (cruci)fiction after another.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-91388812902149316432007-09-19T00:54:00.000-04:002007-09-19T00:54:00.000-04:00"Very interesting. Thanks again to Scott for passi...<I>"Very interesting. Thanks again to Scott for passing this along. I too found what Spong said about Darwin and the Christian story compelling, but I don't think it precludes the traditional, ancient story"</I><BR/><BR/>If you want to make a new religion, just go ahead and make it already, and base it on evolution or string-theory or whatever you like, but don't go around using the name of Jesus or claiming that it is Christianity. If you want to be an independent thinker, then by all means be an independent thinker. Don't be a lazy jackass slapping traditional names on newfangled ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-5869376672759678392007-09-09T08:14:00.000-04:002007-09-09T08:14:00.000-04:00PS--Father Jake has what I take to be a judicious ...PS--Father Jake has what I take to be a judicious reading of Bishop Spong here:<BR/>http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/09/open-letter-to-canterbury.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-78251283701404766482007-09-09T07:22:00.000-04:002007-09-09T07:22:00.000-04:00"self-serving rant"? "fascist"? "tired"? "boring"?..."self-serving rant"? "fascist"? "tired"? "boring"? "deplorable"? "infuriating"? These descriptions of Spong, who in this interview strikes me as genuinely and honestly trying to address the questions posed him, seem over the top. Although I've said in the past that Spong seems rather quaint to me, preaching an Enlightenment "rational Christianity" in a post-Enlightenment age, I can't but admire his desire to make Christianity relevant to the contemporary mind. What's the point of attacking him so ferociously? It seems needlessly churlish, and just a little sad: circling the orthodox wagons...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-29640951383013130932007-09-09T00:45:00.000-04:002007-09-09T00:45:00.000-04:00"It seems to me that he falls back on a kind of ne..."It seems to me that he falls back on a kind of neo-fundamentalist mentality that says that you’ve got to test the truth of the Bible by the Bible. That is, you’ve got to view it as a whole, so that if you get a verse that doesn’t make much sense you’ve got to bring the whole Bible to bear in order to find out what the will of God is. To me, that’s simply a defensive mechanism that avoids facing the truth."<BR/><BR/>I wonder if Spong has actually had the chance to talk to legitimate fundamentalists before. If he did, I think he would find something strange: namely, that he agreed with their narrow interpretations of what scripture meant. The only difference being he that he believes scripture is wrong. In that respect Spong is like Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. in rejecting Christianity (or "traditional christianity") because they privilege a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.PresterJoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933589009026049480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-53986541871561112662007-09-07T22:38:00.000-04:002007-09-07T22:38:00.000-04:00Most of these comments, especially the negative on...Most of these comments, especially the negative ones are in effect auto-biographical snapshots of the author who wrote them. <BR/>Very revealing indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-80103041022001334982007-09-07T01:30:00.000-04:002007-09-07T01:30:00.000-04:00I think the folks who bash Spong for being egotist...I think the folks who bash Spong for being egotistical or dumb fail to see what he's trying to do.<BR/><BR/>For centuries, apologetics has been a roped-off corner of theology, where we occasionally try to make sense of the gospel for non-Christians. Spong seems to be saying that's not good enough ... that if the church is going to thrive, it must be able to present theology that rings true for all people, particularly for those who don't share our philosophical and metaphysical traditions.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17980181582122445265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-73894854000108822612007-09-06T20:39:00.000-04:002007-09-06T20:39:00.000-04:00My apologies to Scott, Scott Stephens not Scot Sim...My apologies to Scott, Scott Stephens not Scot SimpsonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-28064670401053019562007-09-06T20:32:00.000-04:002007-09-06T20:32:00.000-04:00Thanks for posting this extensive interview – it w...Thanks for posting this extensive interview – it was very interesting. I do hope Scott Simpson sent Spong his piece on Bonhoeffer – it would be fascinating to know Spong’s response, especially considering the genial atmosphere of the interview. <BR/><BR/>An earlier comment criticised Spong for his remarks about Ratzinger. I do wonder, however, what descriptive terms can be used to name the mindset of someone who when Prefect for theCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith attempted to destroy theologians of the stature of Kung, Schillebeeckx, Boff and others – so much intellectual blood on his hands – to be described as a neo-fundamentalist is surely a kindness.<BR/><BR/>Needless to say i agree with the post by Michael of NorfolkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-14353207676100943512007-09-06T20:16:00.000-04:002007-09-06T20:16:00.000-04:00Most of you commentors dislike Spong. I on the ot...Most of you commentors dislike Spong. I on the otherhand believe that his vision is that of the future if Christianity is to survive long term in an increasingly secular world. Faith cannot forever close its eyes to knowledge and science.<BR/><BR/>As a former Roman Catholic driven from the Church by those hypocrites like Benedict XVI who want to turn back time by centuries, Spong helped me to find a way to remain a Christian. Increasing in the USA, the face of Christianity is dominated by the message of fear and hate put out by the Fundamentalist Protestants and the Catholic Church which look to divide, stigmatize and condemn large numbers of people who differ with their religious views.<BR/><BR/>Would that there were more thinking Christians like Spong, who while perhaps not always right at least is not afraid to think and analyze.Michael-in-Norfolkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06330888799107186550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-29280184471678383242007-09-06T19:52:00.000-04:002007-09-06T19:52:00.000-04:00Spong gas a habit of being nasty to those who disa...Spong gas a habit of being nasty to those who disagree with him. His letter writing habits in that regard are notorious (hey maybe you will get lucky after your review is published Ben and get a letter calling you 'neanderthal')<BR/><BR/>Here's Spong's <A HREF="http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/an_unfortunate_letter.html#more" REL="nofollow">latest missive</A> to his "friend" Rowan (who is not a fan of Spong's theology) which has even upset his reappraising supporters.<BR/><BR/>Spong's ego knows no bounds.<BR/><BR/>May Christ save his church from "bishops" and "theologians" like him.<BR/><BR/>D@BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-82512531709496323602007-09-06T19:47:00.000-04:002007-09-06T19:47:00.000-04:00Hi Halden,Spong may describe his position as "any ...Hi Halden,<BR/><BR/>Spong may describe his position as "any kind of sex is fine as long there's monogamous commitment", but I don't think Williams would put it quite that way, do you? However Williams, as you know, is theologically on record as supportive of lesbian and gay Christians. And he has acted on his theological persuasions. As a personal example, when he was the Bishop of Monmouth I once met Williams in Swansea at the first annual conference of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement to be held in Wales, which he went out of his way to attend and support. Now are you saying that Williams' beliefs, ethics, and actions are purely ideological, that he has simply "jumped on board a cultural trend"? Or that he would see the issue in terms of "rights"? If not, if Williams' conclusions and commitments are prayerfully and theologically formed, informed, and held, don't you think he should share his thinking with us and guide us in a conversation about them, particularly as they are so differently framed than those of the revisionists and traditionalists alike? <BR/><BR/>Williams clearly and obviously judges that ecclesial communion is more important than sex, probably because, as he has rightly written, when we come to the New Testament keen to be informed about our obsession, it meets us with "a blank or quizzical face: why is <I>that</I> the problem?" The question is: what <I>kind</I> of communion. And I mean that in a deeper sense than just how might the different regional churches in the Anglican communion hold together institutionally, in the spiritual sense that Williams himself puts it in his brilliant essay "Making Moral Decisions", which he wrote when he was the Archbishop of Wales:<BR/><BR/>"So long as we still have a language in common and the 'grammar of obedience' in common, we have, I believe, to turn away from the temptation to seek the purity and assurance of a community speaking with only one voice and embrace the reality of living in a communion that is fallible and divided. The church's need for health and mercy is inseparable from my own need for health and mercy. To remain in communion is to remain in solidarity with those I believe are wounded as well as wounding the church, in the trust that in the Body of Christ the confronting of wounds is part of opening ourselves to healing."<BR/><BR/>What I'm saying is that because Williams is a theologian who thinks outside the usual boxes, he is precisely the Archbishop to give a lead on the humans sexuality issue - which of course is more than just about sex - in the context of an understanding of communion which amounts to an <I>ecclesia crucis</I>. Now <I>that</I> is what I would call "prophetic".<BR/><BR/>Enough. This great interview raises a lot of other questions than just human sexuality!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-18312932970196853812007-09-06T17:47:00.000-04:002007-09-06T17:47:00.000-04:00I suppose I should say that I am not familiar with...I suppose I should say that I am not familiar with whatever the situation might have been with Williams on the Israel-Palestinian question. On that judgment, I'll demur.<BR/><BR/>However, on the same-sex issue, I think that Williams is taking precisely the prophetic role. Obviously you and I differ theologically on this issue, Kim and I understand the complex nature of these theological and pastoral problems on a personal level (i.e. I haven't just had to deal with this question in books and blogs, but in very face-to-face ways). I say all that, only so I won't come off as an ideolouge myself on this particular question.<BR/><BR/>As I see it there is nothing prophetic about saying homosexuality is wrong, but neither is it prophetic to claim that any kind of sex is fine as long as there's monogamous commitment. These are both ideological positions that have their respective cultural entourages and legitimacy within their own spheres. Neither supporting or condeming homosexuality is prophetic at all. To assume either of those mantles is simply to choose which cultural trend you want to jump on board with.<BR/><BR/>What is prophetic is saying that ecclesial communion is more imporant than sex and it would be better to think twice about our "rights" to do what we want with our bodies than to rend communion over an agenda in the manner that Gene Robinson has done. It is Williams who is alone in standing for the union of the church in contrast to both the tradtionalists and the revisionists for whom communion seems to be quite a dispensible matter. I don't see this as a rejection of the prophetic mantle, but its most radical embrace.Haldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03936185959033443640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-80639181122346022002007-09-06T14:35:00.000-04:002007-09-06T14:35:00.000-04:00Hi Halden,I have a good deal of sympathy with what...Hi Halden,<BR/><BR/>I have a good deal of sympathy with what you say. I have enormous respect for Williams, for his prayerfulness, wisdom, and compassion, and for his embracing the episcopal role of reconciler, of peacemaker (and one sign of a faithful peacemaker is that he usually gets shot at from both sides - and Williams has his share of purple hearts!). But Williams is a brilliant theologian, one of the finest of our generation, and probably the greatest Anglican theologian since Hooker. With such rare and precious gifts, should he not be exercising a teaching as well as a pastoral ministry? Should he not be, not disseminating ideological propaganda, but giving theological guidance on big issues like Israel/Palestine and same-sex relationships? Must the Archbishop of Canterbury cease to be a player and become a referee? Would he not be showing a proper respect for tradition <I>as living</I> by respectfully interrogating it? I still trust that Williams knows what he is doing, but I have my doubts, and I often think he has made a serious error of judgement in refusing the prophetic mantle. I really do hope I am wrong. Keep Rowan in your prayers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-28474231790255292102007-09-06T13:44:00.000-04:002007-09-06T13:44:00.000-04:00I was also very disappointed in Rowan Williams ove...I was also very disappointed in Rowan Williams over Palestine - pulling out of the Sabeel conference shortly after his election.<BR/><BR/>But on the present crisis in the Anglican communion I agree with Halden that he's "taking the hardest road possible precisely because he's a great leader." His situation must be an incredibly difficult one but it is precisely here that one sees his identity not merely as a leader of an organisation but as a bishop of the Church. For behind the crisis over "ethics" lies the challenge of ecclesiology and it is precisely in this situation that we see Rowan Williams' true identity emerging. He is no pragmatic liberal or conservative who uses the church for his own - or others peoples'- agenda, but a servant of the Tradition which he has received and which he is charged with handing on to others, more aware than many others of all the challenges that that involves...<BR/><BR/>I must confess that, as a Catholic, I'd love to see him as pope! If anyone can suggest any miracle-working saints...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-45319092651593072402007-09-06T12:10:00.000-04:002007-09-06T12:10:00.000-04:00I find Spong's evaluation of Rowan Williams deplor...I find Spong's evaluation of Rowan Williams deplorable. Williams is taking the hardest road possible precisely because he is a great leader. He's refusing to pander to the ideologies of either side and instead doing what a churchman should do: seek to preserve communion.<BR/><BR/>Williams is not simply a smarth theologian, he is a great man and a Christian all should look up to. And I'm no closet Anglican, that's for certain!Haldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03936185959033443640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-42675015600331728692007-09-06T11:54:00.001-04:002007-09-06T11:54:00.001-04:00Very articulate questions, and as another poster m...Very articulate questions, and as another poster mentioned, the interview was actually a real conversation. So helpful on that score. However, as an escapee from a church pastored by someone not much different than Spong -- that is, the life, death and resurrection as historical facts was said to be beside the point -- I have an allegeric reaction to Spong. He simply does not seem sincere to me. I cannot fathom any "Christianity" which does violence (and I use that word purposefully) to the gospel narrative. If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is in vain.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Darwin needs to be taken seriously, particularly the theological ramifications of this upon Genesis' creation / fall narrative (and so all that flows from that narrative, including Christ's own death). But if Christ is not a historical figure, and the gospel story is not rooted in real historical events, then any "Christian" faith is impossible in my meager opinion. <BR/><BR/>I'm baffled by those who see it differently... but of course I suppose I baffle them as well.<BR/><BR/>Again, thanks for the interview.Jon Trotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05269111052515857956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-79178929619241809272007-09-06T11:54:00.000-04:002007-09-06T11:54:00.000-04:00I wasn't talking of Rowan Williams "imposing his w...I wasn't talking of Rowan Williams "imposing his will" on the entire Anglican communion, but of showing some leadership. And, I specifically gave an example that I thought was worse than Spong's example, because he was trying to broker peace between traditionalists and revisionists over GLBT matters. But what excuse could he have for coming to Palestine and echoing the Likud Party?<BR/><BR/>This is disappointing precisely BECAUSE Rowan Williams is a brilliant theologian and a vibrant Christian and Spong is a just a washed out, warmed over version of J. A. T. Robinson--without even Robinson's biblical scholarship.<BR/><BR/>I am no fundamentalist. I try to learn from liberals, including iconoclasts, as much as from the orthodox. But I find Spong's kind of minimalist faith and avante garde jumping on whatever theological band wagon comes along to be boring. It is a sign of how in trouble the Episcopal Church is that Spong was ever consecrated bishop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-10489424727134347092007-09-06T11:20:00.000-04:002007-09-06T11:20:00.000-04:00His tired anthroplogy is more intersestingly displ...His tired anthroplogy is more intersestingly displayed in Ursula K. Le Guinn's children's book the Tales of Earthsea. The worrying thing here is whatever experience he may have had of some deity it's not that of the Saviour who saves from sins, whatever one's view of Original Sin (and experience supports the biblical data, whatever scientific theory reigns) why don't these intolerant people, and his criticism of Williams and desire to impose authority clearly declare the fascist, simply leave and start their own cult maybe the Church of the Scared Arse Kissers whose holy greeting would be 'kiss my Black, Oh brother I sooo identify, liberated black ass'. Silly, because no-one would publish or listen to the man if he wasn't standing in better peoiples' bootsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com