Post-theistic God

[benedictus2]

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.

very well said.

 

[NonNobisDomine]

Bishop Spong represents a way in which modern Christian thinkers are tying to make the faith revelant to our modern world. He capitulates to modern science and the leading atheist philosophy. Instead of fighting those who say that man creates God in his own image, he agrees with them. If Christianity is true and you are a Christian, you have to (with necessity) accept that the other religions are man-made. Man does create God in his own image, but that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist or that Christianity isnt true.

Spong holds on to what Paul Tillich calls the fundamental protestant principle, that is the refusal of letting the theologies of men define with exact certitude what and who God is. He is through and through a Protestant theologian of the cross, who views God to be on the side of those who are at odds with the established religion. God visits his people in Jesus and shows how the religious views of the day were wrong. In the suffering Christ on the cross, we see that God is somehow on the side of those who are “accursed” because they hang on the tree. For Spong, Christ is the image of the invisible God. He is one step in an evolutionary process by which God is constantly revealing who he is. Survival of the fittest has ruled how physical development has undergone; Jesus has created a “new being” (a phrase he steals from Tillich) that elevates us out of that model to be able to love. Our concepts of God are constantly changing and for Spong, he thinks he is helping out that process. Spong is against the established religious leaders–modern day Pharisees and Sadducees–just like Jesus was.

All of Spong is very christological and to claim that he is not a Christian is just too much. Jurgen Moltmann wrote that “The decay of faith and its identity . . . forms an exact parallel to their decay through a decline into a fearful and defensive faith. Faith is fearful and defensive when it begins to die inwardly, struggling to maintain itself and reaching out for security and guarentees. This pusillanimous faith usually occurs in the form of an orthodoxy which feels threatened and is therefore more rigid than ever. It occurs wherever, in the face of the immorality of the present age, **the gospel of creative love for the abadonded **is replaced by the law of what is supposed to be Christian morality.” Operating out of this tradition, Spong is doing what he thinks is best.

On this subject I do have a couple of questions.

I know that we all think the Holy Spirit guided the councils, but why do we think that truth can be determined by a vote? Never has there be a unanimous decision of ecumenical councils. I am thinking of Vatican II specifically, which was pastoral in nature, and yet still had much dissent.

Why do we think 51% (or 76% at Vatican II) somehow makes truth?

 

[Spengler47]

NonNobisDomine’s assessment of his theology makes Spong sound like a later day Savonarola. He may be sincere, but his thinking and writing are unbalanced and uncharitable.

The question about the authority of the ecumenical councils, given that the decisions have never been unanimous, is a good one.

 

[Leela]

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?

Sure, such a person is not really a vegan by anyone’s understanding of the term. However, what it is to be a Christian is not a term about which there is wide agreement. That is why there are so many denominations. As a nonChristian with some secularist leanings, it actually serves certain of my ends to have Christians going around accusing one another of not really being Christians. The more disagreement, the more contingent all versions of Christianity are revealled to be. But on the other hand, a greater concern of mine if for people to stop being suspicious of one another on the basis of whether or not they share the same religious beliefs. Opposing such bigotry is very important to me.

benedictus2;6487081:

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.

Whatever you want to call it, it is a fact that religions evolve. The Catholicism you practice may be hardly recognizable to the Christianity of the early Christians or even the Catholics of middle ages. There is no universally agreed upon “bedrock of Christianity” that can never be changed.

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.

Spong actually does believe this, but not in the same theistic way that you do.

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.

You falsely suppose that the scriptures and tradition are not open to different interpretations. I’m not saying that one interpretation is always as good as another, but people will always strive for better interpretations.

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.

It is a fact that I am a nonChristian, but having read the Bible and read much scholarship on the Bible and having read the scriptures of other religious traditions and interpretations of what other mystics hjave said, I actually think that I understand what Jesus was about better than you seem to. You will of course disagree, and we can argue citing our various uthorities and Bible quotes, but there is no final arbiter on the matter that we can appeal to.
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.

I understand that you think so, but I still disagree on that point.

benedictus2:

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.

The fact remains that Protestants do take the time to do so but come to different conclusions.

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

Spong acknowledges Him and True God but has a different understanding of what that notion is.

Best,
Leela

 

[benedictus2]

Spong holds on to what Paul Tillich calls the fundamental protestant principle, that is the refusal of letting the theologies of men define with exact certitude what and who God is.

Last time I checked, if you are a Christian, God is a trinity and Christ is the Son of God. Any definitions that don’t line up with that can hardly be called Christian.

He is through and through a Protestant theologian of the cross, who views God to be on the side of those who are at odds with the established religion. God visits his people in Jesus and shows how the religious views of the day were wrong. In the suffering Christ on the cross, we see that God is somehow on the side of those who are “accursed” because they hang on the tree. For Spong, Christ is the image of the invisible God.

This is fuzzy. Every single person was created in the image of God. Christ is more than just an image of God. Christ is God.

All of Spong is very christological and to claim that he is not a Christian is just too much.

He may be Christological but that is still vague. Christological in what sense? That Christ is a good person? Is Christ God for Him. Is Christ the Second Person of the Trinity for Him? Is God a Trinity for for him?

I think the answer to these is no. From what the OP has written, Spong is more of a Deist so definitely not Christian.

To be Christian is not simply to follow a set of ethical rules.

 

[benedictus2]

Sure, such a person is not really a vegan by anyone’s understanding of the term. However, what it is to be a Christian is not a term about which there is wide agreement. That is why there are so many denominations.

And every Christian denomination hold to the doctrine on the Trinity. Any so called followers of Jesus who do not hold this are not considered Christian. Ergo, Spong is not. Deism is incompatible with this.

As a nonChristian with some secularist leanings, it actually serves certain of my ends to have Christians going around accusing one another of not really being Christians.

The purpose of Christianity is not to serve any created person’s end but to serve God’s end.

The more disagreement, the more contingent all versions of Christianity are revealled to be. But on the other hand, a greater concern of mine if for people to stop being suspicious of one another on the basis of whether or not they share the same religious beliefs. Opposing such bigotry is very important to me.

It is not bigotry. To say that one is not Christian is not in any way bigotted. It is a mere statement of ascertainable facts.

Whatever you want to call it, it is a fact that religions evolve. The Catholicism you practice may be hardly recognizable to the Christianity of the early Christians or even the Catholics of middle ages.

There is such a thing as evolution of doctrine. But true evolution does not diverge from the central tenet of the doctrine. Spong’s does.

There is no universally agreed upon “bedrock of Christianity” that can never be changed.

Yes there is - the very basic tenet of Christianity is the Creed.

Spong actually does believe this, but not in the same theistic way that you do.

If Spong is not theistic then he is not Christian because at the very basic, Christianity is theistic.

You falsely suppose that the scriptures and tradition are not open to different interpretations. I’m not saying that one interpretation is always as good as another, but people will always strive for better interpretations.

I am not saying that it is not open to different interpretations but since not all interpretations are true, then there must be some benchmark for what is true.

It is a fact that I am a nonChristian, but having read the Bible and read much scholarship on the Bible and having read the scriptures of other religious traditions and interpretations of what other mystics hjave said, I actually think that I understand what Jesus was about better than you seem to.

If you are a non-Christian and do not believe in the Trinity and do not believe that Jesus is God and that He died for our sins then you do not get Jesus at all.

Jesus is not just one guru in a long line of ascended masters. He is the Incarnate God. That is the bedrock of Christianity.

You will of course disagree, and we can argue citing our various uthorities and Bible quotes, but there is no final arbiter on the matter that we can appeal to.

Yes, there is. The Church that Christ established.

The fact remains that Protestants do take the time to do so but come to different conclusions.

During my lenten break I have actually come to appreciate the protestants (the fundamentalists actually) more. There are so many in the Catholic Church who practice syncretism that you could hardly define them as Christians anymore. For them, Jesus is just another ascended master. Same inclinations as Spong. I contrast that with protestants who risk being ridiculed but still proclaim Christ as Lord and Saviour and I tip my hat to them. They at least got the basic tenet correct.

Spong acknowledges Him and True God but has a different understanding of what that notion is.

No he doesn’t Spong is a deist. Jesus does not conform to that concept of God.

 

[Spengler47]

Sad to hear about the widespread syncretism among contemporary Roman Catholics. As an Episcopalian, I’m used to seeing it, regretably, in my church. I thought things were different in the Roman Catholic Church. The current pope is certainly making a staunch effort to uphold traditional Catholic teachings. is syncretism rife primarily among Catholic lay people or among clergy as well?

 

[Leela]

And every Christian denomination hold to the doctrine on the Trinity.

Whether or not this is true now has no bearing on the question of whether or not it must be so in the future.
benedictus2;6498700:

Any so called followers of Jesus who do not hold this are not considered Christian.

Sure, but the question is, “not considered to be Christians by whom?”

If you are a non-Christian and do not believe in the Trinity and do not believe that Jesus is God and that He died for our sins then you do not get Jesus at all.

Yet the doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in your holy scriptures. It seems to me that someone could be faithful to the scriptures (as Spong claims to be) without subscribing to the Trinity. In fact, not subscribing to the Trinity can and is argued by Spong to be MORE faithful to the scriptures.
No he doesn’t Spong is a deist. Jesus does not conform to that concept of God.

He is not a deist. I think panentheism would be a better description of his conception of God.

Best,
Leela

 

[Spengler47]

Surely the fact that the doctine of the trinity has been essential Christian doctrine from the earliest days of the church (in nuce) and defined by the ecumenical councils since the 4th century means that it has a very important bearing on Christian thinking today and in the future. People living in the year 2010 do not stand at the apex of civilization. Much of the criticism being leveled at traditional doctrine by people like Spong is contemporary, culurally based thinking that may not persist. In another 10 or 15 years, Spong will almost certainly be “old hat.” If I were to be pursuaded to give up the doctrine of the trinity, it would have to be for some better reason than that the doctrine is considered “unfashionable” by John Shelby Spong. Spong makes a great show of appealing to history and science. Yet, if you read him closely, it’s all too apparent that he has very little understanding of either history of science.

 

[benedictus2]

Whether or not this is true now has no bearing on the question of whether or not it must be so in the future.

Sorry to disabuse you of that notion. The doctrine of the Trinity is very central to Christian belief and it will not change ever. From the very beginning, the heresies that the likes of Spong hold to have been declared as inconsistent with Scripture by the Church. There are no new heresies, just old ones in new get up.

Sure, but the question is, “not considered to be Christians by whom?”

Not by whom but by what standard. Even though I am not Buddhist, I will be able to determine who is a true Zen/Tibetan/etc Buddhist if I know very well what Buddhists believe. If I am very knowlegeable in Buddhism, when someone comes to me claiming to be a Buddhist, I can determine the veracity of that statement by testing that against Buddhist belief / doctrine.

Spong has stated that he holds beliefs are contrary to Christian belief.

Yet the doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in your holy scriptures. It seems to me that someone could be faithful to the scriptures (as Spong claims to be) without subscribing to the Trinity.

Quite wrong. Christ established a Church, He did not write scripture. Ergo, the Church is what determines what is faithful to the Scripture.

In fact, not subscribing to the Trinity can and is argued by Spong to be MORE faithful to the scriptures.

You can’t be more wrong there. Spong is spinning scripture to suit himself. The arrogance in full display as he in effect claims that he knows better than the doctors, saints and fathers of the Church.

He is not a deist. I think panentheism would be a better description of his conception of God.

I knew you’d agree with me somehow . So there you are, Spong is NOT Christian by the simple fact that he is pantheist.

Pantheism is completely opposed to Christianity. Hindus and Taoists are pantheists so maybe Spong is either of the two or any number of religions that are pantheists. They now come under the guise of New Age. Just another re-statement of the sin of Adam and Eve. Self-deification.

 

[benedictus2]

Sad to hear about the widespread syncretism among contemporary Roman Catholics. As an Episcopalian, I’m used to seeing it, regretably, in my church. I thought things were different in the Roman Catholic Church. The current pope is certainly making a staunch effort to uphold traditional Catholic teachings. is syncretism rife primarily among Catholic lay people or among clergy as well?

Sadly in both laity and clery. At the root of it I think is the rise and rise of relativism which when you really look at it is nothing more than a form of self-deification. The fascination with Easter theology can be traced back to this. The desire to be god rather than surrendering to God.

I am really beginning to appreciate fundamentalist Protestants who truly hold to the Trinity and love the Lord and acknowledge that He is Lord, Saviour, God.

Much better that than syncretistic cafeteria Catholics.

 

[benedictus2]

It is a fact that I am a nonChristian, but having read the Bible and read much scholarship on the Bible and having read the scriptures of other religious traditions and interpretations of what other mystics hjave said, I** actually think that I understand what Jesus was about better than you seem to**.

When you finally understand and truly get what Jesus is truly all about, you will become Christian. More than that, you will become Catholic.

And when that happens you will have found truth (or Truth Himself will have found you ). And your joy will be full.

Stop running away.

 

[Leela]

Sorry to disabuse you of that notion. The doctrine of the Trinity is very central to Christian belief and it will not change ever. From the very beginning, the heresies that the likes of Spong hold to have been declared as inconsistent with Scripture by the Church. There are no new heresies, just old ones in new get up.

If you say that you are a Christian becuase you accept the dogma of the Trinity, I wonder what you fcould mean by “accept” since it is often said that if you think that you understand the Trinity, then you don’t understand the Trinity.

How could Spong be ruled out of Christianity for not accepting a dogma that no one is thought to be able to truly fathom?

Quite wrong. Christ established a Church, He did not write scripture. Ergo, the Church is what determines what is faithful to the Scripture.

What you have just claimed here is a dogma that most people who claim to be Christian do not believe to be true. Are you saying that only Catholics are really Christians?

You can’t be more wrong there. Spong is spinning scripture to suit himself. The arrogance in full display as he in effect claims that he knows better than the doctors, saints and fathers of the Church.

As a Episcopalian Bishop he is one of the fathers of the Church (which most Christians do NOT take to mean the Roman Catholic Church).

I knew you’d agree with me somehow . So there you are, Spong is NOT Christian by the simple fact that he is pantheist.

The term I used to describe his view is “panenthiesm” not “pantheism.” Nevertheless, here you are just begging the question again by presupposing that a Christian who finds little use for theistic conceptions of God is not a true Christian.

Best,
Leela

 

[Spengler47]

Interesting, but sad, to read about the widespread syncretism, which I didn’t realise was so rife in the Roman Catholic Church. However, fundamentalism also poses problems, especially the kind you find among some very aggressive, evangelical Protestants. But not all Protestant evangelicals are that way.

We seem to be seeing two challenges to traditional Christian belief, a secularistic one, often militantly atheistic, and a New Age trend, influenced by Asian religions, especially Hinduism and Buddhism. Part of the appeal of Asian religions may be, with the resurgenceof Asia, they have the appeal of novelty. Like the people Saint Paul preached to in Athens, people here are looking for the “unknown god.” A big part of the problem may be that, since the 1960’s, most of the Christian churches have seen their mission as a political and social one, rather than a spiritual one. People who are looking for a spiritual religion may think they have to look outside the Christian Church. Another influence may be the anti-western, anti-Christian bias in much of our contemporary intellectual life. Western civilization and Christianity get a lot of “bad press,” while the short-comings of non-western societies and religions are glossed over. I had a young person tell me once that he thought Asian civilization superior to western civilization because Europe produced people like Hitler and Stalin, while Asia produced people like Buddha and Gandhi. He was quite non-plussed when I mentioned that western civilization had also produced people like Mother Theresa,Tolstoy and Albert Schweitzer, while Asia had given us, not just Gandhi and Buddha, but Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Aurengzab, etc.

Getting back to Spong. I suspect he latched on to the “non-theistic” concept of God because it generates a lot of interest among people drawn to Asian religions; people he’d like to recapture for the Christian Church. I don’t think Spong has really thought very much about the philosopical problems implied by the notion of a pantheistic God. I doubt if he’s even aware of them.

 

[Coleski]

If you read Spong enough you realize he is an just an old man educated at a public university in the 1940’s who lost the simple and true faith. He is follower of Paul Tillch which means that a man who reads the bible and history, as Hegealian process of thesis antithesis sythesis in a blind historical process where the educated and influencial humans are god as they advance to ever more progress in a future. Classic enlightenment liberalism. It is really atheism. This why Spong speaks of a God beyond God in the inevitable progress of the future, like Karl Marx thought communism would take us. These types never understand the limited fallen nature of man in need of a redeemer. Such dialetectical reasoning leads to the enormously dangerous idea the evil and good can be synthesised and idea of Jung. The truth is more like matter and antimatter where they anihilate each other yet strangely the universe is almost devoid of antimatter. To the Spongs of the world everthing is good except to say that some things are bad.

 

[Spengler47]

I don’t know how much Marx or Hegel influenced Spong. Perhaps the key to understanding Spong is that he was born in 1931 in the segregated south, at a time when blacks could not even use the same drinking fountains or bathroom facilities as whites. He would have been in his twenties and thirties during the civil rights era of the 1950’s and 1960’s and many of his writings have dealt with racial equality, women’s equality, gay rights and other liberal causes. For him (and for other members of the Jesus Seminar like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan), social transformation is the essence of Christianity. And to be fair to Spong, a big part of Jesus’s message was and is socially transformative. Unfortunately, for Spong, social transformation swallows up the whole of Christianity and leaves no room for anything else.

I suspect that Spong simply is incapable of relating to the idea of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God. Salvation, the personal encounter with God, heaven and hell don’t seem to mean anything to him. For Spong what’s real is what is social, here and now. Anything inward or transcendent is meaningless to him. When Spong writes that educated, intelligent people can no longer take traditional Christianity seriously, he simply reflects his own personal way of viewing the world and the prejudices of people like him. Spong detests traditional religion because he thinks it gets in the way of the social causes he wants to promote. When Protestant evangelicals or Roman Catholics campaign against birth control, abortion, gay marriage, etc. that’s all salt in Spong’s wounds.

What I find interesting about Spong is that he constantly uses science and history as sticks to beat traditional Christianity with. Yet his own grasp of science and history is very feeble. Again, I think that’s because the issues he really cares about and understands are social issues. He’s out of his element when he tries to write about science or history. When he writes that “modern people” can’t belive in traditional Christianity, he simply ignores the fact that many highly intelligent, educated contemporary people do believe in it.

 

[Leela]

When Spong writes that educated, intelligent people can no longer take traditional Christianity seriously, he simply reflects his own personal way of viewing the world and the prejudices of people like him. Spong detests traditional religion because he thinks it gets in the way of the social causes he wants to promote. When Protestant evangelicals or Roman Catholics campaign against birth control, abortion, gay marriage, etc. that’s all salt in Spong’s wounds.

These social issues are real but are not the explanation for Spongs rejection of traditional theology. For example, we know that many people accept traditional theology but see it as having different moral implications tnah you see with regard to these issues.

What I find interesting about Spong is that he constantly uses science and history as sticks to beat traditional Christianity with. Yet his own grasp of science and history is very feeble. Again, I think that’s because the issues he really cares about and understands are social issues. He’s out of his element when he tries to write about science or history. When he writes that “modern people” can’t belive in traditional Christianity, he simply ignores the fact that many highly intelligent, educated contemporary people do believe in it.

Yet is is true that (based on surveys of demographics) it is becoming harder and harder for highly intelligent, educated contemporary people to reconcile what we know about the word and the claims of trasitional theology.

I suspect that Spong simply is incapable of relating to the idea of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God. Salvation, the personal encounter with God, heaven and hell don’t seem to mean anything to him.

It is Spong’s view (and mine) that the traditional understanding of these terms is at this point in history standing in the way of a deeper sense of our own spirituality for both believers and nonbelievers. Spong’s “personal encounter with God” is of primary importance to him. It is his ultimate concern, but he thinks that this encounter is not what you think it is. He thinks Jesus did not mean what you think he meant in talking about eternal life, divinity, and his indentification with the divine.

Best,
Leela

 

[Spengler47]

Leela wrote:

It is Spong’s view (and mine) that the traditional understanding of these terms is at this point in history standing in the way of a deeper sense of our own spirituality for both believers and nonbelievers. Spong’s “personal encounter with God” is of primary importance to him. It is his ultimate concern, but he thinks that this encounter is not what you think it is. He thinks Jesus did not mean what you think he meant in talking about eternal life, divinity, and his indentification with the divine.

I few questions:

1.) What does it mean to say that traditional beliefs are standing in the way of “a deeper sense of our own spirituality?” Is Spong proposing a way to understand God or a way to understand our own spirituality? They’re different things. Is he talking about what God is objectively or our own subjective experience of him? And in what sense is the non-theisitic concept “deeper” than traditional understanding? What does the word “deeper” mean in this context. Is Spong arguing that people with more traditional experiences are somehow “shallower?” If so, why?

2.) I don’t understand what Spong means by a “personal” encounter with God if he thinks of God in essentially impersonal terms. If you have a personal encounter with someone, doesn’t that imply a person, or something with personal attributes, at the other end of the encoounter?

3.) For Spong to argue that traditional concepts are somehow standing in the way of a correct understanding of God “at this point in history” implies (a) that traditional concepts were once valid at some prior point in history, but (b) have become invalid today because many people today no longer think in those terms, but (c) traditional views could regain their validity in the future if enough people start thinking “theistically” again. In other words, “true” according to Spong seems to be whatever the consensus of opinion is at any moment in time. Isn’t that patently absurd?

4.) Spong argues that Jesus didn’t mean what we think he meant with respect to eternal life, divinity, identification with the divine, etc. Many Hindu writers (Swami Prahhavananda, Ravindra Ravi, Deepak Chopra, etc.) would argue that Jesus was an enlightened thinker who had achieved God consciousness. They would argue that anyone of us can do the same, because, ulimately, we are all God incarnate - that is, if we become enlightened, we realize ourselves all to be manifestations of the Atman. Eternal life is participating in that divine life. When we die, we merge back into the absolute, etc. Those are fascinating concepts and, espeically given the heavily materialistic bias of our times, I enjoy reading Hindu writers. But I don’t think that’s what Jesus was saying. And if Christianity has been based on such a collosal misunderstanding for 2,000 years, why perpetuate the Christian religion? Wouldn’t it be more honest to embrace Hinduism or the Vedanta Society?

 

[edwest2]

This sort of thinking exists in the New Age movement. God is you or your version of God. He is not the God of the Bible. Science is misused to create “changes” in the Deposit of Faith for ideological reasons.

God is the persons of the Trinity. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

It is Spong’s view (and mine) that the traditional understanding of these terms is at this point in history standing in the way of a deeper sense of our own spirituality for both believers and nonbelievers. Spong’s “personal encounter with God” is of primary importance to him. It is his ultimate concern, but he thinks that this encounter is not what you think it is. He thinks Jesus did not mean what you think he meant in talking about eternal life, divinity, and his indentification with the divine.

Exactly when, where, and under what conditions did Spong have this “personal encounter with God” that suddenly made invalid and irrelevant twenty centuries of Christian theology?

I mean radical departures from traditional theology ought to have an identifiable moment that can be celebrated. You know, like Moses ascending the mount, or Jesus commissioning the apostles to go out and save the whole world, not just the Jews.

Surely Spong was visited by God who made all this new theology abundantly clear at some moment in time.

Or did Spong merely sponge these notions from his unconscious mind one afternoon while he was having a smoke and had nothing better to do?