Post-theistic God

[NemoSum]

Recently I finished the book A New Christianity by Episcopal Bishop John Spong. In it he outlines what he calls a new definition of God, which reaches beyond theism. For him the theistic god represents an idol. God is not a being so much as being itself. He claims that the theistic god is an anthromorphic creation. God doesn’t know what is going on in Sodom for instance, so he has to send down a couple of angels. Spong claims that God is not a person who intervenes in human affairs, but that (s)he is life itself.

I found it odd that Bishop Spong’s position was very similar to the “Thomistic metaphysics,” which seeks to prove God as ipsum esse subsistens (subsistent being-itself). My question is: could one be an authentic Catholic and not believe that God was a person? If we do believe that God is a person (which we obviously do) how do we reconcile how small our god seems to be portrayed in scripture and tradition?

 

[Magnanimity]

Recently I finished the book A New Christianity by Episcopal Bishop John Spong. In it he outlines what he calls a new definition of God, which reaches beyond theism. For him the theistic god represents an idol. God is not a being so much as being itself. He claims that the theistic god is an anthromorphic creation. God doesn’t know what is going on in Sodom for instance, so he has to send down a couple of angels. Spong claims that God is not a person who intervenes in human affairs, but that (s)he is life itself.

I found it odd that Bishop Spong’s position was very similar to the “Thomistic metaphysics,” which seeks to prove God as ipsum esse subsistens (subsistent being-itself). My question is: could one be an authentic Catholic and not believe that God was a person? If we do believe that God is a person (which we obviously do) how do we reconcile how small our god seems to be portrayed in scripture and tradition?

Bishop Spong has for years advocated views which are fairly radical, even for Episcopalians. What you detail above sounds no less so. To assert that God is being (or life) itself is not the same as asserting that God is his own existence (which is really stated for the purpose of showing the relation between essence and existence within God himself). In one sense, Spong’s claim could be interpreted pantheistically, as you’ve presented it here. It would be hard indeed to stretch Thomistic theism enough to match Spong’s statement though.

The personhood of God is likely an attribute that cannot be done without, but I imagine you only ask as a result of Spong charges of anthropomorphism? There are many here more skilled than I at addressing biblical criticisms, but I would just give a more fundamental reply to Spong. Anthropomorphisms can either come from man’s inventiveness or from God himself as a way “condescending” down to man’s level. The point is that anthropomorphisms within the Scriptures are admitted by everybody, Catholic, Episcopalian, or otherwise. But that doesn’t establish anything by itself, as I’ve stated above, there is an alternative way to account for these instances.

Moreover, one cannot read the whole Bible and come away with a view that God is so smallish. God is said to see “the end from the beginning.” “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…” “‘Who should I say has sent me?’ ‘Tell them I Am That I Am has sent you.’” or consider God’s reply to Job at the end of the book of Job. Does that strike you as smallish? People can (and do) selectively pull out verses here and there to prove just about anything. But a solid hermeneutical principle which has to be continuously followed is that we interpret the not-so-clear in light of the clear passages, and this certainly applies to our BIG God too…

 

[James_S_Saint]

Recently I finished the book A New Christianity by Episcopal Bishop John Spong. In it he outlines what he calls a new definition of God, which reaches beyond theism. For him the theistic god represents an idol. God is not a being so much as being itself. He claims that the theistic god is an anthromorphic creation. God doesn’t know what is going on in Sodom for instance, so he has to send down a couple of angels. Spong claims that God is not a person who intervenes in human affairs, but that (s)he is life itself.

I found it odd that Bishop Spong’s position was very similar to the “Thomistic metaphysics,” which seeks to prove God as ipsum esse subsistens (subsistent being-itself). My question is: could one be an authentic Catholic and not believe that God was a person? If we do believe that God is a person (which we obviously do) how do we reconcile how small our god seems to be portrayed in scripture and tradition?

Pardon me for saying so bluntly, but the man is naive.

I agree that Catholics and most people, including atheists, conceive of God in the wrong terms, far too human like. But that does NOT mean that God is not a living being and a personage. It is only the limited mind that thinks that God is either a personage or a “natural force” of some kind.

You reconcile the issue by learning more of the real Truth which is neither of those being discussed by that Bishop. The real Truth is on your side. It amazes me how afraid of the real Truth Christians are as though they thought that if the real Truth were discovered, they would lose their faith. Such is a bizarre notion to me, but it seems to be the norm.

“God has to send angels down to learn of what’s up”…geeez.

He sounds like yet another closet Secularist sneaking into the window of the mind while people are living in their sleep.

“Life” IS the “Son of God”, just as Jesus said, “I am the Life..” But that has nothing to do with the rest of what the Bishop seems to be preaching. Liberal speculation seems to be the fad.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Recently I finished the book A New Christianity by Episcopal Bishop John Spong. In it he outlines what he calls a new definition of God, which reaches beyond theism. For him the theistic god represents an idol. God is not a being so much as being itself. He claims that the theistic god is an anthromorphic creation. God doesn’t know what is going on in Sodom for instance, so he has to send down a couple of angels. Spong claims that God is not a person who intervenes in human affairs, but that (s)he is life itself.

I found it odd that Bishop Spong’s position was very similar to the “Thomistic metaphysics,” which seeks to prove God as ipsum esse subsistens (subsistent being-itself). My question is: could one be an authentic Catholic and not believe that God was a person? If we do believe that God is a person (which we obviously do) how do we reconcile how small our god seems to be portrayed in scripture and tradition?

G-d is being itself, the maximal state of being, or as Aquinas says, the being whose essence is existence. G-d is not life itself, the metaphysics doesnt bare that out to my knowledge.

though why would he think G-d was unaware of the goings on in sodom? and what is this with G-d being small?

i think we need more information.

 

[tafan]

Recently I finished the book A New Christianity by Episcopal Bishop John Spong. In it he outlines what he calls a new definition of God, which reaches beyond theism. For him the theistic god represents an idol. God is not a being so much as being itself. He claims that the theistic god is an anthromorphic creation. God doesn’t know what is going on in Sodom for instance, so he has to send down a couple of angels. Spong claims that God is not a person who intervenes in human affairs, but that (s)he is life itself.

I found it odd that Bishop Spong’s position was very similar to the “Thomistic metaphysics,” which seeks to prove God as ipsum esse subsistens (subsistent being-itself). My question is: could one be an authentic Catholic and not believe that God was a person? If we do believe that God is a person (which we obviously do) how do we reconcile how small our god seems to be portrayed in scripture and tradition?

There is nothing Thomistic about this stuff. You are seriously misreading Thomis.
As to God being “small in scripture”, well that is fairly easy to explained. God revealed himself to us “in the fullness of time”, ie as people become advanced enough to understand. Start with Abraham, before the covenent, at that time it was quite common for every family to have their own God. So that is how God started out with the nation of Isreal, as a family God for Abram, that is what Abram would have understood. Then Abraham moved to Palestine, and overtime, God remained the God of Abraham and his descendants. Then we have Moses leading the hebrews out of Israel, we finally have the makings of a nation and God revealed himself as the God of the nation of Israel. The idea of God being the King of the World had yet to be revealed, that didn’t start until David. God revealed himself as a trinity during the time of Christ, at the Baptism of Jesus. By the time you get to through the new testament, God is no longer small.
He simply revealed himself to mankind on a gradual basis, “in the fullness of time”.

 

[NemoSum]

As to God being “small in scripture”, well that is fairly easy to explained. God revealed himself to us “in the fullness of time”, ie as people become advanced enough to understand.

Anthropomorphisms can either come from man’s inventiveness or from God himself as a way “condescending” down to man’s level. The point is that anthropomorphisms within the Scriptures are admitted by everybody, Catholic, Episcopalian, or otherwise. But that doesn’t establish anything by itself, as I’ve stated above, there is an alternative way to account for these instances.

There certainly is an alternative way to account for these instances. The one you are proposing seems very unlikely. Instead of admiting that human beings wrote the bible and that they projected their own small image of God (“Lord of Armies” etc) into the text, you are trying to say that God decieved us until the fullness of time happend? Man started to understand God better and so he showed himself in line with the new understandings exponentially? Isn’t it more likely that the men who wrote the bible grew in their understanding of God and so portrayed him in their own image of him?

If everyone accepts that anthromorphisms are in the bible, then why do we read it as if God wrote it? Your argument that God pretends to be something he is not in order for us to understand runs the risk of destroying the entirety of the faith.

I personally think the Bible is the word of God, but not because it was dictated by the divine itself. Scripture, like the body of Christ, although fully divine, it never loses the fullness of its humanity. God is present in the entire bible, because he is present and active in the communities. Scripture has always held a special liturgical role. The gospels (synoptics) seem to have been written for the purpose of Christianizing the Jewish liturgical calender. God is present within the community and all of their traditions. Scripture is important because it is written tradition.

When we take the bible and fail to see the human side, we turn it into an idol. An idol we are forced to defend with terrible absurdity.

He sounds like yet another closet Secularist sneaking into the window of the mind while people are living in their sleep.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Explaining something in terms that the listener can comprehend, even if not totally get right, is NOT an act of deception, but an act of necessity. It is impossible to explain many things to a person who hasn’t sufficient foundation, yet this does not preclude the need to get them started in the right direction. Jesus could not tell ALL that Man needs to know because Man was not, and is not still, ready to hear it. This leaves “natural deception” as an occurrence due to Man’s insistence to think in the way Man wants to think. Doctors can’t explain enough to a patient to not leave the patient with a misunderstanding of a disorder because the patients have too little foundation from which any explanation would make sense.

Man **MUST learn a little at a time and be inherently misunder-standing the entire way until he can finally get enough under-standing (foundation) to see the whole (Holy) picture. A Huge problem is that religions are founded on FAITH, not UNDERSTANDING and thus understanding is very slow coming while the population of the faithful (in their misunderstandings) increases exponentially.

Life itself is MISunderstood and thus even saying that God is a living being is misunderstood. The ancients had a more clear concept of what life is than materialist scientists do.

 

[tafan]

There certainly is an alternative way to account for these instances. The one you are proposing seems very unlikely. Instead of admiting that human beings wrote the bible and that they projected their own small image of God (“Lord of Armies” etc) into the text, you are trying to say that God decieved us until the fullness of time happend? Man started to understand God better and so he showed himself in line with the new understandings exponentially? Isn’t it more likely that the men who wrote the bible grew in their understanding of God and so portrayed him in their own image of him?

If everyone accepts that anthromorphisms are in the bible, then why do we read it as if God wrote it? Your argument that God pretends to be something he is not in order for us to understand runs the risk of destroying the entirety of the faith.

I personally think the Bible is the word of God, but not because it was dictated by the divine itself. Scripture, like the body of Christ, although fully divine, it never loses the fullness of its humanity. God is present in the entire bible, because he is present and active in the communities. Scripture has always held a special liturgical role. The gospels (synoptics) seem to have been written for the purpose of Christianizing the Jewish liturgical calender. God is present within the community and all of their traditions. Scripture is important because it is written tradition.

When we take the bible and fail to see the human side, we turn it into an idol. An idol we are forced to defend with terrible absurdity.

First of all, you are correct, God did not dictate scripture, he inspired it. Big difference.

You totally misread my post. I did not say that God deceived us, I said that he revealed himself to us, gradually. Lack of a full revealation is not deception. Heck, he is finished with public revelation, yet we don’t know all about him at this point, just enough to fulfull his plan for salvation.

 

[Magnanimity]

NemoSum,

You’re assuming too much behind my post, so let me backtrack a bit. I view the inspiration of the Scriptures in a fairly standard way. At the most basic level, it amounts to saying that God is the primary author of the texts and man the secondary author. Both are fully authors, so the Bible is at once a divine and a human work. One does not have to believe that’s it’s one or the other. I have no problem admitting the human element in the Scriptures.

Further, this view is nothing which I’m specially suggesting. If there is a special view falling outside the mainstream it would be the one you’ve brought up-that of Bishop Spong.

There is always a tendency to be reductive with the doctrines of faith because the reduced positions are easier to wrap one’s mind around and easier to defend. But, the Church has for centuries defended those complex middle positions on a whole host of issues. For example, is Christ God or man? He’s both, actually. Are there three gods detailed in the NT or one? God’s a triune being, the Church has taught. Are we chosen or free?Again, we fall on the tense position of affirming determinism and free will-that’s basically what predestination amounts to. Trying to be reductive on any of these issues gets you into an easier position to uphold, but it also gets you into heresy. The same holds true for the Scriptures. They are the product simultaneously of the divine mind and human mind(s).*

Also, you haven’t addressed either of my two other points in my initial reply to you. You alleged a small view of God as coming from the Bible. So, what do you say of the many more numerous instances of projecting a rather big God in the Scriptures? As I said and you haven’t replied, no one realistically comes away from a reading of the whole Bible (or even the whole OT) with a smallish impression of the god presented there.*

Also, as I said, Spong seems to suggest something more akin to pantheism in your remarks here. As we’ve pointed out to you, this bears little if any resemblance to what I take it is your contrasting view of God-that of scholasticism.*

After all though, I don’t know why anyone would look to the rather metaphysically undeveloped views of Spong to lead the revolution for a post-theistic God. The only robust and sophisticated alternative view of God to come after theism would be something like the panentheism (process theology) of Whitehead and Hartshorne. It is very unlikely, I think, that Spong has what it takes to challenge theism.*

 

[Greg27]

I have read the book you mentioned by Spong (but a while ago) and Spong is somewhat ‘radical’ in his calls for substantial reform in Christian theology, particularly moral theology and biblical interpretation. I agree with his views on many points, but I think from the Christian or theistic perspective his definition of God as ‘Being itself’ or ‘The Ground of Being’ is problematic.

This idea I think has a bit in common with the ideas of Augustine and Aquinas, but it is actually based more on the theology of Paul Tillich, who often described God as ‘Being itself’ or ‘The Ground of Being’ (terms Spong uses frequently in his works). The classical theistic paradigm of Anselm, Augustine and Aquinas was to try and combine the conceptual framework of Greek and Hellenistic Philosophical Theology with Christian theism. Aquinas in my view was the most successful, working out a fairly coherent and credible concept of God within a rational system which integrated most aspects of the best theological and philosophical thinking of today.

But even Aquinas and the Scholastics faced a certain problem in that their very rational conception of God and the Divine tended to create a fissure between the ‘God of the Philosophers’ and ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’ For the ordinary believer, I think the abstract debates about the nature of God and the formal definitions of God in scholastic philosophy were too remote from everyday concern to be of relevance. The powerful reaction against scholastic philosophy during the Renaissance and Reformation at the hands of people like Erasmus or Luther, who tried to recover the Biblical picture of God, is a telling reaction of how the impersonal God of Philosophical Theology can’t really be of consolation or interest to most ordinary believers.

I think the same problem exists with Spong reducing God to abstract ‘Being’ and removing personal elements from God. The Bible, Christian prayer and liturgy, while recognising the mystery and transcendence of the divine, also address God in personalistic concepts and terms. I don’t think many Christians of any denomination would want the liturgy changed so ‘Our Father who art in heaven’ became ‘Being itself who art in heaven’. I would agree with Spong that the extreme literalism of fundamentalism does downplay the mystery of God and should be curtailed, but it should not be so extreme as to make God so abstract and remote there is no room for personal language for the divine, which is so important to Christian prayer, liturgy, and living.

 

[Spengler47]

Magnanimity describes John Shelby Spong as radical, even for an Episcopalian. Not all Episcopalians are radical. Some oustanding defenders of orthodox Christian theology have been Episcopalians/Anglicans. I would recommend reading C.S. Lewis, John Polkinghorne, N.T. Wright, Alistair McGrath, and Fleming Rutledge.

 

[Magnanimity]

Magnanimity describes John Shelby Spong as radical, even for an Episcopalian. Not all Episcopalians are radical. Some oustanding defenders of orthodox Christian theology have been Episcopalians/Anglicans. I would recommend reading C.S. Lewis, John Polkinghorne, N.T. Wright, Alistair McGrath, and Fleming Rutledge.

Oops. Point well taken, Spengler. What I was trying to emphasize was just how far out in left field Spong is, theologically-speaking. But, I did that in a way that was pretty much a careless, low blow to Episcopelians. Apologies to you and your peeps!

Btw, I have read and am a big fan of all the Anglican authors you mention above, with the exception of Fleming Rutledge whom I’ve never heard of. But, I’m always on the lookout for good new authors. So, thanks for the reference!

 

[Spengler47]

To Magnanimity. I’m glad you enjoy the Episcopal/Anglican writers I mentioned. Fleming Rutledge is a female Episcopal priest, in the conservative, evangelical tradition. Her books are collections of her sermons. You might want to consider starting with her book “Help My Unbelief.” It includes, among other a few good pot shots at the Episcopal church’s chief heresiarch, John Shelby Spong.

 

[benedictus2]

Recently I finished the book A New Christianity by Episcopal Bishop John Spong. In it he outlines what he calls a new definition of God, which reaches beyond theism. For him the theistic god represents an idol. God is not a being so much as being itself. He claims that the theistic god is an anthromorphic creation. God doesn’t know what is going on in Sodom for instance, so he has to send down a couple of angels. Spong claims that God is not a person who intervenes in human affairs, but that (s)he is life itself.

I found it odd that Bishop Spong’s position was very similar to the “Thomistic metaphysics,” which seeks to prove God as ipsum esse subsistens (subsistent being-itself). My question is: could one be an authentic Catholic and not believe that God was a person? If we do believe that God is a person (which we obviously do) how do we reconcile how small our god seems to be portrayed in scripture and tradition?

Why. is this a question of OR rather than AND.

God is ipsum esse subsistes but God is also a Trinity of Persons.

Spong has it seems moved from theism to deism so I am not sure we should even give credence to any of his claims.

If we are Christians, then we follow Christ and what He has revealed about God - that He is Father.

Spong is a heretic, plain and simple.

 

[Leela]

Spong is a heretic, plain and simple.

This is undoubtedly true. Spong is a heretic just as Jesus and his followers and everyone who ever offered dynamic insights to traditional static religion were.

Whether or not he is a heretic has nothing to do with the question of whether or not he has anything important to offer.

Best,
Leela

 

[benedictus2]

This is undoubtedly true. Spong is a heretic just as Jesus and his followers and everyone who ever offered dynamic insights to traditional static religion were.

Whether or not he is a heretic has nothing to do with the question of whether or not he has anything important to offer.

Best,
Leela

The point of the OP was not whether Spong has anything important to offer but whether he has anything to offer with regards Christian belief. Considering that he is a so called “Christian’”, then as a heretic his views do not count because what he has said cannot even be labeled Christian.

Based on what the OP has written, then Spong is definitely not Christian because the statement attributed to him is a denial of the basic tenets of Christianity.

Of course, the new age people will probably think him wonderful

 

[Leela]

The point of the OP was not whether Spong has anything important to offer but whether he has anything to offer with regards Christian belief. Considering that he is a so called “Christian’”, then as a heretic his views do not count because what he has said cannot even be labeled Christian.

Based on what the OP has written, then Spong is definitely not Christian because the statement attributed to him is a denial of the basic tenets of Christianity.

To my knowledge there is no universally accepted earthly arbiter on who is and who is not a true Christian. Spong thinks he is a Christian because he is trying to follow Christ as best he understands what that path is. You think he is not because you think he is wrong about what that path is. Who should I believe is right, and why should I believe it?

Why not admit that all living humans could be wrong about the best way to be a Christian? Isn’t enough that the man has devoted not only his career but his whole life to trying to discern what it means to be a follower of Christ? That qualifies him as a Christian in my book. I can’t imagine a more relevant criterion than that.

How would you feel about some Christian non-Catholic saying that Catholics aren’t REAL Christians because they have certain doctrines wrong? I guess this is no hypothetical.

Best,
Leela

 

[johncbrainerd]

Is not “post-theistic God” oxymoronic?

If the word “God” derives from an Indo-European root meaning, roughly, “he or what on whom we call when all else fails,” i.e. “gawa,” and in this case, if the word “God” or “god” is a misnomer for despair, as an apparent disparity, would not He who is “the way, the truth, and the light” be a proper label for hope, in the theological sense of “faith, hope, and charity” (love)?

Perhaps, if we decided to become christological i.e. “intellectually christianized,” and be satisfied with what the Deity has done for us in Christ, i.e. given all who want redemption gratuitously in exchange for that “light burden,” i.e. Holy Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar, we would not have all these struggles with labyrinthine, theological abstractions.

And so then “Gawa” would become “Father,” as in “Our Father who is in Heaven,” or “the Father of Lights,” etc. So I don’t talk of “God” anymore, only of “OBF” (Our Blessed Father) and “OBL” (Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ), or “OAS” (Our Anointed Savior), who showed us Who and What the Father truly is, ("…if you have seen me, you have seen the father") and “BVM” (the Blessed Virgin Mary), who conveyed Him to us via the Church, the “DDS” (Divine Delivery System). End of story!

 

[benedictus2]

To my knowledge there is no universally accepted earthly arbiter on who is and who is not a true Christian.

Let’s put it this way.
Suppose I claim to be a die hard vegan but eat beef, chicken and fish 5 times a week. Wouldn’t anyone with half a brain see straight away that I am far from being what I claim to be?

Spong thinks he is a Christian because he is trying to follow Christ as best he understands what that path is.

And I suppose I could call myself an American if I try to believe I am an American and advocate that everyone sing the Star Spangled Banner every morning?

You think he is not because you think he is wrong about what that path is.

I know he is not because he has already said so. He has enunciated beliefs that are contrary to the bedrock of Christianity - that God is a Trinity and that Jesus is God. What Spong advocates for is more deism rather than theism.

Christ did not come to give us a set of ethical rules. Even before He came, those ethical rules were already in place and some are already following them. Christianity is about God who became Incarnate. Jesus is not just another guru in a long line of a “supposedly” enlightened gurus. To be Chrisitan is to believe that Jesus is God.

Who should I believe is right, and why should I believe it?

How about you work that out for yourself based on what has been written here? But do rumiinate on them for a while.

Why not admit that all living humans could be wrong about the best way to be a Christian?

See this is where you are wrong. That is only possible if like Hinduism, Buddhism and any other isms there is no revelation from God. But we have Christ as the revelation of the Father. So there is no second guessing here. We know the way to being a Christian because Christ Himself has shown us the way. We do not follow a set of ethical teachings, we follow Christ. The Good News, the Gospel, is Jesus Christ Himself.

Isn’t enough that the man has devoted not only his career but his whole life to trying to discern what it means to be a follower of Christ?

No it isn’t enough. A good dose of humility is required as well.

That qualifies him as a Christian in my book.

Well your book does not matter becausse by your own admission you are no a Christian yourself but a none. And this is in no way meant to belittle you. Just a statement of fact.

I can’t imagine a more relevant criterion than that.

You can’t. But I can. And based on what I have written above, I think I am slightly better qualified to asses this matter than you are.

How would you feel about some Christian non-Catholic saying that Catholics aren’t REAL Christians because they have certain doctrines wrong? I guess this is no hypothetical.

Now the so called Bible believing Christian are quite right to do that because after all they really do believe in Jesus Christ as God. But their assessment is wrong because they do not know what we actually believe. As a matter of fact, protestants who took the time to really study the Bible and history realized that Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.

But I must say I have a lot of admiration for the protestants who truly love our Lord and acknowledge Him as True God.

 

[Spengler47]

Leela asks if there is any definitive arbiter who decides whether or not someone is a true Christian.Beginning in the fourth centuries, the creeds adopted by the ecumenical councils (Nicea, Chalcedon, Ephesus, etc.) were intended to formulate the minimal beliefs required of all orthodox or catholic Christians. Contrary beliefs were declared heresies. The ancient, medieval and early modern church excommunicated and anathematized heretics, declaring them to be outside the Christian Church. A heretic had to do serious penance to be readmitted to the church, and a penitent who relapsed twice into heresy could be declared a contumacious heretic and burned at the stake. Declaring someone a heretic runs counter to the highly individualistic thinking characteristic of our time. However, aren’t certain beliefs simply inconsistent with Christianity? Could someone really be a Christian atheist for example, or a Christian Nazi? Or could someone be a Christian who believed that God’s ultimate self-disclosure came though Mohammed rather than through Jesus? John Shelby Spong is a retired Bishop of the Episcopal Church. I’m an Episcopalian and I’ve read a number of Spong’s books. While he makes some interesting points, I don’t find his scholarship impressive. He strikes me as essentially a very self-aggrandizing, attention seeking showman. Spong thinks pantheism solves problems he associates with the theistic understanding of God. However, it seems to me that Song don’t really think through the problems created by pantheism.