News-Record.com

"Departure from biblical theism and creedal authority constitutes not innovative and helpful new approaches to theology, but rank heresy."

Ah, how soon they forget, when Christianity itself was called "rank heresy" and "atheism" (one of the few truly universal insults known to humanity).

Spong has said that Christianity must change or die. Given the efforts to avoid change over the last few decades and the statistics telling how membership in the industrialized world is declining, it sure looks like he was right on the money.

Oh well. To quote another great heretical sage of America (Mark Twain) "The altar cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."

Bishop Spong's presentation at New Garden Friends Meeting was refreshing and rewarding.

Spong is clearly, along with many others, rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism and from those who read scripture as if they were reading a factual news article. Metaphor, mystery and poetry is the nature of the Bible. Spong reminds us that Jesus has a message of Peace and Love. Deep compassion and concern for all is the message of Christ. The true sin referred to by Spong is the use of the Christian message to create divisions, hate and injustice.

For a good insight into Spong check out his most recent book "The Sins of Scripture - Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love."

While I was unable to attend Dr. Spong's lecture, I am sure that it had to be quite refreshing. The people who complain the loudest are generally the ones who know the least about that which they complain.

Do not view a person from just one angle or lecture. Learn about that one and see what is being communicated. Then there can be enough evidence to make a sound statement. Otherwise, those making the noise are just as a tinkling symbol.

I do not find the deconstruction of theism by Spong upsetting but as a necessary step in the reshaping of my faith to a new paradigm in our modern heterogenous society. Clearly I need to reinterpret the old and new testament writers within the context of their understandings. I do realize that the writtings of the ancient oral traditions had limited understandings of science and medicine, but they still tell a wonderfully powerful story of our Judeo-Christianity. I find Spong challenging and refreshing as well as Marcus Borg, who is equally refreshing. I need a new language that is alive and a fresh with the interpretation of our great scriptures. They have been interpreted with with so much supernaturalism they are out of date for me.
It was wonderful to see all those who attended Spong in Greensboro. Yes...Jesus was killed for heresy also. Take a stand.

I thought Father James'piece was masterfully done. His church represents one of at least a couple here in the Triad that offer worship within the Anglican tradition, but outside of the Episcopal Church. These churches offer an alternative for Episcopalians dispirited by recent trends, including what Spong's service as Bishop represented.

Bishop Spong is like a breath of fresh air, a spring shower in the desert! Those who malign him only prove his timeliness. "Rise above tribal fears," he says. What a strange idea: look to Christ to discover the soul of Christianity!

It was this kind of thinking that kept the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of John, Peter and James, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Conversations with the Savior and many more text from being included in the Christian Bible.

The Book of Revelation came very close to being excluded from the Bible. I disagree strongly with your opinion and believe every person benefits from always seeking answers and information.

Mack

Well, if you don't like what the Bible says, i'd ask that folks just go write your own instead of warping the one we have. The Quakers, Mormons and even the Catholic church has their own faith and practice manual...so can you.

Meanwhile, we are all sinners needing a Saviour, Jesus Christ. If you're not comfortable with the message of the Bible, as it is written, then maybe the problem is with you and not the book.

If you would like to have the specifics to like or dislike, we have a set of four CD's available of three of Bishop Spong's lectures (2 at Church of the Covenant and 1 at New Garden Friends Meeting) for $15.00 plus $2.00 shipping. Checks and orders to Church of the Covenant, 501 S. Mendenhall St., GSO, 27403.

While not in disagreement with Bishop Spong's arguments and interpretation, I did find his presentation at New Garden Meeting unsettling. He spoke of the "sacred" text while at the same time belittling it as he pulled his own truths from it. Even more unsettling to me was the degree of deprecating humor he used to essentially insult anyone who disagreed with his arguments, i.e. evangelical Christians. I am told he did not come across in this manner during his presentations elsewhere.

I have some empathy with Mr. Robinson who suggested that instead of "warping" the current Bible, why not just write one that satisfies. It seems to me that all of us are going to use all the information sources available to create the God we want or the God we need.

So many ideas to respond to! John Young wrote:"Metaphor, mystery and poetry is the nature of the Bible." I would say "of some of the Bible;" the rest being history. It is as much a mistake to read the history as poetry as it is to read the poetry as history. Every genre teaches in its own way.

Mac thinks the supernaturalism is "out of date," when it is the one thing that will last; for it is the Word of the eternal God. "Heaven and earth will pass away," Jesus said, "but my words will never pass away." When Spong and the other updaters have been updated in their turn and take their well-deserved place on the junkheap of old heresies (and there aren't really ever any new ones), God's truth will still swing the galaxies and make the daisies grow and change lives for the better.

Eric wrote:"Spong has said that Christianity must change or die. Given the efforts to avoid change over the last few decades and the statistics telling how membership in the industrialized world is declining, it sure looks like he was right on the money." Interesting fact is that the mainline churches which have liberalized the Gospel Spongward are the ones losing membership. The faithful fundamentalist churches are growing worldwide. So much for appealing to the modern mind.

Finally, I have to (almost) admire the chutzpah of the one who blithely assumed we make up our own gods. Come on, where's your sense of adventure? How can anyone be satisfied with a god they just made up? Didn't we outgrow the imaginary friend stage long ago? A god limited to my imagination is unworthy of worship. Instead,I worship the God who made me up. Much more exciting!
Steve

As I noted in my blog a few weeks ago, membership in Spong's diocese fell by 48 percent while he was bishop. A shepherd who loses half his sheep isn't doing a very good job, no matter how "refreshing" his ideas might be.

My only question is why he didn't leave with them if he so profoundly rejected the beliefs of his church.

Steve W said:

"Interesting fact is that the mainline churches which have liberalized the Gospel Spongward are the ones losing membership. The faithful fundamentalist churches are growing worldwide. So much for appealing to the modern mind."

One has to wonder whether the growth of fundamentalist church memberships is a matter of them attracting new converts as opposed to a re-distribution of existing Christians? If you look at the number of people in this country who identify themselves as Christians, the numbers are on a steady decline, despite the growth of "mega-churches."

One has to wonder whether the growth of fundamentalist church memberships is a matter of them attracting new converts as opposed to a re-distribution of existing Christians?

It depends on where you look--it's natural to focus on the local, American church, but it's not exactly the entire church, or even a majority of it.

EIther way, actually, the point remains that Spong's 'new Christianity'--I put it in quotes because, well, he's been quoted as saying he wishes Christians would basically become Buddhists, which is more like a mass conversion than a new iteration.

Yes, yes, we should cheer freethinkers and innovators. I don't like Spong, though, because he shades his goals and beliefs in religious language, despite having little or no belief in the religion he claims some sort of allegiance to.

Also, the fact is, most people aren't interested. Yes, Spong's lectures tickle the feet of intellegensia--'Can we find the real Christ?' 'can we have religion without superstition'? But, as has been mentioned above, Spong's rather extremist tactics have alienated him from most believers, and his brand of Chrisitanity tends to smother churches instead of igniting them.

Rev. James quotes a unnamed person who said they felt denigrated after hearing Spong's lecture. I attended his lecture at the Church of the Covenant and I believe that would have been the opinion of a very small minority. The service area was full and most of us couldn't believe how quickly the time passed. I have read one of Spongs books - Christianity Must Change or Die. This book presented a message of hope and a call to belief in a God that we can believe in.

Loy makes much of the world wide growth of fundamentalism. However, a recent article in the News and Record indicated the number of people claiming to be fundamentalists has remained aconstant percentage of the population. If he wants to look at the worldwide growth in religion I think he will find that the fastest growing religion is Islam. My point is that growth is not the only thing to consider.

I believe the decline in mainline religions is the failure to grasp the message of hope offered by the likes of Spong and the inablility to simplify their message as has been done by fundamentalists.

Jim says:
"Loy makes much of the world wide growth of fundamentalism. However, a recent article in the News and Record indicated the number of people claiming to be fundamentalists has remained a constant percentage of the population. If he wants to look at the worldwide growth in religion I think he will find that the fastest growing religion is Islam. My point is that growth is not the only thing to consider."

You know, I meant to comment on this area of the discussion. One way to look at this is to see it as a popularity contest. Which religion version works for the most people? Is it Islam or the Fundies? Is Islam all one religion, any more than Christianity? Somehow, I doubt it.

In the end, the most important question comes from Rodney King. "Why can't we all just get along?"

Cheers for Bishop Spong! Someone has finally made Christianity relevant for a new generation. I attended three of his lectures here in Greensboro and was blown away by the fact that we can accept science and modern scholarship and still be Christian. (Yes, the earth is NOT the center of the universe and is NOT just 6000 years old.)

Fundamentalists may not like it, but there is a growing number of progressive Christians who are taking a stand and will not allow those on the extreme right to hijack our faith. We, too, are followers of Jesus.

Now, if the News and Record would realize that there are Christians in our community who are not fire and brimstone literalists. In fact, I would dare say that the majority of Christians in Greensboro are moderate to liberal in their views. You wouldn't know it reading the N&R, however. Seems every religion story is about evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.

Thanks New Garden Meeting and Church of the Covenant for hosting this wonderful speaker.

Spong is helping to shape a new, emerging paradigm that resonates with the faith-experience of many Christians today. It is unfortunate that such thinking is so upsetting to Fundamentalists. But, it is even more unfortunate when questioning Christians leave the Church because it is no longer relevant. Spong is writing to this latter group, not the Fundamentalists.

This new paradigm still sees the original Christ-experience as a doorway to God, calling us to enhance life, expand love, and encourage being. It is sad when exclusivism causes one to respond defensively, seeing such a paradigm as godless materialism that can only lead to a "hollow [humanity], adrift in a lonely and impersonal universe - cold, meaningless and silent."

I would like to respond to Rev. Chris East's comments about my critique of Bp. John Spong's lecture. "Rev. James had a laudable opportunity to express his strong and determined convictions regarding his own disagreement with Bishop Spong’s beliefs without demonstrating, once again, the significant inclination among Christian leaders to bring more polarization into an already troubled earth. Rev. James made the choice to accuse Bishop Spong of "mutilating the Gospel" as he "relentlessly ridiculed scripture" in a manner that was "shallow and biased." He went on to say that Spong's "gutted gospel" reveals a man who is a "rank materialist, utterly lacking faith." When Christian leaders are unable to express strong convictions without resorting to demeaning and inflammatory language, then it would be a great service to the church and the world to refrain from embarrassing all of us in public print.
Rev. East's comments here are quite surprizing, since his hero and mentor, Bishop Soong, resorted to those very tactics himself. I hardly think my strong words of opposition will have any effect whatsoever on the stability of earthly existence. However, Spong's are certainly having such an effect, given his far wider readership. The choice examples I noted about the mutilation of the Gospel were tame and restrained. It wasn't actaully "mutilated;" it was eliminated: no vicarious atonement, no need for a "sadomasochistic" crucifixion, no actual Resurrection or Ascension, ad nauseum. Rev. East accuses me of ad hominem attacks, forgetting that John Spong used such tactics against the Apostle Paul and God Himself, calling Paul gay and God bloodthirsty. All that I said I stand by. I consciously restrained my pen in an effort to be as civil and generous as possible to one against whom St. Paul would have pronounced an anathema for preaching another Gospel.
And so much for the inclusive liberal mindset when East urges the N&R not to print such "demeaning and inflammatory language." Poppycock! Even one blogger said of Spong himself, "He spoke of the "sacred" text while at the same time belittling it as he pulled his own truths from it. Even more unsettling to me was the degree of deprecating humor he used to essentially insult anyone who disagreed with his arguments, i.e. evangelical Christians." IActually, it's high time a little heated discussion intruded on what is, for the most part, maudlin, irrelvant back scratching. That's what Public print" is for: adult excahnge of ideas, regardless of the intensity (within the bounds of verbal decency, of course) I'm glad we can all air our opinions, including Rev. East. I do, however, retain the right to tell it like it is. Jack Spong, whatever his positive qualities may be (he is entertaining) is not a Christian in any biblical, orthodox, catholic or rational sense. There is only one true and living God, and one Gospel of grace that has the power to redeem and transform a human soul - Spong indeed has gutted it and mutilated it beyond recognition. This is no light matter, no theological pablum. But God will tend to John Spong in His own way; it is not my place to pass judgment. I can only try, the Lord being my helper, to be faithful to my ordination vows to "drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word . . ." p. 542 (Ordinal) 1928 Book of Common Prayer.

Rev. East wrote:" Spong's ministry has been to awaken devoted and thoughtful people to ways in which they can hold on to their scriptures and their faith without remaining shackled to earlier cultural thought forms that inevitably appear in holy writ or church doctrine."

Let me see if I got this right: people can "hold on to their scriptures" without "remaining shackled to...holy writ" (another name for "their scriptures"). Wow! Talk about having your cake after eating it! Now you can discard your scriptures while holding on to them. And this is the rational approach?
East criticizes Rev. James for being "divisive." Well. if he is, he is in good company. The Lord Jesus Himself said "Do you think that I am come to give peace upon the earth? I tell you no, but rather division." Luke 12:51. And so it has been. Factions must exist, St. Paul tells us, not so we can show how tolerant we all are, but so that those who remain true to the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints" might be known (1 Cor. 11:19, Jude 3). Needless to say, that group does not include Rev. Spong, nor does he wish it to.
For the rcord, Mr. Kalmovsky, I was that person who felt denigrated, and told Spong so to his face. His response was to the effect that :he didn't mean it" and that I had somehow misunderstood his hour of blasphemous mockery and pride. His followers of course ate it up, but I call it what it was: hypocrisy. "You can't build yourself up by tearing others down," Spong said; then spent a gleeful hour tearing me and millions like me down in order to build himself up as the prophet of relevance, and a Christianity without the cross. That's like trying to have basketball without a ball. It would be wrong of me, however, to resent his scorn (especially when I have a similarly high opinion of his views)when an estimated 160,000 Christians a year are dying for their faith,so I will just pray that God will open his eyes.
My intent in bringing up the population issue was not to imply that popularity equals truth. Far from it! That's the line of the "relevance" crowd, not mine. I just wanted to point out the irony that those who claim that their position appeals to the "modern mind" are the same ones whose churches modern people are deserting in droves. Of course, they still appeal to a lot of people who think that truth is synonymous with contemporaneity; my view is exactly the reverse. Since God does not change, neither does His (now completed) revelation. Therefore, the more innovative a theological notion is, the less likely it is to be true. The words of Christ, not of Spong, will judge us on the last day.
Steve

Thinking of Bishop Spong, I get an image of a sign outside his church declaring, "The Bible needs to be flushed!"

I am sorry that Mr. Wessells "felt denigrated" when he attended Bishop Spong's message at New Garden Friends Meeting. However, from the comments of Mr. Wessells we see exactly the point that Bishop Spong is making. Wessells quotes a passage of scripture that confirms his view that Jesus came not to create Peace and Love, but to cause divisions. Wessells uses the scripture to make his personal point. I am sure that many of us have also done the same.

Christ, the Prince of Peace, has a core message that asks us to love one another and to show compassion for everyone. Christ's core message cannot be undermined by quoting verses that are counter to the core teachings of Jesus. Spong reminds us that our failure comes when we read the Bible in such a way where deep divisions, hate and injustice are given any importance. Peace and Love is the message. According to Spong our key task is to reveal this God of Love.

John D. Young
Clerk, New Garden Friends Meeting

"Now you can discard your scriptures while holding on to them. And this is the rational approach?"

"Spong is clearly, along with many others, rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism and from those who read scripture as if they were reading a factual news article."

I've been away and out of the loop of conversation ... but who wants to take the question that not a lot of people want to pose: Is the Bible the literal word of the believer's God; is it the thoughts of men close to God, who sometimes put their own personalities into the verse; or is it merely a study guide, much of which followers need to meditate and fill in on their own as they develop a relationship with God?

Can it be a combination of all of these?
Why can't it be a combination of all of these?

Spong in his message at the Presbyterian Church of the Covenant talked about the reality that all Holy Scripture is connected to a particular tribe. Christianity has the Bible and more recently the wonderful Gnostic Gospels that have greatly nurtured many Christian seekers.

The political power to create a specific Bible did not exist until the forth century when Constantine converted to Christianity. With the power of Constantine in the city of Nicaea, with strange characters like Irenaeus, certain early Christen texts were rejected and the "powerful" decided on what would be included in the Bible. This entire process of creating the Bible from the works of many diverse, human writers was certainly far from a deep spiritual event. Many of us have been spiritually enriched by first and second century Christian texts that were not found until the 20th Century. Other important ancient, Christian texts will be found and many spiritual writers, over the last two thousand years, have provided deep insights for many of us. So to freeze all Christian insight and reject new, continuing spiritual revelation after the forth century is little more than deifying Constantine and Irenaeus.

Spong goes on to remind us of the wonder of other Holy Scripture from other tribes. We certainly have the advantage to read the wonderfully spiritual Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas and the gorgeous Upanishad. We can seek deep spiritual wisdom in the Buddhist Dhammapada and the Sutras. We can all gain great spiritual insight from the Jewish mystical tradition and the Kabbalah. The poetic beauty of the Islamic Shakespeare, Rumi, can bring us all into a much deeper spiritual awareness. So why limit ourselves to the choices of a few folks at Nicaea when we can take advantage of the richness of many other Holy Scriptures. All of these Holy Scriptures are wonderful, yet always inadequate, attempts by men and women to try and explain that which is unexplainable -- that mystery of mysteries we call God.

Our Buddhist friends, and us Quakers at our best, would say that the deep spiritual journey is really an inward journey of the heart. Compassion, Peace and Love must always be at the center of this journey to insure that it is a genuine spiritual journey. If we can strip away our ego, our greed, our anger, our reasons not to love one another we start to move towards that deep inward journey where we may get close to revealing that interconnecting consciousness of God that exist in everyone.

Christ didn't leave room for other ways to God, "Jesus said to him, �I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.�" John 14:6. C.S. Lewis stated that Jesus cannot be a great teacher among other great teachers, he did not leave that open. He claimed to be God and he claimed the only way through God was through him. Thus he is either a raving madman, the worst of liars, or he is the living, resurrected son of the most high God - the only means of atonement. You must choose. Josephus even states this. He called Jesus "the one who calls himself the Christ".

There are so many parts of scripture that claim exclusivity of salvation in the risen Christ. You must reject the entirety of scripture or hold fast to each part of scripture. There is no in between. If one part is false, then all is false and there is no persuasive power left in the gospel. You who hold to the erroneous teachings a heretic cannot seem to understand our indignation towards Spong's interpretation of who Christ is. The reason is simple. I have a personal relationship with the risen Christ, yes, even talk with him on a daily basis. To suggest he doesn't exist, to suggest that he was a liar, a madman, is very much like suggesting that my very own human father is such a lunatic and liar. Of course I'm offended when you deny the deity of the one whose blood saved me, the one who sustains me and gives me life. There is no other way to God or salvation except the blood of Christ. To suggest otherwise does not posses the slightest resemblance to Christianity. You are no longer followers of Christ but your own thoughts - you have made yourselves as god.

I have enjoyed reading the many comments and responses to my article, and I agree that we must not revert to ad hominem techniques, because the real issue remains, Is Jesus Christ the true Messiah and Son of Jehovah, the only Savior of a lost and hopeless humanity? I say, yes; and that there is none other.

There may have been great sages who attained to laudable heights of wisdom and reason; there may have been adepts who could stand on one leg for years at a time or levitate off the ground, gurus, philosophers, revolutionaries and philan-thropists extraordinaire; but the unavoidable and universal need of all human beings is to be delivered from the condemnation of sin and the curse of death.

Without going into a great deal of detail, this is what the Gospel of grace is: the cosmic atonement for rebellion and sin, accomplished by Messiah, the divine Son of God, on the cross of Golgotha by taking upon Himself as the Lamb of God the awful judgment and degradation of sin's penalty, and imbuing all who are born again of the Spirit with divine life. It is not an intellectual credenda or a humanly-contrived recipe for social transformation, but rather a joyous restoration of union and fellowship with the Triune God, unveiled in Holy Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, whatever the varied persons and means He used in the process.

This is where Spong and company err. They think it's just a dogmatic horse race, a game of who can prove just how erroneous and unreliable the Scriptures and the historic Church are, and then come up with the most convincing ideological collage of mystical and radical substitutes for the rotting corpse of Christian theism (as they see it).

Thus Mr. Young can so easily dismiss the claims of Jesus the Messiah, so ably cited by blogger, Chris. Indeed, Jesus becomes not a prodigious member of the Avatars Club, but a presumptuous and vainglorious quack. It doesn�t take but a modicum of reason to see that all religions cannot be true, in the ultimate sense. They differ sometimes radically from one another. To be Truth, Truth must be eternal, monolithic and unchanging. Otherwise we must come up with some other name for it: "situational verity'� perhaps. The entire gamut of salvation history, from the protoevangelion of Genesis 3, to the unveiling of its accomplishment in the book of Revelation, is just what one would rationally expect from a true and living God: one truth, one scriptural witness, one Savior and one culminative Body, His Bride, the Church.

Mr. Young refers us to the Bhagavad Gita, among others, as a worthy scriptural ingredient for his religious potpourri . Yes, there are many insights within its pages into the human predicament, but the answer offered is simply to follow one's Dharma to the end, seeing it as a surrendered sacrifice to God (Khrishna in this case). It does not deal with the nagging devastation of human life by sin, and offers no comparable solution to Christ's atoning death and Resurrection. Neither does the Koran, nor the Upanishads nor the Humanist Manifesto. The radically changed heart of the redeemed sinner, filled with God's very Spirit, not only sees his body (life) as a living sacrifice to God (Rom. 12.1), but offers the same change of status to others - from slaves of sin and death, to new creations: sons and daughters of the living God. Thus �Good News.�

Until one has known this inward, organic transformation, the Bible remains a closed book, especially the doctrines of grace. In I Cor. 3. 14, St. Paul puts it this way, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned." The "natural man" to which Paul refers here, is one who has not known the transformation of the new birth. The same Spirit who spoke through prophet, Son and Apostle also grants spiritual understanding of the Word to even the simplest new creation. Whereas, those who consider themselves wise in the eyes of a fallen world become fools in the sight of a holy God (I Cor. 1. 19 - 21).

Spong and cohorts are impelled by their unasuaged guilt, and separation from the Triune God, to toss into their eclectic stew all the philoso-phies and religions of human history in their vain attempt to dethrone the risen, exalted Messianic King (Acts 2) because His person, His Cross and His Ecclesia all militate against them. It was tragically obvious to me that John Spong did not love this exalted resurrected Christ, but in fact dispised Him. He only loves the impotent mirage he fancies in his inclusivist, error-ridden intellectual stupor.

Yes, I am angry that this man has made a mockery of His ordination vows, and led others into the same deceptive confusion; but I am also profoundly sad that he has so utterly distanced himself from the Gospel of grace that he has no inkling of its profundity, indispensability or transforming power. No Resurrection, no Gospel - no Gospel, no true Christianity. All that's left is a stillborn counterfeit; barren and lifeless and far-removed from the pages of the Bible and the testimony of Christ's Church, "the company of all faithful people," throughout the ages.

All of the great and deep spiritual religions are true in profound ways to their specific tribe. They are just as profound and wondrous as Christian dogma is to many in this discussion. Most of these great religions also take deep roots with non-tribal members.

The false religions, or heresy to fundamentalists, are always the religions of other people -- the religions and spiritual quest of other tribes. To claim that deep religious insight can only be achieved through Christian dogma makes no sense to those of us who understand the profound religious depths of non-Christians. With a visit to India, Israel, Brazil, Iran, Japan, China, Nigeria or around the US one cannot deny that deep spiritual insight arises from far more sources than Christian dogma. God is far too wondrous and mysterious to be owned by Christianity no matter how many Bible quotes one can list.

To insure that the religious beliefs are genuine and deeply spiritual they must contain the core of compassion, peace and love of our fellow human beings. The love that flows from Christ to us all is a love that has no boundaries. Breaking through the narrow boundaries of our specific religion is the quest for this perfect interconnecting peace, compassion and love. Sin, fear, divisions and hate are not at the heart of the deep religious quest -- it is LOVE.

We cannot shackle the spiritual journey to any dogma. Whatever our dogma is we must constantly break through it and go beyond it so we can continue the genuine spiritual journey.

I agree with most everything Bishop Spong has to say about the inadequacies of an orthodox Christian belief system that uses pre-Copernican mythologies to image the deep mysteries of life and consciousness. But I’ve about had enough discussion of the inadequacies of the old. It is time to move on to the new, time to develop images, metaphors, and mythologies that are in better sync with contemporary sources of wisdom in our modern world. If it was permissible for St. Paul to adopt Ptolomey’s seven-orbed universe as a source of metaphor to describe how his spiritual experience was like rising to “the third heaven”, then I want the same freedom to use the modern physicist’s description of how substance and form fade away into non-substantial fields of energy as he dives deep into sub-atomic realities. I sense a parallel in what he is saying to the profounder moments I experience in my meditational life. Companions on that journey toward new religious metaphors would be welcome.

I do not propose that we jettison portions of the Bible, the hellish images of Paradise Lost, the theistic assumptions in Handel’s Messiah, or even Fundamentalisms list of sacred essentuals. They all have a richness still useful to certain people in certain situations. But they are not ultimate nor eternal truths. They are temporal metaphors useful in a given time and place. Their usefulness decreases as more adequate images unfold in the human search for how to relate to the mystery of life. Even the Nicene Creed is subject to this evolution. Unfortunately the human longing for certitude seduces us into grasping these external images as more authoritative than the inner leadings of personal, spiritual experience.

As I read the responses on this blog to Bishop Spong’s theological position I become aware of a lack of distinction between spirituality and religion in most of the discussion. Confusion of the two predictably leads to a battle over what should be authoritative for one’s personal life. Seeing elements of religion - the scriptures, the church teachings, the ordained leadership - as sources of absolute authority tends to create claims that I have it right - and assertions that anyone believing differently has it wrong.

Perhaps the following will give a context within which it is possible to shift the discussion from what is right or wrong to what is useful or not useful.

The definition of spirituality that has become most useful to me is: “Spirituality is my awareness of the Beyond that is in the midst of everything.” For “Beyond,” - substitute “God,” “Mystery,” “Source,” “Ground of Being” - whatever carries meaning for you. For “everything” include more than just your Church, your Bible, your liturgies and rituals, your belief system, etc. Include the whole of creation and life. For awareness consider using “the discovery of unity, wholeness, connectedness, or pattern.” Spirituality in this sense is not synonymous with being pious, righteous, properly obedient or subservient.

Awareness, in this definition, is akin to the experience of holding a Magic Eye picture at arm’s length and defocusing your eyes until a hidden, secondary picture comes into view, turning the whole image into a three dimensional perception. Spirituality is the realization that beyond the mundane, surface detail there is a pattern that connects. Awareness of that spiritual depth is a wholistic experience that grabs us by every aspect of our beingness, often leaving us in a state of awe that is indescribable, unspeakable, but felt as the source of a profound knowingness that exceeds all other sources of information.

Religion, on the other hand, can be defined as an after-the-fact reflection on this depth experience. (The Latin root, “religio” refers to “connecting back” ) Because our social nature as humans manifests as a hunger for reconnection to that “Beyond” met in the revelatory moment, we develop rituals, liturgies, music, processes of worship, to help us recover that moment of glorious revelation. But they are not themselves the revelations. They are signs calling us to look “in this direction”. Our nature also manifests as a desire to share in community with other humans what has happened to us. So we create theologies, creeds, moral codes, mythologies, etc. to try and tell the story of our experience.

What we forget is that the spiritual experience always defies complete description. Our attempts to express it intellectually, emotionally, or any other way are always reductionistic. We never reproduce the wholeness in our religious processes. We can only hint at it . We can only say: It is something like the Eucharist, or the Quaker Covered Meeting or the Evangelical Revival, and then hope that the one to whom we are speaking can respond: “Oh, I had something like that happen to me!” But the wholistic experience remains personal, unique to each person who is able to defocus their eyes from the surface details of life to a Deeper Presence in everything.

Because it is reductionistic, a belief system can never be complete. It can not be totally right nor wrong. But it can be more or less useful depending on its ability to communicate meaningfully in the current situation.

When I ground my sense of authority in my own personal spiritual experience I know a final, absolute authority over my life. But, I can not explain nor justify my decisions, nor assert them over anyone else. I can only let the heart-felt wisdom guide my next step. Even then there is no certitude available that my choice is right or wrong. Rather I must proceed in faith. I can only act as if my decision is good and true and trust that the Source of Life will be both conscious and kind in its judgment. (see Bonhoeffer on his Hitler assassination decision.) The authority gained from a personal awareness of the Beyond that is in everything can be ultimate, final ... but only for one experiencing it.

Religion points back to a moment of revelation. It points to a wholistic experience but is not that experience. As a directional signal its authority and power are subject to change, to evolution, to a variety of forms. Once US Highway 64, weaving back and forth from south to north as it headed westward across the North Carolina was a best route to take deep into the southern Appalachians. Now I-40 is a choice more appropriate to most modern needs. Yet both can still serve a purpose. So it is that some people need the beauty of High Church liturgy. Others respond to having ten clear steps to salvation laid out for them. Still others hunger for a belief system that is in great sync with the other modern sources of wisdom available today. I give thanks that each of these forms is available to serve the multitudinous variety of human need. Is any single one right and all others wrong? I doubt it.

Out of my unique personal experience I frequently give thanks for Pentecostalism. While it is not my cup of tea, somehow it brought my drug-addicted son back to freedom and started him on a path to transformative recovery. I doubt a Pentecostal belief system is the ultimate truth but it sure was a useful tool for someone I love. I rejoice that that little congregation embraced him with love over twenty years ago. I rejoice, also, that he continues to evolve toward more and more comprehensive metaphors to describe the mystery of life.

And I give thanks for Bishop Spong. Is he right on everything? I doubt it. But he is sure doing a whale of a job opening up areas of concern to which other forms of the Church have become blind as they dance around their particular theological sign posts thinking they have already reached, or at least are on the only true pathway to the City of God.

Robert Ouradnik

I just do not understand your vocabulary ? ?true in profound ways to their specific tribe.? This makes no sense. One of the things that law school taught me was that words have meaning and you can not distort their meaning for your own personal use. Entire cases are decided on the meaning of a single word. It is mere nonsense to say that something is true to a particular person or group. The definition of truth is that which is in conformity to facts and reality. Truth is universal. For example, I say Jesus is the only path to heaven and you posit that he is not ? one of us is right and the other wrong. It is impossible for us both to be correct. It makes no sense to say that Jesus is the only path for me while for others he is not. You see you are claiming absolute truths just as I am. It is impossible not to be hypocrite when you assert that there are no absolute truths in religion. By stating that, you are in fact asserting an absolute truth. Perhaps my writing is a little more pointed than others here. I think its because I have no patience for illogical ramblings. I respect those that are epistemologically self-aware. A dogmatic person is most likely thinking logically at least and a reasoned debate can take place. But trying have an intelligent conversation with someone that says ?there are many paths to the wondrous experience we call god?, is impossible. What does that even mean? Suppose for me I meet God by killing innocent people? Oh wait, now you claim I can?t meet god through that? Ok, I?ll just take all of your belongings and kidnap your family. What? You say I can?t meet god through that? Oh, I must show love or find love? In other words, actions that are loving are the only ones of merit? Why? Who said so? Don?t point to any holy writings because you just said I didn?t have to follow them if I didn?t want to. In all other parts of life you agree with the basic definition of truth that the fundamentalists assert. If I were to say a light was red and it was green you would say that I was wrong. You seem to equate truth more to a taste or preference. But you cannot change the meaning of words to suit your tautological, defunct beliefs.
However, I can be happy with this statement, ?God is far too wondrous and mysterious to be owned by Christianity no matter how many Bible quotes one can list.? Because at least you are not pretending to be Christian. That was my biggest complaint, you call yourselves followers of Christ (Christian) but deny 90% of everything he said. Please take the time to the read the historical accounts of what Jesus said ? since you don?t trust the bible. His claims are quite clear that he is the son of God, he is the messiah, he is the only way to God, and he will rise again from the dead. So please just reject Christ and stop trying to make him into the person you want! You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You must choose ? either Christ is a liar or he is the Son of God and the only means of atonement. You can accept the other religions as true if you want (although this makes no logical sense) but you cannot have Christ in the mixture ? he simply took that away from you. Remember he is the God that stated ?I the Lord your God am a jealous God?. So let?s look at the parts of the bible left when we take out the exclusivity of Christ and God?s claim of absolute truth ? I think Numbers is still in (which is good), the proverbs might be in (although they are perhaps too logical, because they imply absolute truths), hhmm, well that just about does it, because the rest of bible pretty much states that Christ is God?s son and the only means of atonement and the God of the bible is the only God. So I think if you like to pretend there isn?t absolute truth, then you shouldn?t use the bible in your buffet of religion.
Ah, but you will never concede your point. A logical thinker would have to reevaluate, but a faith based on your own preferences and desires is hard to give up. To come face to face with the wretch that each one of us is ? well, that takes the very spirit of God.

Knowing Robert Ouradnik personally, I must give my personal thanks for his words.

In my reading of them, I saw words of healing and reconcilation, which is exactly the message of the Christ! Read Robert's words carefully (several times if necessary). He is correct in stating that Spong is challenging the ones who are complacent in their spiritual journey. Think on this before belitting and berating the comments of another.

I am not simply belittling (I believe that's what you meant) or berating. I am sharply disagreeing with a false portrayal of Christ. Intelligent people have always engaged in lively debate. I am frustrated because no one will answer my logical problems with your arguments. Even now you're deflecting the arguments with accusations that I am just out to belittle others. ANSWER MY QUESTION! How you can have Christ be a great teacher when he claimed to be the son of God. Also he claimed to be the only means of atonement. Futher after the resurrection he claimed to have risen. So how can you have your idea of Christ when he called himself something else. This is recorded in history outside of the bible. Your arguments enrage me because they belittle and berate CHRIST!!!
Further, how can truth be relative? In other words how can something be both right and wrong? This makes no sense and you're using that "logic" to belittle my religion. (calling me someone "who [is] complacent in their spiritual journey") I will continue to be sharp with my comments until someone actually starts arguing logically. But perhaps my youthful temperment is making my posts a little too caustic. (law school makes one rather fiesty) For that I appologize.

Mr. Ouradnik�s comments were interesting and sincere, but like so much of contemporary mysticism, inevitably reduce �God� to so generalized a concept that there is very little to distinguish the �Beyond� from the subtle natural phenomena of the physical universe - pantheism. It is so indescribable and esoteric that it offers little incentive to explore or get to know. There is no �I-Thou� about it whatsoever; compared with the highly personal relationship man enjoys with his Creator from Genesis to Revelation. His �Beyond� is almost all transcendence, whereas the Biblical God is the perfect balance of transcendence and immanence. He is mystery and awe (Isaiah 6, Revelation 4, et al.) and also Emanuel, �God with us.� Perhaps the reason why Mr. Ouradnik and Bp. Spong reject a personal God is that they are unable to define or control Him. HE reveals and defines HimSELF in His Word. Their amorphous �Beyond� or �Ground of Being� is so amoeboid that it can be shaped into whatever form or nature the omnipotent individual wishes. And It is so highly manageable and benign that there is absolutely no risk of It�s bringing judgment upon them for any of their transgressions: the perfect, cuddly designer deity.

In the end, one cannot know or understand the God of Scripture without being born of the Spirit, in accordance with the Gospel of grace. Then, what was incomprehensible becomes quite real and wondrous. Looking from the outside-in, stained glass representations seem distorted and incoherent, but with the light of the Son pouring through they become resplendent with meaning and clarity. Admittedly, the outward expressions of the Church, as institution, are encrusted with all the errors, wrong turns, extremes and lifeless dogmatism that one might expect from a spiritual Body that has been around for two millennia and wound its way through all the pitfalls and detours inherent in a weak, limited and maturing humanity. But the Church is an evolving reality that is becoming more and more epistemologically self-aware, and is being purified by her heavenly Lord even as we breathe. No one would like for that process to go a little faster than I. But as I stated in my article, critiques and reappraisals must be done within the bounds of faith and Scripture. To do otherwise is dangerously presumptuous.

Mr. Ouradnik�s (in concert with J. Spong) assertion that the old conceptual forms and paradigms are now outdated and in need of replacement is based on the assumption that Christianity is just another mythological system concocted by persons who had consciousness-expanding encounters with the �Beyond;� whether in a Bacchanalic ecstasy or after ingesting a Holy Mushroom. This is the new religious absolute: that we moderns have the prerogative to reduce all past revelation to time-bound mental constructs in need of replacement by newer, more modern �mythologies.� If there is indeed no personal living God, it makes sense. If there is, it is gobbledygook!

Ouradnik says, �The authority gained from a personal awareness of the Beyond that is in everything can be ultimate, final ... but only for one experiencing it.� This is the slippery slope of reductio ad absurdum. If one has had some kind of transcendence experience (on the operating table or during the peyote session) there is the irrepressible urge to �tell somebody,� and to make objective sense out of it � for one�s own personal use and gratification if for no other reason. What you end up with is a million little popes running around with their own �authoritative� values, ideas, new doctrines, ad nauseam. One man�s moral standards may be in direct opposition to another�s. This is just about where we are today after several decades of this relativistic nonsense. And where she stops, nobody (but God) knows.

Mr. Ouradnik calls us to have our own private revelatory encounter with the Beyond, and that there can be no significant relating of it to anyone else. If we do, we denigrate it. Operating on this premise there can be no shared spirituality, except in some numinous hour of silence or Oming session. Such privatized �spirituality� is utterly alien to the Bible, which presents a speaking God; i.e. a personal transcendent entity who expresses His will in, to and through human beings. By divine power and unction, words become reliable and authoritative. As blogger Chris so pointedly phrased it, �words have meaning and you can not distort their meaning for your own personal use.� If words are hopelessly ensnared in the relativistic briar patch of human error and distortion, indeed let�s just sit za-zen for a few days and then rise to do our own thing � whatever our absolute inner observations dictate; whether to blow up a skyscraper in Manhattan or heal leapers in the shadows of Calcutta. To throw people into the horrific dilemma of acting on their fallible, inner urges is precarious to say the least. In the end, humanists, mystics, existentialists, ultra liberals, etc. all must borrow from God and His Word in order to hold and act upon anything that is decent, good, moral and just. Sorry guys; Jehovah said it first. You�re just sponging! (yes, it�s a play on words)

In the Word of God we are not left to this existential quicksand; rather, we are given absolute Truth and moral Law, which corresponds to reality, now and unto endless ages. There is no �myth� in Scripture, understood as fabricated stories with no connection to real historical events or processes. Yes, there is imagery in the Bible, wondrous and sometimes difficult to understand imagery (Revelation for example); but it is rooted in past, current or future events. Jesus, of course, taught in both didactic terms and in parables. But, with a little mental elbow grease and Holy Spirit assistance, I have not found the Scriptures terribly difficult to understand when it comes to the essentials of moral and spiritual living. Of course, I will go to my grave still not understanding all of it. But the Bible is not a mysterious, antiquated relic of by-gone myth-fabricators, but a reliable means of knowing the personal God and His prescriptions for holy living.

Mr. Ouradnik relegates liturgy and ritual to attempts to either recreate or partake of some mystical experience in the past � our own or someone else�s. Of course God is the Magnum Mysterium, and the �secret things belong to God;� but He has plainly revealed to us �all that is necessary for life and godliness.� Christians who have known the new birth and the filling of the Spirit, need neither a repeat of the initial salvific experience or continuing mystical reveries. The moment-by-moment pleasure of His Presence every day is more than sufficient (Brother Lawrence). Christian spirituality is not numinous ecstasy, but a joyous seeking to live in conformity with God�s revealed will and moral truth. St. Peter tells us that Christians are continually rejoicing with �joy unspeakable and full of glory.� The reality is not left behind in some ecstatic moment, but is a continuing reality of inner peace and quiet joy (dulci jubilo).

In the biblical worldview, words are acknowledged to have definitive meaning. The world is observable and trustworthy as we are enlightened by the Word and Spirit. It is a real world that can be analyzed and worked with creatively; not just a Mayic phantasm, cyclical and to be escaped from. This is precisely why the Christian West is leading the rest of the world into prosperity, health and progress. (I know, we�ve made a mess of a great deal of it, and it must be critiqued) but it�s there for all to see and long after. God�s Word is crucial as well to science as to just and righteous living; which has far-reaching ramifications in terms of culture, prosperity and wise use of earthly resources, etc.

The old �mythologies� need careful study and contemplation, but they are not fantasies or passe formulations. They are �true truth.� The Book of Revelation, for example is replete with symbols and metaphors, visions and typology, but is easily understood if seen as truth expressed in non-didactic language, based squarely on Old Testament imagery and symbolism. To sever the lifeline of faith to Old and New Testaments, Creed and Christ is to sink hopelessly into the bottomless quagmire of existential nothingness (nihilism), offering needy people across the globe only the fickle musings of their own inner ruminations; which is precisely why God sent forth His Word; verbal and human. As Jesus said, �The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life;� more than mere antique thought-forms, they are clearly-stated eternal verities. Unbelief and error only cloud our vision and impel us in our desperate need down the rabbit trails of mysticism and false ideologies. The Gospel was then, and is now, �Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.� St. Peter, Acts 2. Then it all makes perfect and glorious sense. But, as St. Paul noted, �it is foolishness to the Greeks (Gentiles).� - until one�s eyes are opened to behold his glory and grace. Only the man in Jesus� parable who smote his breast and cried out �God have mercy upon me a sinner� went away justified.

There are several things Larry James seems to have missed in my comments about Bishop Spong’s position. May I call them to our attention and perhaps we all will be able to see my position in a more complete light.

First he suggests that my use of the word “Beyond” reduces God to a generalized concept. I think he missed the second half of my definition of spirituality. I said: “Spirituality is my awareness of the Beyond in the midst of everything.” The last five words say that I take seriously that the Beyond is manifested in the created world. Everything is a form that can reveal the Creator. Every tree, creature, stranger and so on. That seems to me to be the epitome of immanence. Not only is God immanent to me in Jesus but also revealed in my wife, my neighbor, my dog .... and that gives me innumerable ways in which to experience an “I-Thou” relationship. In fact, if I understand Buber correctly, it is acted out in the relationship to very particular revelations of God that inhabit my world. I probably have taken the Quaker proclamation that “there is that of God in everyone” more seriously than many orthodox people would like.

Secondly, he seems to assume that Bishop Spong and I reject a personal God. I have never heard or read Spong say that, nor have I. We do say that for our personal conceptualizations we do not choose to use the Michelangelo image of a supernatural person existing in some seventh heaven. Perhaps Michelangelo should have remembered the commandment to “not make any graven image”. is to be remembered here. I suspect that commandment also warns us against graven words formed in the isolation of a monk’s cell, away from the real world, as is too much of the Church’s theology. Rather, we both testify to how the Beyond can be both conscious and personal.

For example: Consider the spiritual power that drove me one Sunday years ago to put aside my sermon and call the congregation to a 12 hour prayer vigil for a 6 year old boy dying of leukemia. The doctors said he was in his final coma. But the power that drove me that day became intensely personal. When the midnight hour neared, the impression of a powerful hand on my shoulder assured me that a conscious, loving Power was present and pleased by what had happened that day. But I also knew that if I opened my eyes I would not see a bearded patriarch standing beside me. The impression of a hand was my mind’s attempt to conceptualize an experience that was beyond words. Yet, I still can’t speak more completely of that event without the hair on my arms rising and my voice becoming shaky. (By the way, little Teddy came home six days after that prayer vigil.)

And that is not the lone awareness of a very personal “Beyond” in my life. Because of it and a number more, it has never seemed to me in over 50 years that the Mysterious Beyond is anything other than conscious and personal. Now, please understand that I may share this and other “guided hand” stories from my ministry. But I wait to see if the listener responds with something like “gee, that kind of thing happened to me. Let me tell you how my awareness came to be ! ”. Then, an “I/Thou” relationship frequently springs into being. (It feels a lot better than arguing about theology.)

Thirdly Mr. James seems to fear that letting a personal experience of the Divine become the absolute criterion for oneself leads to chaos and is a “reductio ad absurdum”. It leads to “a million little popes running around”. B ut not if the Church and the larger community are really doing their job. For one of the jobs of the Church is to call people to account. Again, using Quaker terminology, this is the task of “eldering” When individuals become so ego-centered that they claim their guidance is divine will for everyone - a malady rampant in political circles today - then the Church (or the larger community represented by police, courts, mental hospitals, or the next election) have to call the “little popes” to account. As Parker Palmer wisely lays out in Hidden Wholeness, eldering has to be done non-judgmentally so that the soul being questioned can lay down its defenses and admit the ego’s mistakes, ask forgiveness and come back to communion and unity. So I trust that if anyone sits in za-zen for several days and hears their god telling them to bomb the Empire State Building, that community is still strong enough in the United States to call that person into account.

Fourthly, he misinterprets me if he hears me say that myths are “fantasies or passe’ formulations.” I have a profound respect for the role and power of myth and its ability to present the deeper levels of spiritual insight. You cannot read most of the work of Joseph Campbell, as I have, and come out wanting to throw away the Bible stories. Evidently Mr. James did not read how I gives thanks for the little Pentecostal Church that told my son the Easter story and embraced him with love. Their “myths” were instrumental in helping my son break a drug-addiction. Nor does he seem to know that I listen at least once a year to a Handel’s Messiah Concert to be moved again as I was the first time when as a teenager I heard it on a scratchy old car radio. Just as we need poetry to delve more deeply into the meaning of love than can ever be done in prose, so we need myth to delve behind the facts recorded as history.

However, I do hold that spiritual truth is finally “unspeakable” and “inexpressible”. It can’t finally be reduced to words. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to communicate to others. We just to recognize the limitation of words. experience. And I am very glad that that is the way the world seems to operate. If I could put my spiritual experiences into words - or if Isaiah or Paul or your favorite TV evangelist could do it, we could say: “Here, take mine. This is the final truth for everyone.” Then no one else would ever have to have a spiritual experience of their own. They could just read about mine or one of those other guy’s. That would be a lot easier than working at becoming aware of where the Mystery is in all the stuff of your life that is normally so mundane.

There is a wonderful scene in “Tea House of the August Moon” wherein an American soldier in occupied Japan learns about the local custom of cricket cages. “The cricket is a bringer of good luck,” says the storekeeper. “Just put a cricket in the cage and it will bring you the lady of your dreams.” Excited, the soldier quickly buys the cage, then asks where he can buy a cricket. “Oh sir, “ the storekeeper says. “We can give you the cage, but you have to find your own cricket !” That is a parable for me. The Church has a multitude of theological boxes (cages) in which to display our spiritual experiences (the cricket). But we have to get our own cricket and beware that we don’t just spend our time shining up the cage.

Well, there is more that could be said .... but I’ve got a spiritual struggle facing me right now. I just got a call from a lady renting my house in Winston. Something about water pipes leaking in the upstairs bathroom. So excuse me while I try to defocus my spiritual eyes and see if I can become aware of the Beyond that is in the midst of all that mess. Come to think of it, I believe someone once defined that kind of activity as a great location to discover “immanence.” Possibly Brother Lawrence? Bob O

I listened closely to Bishop Spong, In fact, I sat directly in front of him and checked his tonsils I was so close. However, I found in his presentation his truth and the necessity of his interpretation of the gospel. If people are having trouble with Spong,its probably because of his interpretation and the song of his journey through the valley of the shadow of death. Besides,interpretation is everything isnt it! Or is it? I couldn't argue with his journey because my own is so radically different from all of main stream christianity's current views.
I'm an African American raised on the story's of Ham and Haggar, Sin and guilt, hell and heaven, Jesus and King, Harriet Tubman and Grandma. Much of it traditionally informed through a western cultural lense and the experience of slavery in Colonial America. However, several years ago I underwent a serious process of dehunkification and my spiritual views as well as the origin of my religious myths and stories shifted.
I still believe in God and Jesus, I just changed my orientation toward the interpretations I had been given. I believe that God has changed my name and my song, just as he did with Moses in chapter 6 of Exodus and as he apparently has done with Spong. It is also in Exodus that I find much of my true relationship to both God and Western cultural tradition.
Moses has crossed the Red Sea and is in the desert hearing the arguments and grievances of the people when his Father-In-Law, Jethro, returns his wife and his chidren. Jethro is Ethiopian (the Greek word for black People) and so is the wife of Moses; his daugher, Zippora. Jethro teaches Moses Public Adminstration 900 in the Desert. At the end of the 18th chapter of Exodus it reads that Jethro "went back unto his people."

I have always thought that African Americans did themselves a grave injustice by assuming the mythological sensibilities of the "Children of Ham" and the slave stories in the Hebrew tradition. I much prefer identifying with Jethro. Throughtout the entirety of both traditions of Islam and the Judeo-Christian story, We are the hands that shape history from without as well as served within. Condolezza Rice is only the most visible, audible and recent rendition of our song.
As in traditional African thought, I prefer to see God as working his world toward completion in contrast to the "end of the world" necessities of Western tradition and interpretation. As a result, it makes sense to me that God would not only change our names, but at times (as in Exodus) he would out of necessity change his own. He not only calls us but he constantly pleads to us that we call his spirit and way into existence. I don't necessarily think God has great hangups about what we call it.
In Amos he tells us to "let justice roll down like waters and righteous like a mighty stream." In the life of Jesus we find not only a saviour, but an example of one who spends his life and is killed because he is constantly fighting against what Walter Wink calls "systems of dominance." That is what gets him killed, not our sins. He dies because of his example not his blood pressure. Its not what he says, its what he does that he most passes on to us and implores us to replicate.
Amos writes that God will not hear our prayers, our songs and ditties or recieve our fatted calf offerings until...."Justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a might stream."He implies that there is work to do. Unfortunately, all these thousands of years later, we find the same dynamics that Isaiah describes when he says he "looked for justice but behold oppression, for righteousness but behold a cry."
The great tragedy of our time to me is not that religious tradition is threatened or tht politicians are crooked, army generals powerhungry or the financially powerful arrogant and puffed up. I'm a 52 year old African AMerican male and in the reality of my life thats just been business as usual. What upsets and frightens me the most about contemporary America is that the God loving people of African descent who have always provided a competing narrative in this culture have now joined the choir of contemporary conservativism and fundamentalism and capitalism rather than expanding its song of humanity and equality to the rest of an anxious and developing world.

In my mind and heart, God has changed his name and the names of a few people in these times. The Playwright Lorraine Hansberry once wrote that "man will do what the ape never will, man will impose on life a new meaning for life." I believe we are at this hour and I'm amazed at the degree to which the Kingdom of God is focused so negatively on war,prosperity, sexual misinterpretation and guilt more than it is the obvious moral necessity of a world in which most of the great mysteries are not only solved but playing in reruns over the Turner network. Technology has not just incrementally changed our reality, it has done so exponentially. Yet, we ignore the possibilities and applications for improving the plight of humantiy and the creation of community; a cosmology of completion rather than destruction.
From the Pope to Dr.Savage, and a lot of black preachers in the pulpit on sunday, it seems that religion is asleep at the wheel. I'm amazed at how much the church has, as in the life and times of Christ, become one of those systems of dominance.
Thank God for Bishop Spong wherever he is. We must have a reconcilliation with several aspects of our being in 2005. If the contemporary trends continue, our truth will be found in the words written by a "child of Jethro" from the rythm and soul era. Curtis Mayfield will be the most accurate profit of our century. Somewhere around 1970 or 71 he wrote in a popular song of the day, "If there is Hell below, we're all gonna go."

Once again I implore someone to answer the problems I have raised above. You ramble on in your own self-righteous dogma while bashing the dogma that godly men and women have established over two thousand years. Christ has not allowed you to twist his message! It is so clear. What is so hard about this sentence: �I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except through me". Sin must be atoned for. Of course Christ died because of our sins!!!! Have you not read the scriptures? If so, how can you even pretend that you are a follower of Christ? All of you who share the heresy of Spong seem to believe that the bible (which you don�t trust) is the only source of the words Jesus said. Many secular historians have quoted Jesus to say the same words that are in scripture. Josephus in many instances, called Jesus as one who claimed to be the messiah, king, and the Son of God. You simply cannot rewrite history to suit your adolescent needs to escape judgment for you sins. I thank God every day that He sent His son to die in my much deserved place. It is a wondrous thing indeed to have my sins forgiven and to walk in the "holy of holies" every day. "In the presence of God there is fullness of Joy"!! God, by his nature, cannot tolerate the presence of sin. Thus without atonement it is impossible to know the joy of God's presence. All of your esoteric, ethereal, and ultimately, ephemeral notions of god leave out atonement for sin.
You have no authority for anything you posit - only your own opinions. Mr. Ouradnik seems to have as his ultimate authority as the collective societal ethos of a community. Stating, "[the] community is still strong enough in the United States to call that person into account." Mr. Ouradnik, this sounds nice. It�s a very sweet and innocent notion of the world. But what happens when society no longer believes the same things you do? Will you still allow the community to "reign you in"? In exempla, I would have spoken out in Nazi Germany, the community would have reigned in my extreme notions that I must fight back against the Nazi. I would have been killed or imprisoned. You see communities change, and the societal ethos changes. But what doesn't change is your undying commitment to a God that never judges and to your own thoughts. Thus your absolute truth is that which you state to be the absolute truth. My absolute truth comes from God and him alone. From the PERFECT word of God. Thus while you are tossed by the ups and downs of life and changing human error, I will have the sure foundation of God.
This is not arrogance, far from it. I realize that to have a relationship with the source of all truth is indeed the greatest gift I will ever receive. It is humbling to me that God chose me to be an adopted heir to his kingdom. Submission to his word is my delight - who better to know what actions will lead to my greatest enjoyment of life than the one who has created me?!
I don't have to dance around logical errors in my belief system because the word of God is the source of logic and truth. For instance I don't have to claim that truth can mean "your experience". Or that Christ can be both the Son of God to someone and a flawed human being who showed a couple things to someone else. I have the supreme confidence in the risen Christ, the same Lord who will judge on the last day. The earth cries out his handiwork and the heavens declare his glory!! I believe in a God that has conquered death, and reigns supreme over my life and the entire world. You can change the scriptures if you DARE. But I for one choose to follow the truth of the God before whom YOU will stand on the last day. At that time I will fall down and say "remember me, a sinner, but one whom is covered by the blood of Christ. Let me just gather up the crumbs from your table and I will be made complete!!!"
Your illogically based notions of human supremacy just can't compare to the majesty and joy of the almighty God, revealed through his inerrant word. Praise be to the one and only God, the King of Kings!!!

I apologize if I did not correctly understand Mr. Ouradnik, that he does believe in a “personal” God. Of course he must speak for himself. But Jack Spong most certainly is not a theist; i.e. someone who believes that God is a discreet divine Person. Ouradnik’s statement that “Everything is a form that can reveal the Creator. Every tree, creature, stranger and so on. That seems to me to be the epitome of immanence. Not only is God immanent to me in Jesus but also revealed in my wife, my neighbor, my dog ....” is a kind of immanence to be sure, but NOT the biblical type.

Mr. Ouradnik says he believes in a personal Beyond, but really seems to be saying that the Beyond is personAL, in the sense that people and animals show evidence of its presence, not that it is a divine person – certainly not the Triune God of biblical Christian orthodoxy. I really don’t know how closely Mr. Ouradnik aligns himself with John Spong’s teachings, but there can be no doubt whatsoever that Spong himself does NOT believe in God as divine Person: he makes that quite clear in his writings and lectures. In fact, this kind of immanence is nothing but warmed over Hinduistic pantheism, if Mr. Ouradnik means that God is actually IN dogs and trees. He never actually says this (hopefully never would) , but it certainly sounds close to it. Hindu writings consistently portray the Atman (the Beyond) as present in everything from monkeys to elephants to humans. Mr. Ouradnik’s version seems a bit more Westernized, but still smacks of the ultra-immanence of pantheism. Certainly George Fox did not believe this way, despite his emphasis on a direct, personal experience of Christ. Modern liberal Quakerism seems to evidence the end result of trusting excessively in subjective perceptions of the inner life, detached from the objective witness of Scripture. Certainly there must be a balance, but the authoritative revelation of Scripture must be primary; our inner feelings and perceptions follow after, and do not guide: otherwise, chaos, confusion and error.

I will concede that Mr. Ouradnik believes in some variety of immanence, but I do not think he believes in the personal God who is the “Wholly Other;” able to pervade the universal order by His divine omnipresence, but in no way IN dogs, trees and other creatures. Orthodox Christians speak of “seeing God” in this or that circumstance, but only in the sense that the Wholly Other is acting to accomplish His sovereign will in the earth; especially in human affairs. And the only creature that He is IN is the human variety, though His creative and sustaining power is evidenced in all creation, both animate and inanimate. His Presence (immanance) in and among His people is possible because man is created in the imago dei (Gen. 1. 26 & 27). In John 14.17 Jesus tells his disciples that the Holy Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity, the Paraclete) will not only be with them, but IN them; a continuation and intensification of the O.T. idea of Jehovah dwelling in the midst of His chosen people, Israel.

I will even concede that Mr. Ouradnik still has a place in his heart (if not his theology) for the “stories and myths” of the Bible. But, it seems to me, that if he loves Handel’s Messiah so dearly, he would see the consistent affirmation of Christian orthodoxy in it. It loses its real power and inspiration when seen as a musically pleasing collection of antiquated mythology, now passé and in need of replacement by more modern myths. By their biblical reductionsim, today’s spiritual innovators have strayed so far from the sound teachings of God’s Word that they are falling off the edge onto the rocks and crags of doctrinal error and false God-concepts. Timothy is commanded by St. Paul to guide believers away from such false teachings in II Timothy 4. 2 – 4, saying, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and DOCTRINE. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own desires shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

It is easy to construct fables to justify one’s desire to support and promote unbiblical practices; whether abortion, racial hatred, atheistic socialism, or sexual perversion. But this contemporary departure from Biblical and Trinitarian theism has far-ranging consequences, because, as man frees himself from the restraints and prescriptions of God’s revealed truth, he opens the floodgate of false and injurious doctrines into society, not to mention detracting from the lordship and divinity of Jesus Christ. The downward spiral of our culture is not because of too little P C activism or government involvement, but because we have departed from the ordering and enlightening power of biblical orthodoxy and the transforming grace of the scriptural Gospel.

For example, a Mr. Herman, a Lutheran layman, (The N&R din not list his first name) in the Faith Matters section of the June 11th edition of the N&R makes a very unorthodox (and un-Lutheran) statement, which exemplifies the liberal back-pedaling from the biblical Gospel of grace. He says some very nice things that sound good and “inclusive,” but shows his hand in a sentence which states: “. . . who (God) comes down through us to build the kingdom on Earth, here and now . . . and who unconditionally loves and accepts everyone in the world.” Does this “everyone” include atheistic communists, criminals, rapists, mass murderers and terrorists. Holy Scripture clearly states that God will bring massive judgment on Gospel rejectors and heinous sinners. Then there is the Christian (and Lutheran) doctrine of election. He speaks of grace in terms wholly detached from atonement and election; possibly because he, like Spong, Matthew Fox and Ouradnik have opted for the Creation-based concept of grace as all-inclusiveness, and not as God’s merciful provision of atonement on the cross oF Christ for fallen and spiritually-dead sinners (how violent and scandalous).

Mr. Herman hates the word, “guilt.” But his solution is to just love everyone. And we SHOULD love others; but the greatest expression of God’s love to fallen people is not ONLY good works, but the preaching of repentance from sin and rebellion. Grace is God’s merciful reception of sinners upon the CONDITION of repentance. Part of Mr. Herman’s definition of grace is “unconditional love.” This is a code word of liberal inclusivists for their new gospel of liberation theology and social activism. In the end we just end up with nice, cultured, philanthropic sinners, because the true Gospel of repentance from sin has been so soft-pedaled, or eliminated, as to bear no genuine spiritual fruit. Jesus becomes merely an ideal figure who inspires. Herman says, God, “who came down in Jesus to model a life of love and service . . . unconditionally loves and accepts everyone.” Guilt is the opposite of love in his thinking, and must be eliminated, not by faith in Christ’s atonement it seems, but through base-less inclusivism and social activism.

I (and St. Paul) agree with Mr. Herman that guilt is not a good thing, that it is destructive and diabolical; which is the very reason that Jesus died on the cross – not to simply make us more loving, but to atone for our very real guilt and sin. “We love,” St. John tells us “because He first loved us.” We are every one of us guilty because “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” And guilt is not assuaged by good works and inclusivist sentimentality, but only - and exclusively - by repentance upon hearing the offer of forgiveness in the Gospel message. If, somehow, Mr. Herman actually believes in the orthodox Gospel of repentance and faith, I apologize for my criticisms, but if not, I draw his and others attention to this crucial theological distinction.

I do not critique Mr. Herman (or Mr. Ouradnik) on a personal basis, (he says some very good things about prayer), but to draw attention to the fact that this whole discussion about the nature of God and his actions in history are key, not only to individual salvation, but to the redemption of the world. To alter or dismiss the plenary inspiration and authority of the Word, to change the nature of God from discreet personal deity to impersonal Beyond, to preach an atonement-less “love gospel” all have grievous negative consequences in the end, because the real issue of human sin has not been adequately, and biblically, addressed or dealt with. Abortion, feminism (or masculinism), sexual promiscuity and perversion, socialist economics, multi-religionism are alien to the biblical faith, but are all, to one extent or another, part of the great humanist-rainbow-socialist-liberal agenda to change the world through good (or revolutionary) works. As all systems must, they draw from biblical morality and truth (mixed and altered as they see fit); but their Frankenstein “spirituality” lacks the coherence and integrity of genuine biblical orthodoxy – preserved in the historic creeds and confessions of the Faith.

God has spoken, God has provided a Lamb. There is “no other way given among men whereby we must be saved.” Watering down and altering Christian doctrine, mixing and matching religions and inventing new god-concepts is to lead vulnerable people down the primrose path to ruin and darkness. The “failures” of the Church and of Christianity over the centuries have not been because of Jesus Christ, His Gospel or His true spiritual Body, but because of ignorant, sinful and immature human misunderstandings of and deviations from Holy Scripture. Although the various reform movements of the past have sought to bring the Church back to the dynamic purity of the Word, especially the Reformation; there is much work left to do in order to effectively apply the truth revealed therein to all of man’s pressing problems and needs. The religious humanism of Spong and company is exactly the WRONG approach. God is God. His Word is truth. And either we bow the knee in humble adoration and faith, or we tread the dreadful pathway to ultimate spiritual death, cultural despair and eternal judgment. May God grant us grace to do the former. Amen

WOW! Some interesting things stated. I can only wonder how one person can state what another person does or does not believe. I am continually fascinated by these type of comments.

Sadly, I did not get to hear Dr. Spong. Yet, I have read serveral of his books. They have been contemplative and thought provoking for me. Yet, for another they may not be so. Does that make the writer (in this case Dr. Spong) good or bad?

This is just like texts of scripture. To one person they may mean one thing; to another, another. Yet, the message is coming forth. God can be speaking to ALL.

Maybe it would be good for someone to write these "questions" to Dr. Spong and get his reply so that others would stop speaking for him. That is a travesty when someone is spoken for without knowingly being done so.

Lastly, does it matter or make one difference in one person's life if another does not believe exactly like the one? If exact beliefs are necessary and "orthodox," then I for one am not!

I believe in an experiential theology. One's life experiences help to formulate one's faith and "picture" of the Divine/God. Does that make me wrong or a heretic? I doubt it. God takes our experiences to manifest God to us. We have to look to see that "Beyond."

I apologize if I did not correctly understand Mr. Ouradnik, that he does believe in a �personal� God. Of course he must speak for himself. But Jack Spong most certainly is not a theist; i.e. someone who believes that God is a discreet divine Person. Ouradnik�s statement that �Everything is a form that can reveal the Creator. Every tree, creature, stranger and so on. That seems to me to be the epitome of immanence. Not only is God immanent to me in Jesus but also revealed in my wife, my neighbor, my dog ....� is a kind of immanence to be sure, but NOT the biblical type.

Mr. Ouradnik says he believes in a personal Beyond, but really seems to be saying that the Beyond is personAL, in the sense that people and animals show evidence of its presence, not that it is a divine person � certainly not the Triune God of biblical Christian orthodoxy. I really don�t know how closely Mr. Ouradnik aligns himself with John Spong�s teachings, but there can be no doubt whatsoever that Spong himself does NOT believe in God as divine Person: he makes that quite clear in his writings and lectures. In fact, this kind of immanence is nothing but warmed over Hinduistic pantheism, if Mr. Ouradnik means that God is actually IN dogs and trees. He never actually says this (hopefully never would) , but it certainly sounds close to it. Hindu writings consistently portray the Atman (the Beyond) as present in everything from monkeys to elephants to humans. Mr. Ouradnik�s version seems a bit more Westernized, but still smacks of the ultra-immanence of pantheism. Certainly George Fox did not believe this way, despite his emphasis on a direct, personal experience of Christ. Modern liberal Quakerism seems to evidence the end result of trusting excessively in subjective perceptions of the inner life, detached from the objective witness of Scripture. Certainly there must be a balance, but the authoritative revelation of Scripture must be primary; our inner feelings and perceptions follow after, and do not guide: otherwise, chaos, confusion and error.

I will concede that Mr. Ouradnik believes in some variety of immanence, but I do not think he believes in the personal God who is the �Wholly Other;� able to pervade the universal order by His divine omnipresence, but in no way IN dogs, trees and other creatures. Orthodox Christians speak of �seeing God� in this or that circumstance, but only in the sense that the Wholly Other is acting to accomplish His sovereign will in the earth; especially in human affairs. And the only creature that He is IN is the human variety, though His creative and sustaining power is evidenced in all creation, both animate and inanimate. His Presence (immanance) in and among His people is possible because man is created in the imago dei (Gen. 1. 26 & 27). In John 14.17 Jesus tells his disciples that the Holy Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity, the Paraclete) will not only be with them, but IN them; a continuation and intensification of the O.T. idea of Jehovah dwelling in the midst of His chosen people, Israel.

I will even concede that Mr. Ouradnik still has a place in his heart (if not his theology) for the �stories and myths� of the Bible. But, it seems to me, that if he loves Handel�s Messiah so dearly, he would see the consistent affirmation of Christian orthodoxy in it. It loses its real power and inspiration when seen as a musically pleasing collection of antiquated mythology, now pass� and in need of replacement by more modern myths. By their biblical reductionsim, today�s spiritual innovators have strayed so far from the sound teachings of God�s Word that they are falling off the edge onto the rocks and crags of doctrinal error and false God-concepts. Timothy is commanded by St. Paul to guide believers away from such false teachings in II Timothy 4. 2 � 4, saying, �Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and DOCTRINE. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own desires shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.�

It is easy to construct fables to justify one�s desire to support and promote unbiblical practices; whether abortion, racial hatred, atheistic socialism, or sexual perversion. But this contemporary departure from Biblical and Trinitarian theism has far-ranging consequences, because, as man frees himself from the restraints and prescriptions of God�s revealed truth, he opens the floodgate of false and injurious doctrines into society, not to mention detracting from the lordship and divinity of Jesus Christ. The downward spiral of our culture is not because of too little P C activism or government involvement, but because we have departed from the ordering and enlightening power of biblical orthodoxy and the transforming grace of the scriptural Gospel.

For example, a Mr. Herman, a Lutheran layman, (The N&R din not list his first name) in the Faith Matters section of the June 11th edition of the N&R makes a very unorthodox (and un-Lutheran) statement, which exemplifies the liberal back-pedaling from the biblical Gospel of grace. He says some very nice things that sound good and �inclusive,� but shows his hand in a sentence which states: �. . . who (God) comes down through us to build the kingdom on Earth, here and now . . . and who unconditionally loves and accepts everyone in the world.� Does this �everyone� include atheistic communists, criminals, rapists, mass murderers and terrorists. Holy Scripture clearly states that God will bring massive judgment on Gospel rejectors and heinous sinners. Then there is the Christian (and Lutheran) doctrine of election. He speaks of grace in terms wholly detached from atonement and election; possibly because he, like Spong, Matthew Fox and Ouradnik have opted for the Creation-based concept of grace as all-inclusiveness, and not as God�s merciful provision of atonement on the cross oF Christ for fallen and spiritually-dead sinners (how violent and scandalous).

Mr. Herman hates the word, �guilt.� But his solution is to just love everyone. And we SHOULD love others; but the greatest expression of God�s love to fallen people is not ONLY good works, but the preaching of repentance from sin and rebellion. Grace is God�s merciful reception of sinners upon the CONDITION of repentance. Part of Mr. Herman�s definition of grace is �unconditional love.� This is a code word of liberal inclusivists for their new gospel of liberation theology and social activism. In the end we just end up with nice, cultured, philanthropic sinners, because the true Gospel of repentance from sin has been so soft-pedaled, or eliminated, as to bear no genuine spiritual fruit. Jesus becomes merely an ideal figure who inspires. Herman says, God, �who came down in Jesus to model a life of love and service . . . unconditionally loves and accepts everyone.� Guilt is the opposite of love in his thinking, and must be eliminated, not by faith in Christ�s atonement it seems, but through base-less inclusivism and social activism.

I (and St. Paul) agree with Mr. Herman that guilt is not a good thing, that it is destructive and diabolical; which is the very reason that Jesus died on the cross � not to simply make us more loving, but to atone for our very real guilt and sin. �We love,� St. John tells us �because He first loved us.� We are every one of us guilty because �all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.� And guilt is not assuaged by good works and inclusivist sentimentality, but only - and exclusively - by repentance upon hearing the offer of forgiveness in the Gospel message. If, somehow, Mr. Herman actually believes in the orthodox Gospel of repentance and faith, I apologize for my criticisms, but if not, I draw his and others attention to this crucial theological distinction.

I do not critique Mr. Herman (or Mr. Ouradnik) on a personal basis, (he says some very good things about prayer), but to draw attention to the fact that this whole discussion about the nature of God and his actions in history are key, not only to individual salvation, but to the redemption of the world. To alter or dismiss the plenary inspiration and authority of the Word, to change the nature of God from discreet personal deity to impersonal Beyond, to preach an atonement-less �love gospel� all have grievous negative consequences in the end, because the real issue of human sin has not been adequately, and biblically, addressed or dealt with. Abortion, feminism (or masculinism), sexual promiscuity and perversion, socialist economics, multi-religionism are alien to the biblical faith, but are all, to one extent or another, part of the great humanist-rainbow-socialist-liberal agenda to change the world through good (or revolutionary) works. As all systems must, they draw from biblical morality and truth (mixed and altered as they see fit); but their Frankenstein �spirituality� lacks the coherence and integrity of genuine biblical orthodoxy � preserved in the historic creeds and confessions of the Faith.

God has spoken, God has provided a Lamb. There is �no other way given among men whereby we must be saved.� Watering down and altering Christian doctrine, mixing and matching religions and inventing new god-concepts is to lead vulnerable people down the primrose path to ruin and darkness. The �failures� of the Church and of Christianity over the centuries have not been because of Jesus Christ, His Gospel or His true spiritual Body, but because of ignorant, sinful and immature human misunderstandings of and deviations from Holy Scripture. Although the various reform movements of the past have sought to bring the Church back to the dynamic purity of the Word, especially the Reformation; there is much work left to do in order to effectively apply the truth revealed therein to all of man�s pressing problems and needs. The religious humanism of Spong and company is exactly the WRONG approach. God is God. His Word is truth. And either we bow the knee in humble adoration and faith, or we tread the dreadful pathway to ultimate spiritual death, cultural despair and eternal judgment. May God grant us grace to do the former. Amen

Sorry! I didn't mean to post this twice.

Chris says:

"You ramble on in your own self-righteous dogma while bashing the dogma that godly men and women have established over two thousand years. Christ has not allowed you to twist his message! It is so clear. What is so hard about this sentence: �I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except through me". Sin must be atoned for. Of course Christ died because of our sins!!!! Have you not read the scriptures? If so, how can you even pretend that you are a follower of Christ?"

It seems to me that this codification of dogma over the last two thousand years has been an attempt to, once and for all, write the rules for everyone. Perhaps it's a noble, even holy, exercise, but in the end, an exercise that proves useful only to those who never met a rule they didn't like. I believe that Jesus called us to something more: a true acceptance of the power of love to triumph above all else.

During Jesus' life, there were an abundance of rules. He died because he chose to break them. His message was too important for him to do anything else.

I was schooled in the "rules" all my life, and have a pretty good grasp of them at this point. But nothing in my life had meaning until I stopped using the Bible to shield my heart from being opened to this uncompromising and unconditional message of love. Only after I let God's word, brought by Jesus, to "break my heart" was I truly free and open to loving all people, because it was the first time I truly understood what Jesus was saying: that faced with a choice between being right, and loving, that I was to choose to love.

Any claim to "rightousness" that excludes this ultimate "rule" is a pale reflection of what Jesus, and God, intends for us. And it ultimately dooms us to failure.

This is what I heard in Bishop Spong's message also. And if it means I am to be accused of "radicalism" or "heresy" for accepting this call to love, then I guess willing to be painted with that brush. These are only words. They can't hurt me, and they can't stop me.

Actually, Mr. James, the reason for the development of Quakerism in England in the 1600s was to create a spiritual, Christ centered path that was much broader than the existing organized Church with its undue emphasis on scripture and creed. George Fox said: "You will say, Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of the Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from God?" Fox had little use for the steeple houses (churches) of England or the rigid religious doctrine laid down in those churches by hired ministers who told the common people of England what to think and believe. Scripture to the early Quaker community informed the spiritual journey but was considered by few to be "primary." The poetry, metaphor and mystery of the Bible does still deeply inform the Quaker community but it is not to be taken as dogma or to diminish the "Inner Light" or "that of God in everyone." To Fox and most Quakers today we are all inwardly capable of "continuing revelation."

From the lengthy Spong discussion above we can all learn a lot from our Buddhist friends and try to get rid of our creeds, doctrine, dogma and rigid rules. Dhammarato, Bhikhu at the local Greensboro Buddhist Center told me last week that the difficulty with bringing Buddhism to the west is that most everyone in the west wants scripture, rules and structure. He said that the whole process of Buddhism is about "letting go." Buddhism teaches the path to rid our minds of creeds, structures and the imposed thoughts of others. Getting in touch with one's on deep inner spirit is the Buddhist journey. Buddha like Jesus did emphasize that this journey, to be considered authentic, had to be based on love and compassion. However, Jesus took this to a greater extreme than any other when he demanded that we not only love everyone but that we must even love our enemies.

This central, overwhelming concept of LOVE laid out in the Gospels is the core of Christianity. Cornel West said at his wonderful speech at UNCG the Christian faith is being taken over by Constantinian Christians (Christians aligned with the Empire). It is time that we re-energize Prophetic Christianity. It is time once again for the Christian community to "Let justice roll down like waters and righteous like a mighty stream." Martin Luther King is the great voice of Prophetic Christianity in my lifetime. King reminds us that all of our "theology" does not amount to a hill of beans unless it informs our actions and our actions must reach out to feed the hungry, house the poor, provide care to the sick and lay down our weapons of war.

Logie noted, in his excellent piece above, that the African American Christian church is now "joining the choir of contemporary conservatism and fundamentalism and capitalism rather than expanding its song of humanity and equality to the rest of an anxious and developing world." If we are not about the goals of Prophetic Christianity then we become part of a church that provides more power, justifications and excuses for the already powerful. Jesus spent his life working among the powerless, poor and destitute. He was despised by Rome because he found their Empire immoral and harmful to the people of Galilee. True Christianity does not ignore the Sermon on the Mount but seeks to bring it into our daily lives as a guide of how we should live our lives. No matter what our theology if we remove ourselves from direct engagement in this world of suffering we have really abandoned the way Jesus asked us to live. It seems to me that one of the greatest acts of selfishness is to store up treasures on earth and to spend ones time on one's personal salvation. Christianity is about building a kingdom of love, generosity and kindness today.

Ms. McLaughlin asks:
"Is the Bible the literal word of the believer's God; is it the thoughts of men close to God, who sometimes put their own personalities into the verse; or is it merely a study guide, much of which followers need to meditate and fill in on their own as they develop a relationship with God?

Can it be a combination of all of these?
Why can't it be a combination of all of these?"

Before we can address these fascinating questions we have to resolve the contradictions of John Young's approach, illustrated by this quote:

"To insure that the religious beliefs are genuine and deeply spiritual they must contain the core of compassion, peace and love of our fellow human beings. The love that flows from Christ to us all is a love that has no boundaries. Breaking through the narrow boundaries of our specific religion is the quest for this perfect interconnecting peace, compassion and love. Sin, fear, divisions and hate are not at the heart of the deep religious quest -- it is LOVE."

So Mr. Young disposes of dogma by telling us what we MUST have to be truly spiritual. Interesting. What source informs Mr. Young that "sin, fear, division, hate are not at the heart of the deep religious quest" but that "LOVE" is? Having no revelation from God in the matter (for we must not be "shackled" by the truth that sets us free), where does he get his dogma from? Obviously, from himself. He has, as Chris astutely said, become his own god,"a self-made man who worships his creator."
The fact is that dogma is unescapable, as Young has illustrated here. The difference is, whether it will be the dogma of those whose minds are darkened, of natural man who cannot understand the things of God because they are spiritually discerned; or whether it will come from those who "speak of what they have seen and heard, and their hands have touched, concerning the word of life."1 John 1:1. This leads us to investigate the questions posed by McLaughlin. One thing this and other controversies have made plain to me is that the Bible cannot be the mere invention of men, because mere men, of whom John Young and "Jack" Spong are representative examples, would never have invented it. Look at the kind of god invented by men who by their own admission have no dogma, therefore no revelatin from a source higher than themselves. He is always a tame god of LOVE, who accepts everybody without judging them, who ignores evil and just pours out Peace and Brother-Sisterhood and frolics with little kittens and makes everything mud-luscious and puddle-wonderful. They have a kind of rainbow-brite god, who suggests rather than commands, who dialogues rather than teaches, and who slavishly follows all the fads of political correctness. The only possible writings of such a god would be the Democratic Party platform. This god endorses all sorts of contradictory positions so as not to offend anyone by disagreeing with them (about the only sin in his/her book). So, depending on where your "journey" is taking you, the ultimate goal is absorption of the self by the Allness (Buddhism), the affirmation and eternal existence of the self in bliss or in horror(Christianity), enlightenment by denying all bodily pleasures (Vedanta), enlightenment by indulging all bodily pleasures (Tantra), salvation by grace through faith in Christ's atonement for one's sin (Protestantism), salvation through grace plus obedience (Roman Catholicism), salvation after one lifetime (Abrahamic religions), salvation through many lifetimes (Eastern religions), the existence of only one God (monotheism), the existence of many gods (Paganism, Hinduism), the existence of no gods (atheism),and on it goes.

Now respect for diversity mandates that we can't say any of these (except the "intolerant" ones of course) are wrong, so what do we do? They all can't be true for everyone, any more than Christ can have been raised body and spirit from death to reign for all eternity, and at the same time stayed in the grave and rotted like every other dead person. One cancels out the other. So the solution is to say that each person picks "their own truth," as though we had the power to create reality by wishful thinking. "Truth" becomes a synonym for "belief." This cancels out any notion of a fact that is true whether or not anyone at all believes it.

Now there are plentuy of good reasons to believe that the Bible is a book of such objective, absolute, and universal truths. Those who are as open-minded as they claim can find those reasons ably presented in books like *Inerrancy,* ed. Geisler, Zondervan, 1980; *The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict,* by Josh McDowell, Nelson, 1999; *Ready With an Answer,* Ankerberg and Weldon, Harvest House, 1997; *The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics* Norman Geisler,Baker, 1999, and a host of others. But until you are willing to go with the truth wherever it leds you, even if it means submitting to God's truth and believing something you don't like or understand simply because your infinitely wise and loving Creator told you it is true, then don't waste your time. And stop pretending you're on a "spiritual" journey. The only journey you'll be on is down the wide and easy road that leads to destruction.
Steve Wessells

You know, it comes down to this. America is a free country with freedom of religion. If a fundamentalist worldview gives meaning to Larry's, Steve's and others life, then wonderful. Unless it hurts others, everyone should be able to practice the religion of their choice in this wonderful county we call home.

Spong and other writers like him give meaning to my life and lift my spirits. It connects me to the faith of my childhood without asking me to put aside rational thought and scientific discoveries.

Spong was brought to Greensboro by congregations which wished to learn from him and hear his ideas. Everyone was welcome. Larry, Steve, et. al., came into our churches as guests. The door was opened to them as it was to all. If they, or anyone else, found what Spong said upsetting, the door in which they entered was also an exit door.

I choose not to go to fundamentalist churches because I do not find community in those settings. Anyone can choose to not take part in progressive religious happenings. It is our choice...ain't America great!

So...Larry, Steve, Chris...may you find your chosen path give meaning to your lives. For years I tried the fundamentalist Christian path and found it to be lacking for myself.

And I am sure, as upstanding citizens of our fine Country, you will celebrate the freedom that is ours to chose religious paths that give others meaning. We may not agree on theology or philosphy, but we can agree to disagree and together uphold religious liberty as defined by the first amendment and clarified throughout our nation's history:http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_legacy

Craig, you have written words that speak very clear and plainly. I only wish that I had been given to wisdom to write such.

I hope that those who feel strongly in their fundamentalist views will at the least accept those of us who do not. We still share the same core faith. It is only in the practice of it that disagreement comes. So, as Craig stated, let us agree to disagree (and may I add to do so ina loving manner).

Shalom

Our friend, Mr. Young says that Logie noted that the African American Christian community is "joining the choir of contemporary conservatism and fundamentalism and capitalism rather than expanding its song of humanity and equality to the rest of an anxious and developing world." This is a prime example of the pervasive confusion that afflicts the public’s conception of true Biblical Christianity. His triumvirate of “conservatism, and fundamentalism and capitalism” is seen as some kind of monolithic world-wide Christian conspiracy to which all who desire (opposite terms to the “imperial” triumvirate) radicalism and liberalism and socialism should ardently oppose. Just as the “fundamentalist right” is associated (even equated) with Bush and the Republican party, so quite obviously the liberal religious left is coterminous with the Democratic Party.

Why is this? Very simply, the real issues are not political or economic, but spiritual and transcendent – matters of belief and doctrine; for it is ideas that shape the common life of humanity; not transient political movements. As more and more people become epistemologically self-conscious (know who they really are, what they believe, and why) the more they understand that spiritual (transcendent, metaphysical) ideas will shape tomorrow. Will it be shaped by biblical Christianity, or by the rainbow hodgepodge of radical you-decide spiritual dogmatism.

If you want to advance your agenda it is unavoidable that you rainbow-up with others of like mind, which means some kind of organized, coordinated effort: the Church for Christianity. Thus all those who oppose biblical and creedal Christianity are now lining up and joining forces to place their power structure (Democratic Party) in a position to “impose” their views and standards on others (Christians). But if Christians seek to influence the social agenda or move in the realm of law and politics they are accused of trying to “take over” or impose their beliefs and morals on others.
.
The religious right is doing the same thing as the left; but their power structure is the Republican Party. No one should be surprised at this sociological phenomenon in light of the unfolding events of the last half century. But neither power base is monolithic; they all have heterogeneous factions within them, sometimes with very different views on particular subjects; yet most people are content to see only a portion of their agenda advanced. It is a lumbering old Sherman tank of spiritual conflict on both sides. But, from a biblical perspective, there are only two ultimate power blocks: those who acknowledge the Lordship of the Messiah and His authoritative Word - and those who deny Him, and opt for any number or combination of spiritual systems (liberalism, Buddhism, New Age ideology, radical politics, anarchism, etc.)

From a Christian perspective, this is at once comforting (that there is some effort to guard and advance biblical truth and values) and at the same time disconcerting; that the “right” and the Republican Party should in any way epitomize or represent the Faith. But the religious pundits of the left are incessant in their efforts to fuse biblical Christianity and the Republican Party. It is tactics and not truth. Political machines are notoriously opportunistic and fickle – and unethical at times. A political party is a dubious star to which one should hitch his wagon. Yet, this is the way it seems to be falling out at this time in history. It must be born in mind that everything is spiritual in nature, law-making unavoidable and power a necessary corollary of influencing cultural destiny. It is merely a matter of whose spiritual system, whose law and where power will reside.

Christians must understand that the real warfare is not political, but spiritual, in nature. It is biblical truth versus liberal/new age/Eastern ideas as they have penetrated the culture and the church. The religious left delights in caricaturing orthodox Christians as a fascistic bunch of un-loving, narrow-minded bigots who can’t accept the dogmatic pronouncements of the truly enlightened humanist agenda. In actuality, orthodox, creedal and confessional Christians are compassionate, intellectually astute people who fully believe that Jesus Christ is the true and only Messiah. Unfortunately, there are enough loose cannons and media profiteers to feed the caricature mill for a millennium. Maudlin, emotion-driven sentimentalists seem to rule the day in the media, obscuring the masses of well-educated and caring orthodox Christians around the world.

Those who join Spong in debunking the clear and unavoidable truths of Scripture should desist in jousting with media straw men like Bakker, Swaggart, Benny Hinn, et al. and begin a substantive debate with those who intelligently know and defend the Faith. Blogger Chris has been begging for such debate, but much of what is offered in response to his challenges is unstudied proof-texting of scripture passages, anecdotal personal experiences and groundless assertions. If there is nothing but each person’s subjective truth, then there can be no rational discussion or debate, because everyone is right (little popes phenomenon). If there is absolute universal authority (Bible, truth, logic, scientific proofs, historical continuity and revelation) there can be debate. Post-modern individualism only leaves us all high and dry, with nowhere to go but the slough of despond (existential despair). I opt for God, His Word and His logical creation – a sure foundation for life, love, worship, thinking and spiritual fullness.

Okay, so you've sat in your study and woven a perfect, flawless, seamless theological garment. WHAT do you have to show for it? How is the world being made better by your effort?

Jesus came not just to tell us what to THINK about the evils of the world, but what to DO about the terrible conditions that some of our brothers and sisters live in. Any theological navel gazing that excludes this call to loving action isn't worth the time.

Tom...amen and amen! However, you must understand that many on the extreme religious right hold onto a worldview called theonomy or dominion theology. That understanding, in my opinion, is the opposite of the message Jesus taught especially his message in the Sermon on the Mount.

A merging of political and religious forces have never made the world a better place. For goodness sake, look at history.

Fundamentalists are welcome to hold dear their faith. Yet, if that faith seeks to destroy the America I love and the freedoms that are contained in the laws of this Country, then that becomes problematic.

A wonderful expose on theonomy can be found here: http://www.qrd.org/QRD/www/RRR/recon.html

I am sure that through the many denominations with which L. James has had affiliation, he understands how the doctrines of theonomy and how that doctrine/worldview is at odds with America's current understanding of the 1st Amendment as well as Thomas Jefferson's explaination of this amendment. It is his right, guarenteed through the constitution and the Bill of Rights, to persue an America governed by the laws of the Bible (all of the laws...not just some).

The issue here is not just who is right and who is wrong...Spong vs. orthodox Christianity. The real issue here is religious freedom. As for me, I stand on the side of freedom of belief. I am in agreement with my spiritual ancestors, the Penn. Quakers, who sought a land where they could freely practice their religion without fear of persecution. I stand with the Fathers of this Country who were Deist and Unitarian who had in mind a land where all voices were welcome and none were drowned out but all formed a beautiful symphony of tolerance and understanding.

This is the issue...freedom, not who is right and who is wrong on matters of theology.

May the Divine grant America a long and healthy life and may it ever stand on the freedoms our Founders had in mind; freedom of speech, freedom of relgion, freedom of association.

Craig, you know about Theonomy? Dominion Theology? Let's hear you expound on it. Ah that would require reading that dreaded book...The Bible. Oh how that book gets in the way of all your Spongian ideas. The only way around it, is to ignore it. I think the best way to get around it is to simply make it what you want. For instance... let's change "no man comes to the father but through me" into "some men come to the father through me, others by contemplating their navals". Well, I think I've had it. I can see now no one here has had a class in logic, nor in rational thought. But you sure do have a grasp on believing whatever makes you happy. Good luck with that. Someday maybe you'll come up with nobel prize for defying reality by making words mean diferent things. I can see truth means nothing to you. Atonement means nothing to you. Just one request - Don't shame my religion (Christianity) by calling yourselves followers of Christ - you don't believe anything he said. Jesus' love only comes through the cross, anything else is just an amalgam of human punditry - destined for destruction. That makes an open shame of the crucifiction. (you should read what Paul says about that - I guess it wouldn't matter you'd just say you didn't believe that part of the bible) I off to find logical debate elsewhere. Oh and quit with the ridiculous talk that one of us is going to outlaw your beliefs. I enjoy lively debate - I just can't stand over-reactionary, toutalogical pundits. Maybe one of these days someone on here will respond to my arguments. One can only dream.

Christianity is a great lady.(the church is referred to as a bride) Unfortunately, she's been married to that mean old man Imperialism (European and American,Democratic and Republican)for a long time and she has never had the strength to stand up to him and defend those children in the family who are not her husband's favorites.

Actually, its unfair to characterize her at all. The titles we give her and each other are merely reference places for our rhetoric. Whether we care to admit it or not, no one today is any one thing. why do we persist in placing our existence into hierarchies, classifications, levels of distinctiveness and seperation when human reality today is far more subjective than theological. Jesus understood that, he taught in parable form so that his message and the activity of his life informed what TS Elliot called the "other voices that inhabit the garden." Jesus said, "love your enemies, bless them that curse you,do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you." I've seen that on rare occasions.

My grandmother and mother (I drove) for almost a year bathed and changed and fed and cared for an old man who hated the very sight of my whole family and all like us. He and his friends spat upon us in public places and called us names. Yet, with love and laughter, in his dying days when family would not come around,we gave him care. As for the high halls of government, from the seats of the high courts, in the powerful and streching military arms of Mother America, and in 52 years of sunday morning, I've seen a lot of different stuff, but rarely have I experienced more love than I have strategy, marginalization, manipulation and hate.
But I have seen it! I know it is possible here in the land of the free and the home of the brave and I know that God has placed the possibility of nurturance and development of a loving christian culture in our hands. However,We find the responsibility overwhelming and after September 11th decided to retreat back into the cave. I know its there though. Its there in the arms of American soldiers who fought in Viet Nam (I am a former marine) who believed they were fighting for a truth until they found out that all they really had was their love for each other. I have seen it in my father who fought in WWII just to come all the way back to Ft. Bragg, North Carolina and be told that "Niggers can't eat in this chow hall." In spite of those experience and many others, my father and mother continue to be loving and generous tax paying citizen. I see that love in my nephews and nieces who are ridiculed by Bill Cosby for their hats on backwards and their loud music, yet, they continue to be soldiers in the army and saints in the church and friends in the streets to all of America's children.
There is something wonderful happening in the kingdom of God in America and lots of people are missing it. We do something in America that does not exist anywhere else on earth. No where else on earth do the children of the oppressed and the children of the oppressor exist without severe levels of violence and death. Why? Obviously, in America, there are some people, somewhere, who understand and follow the examples of Jesus. They may be Asian or Latino, black and gay or white and any other label, but they are walking the walk even if they don't talk the talk. If that dynamic ever changes in a negative direction, theology won't save us and we'll have blood flowing in the streets. It may not be the end times,just a judgement upon us all for having ignored a divine moment in human history.
We have, as a christian community, much to teach the rest of the world. I believe we are better people than our history or our religion demonstrates. To begin viewing our country and our faith as one in the number rather than no. 1 could be an excellent beginning. Somehwere in that possibility lies the perfection of the faith that we are called by Jesus to bring into creation. Moses and Aaron called the labor of the kingdom a "service gift."

Martin King, describing American religious culture of the 1960's said that we had a "high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds." I don't believe the prognosis is any better for Mother America in 2005.

Chris wrote: "Craig, you know about Theonomy? Dominion Theology?"

Yes, Chris, I know pretty much about theomony/reconstructionism and dominion theology. I was reared in a hyper-Calvinist fundamentalist home. My family was one of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America. I grew up under a minister who graduated from Reformed Seminary and who taught a theonomistic worldview. My early years were spent reading anything that espoused the hyper-Calvinist TULIP understanding of the Bible. So, I think I am qualified to expound upon it.

However, there is plenty of information on the net about theonomy and folks are free to search out its meaning on their on.

What you might find hard to understand is that there are many of us who at one time took the Bible literally, who now no longer see it as inerrant. It is the Spongs, Robinsons, Thillichs, Borgs of the world (not to mention numerous scientific discoveries) who opened our eyes to the fact that we do not have to believe that the Bible is inerrant in order to call ourselves a Christian. Indeed, to take the Bible literally and inerrant would, for me, be to put something before God. The Bible is the finger pointing to the moon, not the moon itself.

Again, however, the issue is not about the inerrancy of the Bible or orthodoxy vs. heresy. The issue is religious freedom. I chose to call myself a Christian and that bothers you. In fact it bothers you so much, the fact that I do call myself a Christian, that you say it shames your religion. I once felt the same way you do, so I understand.

And, Chris, Truth means everything to me. That is why I left fundamentalism for a experiential relationship with Jesus. And, beleive it or not, we agree that Jesus' love comes through the cross. I would not say "only" through the cross however, for it is in the resurrection story that his love is consumated. Just because I do not believe in inerrancy does not mean I do not believe in the cross and resurrection. And after all, even evangelicals agree that salvation is by grace through faith. Nothing is mentioned about the requirement to believe in an inerranct Bible. That would be salvation by right believe, right?

Enough theology. Let's just agree to disagree. You are free to believe what you wish because of the wonderful freedom we enjoy in America. And, maybe you are right, maybe no one is going to outlaw my beliefs. However, it pays to be ever vigilant to ensure the freedoms we now enjoy are continued for generations of Americans to come.

Craig, you sound sane. I had lost my patience with everyone else. Your slide from calvinism into a metaphysical understanding of the Bible saddens me greatly. But maybe you will respond to this since no one else has. Jesus claimed to be the only way to God. This is proven both in the bible and in the historical writings of the time. Now, would you agree that Christ is the only means to salvation? If not, then how can you be a follower of Christ?
Second, without the inerrancy of the word you lose the authority that the bible claims to be. If you claim that anything is "true" in the bible, you can hardly tell someone else its the truth because they could just choose to disbelieve that portion of the bible. Thus Christianity becomes anything you want it to be. I just don't see the point in a bible that may or may not be true. Without an absolute source of truth, how do you ever judge anyone? How can we justify criminal law? Oh sure, the whole "society chooses" argument. But that's a smoke and mirrors tactic around the real issue which is that you have your own source of absolute truth. Each person will only follow the laws of a society until those laws become intolerable to your own faith based moral absolutes. You would fight for civil rights, you would fight against the holocaust (I'm assuming). Thus, from what source do you draw from to justify these assumptions of right and wrong? I use the word of God, ellucidated through the Holy Spirit. This does not make me superior, but it does make me right, by virtue of God's omniscience. However, every sentence of the word must be true in order for me to have any pursuasive power to my arguments. Without a source of truth every argument fails because there is no reason why anyone esle should believe or accept it.
Just for your information, I wouldn't readily call myself a fundi or a strict calvinist. I'm just a young person who loves the logic and truth found in the glorious revelation of the scriptures. And I'm zealous in my beliefs. Does this make me a fundi? I could care less. My relationship with God is not contained in the labels that others wish to pin on me. I preach the Word in bars as well as in church - I make no distinctions among those that deny the truth of God. They all are in need of the joy and salvation found in Jesus Christ.

Chris, I am very aware and sensitive to your arguments for some absolute certainty and the problems of relativism with some of my comments and the comments of others. Because of your beliefs and faith you accept the Bible with absolute certainty. You can then move forward with your arguments based on that belief. However your belief that the Bible is the absolute word of God is still a matter of your faith. No mathematical or logical formulation exists to prove that your beliefs are right. Your beliefs exist, like mine, as a matter of faith. Philosophy since the Middle Ages is filled with discussions that all religious beliefs require a leap of faith. No absolute beliefs or principals exist with a certainty to convince the skeptical academic community who deal with logic and philosophy. We all find ourselves in this same predicament.

The incredible works of St. Thomas Aquinas are filled with the issues of relativism, absolute truth, uncertainty and faith. He remains one of the great voices in this important discussion. The current main philosopher who is continuing this discussion is Alasdair MacIntyre. MacIntyre's stunning and controversial 1981 book "After Virtue" deals with these same important issues.

With the reality that current academic philosophy does not allow any of us to speak with "absolutes" the works of Aristotle, Aquinas and now MacIntyre are very important and may provide some light at the end of this long, difficult tunnel. We know, in our heart and soul, that we all live in a world that needs to be better grounded with religious and spiritual concepts but we have no mathematical certainty to guide us to that conclusion.

In response to Tom’s insinuation (since it was right after my entry and I did emphasize the importance of theological belief) that I only think about theology and never do anything in response to its message, is unfounded and uninformed. I thought this was about debating ideas. What I or anyone else have, or have not, accomplished of their goals is between them and God. I ‘m certain that none of us has done all that we should or could in service to others. And we all serve differently, according to the gifts given to us by God. And Craig’s career path innuendo was also uncalled- for. I guess ad hominem criticisms kick in when convincing arguments fall short. But, I guess we all get a little agitated during the heat of discussion. I wasn’t exactly passive regarding Spong’s heresies. Anyway, let’s continue in civility at least.

Regarding theology and action, such biblical passages as “Be doers of the Word and not hearers only.” or “Be not weary in well-doing” apply; or perhaps I Cor. 15.58: “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” Obviously, God is in total agreement with the idea that we must not be fixated on dogma to the exclusion of works of loving service.

What I AM concerned about, however, is a lack of perception of the relationship of Word and action with some respondents on this blog. In most of St. Paul’s epistles, he first lays out the theology of Jesus Christ and the Gospel of grace. He then exhorts believers to act in accordance with that truth. In other words, what we believe informs, shapes and motivates our actions. The 9/11 terrorists perpetrated their acts based on their radical Islamic theology. Stalin exterminated millions because of his communist ideology: likewise, Hitler in response to his fascist beliefs. My concern is that today people are doing all sorts of things: advancing movements, demonstrating, carrying out covert operations, etc. and are informed by ideas that, in many cases, are in conflict, to one degree or another, with the Word of God, often with disastrous results.

I fully believe that only the Scriptures of the Judeo-Christian tradition reveal the true and living God, and His comprehensive standards and agenda for all peoples. To be sure, (as I have read and studied them) there are elements of truth in other religions and philosophical systems, but only the Word of God, both written and incarnate (Messiah), reveals the absolute truth regarding our sinful condition, and God’s remedy for it. Just what one would expect from a personal God who is comprehensive and coherent Truth, Who has entered history from its inception to reveal and guide, while at the same time allowing it to exist and develop within its own temporal and spatial parameters. The consistency of Scriptural revelation from Genesis to Revelation is nothing short of miraculous (It is); even with all the varied types of literature (historical narrative, proverbs, poetry, prophesies, Gospels, et al. - and authors. The vein truth funs clearly throughout – a righteous and holy God, Who judges AND redeems, who interacts PERSONALLY with His creatures and has a comprehensive plan for history;

which segs directly into the exchange between Mr. Young and Chris. Chris says that he finds true direction and comfort in His view of the absolute dependability of the Scriptures. This whole blog discussion, of course, stems directly from the public teachings of Bp. Spong which denigrates the authority and integrity of God’s revealed truth. John Young says, “No absolute beliefs or principals exist with a certainty to convince the skeptical academic community who deal with logic and philosophy.” It is of little consequence whether the “academic community” assents to the absolute authority of the Bible or not. Human philosophy has always been a matter of speculation and conjecture, and has led us, as a civilization, into the pit of despair. Whatever life-affirming theories they have come up with have been borrowed from the Word of God. They are like mind-pimps, profiteering from prostituting the Word of God for their own purposes, leaving us floundering on a rudderless and shark-infested sea.

The Word of God needs no approbation from anyone, least of all unregenerate speculators. St Paul did not accede for one moment to the machinations of the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill, he simply proclaimed the truth of Messiah Jesus, and left it all to God. Yes, he did engage in dialog with them, and used their own “unnamed god” inscription to his advantage, but truth by it very nature is self-attesting and beyond any need of “proof.” If one has had the living resurrected Truth revealed in his or her soul, all is settled. I wandered for years through the slough of Eastern and Western systems of thought; all to no avail; but when, as St. Paul said, “Christ was revealed in me,” the puzzle was completed, the truth of the Word of God became clear as day.

The point: belief is vitally important, because the inward salvation of souls and the fate of our world hang in the balance. The answer is not the Republican Party or the Democratic, right or left, but faith in God’s Word; which is not mere mental assent after our own sovereign and presumptuous analysis, but a humble kneeling at the foot of the cross in acknowledgement of our desperate need for forgiveness and redemption, enlightenment and love. Then true reasoning and logic can be done. Before that, all is simply a rummaging around in darkness to find the light switch.

The real convincing here is not as to the comparative veracity of the Bible and other systems of thought, but need of all of us for a Savior to save and a Messianic King to love, adore, obey and worship. As St Paul declared: “We preach Christ and him crucified.” This not “fundamentalism” or right wing fanaticism but the “faith once for all declared to the saints.” Oh, and by the way, I am not a raving “theonomist” or “dominionist,” but I do believe, as the entire Scripture record and Judeo-Christian tradition have, that the Messianic Kingdom will encompass the whole earth, including the US, but will be accomplished by the preaching of the Gospel and individual assent, and not by top-done coercion through law or tyrant!

Scrolling through the archives, I noticed that on June 2, John Young posted these words:

"The political power to create a specific Bible did not exist until the forth century when Constantine converted to Christianity. With the power of Constantine in the city of Nicaea, with strange characters like Irenaeus, certain early Christen texts were rejected and the "powerful" decided on what would be included in the Bible. This entire process of creating the Bible from the works of many diverse, human writers was certainly far from a deep spiritual event."

This passage, riddled as it is with historical errors, reflects a sad but common ignorance today about the nature of the Bible and the way it was assembled.
First, the Council of Nicaea did not establish or decide which books were to be in the New Testament (which I presume Mr. Young means when he refers to "the Bible," since Jesus and the apostles quoted freely from, and trusted the authority of, the Old Testament). The New Testament was already for the most part determined by consensus of the orthodox churches, since the Scriptures were used to support what Nicaea DID decide, which is that the faith of the Apostolic Church was (and is) that Jesus Christ is and always was equal to the Father in essential nature, though distinct in Person.This was to counter the heresy of Arianism, which asserted that Christ, though supremely exalted, was a created being.
Second, Irenaeus, who was martyred about 200 A.D., could not have been at Nicaea, which took place in 325. He did, however, provide early witness to the fact that 3/4 of the New Testament was already generally accepted in his day. His major surviving work, "Against Heresies," was written to combat the Gnostics. Their primary belief was that since matter is evil, God could not have created it; it nust have come from a lesser, evil spirit called the Demiurge,which some identified with the Biblical God of the Old Testament. Obviously such works have nothing in common with Scripture and were rightfully ignored (not "excluded," since they were never under serious consideration)when the Church finally did officially recognize the canon in 393 at the Council of Hippo (though Athanasius published a list identical to ours of the Biblical books 25 years before that, as the books already long accepted by the Church). So it is simply not the case that Christians were in doubt for centuries about which books were in the Bible.
Other works not included contain obvious fables about Jesus' childhood dreamed up to fill in the gaps left by the Gospels. One touching yarn, for example, has Jesus bringing a clay bird to life. The real miracles of Jesus were never frivolous.

It amazes me that so many have the picture in their minds of a group of bishops sitting in front of a pile of books, each of which had equal authority and acceptance, and deciding which ones would most ensure their political power. If this were true, why didn't they include the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, who was more emphatic than any Biblical writer on the necessity of obeying the bishop? Not to mention the fact that books back then had to be hand-copied; nobody had monolithic control over their production and distribution, not even the Emperor, as Diocletian found out when he decreed in 303 that all Christian books be burned. But Christian literature survived despite his decree. Even if the bishops had wanted to "decide which books were in the Bible," they would not have been able.
But I'm forgetting; Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide His people into all truth, which includes granting discernment in realizing which books were inspired and which were not. Unbelievers lack this guidance, for the Spirit does not testify to their hearts; so they have to come up with whatever explanation seems good to them. Still, there are some good books out there on the development of the canon (i.e. the books of the Bible) (NOT the "DaVinci Code", which is a pack of lies); I suggest that Mr. Young might take a look at them before making any more pronouncements.
Steve Wessells

Mr. Young, you wrote: "With the reality that current academic philosophy does not allow any of us to speak with "absolutes". What do you mean by this statement? This statement sounds like an absolute to me. Isn't this merely an example of what I was saying? My point was that you try to deny that you deal in absolutes when in fact you most certainly do. This is my whole point in logic. The statement "With the reality that current academic philosophy does not allow any of us to speak with "absolutes", is an absolute statement and one that makes no logical sense. To say "there are no absolutes" is in fact stating an absolute truth - in that it is an absolute truth that there are no absolutes. As I hope you can see, this is illogical because the assertion proves itself false. Thus the statement, "With the reality that current academic philosophy does not allow any of us to speak with "absolutes", by its very nature proves itself false. (at this point you might need to shake your head to shake loose your eyes which are now crossed) But the simple truth is that a statement which proves itself false cannot be true. What you really want is for me to accept YOUR absolutes. But I will not, I accept the bible as my absolutes. I never said that it was a mathematical certainty that the bible is true. I have much more assurance than that of manmade measurements of veracity. I have the Holy Spirit confirming its truth. I'll take that anyday over the same system which calls for inorganic material to evolve into organic matter.
You are evading my questions, Mr. Young. Cleverly done, but you will not succeed in adjusting the playing field so we are using your absolutes. But again I will ask this question, if there are no absolutes, then how do you justify the criminal system? (please don't bring up the society argument again, I'm tired of deconstructing that) You do have absolutes, we all do, what you don't like about asserting that you have absolute standards is that you have no authority for you absolutes. No independant source for your beliefs, which makes them vulnerable to attack. Anything which derives its source from humanity is fatally flawed because it has no pursuasive power at all. Only a non-human source of absolute truth possesses the ability to convince and pursuade. Moreover it provides a basis from which to judge other human actions. (this is not to say we should go around judging everyone esle, but it does allow us to set up wrong and right moral standards to guide our country's laws)
Moreover, you ignored my question about Jesus. How can you call yourself a follower of the teachings of Christ when he hinged everything he said on his ressurection and deity. The love you speak of - only comes from accepting Christ as your personal Lord and saviour. This was the sina qua non of everything the Lord spoke of. He understood that while man is bound in the chains of sin and death there can be no love. Only through the cross and ressurection and the acceptance of that can one find and engage in real love or reconcilliation. Christ has not allowed you to call him a good teacher. Remember the rich young ruler? He called the Christ good, but when Christ challenged whether he really believed him to be God and thus obey Christ by giving up all that he had, he turned and walked away. The rich young ruler realized that his possessions were what he really worshiped. He hoped by following the Christ he could gain eternal life - i.e. the blessings of the kingdom. But the price was too dear and he realized that he had to choose between a soveriegn God or himself. Sadly he chose the latter. Just as you have chosen your possessions - your thoughts. Jesus demands that you give up your thoughts and follow him exclusively and develop the mind of Christ. This is a great cost indeed, but the joys that await those that truly follow the teachings Christ are immeasurably better. You speak of love and reconcilliation as being the message of Christ. I disagree to a point - that was the result of his message; i.e. the side effects of the gospel. Jesus preached primarily atonement, sacrifice and the omnipotence of God. This was done because of the love the creator had for his creatures. So Jesus' message ecompassed love and reconcilliation, but it was SO MUCH MORE. It was also a message promising us an inheretance in the kingdom of God, to become adopted children of God. How wonderous is that whole complete message? By bowing the knee we are given the ability to love and attain atonement and thereby we are reconciled to God. But only by giving up our precious belongings - our own thoughts.

Steve you are correct to point out that I had Irenaeus at the wrong meeting in the wrong century -- sorry. I had intended to make the point that Irenaeus was involved in the long process of deciding which early Christian writers would be accepted. (As you mentioned he was no fan of the Gnostic Gospels.) The process to finalize the "canon of truth" was not concluded until the forth century with significant help from Constantine's money and political power.

Chris, my main point was never to say that I had any absolute truth -- I do not. I did try to make the point, maybe poorly, that the claim of absolute truth remains a difficult claim. I will say that I do not think or feel that I have found "the answers." I am only a seeker on a journey for those answers. (I grew up as a Southern Baptist and once thought I did have the answers.) Another point I was trying to make to you is that your belief in the absolute authority of the Bible appears to me to be based on your faith -- not on rigid logic.

Yes, you are also correct to point out that my beliefs may not allow me to be defined as a Christian. My favorite Gospel is the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and much more than Christianity informs my spiritual journey. I like the "honey bee" approach of absorbing insight from many different religious and spiritual traditions. I keep being told by "true believers" that such an approach is not a real option. I may be better defined by the title of "spiritual seeker."

I can say for myself that my faith provides the foundation of my beliefs and that my beliefs are far from perfected or consistent. I even acknowledge that I am simply one of those very fallible humans. I have enjoyed this discussion. The best we can hope for is to agree to disagree. Thanks Nancy for providing room for this dialogue on your blog.