Sunday, June 17, 2007
“Christian” – Is that term still applicable?
The opening Chapter of John Shelby Spong’s book “A New Christianity for a New World” he begins with some assertions which many people may think are incompatible with Christianity but he has no problem claiming the label “Christian” for himself. I find myself in agreement with many of these assertions and some people I’ve talked to lately have questioned my use of the label. I’d like to hear some opinions on the possibility of a person dissmissing so much of the traditionally defined content of the Christian faith and still claiming the label “Christian”. If I agree with Bishop Spong on these points, am I still a Christian?
Here is a brief summary of Spong’s assertions:
Spong also makes these positive affirmations of faith, which until a few years ago I would have thought were incompatible with the above statements.
- I do not define God as a supernatural being.
- Since I do not see God as a being, I cannot interpret Jesus as the earthly incarnation of this supernatural deity.
- I do not believe that this Jesus could or did in any literal way raise the dead, overcome a medically diagnosed paralysis, or restore sight to a person born blind, hearing to a deaf person, etc.
- I do not believe that Jesus entered this world by a miracle of a virgin birth or that virgin births occur anywhere except in mythology.
- I do not believe that the experience Christians celebrate at Easter was a physical resuscitation.
- I do not believe that Jesus returned to God by ascending in any literal sense into a heaven located somewhere above the sky.
- I do not believe Jesus founded a church or established an ecclesiastical hierarchy.
- I do not believe that human beings are born in sin and unless somehow saved will forever be banished from God’s presence.
- I do not believe that the Bible is the “word of God” in any literal sense.
What do you think?
- I believe that God is real and that I live deeply and significantly as one related to that divine reality.
- I call Jesus my Lord.
- I believe that Jesus mediated God in a powerful and unique way to human history and to me.
- I believe that my particular life has been dramatically and decisively impacted not only by the life of Jesus, but also by his death and indeed the Easter experience that Christians know as the resurrection.
- I believe that in this Christ I discover a basis for meaning, for ethics, for prayer, for worship, and even for the hope of life beyond the boundaries of my mortality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I can accept that a person following the assertions of Spong can be called Christian. That's not a problem for me. But, my question here is, where does the Bible fit in with it's support of the assertions that he negates. I am having a problem, myself, determining where the Bible fits in and how to describe it's role and veracity. As a former educator in the field of world history, I early dropped my old belief in the inerrancy of that book.
The Bible is our primary (really the only) source of information about Jesus and his vision. It also provides the primary source of information about the stories which set the backdrop to the story of his life. It is essential for those of us that follow him. That is an important role. I don't know what else it could be that would be "better".
Is there something more specific beneath your question Don? Are you saying that without taking the book literally you have trouble taking it seriously?
I don't take it literally either. There is simply too much that obviously is not meant to be taken that way. Jesus' parables were given to an illiterate people, for the most part, who wouldn't have understood a direct teaching. They needed a simple story which they could easily associate with their lives. So, I guess I'm just trying to figure out, as a former conservative Southern Baptist, where and how the Bible, as a whole, fits into the life of the average follower of Jesus. And, yes, I cannot always take it seriously because I understand that the writers of much of it had an agenda. The four gospels is a good example. Each author, whoever he was for each, presents the story according to his own agenda and beliefs about the mission of Jesus. The formation of the canon is another prime example of agendas. I am not saying that there was no inspiration involved, I am just saying I'm not sure where it lies or who was inspired. Since we know little about the authors of many of the NT books, how can we place credence in all that they say? This journey of mine has been ongoing for over two years and shows no signs of slowing down.
Goes to show that despite talk of a post-conservative post-liberal convergence in our post-modern age, there's still a meaningful distinction to be made between those who think Jesus needs to be more than a good idea (or even a great or the best idea) for his 'Lordship' to be a meaningful concept, and those who are content to 'harmonize' Christianity with naturalism (that sentence was way too long).
This is good ol' fashioned liberalism, though I guess that could be either a good thing or a bad thing depending on where you're coming from...
My two cents.
-Daniel-
Thanks for your comments Daniel. I always appreciate your critique and dialogue. I do think you are being disengenious when you refuse to let ME characterize my own views. You can criticize them all you want, but don't try to state my views for me. Is it really fair for conservatives or moderates to define what liberalism is? I don't think so. I agree that if liberalism was what you think it is then it wouldn't be valid. But of course (thank God) it isn't. It is always easy to create a weak bastardized opposing view so you can then proceed to shoot down the remaining weak point. Could you do the same with my own definition of my views? Isn't that a sort of 5th grade technique for debate? I've had dialogue with you long enough to know you are better than that.
Liberal theologians are clearly NOT simply "those who are content to 'harmonize' Christianity with naturalism".
As far as the distinctions which you mention... I agree this distinction exists and probably will continue. The point of emerging theology is NOT to meld all the views into a weak nothingness or least common denominator. Emerging theology brings opposing views together but never asks individuals and groups to let go of their own deep theological roots and ideals. In fact, we should each go deeper into our own traditions but then be willing to share them with each other.
I don't necessarily find them incompatible, but I have never understood why accepting the miraculous is such a hard thing.
I had a chance to hear Borg live a few months ago (a treat). He opened it up for questions at the end and I was really hoping to get called on so he could explain his views more completely. Though I loved everything he was saying, it annoyed me that he seemed to roll his eyes at anyone who believed the miraculous. When it is said "Balaams donkey is a metaphor, because obviously donkeys don't talk"; my mind says, "Of course they don't... unless God wants them to... then they do whatever the hell He wants".
And I do realize that the message of the events is more important than the history of the events, so I don't care whether or not someone takes it literally.
It just seems that Paul was asking the same question when he addressed Agrippa and his accusers, "Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?"
Again, I don't see a problem with unbelief in this regard; and I am not trying to be contentious. I just don't understand why some are SO certain that God would not do anything that would, to us, be impossible.
Andrew,
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate what your are saying but can you step back for a moment and try to analyze what you said. Are you suggesting that you find it "difficult" to imagine how people would find it "difficult" to believe in supernatural phenomenon that have zero proof?
You are basically asking why people would have problems believing the overwhelmingly MOST LIKELY SCENARIO based on our best understanding of the universe. I have no problem with the belief in the supernatural, but why would you seem to suggest that it is somehow MORE reasonable to believe in miracles than NOT believe in them?
Can you atleast admit that belief in supernatural miracles is less reasonable even if you do still believe? That seems fair to me.
I hope that makes sense. I'm not trying to "roll my eyes" at you. And by the way, Borg does say very often "believe what you want about miracles, but don't let that belief cause you to overlook the symbolic meaning of the stories".
Mike,
That is totally fair and I have a feeling Borg would have answered in similar fashion had the mic gotten around to me.
I don't think I was trying to say MORE reasonable. I just felt that Borg left no possiblility for a "what if". There were simply no miracles, and that was the end of it.
I think, having grown up SO certain of my beliefs, I flinch whenever anyone sounds TOO sure of their position - regardless of what angle it is coming from.
Mike,
I simply meant to say essentially what Andrew said. For those of us who accept that God is some kind of a transcendent Other (not reducible to everyday phenomena), Spong's liberalism feels like (though you may and probably do disagree that that's what it is) an accomodation of some sorts to naturalism.
Miracles supernaturally defined don't happen. God isn't a being. So on and so forth. There's much to admire in liberal theology--but its denial of the transcendent isn't one of those things (again, in my humble opinion).
The benefit of the emerging church conversation for me is that I get to try and understand what you find so compelling about a Christianity which denies God's agency. So far I'm still kind of in a haze about it, so bear with me, and maybe someday I'll 'get it'. :-)
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Thanks for the clarification Daniel!
The thing I find so compelling about Spong's view is that I no longer have to cross my fingers behind my back when I call myself a Christian. I can follow Jesus with my entire being without having to adopt a pre-enlightenment worldview complete with divine scriptures, virgin-births, and afterlife. This is liberating and gives me so much more "faith" than I ever had before I realized this other view of Christianity existed.
Post a Comment