A Word Whose Time Has Come To An End

[Thomas]

Really this question poses two points for consideration:

1 - If, as Scripture statres, Christ charged the Apostles with His mission, and they chose their successors, do they or their successors have the right to say what the mission is, and what it is not?

If the answer is 'yes' then Part 2 kicks in:
2 - How should those entrusted with the mission regard and respond to those who, knowingly or otherwise, seek to derail the mission? What steps can they take, if any, to preserve its integrity?

If the answer to Part 1 is 'no' -

This opens a can of worms. The 'no' was a result of the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which treats all knowledge as fallible and insecure - therefore the Magisterium (for example) or the fathers of any denomination have no more idea of the content and meaning of Scripture than anyone else.

The Church (along with most Christian denominations and all religious traditions) rejected the Philosophy of the Enlightenment and inistsed that man can know truth with certainty - not his own, but Gods (or, in Buddhist terms - he can be become Enlightened).

Modernity insists that Scripture (be it western or eastern) is neither Inspired nor Revealed (nor Enlightened), its just what people reckoned at the time. It's a wise man's stab in the dark.

The point is that Post-modernity insists upon the right of the individual to interpret any text as she or he reads it, without ever questioning any knowledge or insight into the topic at hand ... whilst at the same time insisting that the individual can have no sense of certainty that what they think they've read is what is on the page, any more than the original author had any idea of certitude about what he wrote - whatever meaning you read into scripture is entirely a matter of personal taste and opinion.

So modernity is caught in an impasse - you are free to interpret scripture as you will, but it's pointless because it's not revelation or anything close. It's all very warm and lovely and cuddly - but in reality its meaningless and a pointless exercise.

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

1 - If, as Scripture statres, Christ charged the Apostles with His mission, and they chose their successors, do they or their successors have the right to say what the mission is, and what it is not?

Modernity insists that Scripture (be it western or eastern) is neither Inspired nor Revealed (nor Enlightened), its just what people reckoned at the time. It's a wise man's stab in the dark.

2 things.

Where does one find this list of successors? There were 12 and then are there 12 lists (or eleven) or 1, or did they split successors as Jesus did?

Who is this Modernity that INSISTS? I think that history, archeology, and intellectual study of the books has revealed much about the origins of various texts...and there is much yet to be revealed. I think that some of the texts that have been deemed Scripture were inspired, others were revealed, others were enlightened, others were laws, others were records, others were fables, others were 'news', others were satire...

[Thomas]

Hi Lunamoth -

I'm not a reader of Spong, but it does appear as if he insists that the truth and validity of scripture can only be measured according to secular scientific criteria - and if science can't explain it, then it's a superstition that needs be done away with.

In which case he has surrendered to the Philosophy of Relativism.

(In which case 'love' can't be explained nor 'proven' to the satisfaction of laboratory conditions, so let's wipe that off the board to start with.)

Spong seems to assert that God can be proven or disproven by science.

Science is purely concerned with quantitative values - what can be measured. If God can't be measured, then God doesn't exist?

The Catholic Church believes, teaches, and insists that there is no contradition between the content of the supernatural (faith) and the content of the natural (science) as God is the author of both - both must be reasonable.

But as science has proven itself, throughout history, to be unfolding, altering, rewriting, changing, adapting, adopting, revising itself, to new knowledge, and that the tenets of Revelation, throughout history, to have remained constant, and remains so in spite of all manner of secular illumination, then she wisely sides with Revelation, and applies her reasoning faculty to science accordingly.

GENERAL NOTE:
I do rather grow wearisome of those who insist that The Church (for example) has not changed in 2,000 to 'keep pace' with society/culture.

I have yet, on these pages, to read any discussion on the origin and source of Scripture, for example, that comes anywhere close to the level of scholarship displayed by theologians - especially the Protestant, whose scriptural studies are a source of some catholic embarrasment.

The J source, the E, D and P? for example? Did Moses exist? Who was the author of Deuteronomy? How are we to view 'Inspiration' and 'Revelation'?

Historical Criticism, Literary Criticism, Form Criticism, Text Criticism, Genre Criticism, Rhetorical Criticism...

If someone wants to discuss cutting-edge scriptural theology - might I suggest they read Dei Verbum (Catholic Constitution on Revelation, 1965) and we'll get to it...

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Lunamoth -

I'm not a reader of Spong, but it does appear as if he insists that the truth and validity of scripture can only be measured according to secular scientific criteria - and if science can't explain it, then it's a superstition that needs be done away with....

I have yet, on these pages, to read any discussion on the origin and source of Scripture, for example, that comes anywhere close to the level of scholarship displayed by theologians .......the J source, the E, D and P? for example? Did Moses exist? Who was the author of Deuteronomy? How are we to view 'Inspiration' and 'Revelation'?

Historical Criticism, Literary Criticism, Form Criticism, Text Criticism, Genre Criticism, Rhetorical Criticism...

If someone wants to discuss cutting-edge scriptural theology - might I suggest they read Dei Verbum (Catholic Constitution on Revelation, 1965) and we'll get to it...

Me thinks most of us here are lay people, trying to learn more and grow, not all or many of us have languages and years of study behind us, or letters after our names... despite this I have brought up info on the Yahwists, Elohists, Deuteronimists, and Priestly writings of scripture. Most of these were replied with in disdain as I was indicating that Moses didn't bring back the texts in full, maybe didn't write the books...there was no interest in discussion of possibilities...is there now?

As for Spong, I can't hold a candle to his credentials...not to say education and decades of experience in the church is everything, but I would think scholarly folks would consider reading the actual works before condemnig an author based on others opionions....but again, I'm not that well versed in the protocol of the educated.

THE RIGHT REVEREND JOHN SHELBY SPONG, D.D.
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark
John Shelby Spong, scholar, author and bishop, is the most published member of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States. He is the author of fourteen books. His published articles now number in excess of ninety....

Born in 1931 in Charlotte... was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1952 and received his Master of Divinity degree in 1955 from the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia. That seminary and St. Paul's College have both conferred on him honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees. He served as rector of St. Joseph's Church in Durham, North Carolina from 1955 to 1957; rector of Calvary Parish, Tarboro, North Carolina from 1957 to 1965; rector of St. John's Church in Lynchburg, Virginia from 1965 to 1969; and rector of St. Paul's Church in Richmond, Virginia from 1969 to 1976. He was consecrated bishop on June 12, 1976.


Bishop Spong has served on a wide variety of diocesan committees and commissions, including being editor of The North Carolina Churchman, president of the Standing Committee and three times deputy to General Convention. He has been president of the Alumni Association of his seminary and a trustee, both of his seminary and of St. Paul's College. He has also been president of the New Jersey Council of Churches.


Nationally, he has been a theological consultant to the Episcopal Radio and Television Foundation, a consultant to the Standing Liturgical Commission and a member of the Overseas Review Committee of the national church. In 1973 he was elected by General Convention to a six-year term on the Executive Council, the highest governing body of the Episcopal Church, other than the General Convention. In 1986, under Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning, he was appointed to serve on the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health. He currently serves on the House of Bishop's Theology Committee.


Bishop Spong has always had an active interest in sports and was at one time a play-by-play announcer for radio stations in Tarboro, North Carolina, and Lynchburg, Virginia, covering football, basketball and baseball. He also served as sports editor for The Daily Southerner in Tarboro. In 1991 he was elected the Quatercentenary Scholar at Emmanuel College of Cambridge University and in 1993 was a guest lecturer at Oxford University in the United Kingdom.

Academic Credentials:

A.B. University of North Carolina
Degree in Philosophy, Minor in Zoology
Phi Beta Kappa
M.Div. Virginia Theological Seminary
Special Study:
St. Luke’s School of Theology, Sewanee, Tennesse 1961
Union Seminary, New York, 1988
Yale Divinity School, New Haven, 1989
Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990
Magdalen College, Oxford University, 1992
Fellow, Emmanuel College, Cambridge University, 1992
Elected Quatercentenary Scholar
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1997
Christ Church, Oxford University, 1997
Scholar in Residence
Honorary Degrees
Doctor of Divinity, St. Paul’s College, 1976
Doctor of Divinity, Virginia Theological Seminary, 1977
Doctor of Humane Letters, Muhlenberg College, 1998

[Dor]

Originally Posted by wil

As for Spong, I can't hold a candle to his credentials...not to say education and decades of experience in the church is everything, but I would think scholarly folks would consider reading the actual works before condemnig an author based on others opionions....but again, I'm not that well versed in the protocol of the educated.

Matthew 24:24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

So we are told even the elect can be decieved. So it is highly possible Spong did not always pass off the same false doctrines he does now.


1Corinthians3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; 20 and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile." 21 Therefore let no one boast in men.

Ok we are also told not to worry about if the world views someone as wise.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dor

...So we are told even the elect can be decieved. So it is highly possible Spong did not always pass off the same false doctrines he does now...Ok we are also told not to worry about if the world views someone as wise.

Namaste Dor,

I agree 100% with everything you've said...and who knows where those false prophets may lurk...they may be the ones that are steering folks away from Spong...and onto some other false prophet...

You are wonderful for quoting the bible and finding scripture to prove your point, I would think you would always double check the book before you believed, passed on what someone else said about what is written in the bible. That is why I question why folks talk bad about someone that they haven't read.

I always wonder what sets these people off. Priests and Ministers who after 30-40 years in the church suddenly change their stripes...what did they learn, what caused the rift? Sort of like these CIA/military guys who after a 20 year career and more ribbons and citations you can shake a stick at...when they write a tell all book...suddenly they are a lunatic...how does that happen?

[Thomas]

Hi Wil -

Me thinks most of us here are lay people, trying to learn more and grow, not all or many of us have languages and years of study behind us, or letters after our names...

I can have no complaint in that area. I have no letters after my name either, and I endorse the ethos of CR that allows anyone to post without first presenting academic qualifications ... BUT ... I do hold the right to suggest that this does not allow people to fly in the face of the facts. No-one is obliged to accept the findings or the scholarship of another, but one is at least obliged to accept that such exists.

despite this I have brought up info on the Yahwists, Elohists, Deuteronimists, and Priestly writings of scripture. Most of these were replied with in disdain as I was indicating that Moses didn't bring back the texts in full, maybe didn't write the books...there was no interest in discussion of possibilities...is there now?

Well I'm no expert, but if there's anything in particular, then yes. In fact I'm inclined to agree that Moses was not the sole author of the Pentateuch and what he might have written has passed through many hands.

The disdain you met is precisely the point I was trying to make - although I will admit that trying to get a creationist to allow the possibility of the world being over 6,000 years old is never easy...

The difference is whether one says "it's doubtful Moses wrote the Pentateuch as we have it, therefore the whole thing's a complete crock..." or, "if, contrary to what we have traditionally accepted, the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, what is going on, theologically?"

Or perhaps - who is the theological genius behind Deuteronomy?

Modern Catholic scholarship accepts the finding of Historical Criticism et al, but does not necessarily accept the theories that spring from it ... there's the critical difference, as it were.

but I would think scholarly folks would consider reading the actual works before condemnig an author based on others opionions

I was basing my comments on his '12 thesis' that's why I prefaced my quote with the statement that I'm not a reader of Spong.

I'm not a reader of von Balthasar either - but having read a few precis of his theological position, I would not hesitate to recommend him.

Thomas

[Dor]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Dor,
You are wonderful for quoting the bible and finding scripture to prove your point, I would think you would always double check the book before you believed, passed on what someone else said about what is written in the bible. That is why I question why folks talk bad about someone that they haven't read.

Well I for one have read some of Spong. I have read enough to know that I have no desire to read him. I will read anyone and I will give them some benifit of the doubt over translations etc. As soon as someone starts trying to tear down everything in the Bible is when I say wait a sec and then blow them off.

As for what makes someone change there stripes after years. Well no one knows. But we see it all the time. Just sometimes it is more subtle than others.

[cyberpi]

Like the word trinity, the words heresy, heretic, and orthodox are not in the bible. Yet they are concepts that can be compared with it. As I read it Jesus (pbuh) is both a heretic and an ortho-heretic... meaning that he chooses and he chooses rightfully. So then I aspire to be a heretic, an ortho-heretic, and NOT an orthodox'er. That is: I choose therefore I am, and it is NOT necessarily a requirement to even think (dox). Contrary to Descartes, I can choose when to think and when not to think.

I predict the majority here will claim to be a Christian or a follower of Christ, and yet will also choose to disagree with me... thus solidifying my point. Also, anyone who says 'Namaste' is equally picking and choosing from a person. If a person picks and chooses from one person then he picks and chooses from a history of many persons as documented in the bible.

The 'UCMJ' is also not mentioned in the Bible but it certainly can be compared with it. The two major difference are: 1) There is no military with a chain of command where Faith is placed in a lower rank, such as a child. Whereas the bible teaches to place Faith in the will of those who are lesser. 2) There is no teaching in the bible where a person is NOT responsible for whom and what they choose to place Faith in. Whereas the UCMJ teaches that a subordinate is NOT held responsible if he follows the orders of a superior. Thus the UCMJ is NOT the bible and when it comes to Faith I find that the two are nearly the opposite.

For example: with Jesus (pbuh) or God (swt) a person with lesser capability, knowledge, and insight can ask and receive. Whereas in a military it is the higher rank that is doing the asking and receiving. In a military it is NOT an option for the lower rank to choose from orders, whereas with God (swt) it is. In a military chain of command the higher rank is enabled by the required actions of the lower rank, yet God's power does NOT require the backs of people to exist.

Note that Faith is a weighty matter of Law per Matthew 23:23. Circle that one in RED and if your translation says 'faithfulness' then please correct the translation back to 'Faith'. An all volunteer military does benefit by placing Faith in people to choose whether to join and agree to service... 1 bit of vote to throw away 8 years is better than 0 bits. Furthermore some countries benefit by having the military leaders under civilian control, albeit again only 1 or 2 bits of voting power every 2-8 years. In my opinion that 2 bits needs to increase to hundreds of k-bits per year from everyone including the least of people on the street. A direct democracy... people must have the power to pick and choose more, joining together to make decisions. I submit that people should be allowed to be heretics as Jesus (pbuh) was a heretic. Whereas in a military with a chain-of-command the lower rank has no voting power at all except within the authority that has not been removed. The sub-ordinates are in a state of servitude rather than being choosing servants. It is the difference between slavery and employment. It is the difference between oppression and faith. So whoever tries to compare the UCMJ with the Bible will get nothing but thorns from me. I know them both and the two are not alike. A good equivalency of the UCMJ is that from a military such as North Korea, which is a fine example of the UCMJ at its best... a tool for control. The people in a military may be good and wishing to serve good, but that does not make a military organization an example of anything remotely resembling that taught in the bible. Shame on whoever says it is.

[wil]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Also, anyone who says 'Namaste' is equally picking and choosing from a person. If a person picks and chooses from one person then he picks and chooses from a history of many persons as documented in the bible.

Namaste cyberpi, I'm not understanding what you are trying to say, please elaborate.

In regards to Spong, as I understand it, from a fundamental perspective we've read his writings, deem them hogwash and him a heretic. My question, does that also apply to Thomas Jefferson? Surely this swath is cast equally, the man rewrote the gospels. Are we ready to toss out all of his writings as well?

[Dor]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste cyberpi, I'm not understanding what you are trying to say, please elaborate.

Hell I didnt understand a word he wrote.

[lunamoth]

Hi Thomas,

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Lunamoth -

I'm not a reader of Spong, but it does appear as if he insists that the truth and validity of scripture can only be measured according to secular scientific criteria - and if science can't explain it, then it's a superstition that needs be done away with.

I've only read one book by JS Spong: A New Christianity for a New World. He rejects supernaturalism in all its forms although as I understand it it is not his point at all that scripture should be measured by secular or scientific criteria. He does, however, suggest that the Bible be stripped of its 'theistic' view. He suggests that the first experience of Christ was not as theistic God but that this was a concept added onto the Christ experience as people reflected on it.

Originally Posted by Thomas

In which case he has surrendered to the Philosophy of Relativism.

Maybe, but I'm not sure that he has. Frankly I'm a little perplexed by his view although I found this book very interesting. He seems to be claiming the death of a God I did not 'believe' in to begin with--well, except perhaps while I was a Baha'i. He rejects what he calls the tribalism of traditional views and the anthropomorphic God we tend to create in our image. Yet he proclaims God is very real; God for Spong is life, is love, is being. I also think that Spong mostly describes tradition in its most negative sense, a sense I've already rejected, and ignores the meanings of tradition that actually support what I consider the true and important parts of Christianity.

I think the most difficult part of what he proposes is the death of the idea of a God Who rescues supernaturally from the outside, and a God who can be easily manipulated to uphold the powers the world, the very powers Christ conquers.

I also think Spong sells us short, 'us' being the average pew-sitter. I think that on average we are a bit more sophisticated in our understandings of what the Gospel points toward than Spong gives us credit for.

Originally Posted by Thomas

(In which case 'love' can't be explained nor 'proven' to the satisfaction of laboratory conditions, so let's wipe that off the board to start with.)

Spong seems to assert that God can be proven or disproven by science.

No, this is not something Spong says as far as I've read him. He is not concerned at all with proofs or disproofs of God and in this I completely agree with him. His point is not about the 'reality' of God: God is real to him. His point is about a God Who can not be supported in a reasonable mind, a God who needs to be explained when He fails to intercede for us and a God who allows evil to persist in the world. Belief in a 'theistic God' is unsupportable, he concludes, and he goes on to say that we know this and the signs of the resulting disconnect are evident in the various and increasing individual and societal maladies we observe today.

Spong defines theism as the primitive coping device that has evolved to help humans live with our self-conciousness; the knowledge that we exist, that our existence is tenuous, and that one day we will die.

Originally Posted by Spong

Theism is thus a definition of God which has journeyed with self-conscious human beings from primitive animism to complex modern monotheism. Yet in every one of its evolving forms, theism has functioned as it was originally created to do. Theism was born as a human coping device, created by traumatized self-conscious creatures to enable them to deal with the anziety of self-awareness. It was designed to discover or postulate the existence of a powerful divine ally in the quest for human survival and in the process to assert both a purpose to existence and a meaning to human life. Assuming, then, that theism developed as a human response to Tillich's shock of nonbeing and Freud's trauma of self-consoiusness, we shuold expect to see shock, trauma, and hysteria return in countless numbers of ways when theis dies as I contend it is doing today.

By his own statements Spong very much believes in the 'God is Love' of 1 John 4.

But, there's no way to say that what Spong proposes would be recognizable to most of us today as Christianity. I think a lot of what he says makes sense, I think he misses the point on some things and I think that he is largely rejecting a theism that is in some ways a 'straw man.' I think his views are interesting and it's worth reading him before villifiying him.

lunamoth

[Thomas]

Hi Wil -

Where does one find this list of successors? There were 12 and then are there 12 lists (or eleven) or 1, or did they split successors as Jesus did?
Apostolic succession is listed in two ways - one by actual surviving documents, two by the data of tradition. Those whom the faithful accepted.

Irenaeus argued this point against the gnostics - who is more likely to know what he meant, those whom he chose, or others who decided they knew better?

Tradition is always a tricky one, but cannot be easily dismissed.

Who is this Modernity that INSISTS?

I was talking historically - following the argument of the Enlightenment - modernity is eith non-theistic, or casts God in its own image.

Thomas





I think that history, archeology, and intellectual study of the books has revealed much about the origins of various texts...and there is much yet to be revealed. I think that some of the texts that have been deemed Scripture were inspired, others were revealed, others were enlightened, others were laws, others were records, others were fables, others were 'news', others were satire...

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste cyberpi, I'm not understanding what you are trying to say, please elaborate.

In regards to Spong, as I understand it, from a fundamental perspective we've read his writings, deem them hogwash and him a heretic. My question, does that also apply to Thomas Jefferson? Surely this swath is cast equally, the man rewrote the gospels. Are we ready to toss out all of his writings as well?

Namaste Wil... I like the word Namaste. What I know of the word came from yourself and here: Namaste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reading through the list of religious contexts I read that it means to bow, salute, or honor the divine in a person. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I say 'Namaste' it does not mean that I submit to a person's sexual desires. Thus I am a heretic as I say the word, 'Namaste'... meaning I salute or honor only a part of a person, and it may or may not be the part that the person wanted me to salute or honor. Likewise whatever a person writes there may only be a part that I will salute and honor, and it is never a rigid absolute. That is with just one author, and I submit that the bible is written by multiple authors. Is it not? Same goes for the church.

I think to pick and choose does not require destroying what one is picking and choosing from, does it? Is anyone combining the two: heresy and destruction? I go to the library and I pick and choose what to read. I read the book and I pick and choose from it. So I am a heretic. I know that I exist with a soul in part because I am a heretic... I am given a choice and Faith is even placed in my choices so that I might learn. As I read and understand it, Jesus (pbuh) tells everyone to be a heretic in the same way that he was one. If I were to toss out anyone's writings, I only toss them from my own mind and by not serving them. If I were to toss them away from anyone else then I would be censoring and oppressing the voice of a person. I am against that. A person is revealed by his voice. Just because I reject a book or the thoughts of a person does NOT mean that I have to burn the book or kill the author with censorship.

I am a heretic and would be insulted if I were not called one. Furthermore as I read it, if a person is NOT a heretic then they are NOT a disciple of Christ... but that is only my understanding and I consider it either Christ's or God's judgement. I am opposed to any church or group of people who place the state of their rose garden above the people that God's garden was meant to serve. It is similar to cleaning the outside of the cup instead of the inside. When a house burns does a person worry about the house first and the occupants second? Then neither should anyone be concerned with the state of their rose garden over those who the rose garden is meant to serve. I judge against the people in history who branded and killed heretics as if their alledged orthodox towers and understandings were more righteous. As if the heretics themselves posed a threat to their rose garden. Lucky for them, it is not mine to judge or condemn but if any individual or group of people claims to be teachers of Christianity instead of students of Christ (pbuh) then I believe they will only bring themselves back down to the ground.

Relative to Spong, I haven't read him but from what little I have read of his viewpoints I agree with a little and disagree with a lot. Afterall, I'm a heretic.

[Thomas]

If Spong denies the Incarnation, then there is nothing of Christ left - 'Christ' becomes some universal abstract... surely?

And what is 'love' if God cannot engage with the world? I know I have only read superficially, but 'love' is not something on its own account - love requires object and subject ... and you can't ask man to love an abstract ... only a very few can manage that ...

... I know I haven't read him, but if you strip away the Incarnation, Revelation, God (as He who communicates something of Himself to man) ... if Scripture and its content is invalid as anything more than a myth of a race history ... then what's left, what defines Christianity?

Thomas