at a Brookfield Centre workshop in Brisbane in August 2001.
The workshop focused on John Shelby Spong's
Why Christianity Must Change or Die.
Is Bishop John Spong right or wrong? Perhaps it won't surprise you that I wish to answer: 'yes'. Both.
I think he's right in many respects.
First, his approach is right. You may have seen that banner with the bloated question mark flapping in the grounds of your local church. What Alpha promises is badly needed. Open, honest exploration is an essential part of 'growing in faith'. Unfortunately, the banner is false advertising. Alpha is about ready-made answers, not about questions.
Spong says 'orthodox' Christianity has become a kind of religious straitjacket (19). I agree. For evidence, let me submit the existence of the Sea of Faith Network. Sea of Faith, or allied groups, now exist in the UK, NZ, the USA, Canada and South Africa as well as in Australia. Here we are small but rapidly growing, and our membership is drawn very largely from Church folk and ex-Church folk (Spong's "Church alumni"). SoF presents these people with an opportunity they find rare in Christian church circles: the opportunity to say and explore what they really think.
Doctrinal orthodoxy is, I believe, just what Spong says it is: the point of view which won out, not necessarily the 'right' point of view. We recall here that the Greek derivation of the word 'heretic' means simply 'able to choose'.
We are fortunate indeed to live in a time and place where dissent is possible. Reading Eusebius's Life of Constantine  is an eye-opener for those who see the Nicene Creed as a work of the Holy Spirit. Once the threats and bribes of Constantine had secured agreement among the church leaders, Eusebius recounts:
the lurking-places of the heretics [were] broken up by the emperor's command, and the savage beasts they harboured (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines) driven to flight. Of those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated by the emperor's threats, disguising their real sentiments, crept secretly into the Church. For since the law directed that search should be made for their books, those of them who practiced evil and forbidden arts were detected, and these were ready to secure their own safety by dissimulation of every kind. (Chapter XXI)
Thus the members of the entire body became united, and compacted in one harmonious whole; and the one catholic Church, at unity with itself, shone with full lustre, while no heretical or schismatic body anywhere continued to exist. And the credit of having achieved this mighty work our Heaven-protected emperor alone, of all who had gone before him, was able to attribute to himself. (Chapter XXI)
Heresy to me is sacred. Heresy is the rogue genetic mutation that makes the species multiply. Heresy is the very source of all the colours and shapes and pain and joy in the world. Those who would stamp it out are my enemies. (231)
Second, I agree with Spong that much Christian doctrine and practice is outdated and irrelevant. The Virgin Birth does make sense - but only if you live at a time when women are understood to be mere vessels in which the male seed grows to fruition, when sin is understood to be sexually transmitted, and when you believe in a literal Adam. (92ff)
A supernatural, interventionist God is irrelevant to many in an age when daily life is lived functionally without God. Scott Cowdell - an Anglican clergyman, formerly of this diocese - has just written a book titled A God For This World. He acknowledges that
Christians have prized and in many cases tenaciously maintained images of God that positively invite religious scepticism… (4)
As for Christian practice: take prayer. Although many of the particularly embarrassing bits - like suggestions that lean times are punishment for sin - have been removed from our prayer books, there is still a long way to go to make A Prayer Book for Australia a relevant document. As an Anglican for the best part of forty years, I would pray week by week for the Church. Specific Anglican bishops, dioceses and parishes around the world supposedly benefited from this (though I confess to having been a little drowsy by that stage of the service) - but I do not recall, ever, any Catholic parish being prayed for. No Baptists or Presbyterians, let alone, God help us, Unitarians or Buddhists or Moslems. They didn't exist.
Look also at the typical Christian attitude of prayer: eyes closed to shut out the sinful world, kneeling, head bowed, paying homage to the medieval Lord as though we're all extras in a remake of Robin Hood. The overt paraphernalia of royalty with which we invest bishops is another part of this whole outdated tableau.
There is, of course, the issue of morality as well as relevance. In the words of English clergyman and theologian Don Cupitt,
a good deal of standard Christian doctrine now has a bad smell morally. Living by it as it stands is actually harmful to people. (Reforming Christianity, 72)
A third respect in which I believe Spong to be on the right track is in his assessment of scripture. It is not a set of propositions 'once for all delivered to the saints'. The Gospels, as Spong says, are not in any literal sense holy, they're not accurate, they're not to be confused with reality. They are beautiful portraits designed to point readers towards the holy and the real (108).
And the Bible is certainly not a 'maker's manual' on how to live an ethical life. Spong's exposition of the Ten Commandments (149ff) is required reading here. I recently read a report which said that rap singer Eminem was intending to quote scripture to his audience to show them how hypocritical were Christian opponents to his concerts. I don't mean for a moment to defend Eminem, but does anyone doubt he could find a good number of verses from the Bible that are offensive to our sense of morality?
Fourth: Spong is right to emphasise the importance of the human factor in religion.
The basis of ethics, says the Bishop, is to be found in our own humanity, not in some divine or eternal law undergirded by God (160). What is Spong advocating here? Christian humanism?
But where would we be without the ethical guide and constraint that the traditional Christian God represents? Isn't there, behind all humanist views, a naïvely optimistic assessment of humanity, a view forever tarnished by the World Wars of last century, if not by Rwanda, the Baltic wars, East Timor and the rest?
Well I grant that humans fail, even when their intentions are impeccable. However, I think history shows that they fail every bit as much - if not more - when they profess to rely on God to guide their decision-making.
Personally, I'm in favour of Christian humanism. I think we should, as Bonhoeffer suggested half a century ago, be living before God as if there was no God.
As Synod Rep in Rockhampton Diocese many years ago I heard the presiding Bishop announce - in case we got carried away with our power to change things - that the Anglican Church is not a democracy. Anglican hierarchical authority is another hangover from feudal times which needs to change, as John Spong observes. Future worship, he says, will be less hierarchical, more egalitarian. It will be more exploratory, less defensive. It will treasure, but not be bound by scriptural traditions (187). That's my kind of religion, with room for human creativity.
A fifth point on which I believe Spong is right concerns the nature of theology. In Western Christian traditions we have taken our words and images about God far too seriously. So seriously, in fact, that we have taken to worshipping them. Spong is right to quote with approval Clifford L. Stanley's view that "Any god who can be killed ought to be killed" (xix).
We do need words to bring religious experience out of the realm of private delusion. However, as Spong says,
The very moment we move from ecstatic proclamation to explanation, the presuppositions, definitions, and stereotypes of the ages begin to shape our words. That is inescapable. (75)
Is Spong wrong? I say yes, in three ways.
I think he's wrong about God.  Spong claims to reject the God of theism. God is not external, but is to be found "in the depths of our own humanity" (187). Nevertheless, God is
the presence that is over, under, around, and through the very fabric of life, the God who is not a personal being but who is made known in the personal being of the whole creation. (196)
What Spong is rejecting, it seems to me, is not theism as such, but rather the remote God of classical theism. Spong's position - perhaps best described as 'panentheism' - is, in my understanding, still a species of theism .
In any case, this does not go far enough for me. I prefer to see God in 'non-realist' terms, as a symbol for the values we hold most sacred; as Don Cupitt describes this position, God is an ideal, an integrating concept applied to experience rather than a reality presenting itself to us in experience (70).
One consequence of this disagreement with Spong is that I do not share his conviction about life after death. I do agree with him that people these days very much focus on this earthly life. Indeed, I find that an unambiguously good thing, given the devaluing of this world inherent in much Christian discourse over the centuries. However, the notion of personal existence beyond the grave becomes increasingly bizarre to me as I get older.
On a second point I also beg to differ from the good Bishop. He says that Buddhists "clearly believe in God, but not in a deity who is defined in theistic terms". (57) He describes a well-known Buddhist monk as living "inside a God-consciousness" (185).
It's not enough, you see, that many Buddhists can be deeply religious and lead fruitful and ethical lives. Spong has a deep respect for Buddhists, but in communicating this he has to resort to describing them using Christian categories.
I think his position does not in fact do justice to Buddhism in all its varieties. Spong's words do not treat with respect the self-description of many, most notably Theravadan, Buddhists who do not in any sense 'believe in God'. I see it as a subtle form of Western imperialism, carrying the implication that Buddhists do not really know themselves, but are best known through Western Christian eyes.
On one final point I think Spong is wrong: that is, with respect to his program for reforming Christianity. He seems to believe, as Don Cupitt puts it, that all we need to do is replace a lot of untrue and morally objectionable doctrines with a smaller set of true and morally edifying ones (73).
In my view, the most profitable path would be to dispense altogether with creeds and doctrines. Stop pretending that we all believe, or even should all believe the same thing. Focus in worship on the values held in common and on the grace, love and fellowship that can be found in any human community which meets together with benign intention.
Actually, in my experience this tends to happen anyway. Do people go to church for a hit of doctrine? I think Spong underplays the role of community. For me, it's the community that's sacred, not the metaphysics.
Spong's language is required to be, and is taken to be, edifying and non-technical rather than philosophical. He has to use language which simultaneously suggests to some of his audience that he is making a radical break with tradition, and to others of his audience that the old realities remain reassuringly in place after all… [S]omeone who must speak and be heard mainly in a church context is not quite allowed to say anything too clear or definite. (70)
2. To put it in Spong's words, "The reality of God and the potential of human life are not identical, but neither are they different or even separate". (193)
Cupitt, Don Reforming Christianity Polebridge Press 2001
Dessaix, Robert Night Letters Pan Macmillan, 1996
Eusebius Life of Constantine
Spong, John Shelby Why Christianity Must Change or Die HarperSanFrancisco 1998
Posted by Luke
I do not think Lee Strobel would agree with you. I did like the last commit that the community is sacraed. However for me personely I find Jesus Christ to be very confortable. I also believe in an after life.
Posted by Brenda Hendricks