This is a 'stream of consciousness' response to the 12 theses posed by J S Spong - taking his theses at face value.
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
Disagree. I think it's not theism that's dead, it's a particular viewpoint of a particular philosophy that renders theism invalid on its terms. As long as that philosophy rules, there can be no reasoned argument for any knowledge of any form of theism. There can be no new way when any way is ruled out by the fact that man is utterly fallible.
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.
The author implies that his philosophical position is the only acceptable position, even if it is the prevalent position. The Church would argue that any notion of God is inaccessible to post-Kantian post-modernism, and also that this is 'a' philosophy, not the 'only' philosophy - is not absolute.
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.
Philosophy again - by disallowing the concept of metaphysics, the author has lost the very richness of the text. Also he's somewhat wanting in the areas of form criticism and the understandiung of myth ... what about evidence to suggest that the human race descends from one genetic source - a woman located in Africa?
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
Not impossible - but a Mystery - we might find new info next week that makes it possible. I don't think science today says anything is 'impossible'?
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.
What about a Quantum world? What about the fact that the Newtonian world does not provide all the answers?
I would rather that the miracle stories are interpreted in a far more sophisticated manner, as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity, in this Newtonian world.
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 and must be dismissed.
Hang on - remember these primitives - Aristotle, Plato, et al, gave us the philosophy that is still the foundation of our way of thinking - who was it said 'all philosophy is a footnote to Plato'.
They were barbarian times - to suggest anything else is to imply anachronism. Christians can believe in sacrifice, but not in a barbarian way. And it's unlikely that Rome would have come up with the lethal injection, although the Greeks had their lethal draught ... the barbarism is part of the point, and part of the Mystery, part of the Cosmic Drama of man continually rejecting the hand that reaches out to him ... Love is also a primitive concept, too ...
The 'idea' of sacrifice is universal, the method is contingent. There seems to be a confusion between the two?
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
Philosophy again. But careful - Scripture says resurrection, not resuscitation - the two are distinctly different - and the evidence of Scripture would seem to point to that fact that it was not resuscitation...
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.
For those with no poetic or lyric sensibility whatsoever - in fact no imagination whatsoever - perhaps - but to those with a sense of symbol, there is absolutely no problem whatsoever ...
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.
No there isn't. Your point... ?
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
Why not? We are in human history - we are the very stuff of it - what other way can we act? Is prayer utterly useless then? Can God not act?
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
So away with justice and mercy? Karma? Cause and effect?
The guilt issue is a massive question, and certainly a card played far too often and too loudly - but let's not kid ourselves - two things motivate the human race - gain, and guilt -
If man was always guided by his intellect, then OK, but often, and even the most intellectual, is not ...
... some would sugest Today we stand ever closer to the edge of total environmental disaster. What are we doing about it? As little as possible. In an ideal world, we can have ideal solutions, but in the real world, one has to deal with the real world.
Put another way - the hope of society cannot rely upon the law and the threat of legal action as a motivator of good social behaviour - so the judiciary and penal system ought to be done away with?
I'm not advocating fear - the most oft-used phrase in Scripture is 'fear not' - but I am aware that left to his own devices ...
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.
Agreed - in principle. But surely society has the right to protect itself against the predator, and that last orientation is the foundation of a whole mess of troubles ... does society have the right to protect the weak from the predatory apetities of the strong?
Again - taking his prior points into consideration, how can he propose that man bears God's image? Surely this is a naive anthropomorphism? Pre-Darwinian, pre-Newtonian, pre-Copernican, fantasy? God doesn't have a body, therefore he doesn't have an image, therefore this point is nonsense, surely?
Thomas
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
Disagree. I think it's not theism that's dead, it's a particular viewpoint of a particular philosophy that renders theism invalid on its terms. As long as that philosophy rules, there can be no reasoned argument for any knowledge of any form of theism. There can be no new way when any way is ruled out by the fact that man is utterly fallible.
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.
The author implies that his philosophical position is the only acceptable position, even if it is the prevalent position. The Church would argue that any notion of God is inaccessible to post-Kantian post-modernism, and also that this is 'a' philosophy, not the 'only' philosophy - is not absolute.
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.
Philosophy again - by disallowing the concept of metaphysics, the author has lost the very richness of the text. Also he's somewhat wanting in the areas of form criticism and the understandiung of myth ... what about evidence to suggest that the human race descends from one genetic source - a woman located in Africa?
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
Not impossible - but a Mystery - we might find new info next week that makes it possible. I don't think science today says anything is 'impossible'?
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.
What about a Quantum world? What about the fact that the Newtonian world does not provide all the answers?
I would rather that the miracle stories are interpreted in a far more sophisticated manner, as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity, in this Newtonian world.
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 and must be dismissed.
Hang on - remember these primitives - Aristotle, Plato, et al, gave us the philosophy that is still the foundation of our way of thinking - who was it said 'all philosophy is a footnote to Plato'.
They were barbarian times - to suggest anything else is to imply anachronism. Christians can believe in sacrifice, but not in a barbarian way. And it's unlikely that Rome would have come up with the lethal injection, although the Greeks had their lethal draught ... the barbarism is part of the point, and part of the Mystery, part of the Cosmic Drama of man continually rejecting the hand that reaches out to him ... Love is also a primitive concept, too ...
The 'idea' of sacrifice is universal, the method is contingent. There seems to be a confusion between the two?
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
Philosophy again. But careful - Scripture says resurrection, not resuscitation - the two are distinctly different - and the evidence of Scripture would seem to point to that fact that it was not resuscitation...
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.
For those with no poetic or lyric sensibility whatsoever - in fact no imagination whatsoever - perhaps - but to those with a sense of symbol, there is absolutely no problem whatsoever ...
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.
No there isn't. Your point... ?
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
Why not? We are in human history - we are the very stuff of it - what other way can we act? Is prayer utterly useless then? Can God not act?
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
So away with justice and mercy? Karma? Cause and effect?
The guilt issue is a massive question, and certainly a card played far too often and too loudly - but let's not kid ourselves - two things motivate the human race - gain, and guilt -
If man was always guided by his intellect, then OK, but often, and even the most intellectual, is not ...
... some would sugest Today we stand ever closer to the edge of total environmental disaster. What are we doing about it? As little as possible. In an ideal world, we can have ideal solutions, but in the real world, one has to deal with the real world.
Put another way - the hope of society cannot rely upon the law and the threat of legal action as a motivator of good social behaviour - so the judiciary and penal system ought to be done away with?
I'm not advocating fear - the most oft-used phrase in Scripture is 'fear not' - but I am aware that left to his own devices ...
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.
Agreed - in principle. But surely society has the right to protect itself against the predator, and that last orientation is the foundation of a whole mess of troubles ... does society have the right to protect the weak from the predatory apetities of the strong?
Again - taking his prior points into consideration, how can he propose that man bears God's image? Surely this is a naive anthropomorphism? Pre-Darwinian, pre-Newtonian, pre-Copernican, fantasy? God doesn't have a body, therefore he doesn't have an image, therefore this point is nonsense, surely?
Thomas