|
 
 |
|
| Welcome to the General Discussions area!
|
| | | | | 600.4 in reply to 600.1 | |
Perhaps Bishop Spong can be understood as a follower of Christ, as opposed to a believer in all that has been said about Christ, in the gospels and beyond. Many will say that one cannot be a Christian without believing that the stories of Jesus' virgin conception and his physically rising from the dead are literally true. But despite his questioning of these concepts, I think Bishop Spong is completely sincere in his love of Christ and belief that Jesus shows us the heart of God, and beckons us into it.
For those who have never quite been able to believe in such concepts as virgin conception, resurrection, God 'becoming human', etc., despite years of trying, the door to Christian faith has remained locked. Spong refers to them (and himself) as 'believers in exile' - an apt description. There is a strong sense of feeling left out, and yearning for inclusion in the club - and for the fruits of membership. Spong suggests that Christ belongs to all and that it is possible for even the most skeptical and scientifically-minded to have a relationship with Christ. This is profoundly comforting to those who have knocked on that locked door all their lives. |
| |
|
| | | | | 600.5 in reply to 600.4 | |
I have no problem with Bishop Spong following what he believes are Christ's teachings. Teachings which he gleans, I presume, from the very Gospels he does not regard as word of God, but rather nothing more than collections of myth, fable, exaggeration of 'truth,' and much-altered words of mere men who were no more witnesses to the life and teachings of Christ nor spoke and wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit than am I. He (Bishop Spong) decides what parts of the Gospels are true and should be believed and followed, and then he professes those beliefs and, I'm certain, does his best to live according to them. That's wonderful. That's admirable, laudable, and even praiseworthy. My problem is not with what he believes or doesn't believe, or even with his interpretations of scriptures upon which he bases his belief system. My problem is that he calls himself a Christian when he doesn't believe in the most basic commonly held beliefs attributed to Christianity. That doesn't mean he isn't a good person. That doesn't mean he is evil or dangerous. It doesn't even mean he is wrong. It only means his belief system doesn't fit the 'Christian' belief system, which DOES believe and accept such seemingly ridiculous ideas as virgin births and physical resurrections. He doesn't believe Jesus is God, except in the sense of Eastern traditions that allow that God lives within us all - that we are all God, and so on. Christians believe, and have always believed, among other things, that Jesus is God incarnate. They also believe in Christ's atoning death on the cross for the sins of humankind. Bishop Spong believes neither of those things, nor many other of the traditional 'defining' beliefs of Christianity. For those differences alone, I don't think he should rightly call himself a Christian. He doesn't believe what Christians believe. He confuses people and issues by passing himself off as a Christian and then tearing apart the foundations of what constitutes BEING a Christian. It so happens that my beliefs are similar to Bishop Spong's. I agree with much of what he says. I don't believe virgins have babies. I don't believe dead and rotting bodies physically rise up alive out of their tombs. I believe "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," but I also believe they spoke when they were NOT moved by the Holy Spirit, and there's no way we can any longer, if ever we could, tell one from the other. I believe God continues to speak today to the hearts and minds of humans who will go to where He is and quiet their souls to listen for Him. I would be happy if Bishop Spong did something like Martin Luther did when he was compelled to split from the Roman Church because his differences with the church were too grave to remain within. I'd be one of the first to sign up for a new membership in such a new 'denomination'.... Let's see... they called the followers of Luther "Lutherans...." Maybe followers of Bishop Spong could call ourselves... "Sponges?" :-o) |
| |
|
| | | | | 600.6 in reply to 600.5 | |
rev-----don't go...you sometimes seem to be so into what I believe and what Christians over the centuries have believed that for you to follow Bishop Spong would be sad. As it happens, a rule of nature says that it is impossible for a virgin woman to conceive. A rule of nature says that a rotting body cannot revive and come back to life...similarly a man cannot command the waves of a storm tossed ocean or sea to calm down. But if that man is the Son of God, co equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit...He can. And , since He made the rules that say virgins don't conceive and the dead don't rise to life....He can, for His purposes , set those rules aside. He did...and tht is why Mary conceived "not having known a man" and that is why Jesus Christ died and was buried and rose to life on the third day....because He made the rules and can set them aside. So , please Rev. Jim....don't go...stick around and talk about this. God may yet convince you that the Bishop is wrong. Not an evil man, but wrong. Who knows...he may find that out some day. And he may return to Christ's side. Don Berghuis 1/12/05 |
| |
|
| | | | | 600.7 in reply to 600.5 | |
Please don't think I'm trying to be argumentative, but I do think that there have always, from the time that Jesus lived and taught and performed miracles, been differences of opinion as to what constitutes a Christian. It seems to me that the advent of different denominations (and different branches within some of them) occurred, at least in part, because of differeing interpretations of Christ's life, death and teachings. I am sure that, each time such a 'schism' occurred, there were those on either side of the debate who suggested that those on the other side could not properly be called Christians.
Am I saying that those who believe as Bishop Spong does should be 'permitted' to call themselves Christians? In my humble opinion, yes, but I know I would be in the minority. It has been argued that all the talk of Jesus being the One and Only Son of God clouds the issue of what he came to teach, and that the 'true Christian' is the one whose life is devoted to following the teachings of Christ and striving always to be Christ-like.
|
| |
|
| | | | | 600.8 in reply to 600.1 | |
| Would it be unkind to suggest a name for those in Bishop Spong's new religion something like "Spong(e) Bob Squarepants--ians?" Sorry, that may be unknd, but I just couldn't resist :) Don Berghuis 1/13/05 |
| |
|
| | | | | 600.9 in reply to 600.7 | |
Firstly, let me say I don't think of any of these discussions as argumentative. On the contrary, I see our discussions of our various opinions, ideas, disagreements, and interpretations of things as absolutely vital to our spiritual growth and developement. Second only to prayer and meditation, I believe it is through our interactions and exchanges with each other that we grow in wisdom and 'stretch' our souls toward their boundless potentials. Secondly, I don't think any of us has the right to 'permit' or 'not permit' other people to call themselves Christians. All those who identify themselves as Christians must make that decision based on their own ideas of what being a Christian means. I understand that it means a whole myriad of things to an even larger myriad of people across the world and across history, and I am certainly no one to decide for anyone but myself what claiming to be a Christian means. That said, I also believe we should be suspect of those who profess to be Christian but whose espoused beliefs do not fit, or perhaps too loosely fit, the longstanding majority traditions of what Christians have professed to believe. A political parallel might be Sen. Zell Miller, who professes to be a Democrat, but goes on and on against what Democrats say they stand for and on and on in support of what Republicans say they support. Is he a Democrat just because he says so? Even if he doesn't adhere to anything in the Democratic platform? I think not. If it doesn't look like a duck, doesn't walk like a duck, and doesn't quack like a duck - it's not a duck! It may very well be a beautiful swan, with it's own look, walk, and sound, but it's not a duck and shouldn't claim to be one. I think Bishop Spong might be a swan claiming to be a duck. Unless.... Is Jesus the Son of God? If so, what does that mean? What does it matter if Mary was a virgin or not? Is belief in Jesus really the only way to be 'saved'? If so, what does it mean to 'believe in' Jesus? And what does it mean to be 'saved'? And what does that mean for the billions -- BILLIONS -- of people on earth and in earth's history who never even heard of Jesus, let alone 'believe' in Him (whatever that means) or not? If it is true that Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me," what did He MEAN by that? And who decides what He meant by that? If, as it says in the Bible, it is true that Jesus gave his disciples (and us?) two commandments: (1) Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and (2) Love your neighbor as yourself, is there anything MORE we need to do to rightly claim to be followers of Christ (Christians)? Do we need to believe in a virgin birth? Do we need to believe in Jesus' physical resurrection from the dead? Do we need to believe there is no other way to be 'saved'? If the answer to that last group of questions and the hundreds of others like them is no, then Bishop Spong (and I) are ducks. If the answer is yes, then we're swans. Both are pretty awesome, beautiful creatures.... RevJim |
| |
|
| | | | | 600.10 in reply to 600.5 | |
[Christians] also believe in Christ's atoning death on the cross for the sins of humankind.
Anselms notion of "substitutionary atonement" is AN historic way of understanding Christ's death. It is not the only one, however.
Abelard, writing at roughly the same time as Anselm, held that christ's death was "exemplary," not "substitutionary."
"Christus victor" (Christ is victorius over hell and death) was to position held by Augustine (??).
Interestingly, though these people were all writing during a time when charges of heresy were common, NONE of these three positons regarding atonement have ever been declared heretical. The histric church acknowledged all of them, and seems to have accepted all of them.
It has been the modern church that has elevated Anselm's notion of substitution, and disregarded the other two positions. This has been done "successfully" to the extent that most 20th and 21st century Christians are not even aware of the other ideas (and would likely consider them heretical -- certainly abelard's "exemplary" notion.).
Thus, my sense of Spong is that he holds a higher view of "exemplary atonement" than of "substitutionary atonement." It is one of many ways that he believes "The Church Must Change or Die."
Just curious, Rev. Jim, what would be the response in your congregation if you taught the Abelardian and Augustinian views on atonement?
Peace,
Questor
Edited 1/14/2005 12:18 pm ET by questor |
| |
|
| | | | | 600.11 in reply to 600.9 | |
(1) Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and (2) Love your neighbor as yourself, is there anything MORE we need to do to rightly claim to be followers of Christ (Christians)?
And in keeping with the way you were framing your previous questions, "What does it MEAN to love our neighbor?" Or, "What does it MEAN to love God...?"
Most people don't live in the theological nuances, but perhaps it's time that we did. |
| |
|
| | | | | 600.12 in reply to 600.10 | |
You're way too advanced and complicated (Anselm and Abelard? wow...) for me. I think the commonly held Christian 'notion' of Jesus' atoning death on the cross is that "He died so I won't have to." Nothing more complicated than that. That there historically have been other views (exemplary vs. substitutional, Augustine's victory vs. atonement, etc.) is notable and perhaps worthy of contemplation for mental exercise. However, the 'substitutional atonement' view of Christ's death seems obviously to have won the arguments (rather than having been elevated by the modern church) and remains as the dominant view among Christian religions and denominations today. It's nice to know those other views existed, but they really didn't hold up well enough to matter anymore. And then there is Bishop Spong's view, which basically contends that Jesus' death had nothing to do with atonement - substitutional OR exemplary - and did not represent any kind of victory over death, and certainly not over hell, since he doesn't believe there IS a hell. Rather, Jesus' death was just the terrible murder of a good, innocent man. So, back to my original question in this thread: By what definition of the term does Bishop Spong claim to be a Christian? Someone please tell me how you can tell if a person is a Christian or not a Christian? Give me a definiton... or a checklist... or both.... RevJim P.S. If you tell me "by their fruits ye shall know them," I'll ask for a list of fruits.... |
| |
|
| | | | | 600.13 in reply to 600.12 | |
You're way too advanced and complicated (Anselm and Abelard? wow...) for me.
No need to get sarcastic here, revjones.
'substitutional atonement' view of Christ's death seems obviously to have won the arguments (rather than having been elevated by the modern church) and remains as the dominant view among Christian religions and denominations today. It's nice to know those other views existed, but they really didn't hold up well enough to matter anymore.
This would, of course, suggest that the argument was somehow over. However, in the church's history there have clearly been times when the dominant view among Christians was challenged and changed (i.e. the reformation.). Perhaps its time for that kind of radical change again. This is Spongs' aim.
Now, re: your presenting question, "By what definition"... Spong states his definition: "I am a Christian... I have served the church and I serve the church today... I believe that God is real and that I live deeply and significantly as one related to that divine reality. I call Jesus my Lord. I believe that he has mediated God in a powerful and unique way in human history and to me. I believe that my particular life has been dramatically and decisively not only by the life of this Jesus, but also by his death and indeed by the Easter experience Christians know as the resurrection. Part of my life's vocation has been spent seeking a way to articulate this impact and to invite others into what I can only call the "Christ-experience." I believe that in this Christ I find a basis for meaning, for ethics, for prayer, for worship, and even for the hope of life beyond the boundaries of my own mortality. I define myself first and foremost as a Christian believer." (Spong, A New Christianity for a New World, p. 3)
I underlined ethics, prayer, and worship because it is in this way that I understand Spong to be sympathetic to the idea of "exemplary atonement" though I've never heard him state it or read it in print. I have, on the other hand, heard him say that he rejects substitutionary atonement. Does one have to accept it in order to be Christian? Obviously Spong says "no." -- and he's in good company. He has Abelard and Augie in his corner. :-)
Finally, Jesus said, "This is how they will know that your are my disciples, if you have love one for the other." Clearly Jesus didn't know what a Christian was supposed to believe! ;-)
peace,
questor |
| |
|
| |
|
