Friday, May 09, 2008
Moving Beyond The Religious Wars
This audio interview is wonderful! It is one of the best interviews I've heard expressing emerging Christianity. Bishop John Shelby Spong presents a way to move beyond the war between secular left and fundamentalist right. He gives us a postmodern option for Christianity to emerge beyond this modern battle.
The first half of the interview is a biographical sketch of his experience, the second half contains one of the most clear and concise explanations of emergent faith that I've ever heard. Don't miss out on this gem. Many people discount Bishop Spong based on a few surface level prejudices. Evangelicals are scared of him because he doesn't use their canned terminology, but they should listen. There is plenty of common ground and opportunity to move beyond the modern construct that forced our division. I think something wonderful is emerging in Christianity and his voice is an important part of the process.
12 comments:
Good stuff! I liked reading about his upbringing with it's strengths and weaknesses. Pretty cool.
Cheers
I listened to the interview with Bishop Spong and totally agree. I'm not sure why he stirs such hostility, as his views are down-to-earth, reasonable, and offered with humility. I especially like his distinction between religion as a quest for truth vs. a quest for security.
The reason many folks do not listen to him is because his teachings are foreign to Christian orthodoxy and history. He has simply ignored church teachings in favor of his supermarket shopping of the faith to suit whatever he feels he can agree with. Labeling himself a Christian is strange enough.
JP,
Some things should be ignored. Most anything that someone dares to label as "orthodoxy" or beyond the scope of reasoning are probably deserving of skepticism.
Spong is clearly a Christian. It seems like pride on your part to question the faith of a man who has devoted so much of his life to Christ.
Believe me Mike, I am not a prideful person and have no right questioning the soul of any individual. At the same time, can the term Christian be defined? Is there a line in the sand? Can we simply ignore Christian thought through the ages? What the Church universal has taught? What the early Church Fathers had to say? He denies, what I believe and what many believe to be orthodox Christian teaching. He sounds more like a panentheist then anything. You say he has done much to devote his life to Christ. I will not question him as a person, he may do more for those in the margins then I can imagine. I believe though, he denies the fullness of Christ, what his full mission was and how we can be in full union with God the Father.
He leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.
JP,
Spong is not a Catholic. You have plenty or right to say that. Spong doesn't agree with you. You have every right to say that and discuss the reasons why. Beyond that, you are out of bounds. Being a Christian means devoting your life to following Jesus. There are many "flavors" within that definition, but they (we) are all in that big tent (Catholics included).
A Panentheist view is extremely orthodox (probably more orthodox than I am willing to accept). It is at the core of Trinitarian theology. God is beyond the natural world, God is incarnate in the natural world, and God is in the hearts and minds of humans. That statement is both trinitarian and panentheistic.
That is fine.
The question Mike still stands "Who or what is a Christian?"
If someone believes Jesus did not physically exist but think his parables and teachings are pretty "neat" and tries to follow them, is this person a Christian?
JP,
If that person devotes their lives to following Jesus, then YES, they are Christian no matter what particular dogma or brand name they use.
fyi...
Why do you use such low handed tactics of trying to spin the viewpoints of others? Why would you paraphrase Spong's views (or mine) by saying "someone believes Jesus did not physically exist but think his parables and teachings are pretty 'neat'.
How is it helpful to spin like that. You know well that this is not how I or Spong would state our views, so why do that JP? How does that progress the conversation?
Quality conversation only happens when people start with honesty. It isn't honest to intetionally mistate the views of another person just so you'll have an easier set of views to debate against.
I was simply using an example not insinuating that is what you or Spong believes. I just wanted to know how you define Christian and that was something I thought of. Again, I was not stating that is what you believe. Sorry if that is how I came across.
I love Spong, personally. I find it interesting that he is being included in the canon of emerging Christianity, since he's been saying this stuff for several decades now. But whatever it takes to get his message out.
I think he rankles a lot of people because in at least one of his books he talks about a post-theistic Christianity and positively about the death of theism, radical and controversial statements even for the emerging church movement.
That said, I think he hits on a lot of important things, though he does tend to marginalize other ways of being a christian at times just as much as "fundamentalists" may marginalize him.
I'm waiting for the day when an author comes out and says, "I think fundamentalism is a valid way of believing. I do not agree with it, but I will not disparage it. I will simply present my views, and not in reaction to the evil "other" of fundamentalism."
That is my only complaint with Spong. He "others" fundamentalists, so much of the reaction against him may have some justification.
Why do we provoke those with whom we disagree and know we can't convince?
Thanks for the comments D. I agree with your feelings here. There needs to be more conversation and less name calling. Although, I think fundamnetalists "other" themselves by claiming they have the only way. It is hard to include people that are doing their best to prove the whole point of faith is the exclusion of everyone else.
True. Fundamentalists do tend to exclude themselves. I guess, I think it'd be better to ignore them as irrelevant. Conversation, I've learned from experience, rarely yields anything positive.
As a reporter in Scottsboro, Ala., a few years back the KKK came to town and held a rally as they had done the year before. The first year, the paper covered the event (negatively, of course) and tons of folks showed up and a riot was narrowly avoided. Just what they wanted.
The next year, we ignored them. We showed up but unofficially just in case something happened. We didn't even mention them. Nothing happened. Came and went and the town went about its business.
Fundamentalists, like the KKK, are in their death throes and the only thing that keeps them relevant is negative controversy. Of course, this might just be the fact that having lived in California in the Bay Area for five years, I'm in a bubble and don't see the uberconservative influence as much. :)
And thank you for having James Cone on your books from your library. :)
Post a Comment