Spong's 12 theses

[lunamoth]

Chris, One more thing about Spong that I thought might ring your bells. He talks a lot about the need for us to give up our security, that non-theism or post-theism or whatever he calls it is about learning to live without the illusion of security, harking back to Paul Tillech's Courage to Be. I think he is onto something with this. The problem with the illusion of security is that with every event which undermines the dependability of that security, we cling more and more tightly to the shell of our religion, and in our fear (which we deny) end up not loving others as we wish to be loved.

2 c,
luna

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Chris, One more thing about Spong that I thought might ring your bells. He talks a lot about the need for us to give up our security, that non-theism or post-theism or whatever he calls it is about learning to live without the illusion of security, harking back to Paul Tillech's Courage to Be. I think he is onto something with this. The problem with the illusion of security is that with every event which undermines the dependability of that security, we cling more and more tightly to the shell of our religion, and in our fear (which we deny) end up not loving others as we wish to be loved.

2 c,
luna

I disagree, and agree. Freedom, true freedom, re-enforces courage. Courage is facing our fears, despite our fears. Security (the other extreme) saps courage. It generates cowardice.

What bothers me about the good bishop is his take away from the closeness of (intimacy with) God to man. He calls that security, that should be backed away from. I opine that that intimacy is what generates and propogates a desire for freedom, and courage to act on that freedom. Take chances for self, based on the secureness that God is right there cheering for us.

does that make sense?

v/r

Joshua

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I disagree, and agree. Freedom, true freedom, re-enforces courage. Courage is facing our fears, despite our fears. Security (the other extreme) saps courage. It generates cowardice.

True freedom must be faced with courage--is that what you mean?

What bothers me about the good bishop is his take away from the closeness of (intimacy with) God to man. He calls that security, that should be backed away from. I opine that that intimacy is what generates and propogates a desire for freedom, and courage to act on that freedom. Take chances for self, based on the secureness that God is right there cheering for us.

I don't agree with everything Spong says, and I'm not sure I'm fully understanding some of the distinctions he makes. I don't think he takes away the intimacy between God and humanity--that's what Deism does and he is not being a Deist I don't think. Instead he connects God intimately, indistinguishably IMO, with humanity. God is not Other/Creator according to Spong, God is Divine in us (I think that is what he is saying anyway). I think God is Something More. God is Mystery and More than I can comprehend, yet I can also relate personally to Him.

I think I understand what you are saying about security, as opposed to false security, and I agree. Only when we have complete trust in the Love of God can we also love freely and completely. Our courage to be comes from our trust in a God Who loves us unconditionally. The false sense of security that Spong refers to is the idea of a rescuing God. I think God does rescue us spiritually through His Love, but this is different from expecting God to swoop into history and, for example, take your side in a war. And before this goes off on a tangent, I know people (including you based upon the things you've told us here) have experienced what they understand to God's presence or angels physically manifesting in the world. I'm not trying to deny those experiences, although I can't say that I've experienced them myself.

For the record, I'm not trying to sell Spong's new Christianity by any means. But, I think some of his ideas have merit and he brings up things (some liberal ideas) that need discussing. Not least of which is that there are lots of people out there who have become alienated from Christianity because, for one thing, they feel that they are not allowed to discuss these post-modern ideas or they find that the Christianity they were raised with strains reason to the point of breaking. My take on it is not that Christianity is fundamentally wrong or off-track, but that we are not really listening to people or doing a good job explaining what Christianity really is all about. We leave people with a superficial, elementary school concept of God, Christ, and our faith and as such our religion can't address their adult questions in this rational world.

luna

[Quahom1]

True freedom must be faced with courage--is that what you mean?

True freedom is not free. It comes with great price. Courage is the whereforall to accept that price, and the 'feedom' may not be given to the one who accepts that price, but rather those who follow. It is a Jesus simile, that soldiers who die every day emulate. Does that make sense?

I don't agree with everything Spong says, and I'm not sure I'm fully understanding some of the distinctions he makes. I don't think he takes away the intimacy between God and humanity--that's what Deism does and he is not being a Deist I don't think. Instead he connects God intimately, indistinguishably IMO, with humanity. God is not Other/Creator according to Spong, God is Divine in us (I think that is what he is saying anyway). I think God is Something More. God is Mystery and More than I can comprehend, yet I can also relate personally to Him.

God and man are not indistinguishable. We are seperate and isolated, but through Jesus' sacrifice for us. The bishop tends to minimize that fact. There is no intimacy between God and man, but on a case by case basis, and the bishop tends to ignore that fact. There is the Divine in our design and creation, but not in our state of being. That requires a concerted effort on our part to seek out God (who is more than willing to meet us more than half way), but is possible.

I think I understand what you are saying about security, as opposed to false security, and I agree. Only when we have complete trust in the Love of God can we also love freely and completely. Our courage to be comes from our trust in a God Who loves us unconditionally. The false sense of security that Spong refers to is the idea of a rescuing God. I think God does rescue us spiritually through His Love, but this is different from expecting God to swoop into history and, for example, take your side in a war. And before this goes off on a tangent, I know people (including you based upon the things you've told us here) have experienced what they understand to God's presence or angels physically manifesting in the world. I'm not trying to deny those experiences, although I can't say that I've experienced them myself.

understood, and agree wholeheartedly Luna.

For the record, I'm not trying to sell Spong's new Christianity by any means. But, I think some of his ideas have merit and he brings up things (some liberal ideas) that need discussing. Not least of which is that there are lots of people out there who have become alienated from Christianity because, for one thing, they feel that they are not allowed to discuss these post-modern ideas or they find that the Christianity they were raised with strains reason to the point of breaking. My take on it is not that Christianity is fundamentally wrong or off-track, but that we are not really listening to people or doing a good job explaining what Christianity really is all about. We leave people with a superficial, elementary school concept of God, Christ, and our faith and as such our religion can't address their adult questions in this rational world.

Liberal is not a dirty word. Liberal politicians make it so. Same with conservative politicians, and their take on running man's affairs. (they both disgust me as of late).

Christianity is among other things a strict set of rules on how to live. In short, there is no deviation from those "rules". There is also a strict criteria on what and who a true "Christian" is. There is no deviation from that criteria.

Ironically, for example, Zorastrianists believe in the Single God the Father, but also in lessor gods. Muslims believe in Allah, but also in Jinns. Jehovah's Witnesses believe in Jehovah (Yahweh), but Jesus is a lessor god. Mormons believe in the Father (as one of many fathers), and Jesus as first born of this ruling planet (but each human can become a God for their own planet, except for women, who will be eternally pregnant for the god's pleasure).

Christianity states, Jesus is God, equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but all the same God.

I don't condemn anyone for their beliefs, but the fact is that many are not what they claim to be. Spong is just one outspoken variant of these.

v/r

Joshua

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Luna

For the record, I'm not trying to sell Spong's new Christianity by any means. But, I think some of his ideas have merit and he brings up things (some liberal ideas) that need discussing. Not least of which is that there are lots of people out there who have become alienated from Christianity because, for one thing, they feel that they are not allowed to discuss these post-modern ideas or they find that the Christianity they were raised with strains reason to the point of breaking. My take on it is not that Christianity is fundamentally wrong or off-track, but that we are not really listening to people or doing a good job explaining what Christianity really is all about. We leave people with a superficial, elementary school concept of God, Christ, and our faith and as such our religion can't address their adult questions in this rational world.

Yeah, that's exactly it. I just can't partition my mind where one part doesn't have to measure up to the same intellectual standards.

I can't discount mainstream Bible scholarship. I can't accept the Bible as history when archaeology tells a much different story.

The concept of original sin makes no sense to me. As allegory, sure, but not in any real historical sense.

The idea of a dead and risen avatar-messiah-saviour seems impossibly anachronistic to me. It's an uncomfortable mix of Jewish and Pagan elements that doesn't gell.

I can't see why the Logos would be the above avatar. I think one can gain an appreciation for the Logos concept by studying the Jesus character, though.

I can't conceive of God being in any way interventionist. I don't necessarily disagree with the Christian conception of God, I just think that the way it's usually put over is entirely too simplistic, and often downright silly. Surely everyone knows that God Itself is entirely beyond description. That's why no one has "seen" IT. Mainly, though, the problem for me is that if God intervenes in the affairs of humans directly, then there's no point in ever learning to use one's deductive intellectual faculties. Everything is a big conspiracy because nothing can be trusted to be what it seems. I just can't live like that.

So there you go. I don't believe the Bible is historically reliable. I don't believe in original sin. I think the idea of a messiah avatar is primitive, sometimes barbaric, and entirely anachronistic. I don't believe Jesus is literally the Logos. And I don't believe in the miraculous because I don't think God is that sort of thing . Doesn't seem very Alpha and Omega-ish.

So what kind of organized Christianity might appeal to someone like me? I consider myself a Christian--at least ethnically and philosophically. I'm not a syncretist (anymore), or an atheist, nor a deist, pantheist, panentheist, Buddhist, Pagan. I like the Tao, but that's also just philosophical. I appreciate Spong trying to figure out a way to have a Christianity that I, and he I'm sure, could find pleasant and meaningful. I guess he's saying he's found a way to do it for himself, but I haven't.

Chris

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Yeah, that's exactly it. I just can't partition my mind where one part doesn't have to measure up to the same intellectual standards.

I can't discount mainstream Bible scholarship. I can't accept the Bible as history when archaeology tells a much different story.

The concept of original sin makes no sense to me. As allegory, sure, but not in any real historical sense.

The idea of a dead and risen avatar-messiah-saviour seems impossibly anachronistic to me. It's an uncomfortable mix of Jewish and Pagan elements that doesn't gell.

I can't see why the Logos would be the above avatar. I think one can gain an appreciation for the Logos concept by studying the Jesus character, though.

I can't conceive of God being in any way interventionist. I don't necessarily disagree with the Christian conception of God, I just think that the way it's usually put over is entirely too simplistic, and often downright silly. Surely everyone knows that God Itself is entirely beyond description. That's why no one has "seen" IT. Mainly, though, the problem for me is that if God intervenes in the affairs of humans directly, then there's no point in ever learning to use one's deductive intellectual faculties. Everything is a big conspiracy because nothing can be trusted to be what it seems. I just can't live like that.

So there you go. I don't believe the Bible is historically reliable. I don't believe in original sin. I think the idea of a messiah avatar is primitive, sometimes barbaric, and entirely anachronistic. I don't believe Jesus is literally the Logos. And I don't believe in the miraculous because I don't think God is that sort of thing . Doesn't seem very Alpha and Omega-ish.

So what kind of organized Christianity might appeal to someone like me? I consider myself a Christian--at least ethnically and philosophically. I'm not a syncretist (anymore), or an atheist, nor a deist, pantheist, panentheist, Buddhist, Pagan. I like the Tao, but that's also just philosophical. I appreciate Spong trying to figure out a way to have a Christianity that I, and he I'm sure, could find pleasant and meaningful. I guess he's saying he's found a way to do it for himself, but I haven't.

Chris

Why do you want to be part of organized Christianity? I would say it's not about you. You can get that (your own personal spirituality whatever it may be) on your own. My take on it is that being a Christian is about choosing a way that takes us outside our own way. But that's just me.

Maybe what Spong does for you and others (and me) is to give us permission to seek in our own way what Christ is all about. Yeah, I know, we don't need permission, but there seem to be very few voices out there today saying it's OK to question and to look at things differently.

FWIW, I found the book The Heart of Christianity by Marcus Borg to be very helpful when I was re-entering Christianity with all the same ideas and reservations you state above. He helped me find the meaning in the stories of the Bible and to focus on what they are pointing at, rather than getting all hung up in the literal-metaphorical debate. Yet he does not throw out God, Christ, and the Bible along the way.

luna

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, I think that Spong is trying to do several things. For one thing he's trying to get people to catch up on the state of the intellectual debate over the origins, context, and historicity of the Bible. But I think his main focus is to reach out to people like me and say that there is the possibility of light ahead. There is another alternative to just chucking it all and becoming a hard boiled atheist. I appreciate that.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Well, I think that Spong is trying to do several things. For one thing he's trying to get people to catch up on the state of the intellectual debate over the origins, context, and historicity of the Bible. But I think his main focus is to reach out to people like me and say that there is the possibility of light ahead. There is another alternative to just chucking it all and becoming a hard boiled atheist. I appreciate that.

Chris

If Spong is a "wake up call" for people otherwise asleep...then who am I to argue with him?

v/r

Joshua

[wil]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Why do you want to be part of organized Christianity?

This could be a fun one, organized v. disorganized Christianity. Between all the various denominations of 'acceptable' Christianity, and then the numerous groups who are also organized and claim often to be the only true Christians yet are regularly ostacized for their vocal views on what is deemed not acceptable...even the emerging church is organized...

For years I wavered out there in a disorganized Christianity, not finding a home in any church I attended. Don't think I ever truly made it to atheist or even agnostic completely...but the portions of the church experience that turned me off one after another, kept me out of believing I needed an organized Christianity ie a building, a congregation, a preacher...

How wrong I was, how much more enriched and comfortable my life has been since I did. In truth though it is the Spongs, those that tilted at windmills, looked for the essence despite the contradiction, that is what kept me willing, barely willing to keep searching.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by wil

This could be a fun one, organized v. disorganized Christianity. Between all the various denominations of 'acceptable' Christianity, and then the numerous groups who are also organized and claim often to be the only true Christians yet are regularly ostacized for their vocal views on what is deemed not acceptable...even the emerging church is organized...

For years I wavered out there in a disorganized Christianity, not finding a home in any church I attended. Don't think I ever truly made it to atheist or even agnostic completely...but the portions of the church experience that turned me off one after another, kept me out of believing I needed an organized Christianity ie a building, a congregation, a preacher...

How wrong I was, how much more enriched and comfortable my life has been since I did. In truth though it is the Spongs, those that tilted at windmills, looked for the essence despite the contradiction, that is what kept me willing, barely willing to keep searching.

Hi wil, Thank you for those comments and describing your experience. My question (written at night with a sinus infection) did sound kind of pointed. Sorry Chris if that put you off; it was not my intention. I was trying to sincerely ask what it is you are looking for. For me the being part of something more than myself, larger than me but not of this world, is a big part of it...I can relate to what wil says above. But for many that is not so important and I guess I was wondering how Chris saw this, if community was part of what he is looking for.

Laurie

[China Cat Sunflower]

I don't know what I want. I'm evolving.

Chris

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I don't know what I want. I'm evolving.

Chris

Fair enough!

Laurie

[wil]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Fair enough!

Laurie

said the moth to the cat/flower...

[China Cat Sunflower]

Perhaps it's arrogant presumption, but I feel, and I believe that I'm being gently guided in my personal spiritual quest. Had I been guided back to the conservative Christian theology of my childhood I would have gone willingly. It would have made things a lot easier. I'm not way out here on the edge because I'm looking for a way out. I'm here because I committed long ago to follow my heart, my mind, and the still, small voice. I accepted the quest not knowing where it would lead, but determined to start, to show inititive, intention, and trust. (it's not nearly as grand a thing as I'm making it sound.)

There are those who will always insist that I'm "leaning unto my own understanding", or quote that other verse about "a path which seems right unto a man, but in the end there is destruction." FS said she thinks of me as the serpent trying to deceive people. That's O.K., I understand. But I have to make sense of things. I have to study things carefully; figure things out. It's the honest intention and initiative that prods the universal muse. Kinda like tickling a lobster out of it's hidey hole in the reef.

There has to be a level at which the physical absolutely jibes with the metaphysical. This is what I'm looking for. So long as we keep the world of knowlege separate from the spiritual realm both will lack potence. Everything has to work one way. The physical laws and the spiritual laws have to relate to a single source. Logos, if you wish. I can't accept doctrine, dogma, theology which relies on an abridgement of reason. Which excuses illogic by blaming it on Satan, or warning me not to trust my own mind.

Chris

[lunamoth]

FWIW Chris, I've always felt that your presence in this forum represents an honest quest for understanding. Even when you needle us!

luna