Contra Spong

John Mark Ministries

Thinking maturely about the Christian faith

Search

// you’re reading...

Theology

Contra Spong

By Rowland Croucher and others ⋅ November 25, 2004 ⋅ Post a comment

A thoughtful poster wrote the following contra Spong’s 12 Theses:

Bishop Spong has nailed his ’12 theses’ to the Internet, and urged the Church to debate them.

Drawn from my book Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile

A Call for a New Reformation

’1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will.’

If ‘dwelling above the sky’ is excluded, the sentence becomes rather obviously wrong. Spong attacks a medieval position, obsolete for centuries, in order to say nothing of value.

As the conclusion is unjustified, being based on a ‘straw man’, so is this following para:

‘ 2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So, the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.’

One cannot reject Christianity on the ground that outer space shows no divine presence, especially as the New Testament tells us that God is spirit.

’3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-�Darwinian nonsense.’

This is plain dishonest, and pretty stupid, too, as Spong must realise that the majority of Anglicans/Episcopalians do not hold early Genesis to be literally true. In fact the fundamentalist interpretation of it is all but absent from the statements of faith of denominations everywhere.

Darwin is irrelevant. Darwin himself accepted the intellectual, non-literal validity of early Genesis, so Spong really ought to catch up.

’4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.’

Can anyone tell me which bit of new biological knowledge Spong is thinking of here? Or is he simply using the word ‘biology’ as some magic mantra that will instantly dissolve traditional understanding? Let’s write his sentence more honestly.

‘The virgin birth, understood as a literal event, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.’

Which is absurd; it does precisely the reverse.

’5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.’

Another absurdity. Newton’s laws make no difference whatever to the possibility of miraculous acts! Newton made no discernible difference to Christian belief historically. A great many physicists today believe in the miracles of Jesus.

’6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.’

It was the barbarian behaviour of humanity that brought about the cross, and it may be argued that since the cross events have given no indication that human nature has changed.

’7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus into the meaning of God.’

That is not found in Scripture, and appears to be nonsense, anyway.

‘It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.’

This seems to be circular argument: physical resuscitation is impossible, so Jesus was not physically resuscitated. The whole point is that the raising of Jesus was indeed impossible without the supernatural. That was the ‘sign of Jonah’ that Jesus said was to be the only sign given to the wicked. This seems to be a deliberate perversity of Spong.

’8. The story of the ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.’

It has long been supposed that it is not meant to be.

‘ 9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in Scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.’

Cain was punished for murder without any command not to murder, and theft was ‘a wicked thing’ before Moses. The Ten Commandments condemn murder and theft, of course, and Paul reiterates their moral value in Romans 13. Even hatred is condemned in the New Testament, as are other characteristics.

‘Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.’ (Eph 4:31-32 NIV )

But if Spong has evidence that God has changed his mind about more obviously wicked practices such as murder, theft, etc., he might have a genuine ‘Call for a New Reformation’, though others might suppose it a call for anarchy.

‘Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.’ (Matt 24:35 NIV)

’10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.’

This again appears to be nonsense. It is not suggested by anyone that prayer can change the past. Perhaps Spong would re-phrase.

’11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior-control mentality of reward and punishment.’

Again, no reason is given. The threat of hell may be the only disincentive to evil for some, and very necessary.

‘The church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.’

The church does not rely on guilt, though false churches have done. When the gospel is preached authentically, people naturally feel guilt that is appropriate to bringing them salvation. That is inherent to the gospel, and to Christianity, and if Spong does not preach it, someone else will.

’12. All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one’s being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.’

Race, ethnicity, and gender are all unarguably beyond the choice of any individual. Sexual behaviour undoubtedly is not. Along with a desire to suppress the truth, certain sexual behaviour is seen by the New Testament as a consequence of opposition to God.

Not one of these twelve theses is justified here; they are attacks on outmoded straw men, verbal tricks, and simple inaccuracies. They are closer to twelve absurdities and imv have in themselves no basis for sensible discussion.