Well, just to get the ball rolling again;

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/01/1064819964934.html

What do we think?

Good question Rowen, the article raises interesting questions, about which I have (unusually unqualified) views.

I am firmly of the view that people like John Spong should not be given an audience in any church. I am disappointed (though admittedly not surprised) that Abp Aspinall has permitted it.

2 John 7-11:

“Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.”

This is not about the flexible spirit of Anglicanism. As I explained on another thread some time ago, Spong’s thesis is to discuss God without admitting a God who actually exists, and thus presuming that God does not exist and therefore cannot reveal himself (including through Jesus Christ).

That is firmly in the 2 John category. To facilitate his ministry is to share in his wicked work.

I know Chris B will weigh in with support for Spong on this one… But I feel Hollingworth was right. Spong is too divisive.

On a more personal note, I feel Spong’s views give liberals a bad name. We don’t all NOT believe in the virgin birth, resurrection etc… I’d rather he not come to my parish. I can underestand the people at St John’s Brisbane not being entirely comfortable with Spong in the pulpit.

What Nunc said.

Spong is the ultimate straw liberal. And he is not even a real liberal (hence Nunc’s complaint). He is an aggressive unbeliever, who in an extraordinary (but not extraordinary enough) abberation of the Church happens to be consecrated bishop.

I don’t normally make categorical statements about other people. But in Spong’s case, his 12 theses are out there for the world to see. He says he is prepared to defend them. And likewise I am prepared to defend my assertions about him with reference to those theses. He is not a liberal Christian - he is not a Christian in any reasonable sense of the word. To offer him your pulpit - well, you may as well give the pulpit to Phillip Adams.

*looks around, sees another Spong-bashing thread, yawns, departs...*

I know I’m terribly simplistic with all this, but for me it comes down to this: is the resurrection of Christ & his theistic divinity absolutely central to Christianity?  If yes then Spong has openly denied these things and should not have the right to teach in a church, as giving someone the pulpit means that you believe what they are saying is pretty right.  I’m not so foolish as to think it means that you agree with everything they say, but they must have the basics right.

(BTW, in my dictionary theism simply means “Belief in the existence of a god or gods”, so unless Spong wants to believe in an amorphous non-entity as ‘god’ I still don’t get it)

I tend to agree that you don’t invite someone to preach at your church unless you think they have something you would hope your church would learn and practise.  hmm.  Still, there is a range of places willing to give his ideas a run up the flagpole, as his itinerary suggests. 

If it were just an individual, I could laugh, but when whole churches, and by association entire dioceses, put their weight behind him it makes me sad.  I also feel for those churches who don’t agree with him who are now going to have to deal with their association with his message.  And more importantly those individuals who don’t agree who will be hearing him from their pulpit.  I don’t know what I would do in a similar situation; what would an appropriate reaction be?  What would you do if your minister/bishop invited him over for a sleep-over and preaching the next morning?

Not go and get as many others to boycot them as possible.

If my church become that liberal I would walk out and take my family to another church that wasn’t, if the dioscee or region become that way, I would go to anothe rdenomination that wasn’t.

The trouble is that far to many Christians are not Bible literate, and believe what ever is told them from the pulpit without questioning it.

In many churches that go this way they start of with good causes, and end up being totally humantarian - that is relying on human wisdom, human strength, having a form of Godliness but denying the power.

I was fortuanate to hear the testimony of one the missionaries who was locked up by the Taliban which was one of many catlysts for that war.

She said her group of Christians had nearly become totally humantarian in their approach to mission, however as the war loomed closer and when they were locked up they became closer to God, with their group praying 24 hours a day, relying on the Holy Spirit.

I guess what I am saying is that every church / denomination is able to fall from grace and deny the power of God, even Sydney Anglicanism has been guilty of this in the past of denying the power of God by (in the 60’s & later) by it’s treatment of the Charismatic movement.

All we can do is ensure that we remain close to God our selves.

craig going of on a tangent.

Excuse me for representing Spong’s views, but this is how I understand some of them:

Spong doesn’t deny the power of God; he believes in God.  His definition of God differs from yours.  What experience he has of God is no doubt the same as yours.

Spong also disagrees that your evangelicical ‘sin-repentence-salvation’ thing is the primary message of Christianity, since it relies on emphasising how very wretched we are, so that God’s rescue operation can be so much the greater—a pretty ugly message imho.  He thinks the purpose of Christianity is to bring each of us into the fullness of our humanity—something some might dismiss as mere ‘therapeutic christianity’.

I don’t think he is ‘throwing out the Bible.’ Rather, he is reading it in light of historical and scientific criticism.  Does this lead to a christianity without substance?  I don’t think so, if we radically reenvision our mission...hence, it would become more about community and social justice, and, yes, HUMANITY.

Spong on the sofa-bed

Christopher Tyack wrote

I don’t think he is ‘throwing out the Bible.’ Rather, he is reading it in light of historical and scientific criticism. Does this lead to a christianity without substance? I don’t think so, if we radically reenvision our mission...hence, it would become more about community and social justice, and, yes, HUMANITY.

The main purpose of Christianity (the church) is to bring glory to God, not to bring focus mainly to liberal and political/social pursuits. Spong refutes basic orthodox Christian beliefs quite clearly.

One needs to be aware that God requires us to glorify and worship Him. God is the main game. (We are not!)

The only way we are permitted a relationship in Him is via our faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and His death and Resurrection. (Doesn’t Spong pooh Pooh this notion?)

God is the glory. We are to glorify Him, and bring glory to him by the glory given to us by the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1:17-23

This is not any man’s idea, but the revelation of God in scripture. Personal interpretation that completely departs from Scripture is a big problem, brother. Isaiah 66:5

Ken

Whenever Spong comes up I’m reminded of Bp Barnett’s comments :

‘Bishop Spong has by now publicly denied every major tenet of Christianity’

Dr Paul Barnett, Administrator of the Diocese of Sydney and Bishop of North Sydney, released the following statement concerning the visit of Bishop John Shelby Spong to Sydney:

“Bishop John Shelby Spong, former Bishop of Newark, cares deeply about the underprivileged and marginalised. He is man of considerable personal charm with formidable media and communication skills.

“Sadly, however, the Bishop has by now publicly denied every major tenet of Christianity. He rejects the virgin birth of Jesus, many of the teachings of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus and his deity and bodily resurrection. These denials do not arise from the Bishop’s own scholarly research. His beliefs are derivative, mostly from the old theological liberalism of the late 1800s.

“His own diocese saw a decline in numbers during his episcopate.

“Mainstream Christians will be distressed that Bishop Spong has come here once again to attack cherished beliefs of Christians in the course of promoting sales of his own books.

“Many will be puzzled that John Spong has not resigned his orders as a Bishop. When he assumed that office, he pledged himself to defend historic Christianity. Regrettably, however, he has used his office as Bishop to attack the very beliefs he promised to uphold. Were he plain Mr John Spong, no one would take the slightest notice of his views. I urge him to reconsider those views. He would then enjoy the respect of many people, including many within this Diocese.”

Seems equally relevant this time round. I can’t believe he’s staying with Abp Aspinall.

I think in our wishy washy politically correct society where tolerance is the prime virtue, we’ve become afraid of labelling anyone unfavourably, lest we step on their toes. Maybe we’ve forgotten the H word:

Heresy.

If Bp Barnett is right, and if John was right (as Matt quoted), then Spong quite clearly is a heretic. He shouldn’t be allowed to take pot shots in churches at naive believers, plain and simple. If they want to read his books, hear him talk in book stores, fine, by all means, but there’s no conceivable way he should be allowed to preach in any church. Its a sad inditement on any church which hosts him.

Has there ever been any serious attempt to defrock Spong (or appeal to those who could) ? Honestly, if an international soccer player decided he didn’t like kicking the ball around anymore, and chose to use his hands and run with it instead, he’d be kicked out and told to find another sport. The officials wouldn’t make exceptions for him and let him try and destroy the game.

The failure of those to take action (ie defrock spong) at the appropriate time has and will result in many people being led astray. That’s profoundly sad. What were they afraid of? Standing up for their beliefs? Persecution? Heaven forbid!

What would you do if your minister/bishop invited him over for a sleep-over and preaching the next morning?

Find a new one asap ;P

Christopher Tyack wrote:

Excuse me for representing Spong’s views, but this is how I understand some of them:

You’re more than welcome to represent Spong’s views, Chris, but I don’t think you have actually done so.

Christopher Tyack wrote:

Spong doesn’t deny the power of God; he believes in God. His definition of God differs from yours. What experience he has of God is no doubt the same as yours.

John Spong wrote:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

Spong believes not in God, but in speaking of God, without admitting a God who actually exists (i.e. no theism). A deity who does not exist cannot become incarnate (point 2). I cannot see that Spong’s experience of God is the same as mine. I know God, have relationship with him and have hope for the future through Jesus Christ. Spong has just undermined any significance Christ might have in enabling me to know God, let alone give me a hope of forgiveness through his death of of eternal life through his resurrection. A point he further articulates:

John Spong wrote:

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

Christopher Tyack wrote:

Spong also disagrees that your evangelicical ‘sin-repentence-salvation’ thing is the primary message of Christianity, since it relies on emphasising how very wretched we are, so that God’s rescue operation can be so much the greater—a pretty ugly message imho.

A complaint both of you would do better to take to the one who said:

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” and “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Christopher Tyack said:

I don’t think he is ‘throwing out the Bible.’ Rather, he is reading it in light of historical and scientific criticism. Does this lead to a christianity without substance? I don’t think so, if we radically reenvision our mission...hence, it would become more about community and social justice, and, yes, HUMANITY.

Chris, evangelicals read the bible in the light of historical and scientific criticism. That doesn’t require re-envisioning our mission.

Throwing out Jesus requires reenvisioning our mission. But that is not necessarily Christianity without substance (since you can put whatever inadequate substance you like in its place), so much as Christianity without Christ.

“Ianity”. (Ian will be pleased).

When Jesus is downgraded to the point that he is not God, and the events of his life, death and resurrection are made irrelevant because they offend someone’s sensibilities, he is not being followed any more. There is no greater injustice or inhumanity than to delude people into thinking Christ offers them nothing more than a few nice ideas. Christ did not perceive himself that way, the apostles did not perceive him that way. To follow him is to accept his teachings. It’s Spong’s prerogative to not follow him. Just don’t call it Christianity. And don’t parade as a bishop of God’s church.

G’day All,

Just a thought;

[quote author="John Spong"]6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

I suspect by “barbarian” Spong means crude, uncivilised, savage, perhaps even contemptible, shocking, or horrific. The original meaning, however, is of strangeness - hence a barbarian is literally a stranger (and hence the name Barbara means “a stranger"). Consider 1 Peter, especially 1 Peter 2:11, where Peter tells the believers he is writing to that they are exiles, sojourners in the world: in effect, strangers to the world. It should come as no surprise that the solution of the cross appears to the unconverted as strange, unreasonable, unrequired. I find I am still surprised that the solution of the cross is considered strange by one who is more than happy to drape himself in the trappings of Christian office.

Timbo

Spong is a false teacher, and every visit of his is incredibly damaging.

What can we do?  I am praying that opportunities for sharing the gospel will come from those discussing his visit etc.

I take encourgaement from Romans 828 “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose”

Regards

JD

PS for Rowen Atkinson, “What do you get when you multiply six by nine?”

Jacob,

42.. of course

[quote author="Scott Blackwell"]Jacob,

42.. of course

You know now that everyone else is very confused don’t you???

Regards

Ford Prefect