I really enjoy the Culture reviews on the site but the review on John Spong’s new book leaves alot to be desired. I have no love for John Shelby Spong, and I’m sure in the by and large I’d agree with the stance Bishop Forsyth would have on him, but the sum of his review is ‘this book is bad, Spong is bad.’ There’s no actual review.

Is that just me? What do you guys think?

Hi Lee,

I quite agree.  I don’t think the Bish’s 18-odd lines were constructive.  His words may have been 100% correct, but I wonder what the point was.

I think Tim Harris’s two articles on Spong are very useful—providing, for example, some means of engaging with people who take to Spong’s stuff.  They can be found here at the EFAC SA site.

Hope term 3 sees you well with your AFES endeavours, Lee—every prayer!

Cheers,

Arthur.

I dunno. I reckon that Bishop Forsythe has given us in a few snappy words both a flavour of what we’d expect if we read Spong’s book and his evaluation of its merit. What more do you want from a book review?

Perhaps people who do book reviews from time to time in church could learn a thing or two from Robert’s approach? It’s the KISS principle at work beautifully.

Maybe when I was an eager young Uni student keen to read copious words on every subject and requiring every commentator to justify to the nth degree everything they said, I would have also wanted a bit more.

But in my semi old age, I’m happy to have got Robert’s opinion so succinctly so I can move on to things that really matter. Perhaps he wrote this review for old codgers like me, rather than you young-uns????

Seemed to be more e review of Spong than his book.

I would have enjoyed reading a longer review by Bishop Forsyth, if only because I don’t doubt that many will buy this book.

And Spong truly is silly.

I remember reading a book by NT Wright in which he critiqued something Spong wrote about the Wedding at Cana.  From recollection, Spong was suggesting that Mary Magdalen was married to Jesus because Mary our Lord’s mother was behaving like a mother-in-Law would at a 20th century North Carolina nuptials.

NOw, there really isn’t much you can say about this sort of “scholarship” except to let it speak for itself.  Perhaps that’s what Bishop Forsyth concluded as well.

Link thanks

Arthur, thanks for the link to EFAC SA : what a terrific site!

There is a wealth of great stuff here, and also links to many other interesting articles.

I agree that Bishop Forsyth’s remarks don’t really add up to a review of a book.  Equally though, I don’t think Spong’s book (from my assumption) and his views don’t add up to anything Christian.

Therefore I am with Warren and think this dismissive approach is valid and treating the book and author with the comtempt with which they both treat their own subject: the Scriptures.  Spong doesn’t validate his opinions with fact so why should Bishop Forsyth bother either.

Although I agree that Spong doesn’t validate his views with fact, however that doesn’t excuse what I think is shabby critiquing. I think it is only fair that if you are going to criticise someone’s book, you back it up with as evidence. I don’t have the book so as far as I know, BF is making it all up. The purpose of a negative book review is to warn people to stay away (generally) but I have no idea what is bad about the book because he doesn’t quote anything. If we are going to be fair and loving of people, we shouldn’t automatically assume that everything Spong says will be heresy and we should give him an opportunity to air his views and then examine what he is saying to find out the validity of what he has said. The review doesn’t amount to that, it’s really just ‘he’s bad, his book is bad, trust me’.

Another thing to keep in mind.

This is a review that went into the printed issue of Southern Cross. Perhaps the good Bishop was asked to provide a short remark that could fit into a certain small amount of print space.  ?????Perhaps. Have any of you asked him, or asked the editor of Southern Cross.

This web site is partly the on-line version of SC so things that appear there in print often just appear here out of that visual context.

Therefore, please take care with the sort of accusations of academic integrity, etc you throw around, guys. You are writing as if this is the sum total of what Rob Forsythe might be prepared to say about Spong’s book if asked to provide more words.

Though, I still reckon he’s said enough - certainly for your average Southern Cross reader he’s probably said all they need to know.

If you want more, write to him and ask him - but do so with more politeness than you are showing here, please.

Hang on Lee, I think you’ve been unfair.

[quote author="Rob Forsyth"]
Let me give you one example…
Here’s what John Spong says about ...
This is the kind of argument and level of scholarship that Spong brings to his book The Sins of Scripture. His main point is that ...
And so he ...
[Short rant]…
The trouble is that this book gives a bad name to investigations into what are genuine, real issues…

He starts with an example of why it’s bad, then states the main point of the book, and what he doesn’t like about the book as a whole.  Aside from what I’ve labelled “short rant”, it’s a review.

The short rant is a valid response, judging by the EFAC links, to John Spong’s total body of work.  I don’t think Rob has joined all the dots, I think there are gaps in what he has written (mostly because he puts the one example first), but I think he’s pointed out what kind of book it is (mostly because he puts the one example first).

I think it would have been more helpful if Rob, who likes wrestling with tricky ideas, had presented some real problems and solutions, instead of being offended (as he, an honest wrestler, had a right to be).  But done well, such exegesis would have ceased to be a book review - particularly, apparently, of this book.

PS I’ve just seen what Warren wrote re space.  Yes - and with such constraints, you might as well be outright dismissive!

This is a review that went into the printed issue of Southern Cross. Perhaps the good Bishop was asked to provide a short remark that could fit into a certain small amount of print space. ?????Perhaps. Have any of you asked him, or asked the editor of Southern Cross.

Warren’s assumption here is correct!

However I do take Lee’s point on board that it would be helpful to have a more involved critique somewhere… drat… its a shame Michael Jensen’s gone to Oxford!!

any other volunteers or nominations????

cheers
Jeremy (Publications Manager, Anglican Media Sydney)

Thank you for that Warren and Jeremy, that helps put things in perspective.

I mean no offense with my comments—I have the greatest respect for the Bishop.

I agree with what he has written.  Frankly, I think Spong’s work is empty both Christianly and intellectually.

My concern, however, is how do we reach out to those who listen to Spong?  They are real people and they deserve a real response.  We can’t just say, ‘You’re a “progressive Christian”, I’m not listening’.  Most of us well know how hollow Spong’s proclamations are but, rather than repeating this to ourselves, we ought to discern how to be speaking Christ most effectively to those who have been led astray.

Arthur, you’ve just said exactly what I’ve been thinking. Spong’s influence is wider than either we realise or want to admit. Unfortunately, nobody really seems to engage sensibly or comprehensively with his outrageous claims, which means that a lot of confused people who are listening to him never really see them challenged. Just because his ideas are more wacky than...well....a really wacky thing.... doesn’t mean we can afford to be dismissive. Saying he’s a misguided hertic and basically leaving it at that doesn’t really cut it.

[quote author="Dave Ruys"]more wacky than...well....a really wacky thing....

Totem tennis?

You’re right Warren, I didn’t think of that. I suppose I held it be along the same lines as the other reviews on the site and I (wrongly) assumed that it was written for the site.

I’m with Arthur. I meant no offence and I already know that Spong is a heretic. Mind you, in the circles I am in, pentecostalism is a much bigger threat to biblical doctrine than liberalism so Spong doesn’t hold as much influence.

Spong does represent an attempt to reconcile problems in Christianity with not only the current paradigm, but also with findings in biblical scholarship, sociology and even biology. I think he pushes his barrel too far and has lost touch with his roots, but he does represent, as did Ted Noffs, a call from the community for the church to find relevance.
Insofar as that is true then I think Spong’s works deserve more than derision, they really do need to be critiqued in a scholarly manner. And that criticism needs to find a place in among the laity.