spong: right or wrong?

i've had a wild week since i last posted. why, you ask? how kind of you to ask! i helped teach a course at hartford seminary with john shelby spong, former episcopal bishop of newark, n.j. and theological provocateur. i accepted the job in part out of friendship with ian markham and kelton cobb, who serve hartford seminary respectively as dean and professor of theology and ethics. i know spong is controversial and considered by some as a heretic at best and an atheist, more likely. i am not a 'spongian' but i agreed as a way to do what you might call 'fieldwork in theology.' why has this man sold so many books? why does he seemingly appeal to so many on the margins of the church? what does he offer, either in style or substance, that creates such strong reactions?

well! i now have some answers. i won't go into depth here, but will offer a summary response. email me if you want more.

1. he is a contemporary nicodemus (john 3). he seeks after jesus by asking the question, how can these things be? example: given what we know from science about the earth, our galaxy, and the universe beyond, how can we simply confess that jesus came down from heaven, lived, died, rose again, and ascended to heaven where he sits at the right hand of god? simply put, he takes quite seriously that one cannot both be a 21st century educated western person and at the same time straightforwardly confess the faith in pre-modern terms that embody profoundly different understandings of the world. i have great respect for this honesty. my father is a plant pathologist and my mother-in-law a botanist, and their reflections on faith and science sharped my perspective on the importance of pastoral seriousness regarding the integrity of religious speech. and one of my theological mentors, james gustafson, has struggled to speak of faith in ways that his colleagues in the sciences find approachable. his perspective is summed up in his most recent book an examined faith: the grace of self-doubt (fortress, 2004). while one might not accept all of spong's answers, he's more interested in pushing the church to ask the questions. in avoiding these tough questions, he says, the church pushes thinking people away. it is here that he self-consciously follows in the footsteps of another famous and controversial anglican bishop, john a. t. robinson, whose 1963 book honest to god created a big splash.

2. he is by his own admission a translator of scholarship to the broader public. much of what he says that is 'controversial' is either 1) readily available in the academic literature and taught in seminaries or 2) his playful suggestions based on his life experience and reflection. and his translation has a particular ax to grind against what he terms fundamentalism. as a product of the south during the jim crow era, he knows first hand what a fundamentalist world view looks like. he freely admits that his mother died a fundamentalist and could never grow beyond that. he has, however, and wishes for there to be a public voice for another christianity, one that take seriously the insights of biblical scholarship, historical research, and the findings of the sciences. because our knowledge changes over time, and therefore our language and meaning, how, spong asks, can our understanding of god stay the same? to mature, our understanding of god and our ways of speaking of what god is doing in the world through the life, death, and resurrection of jesus christ must grow and mature as well. again, one might argue with some of his particular conclusions but the basic impulse of his work here is commendable. and it ought to be said that many of his fellow former fundamentalists, in the jesus seminar and elsewhere, have long since left the church and offer it no help in 'thinking what it is doing' (hannah arendt).

3. he has a flare for the dramatic. well. i wish more theologians had the ability and desire to produce such wide public readership and debate as have bishop spong's many books. a little flare for the dramatic and the ability to speak to a broad audience about living faith daily and with integrity seems to me what pastors ought to strive to do every week.

okay, you're thinking, have i no critique? yes, of course. but much is to be learned from employing a hermeneutic of gratitude rather than suspicion. i'm thinking of writing a popular book titled 'the gift of heresy' to make the point about how very much we are shaped by those with whom we disagree.

Comments

[Anne Marie Griffin]

Dear Chris,
How delightful to read your comments on Bishop Spong. In the last few months I have read his last two books. I bought the lastest on for M& D because I felt that it addressed some of their frustration with the simplemindedness of the church and its lack of intelegent questioning. I was moved also by the idea that we can still believe in Jesus without being bound by a 1st or maybe 3rd century world view. I believe that The church must connect with the 21st century world view if the pastoral crisis is to be dealt with. We read that the best and the brightest are not attracted to leadership and I think that this is one of the reasons why. I also respect Bishop Spong for exposing himself and his inner struggles so openly. We all think and question but rarely are we allowed to do so in church. We are asked to repeat, have faith. Believe and surrender. I struggle with the creed and the lords prayer every week. Do I really believe what I am saying? Please do write a book about the gift of the heretics. Asking questions and openly discussing them is good!

[Craig Wichman]

Dear Chris-

I was referred to your site by a friend, and read much of it with interest.

But I have to respectfully disagree with you on the Spong issue. As to my own bona fides, I am a lifelong Lutheran, hardly a Fundamentalist - quite emphatically not in the mistakenly politicized manner that is current.

But you too easily leave Spong off the hook, when you say that the value of his questions forgives the content of his answers. Answers that are given with more clarity than the questions.

The "Christianity" that Spong, and other Modernists of his strain propose, is comparable to being a "Socratist" or a "Marxist"; admiring deeply the ideas that the founder presented.

But, though the world's "toys" may have become more complex, human beings - and the Human Question - is the very same as it was in the first years of the Church.

Then, EVERY BIT as much as now, the central teaching of who Jesus was , and what he did, seemed "foolish" to the worldly minded.

And now, every bit as much as then, it is only the real presence of the Risen Messiah that means anything at all.

(Not merely a heartwarming feeling toward what he said... which many of these same folk would say we can't really be sure we know anyway -paradoxical, yes?)

If we have only this philosophical affinity, rather than that indwelling Presence, we are still - now, every bit as much as then - "of all, most to be pitied."

Sincerely,
Craig

[chris scharen]

Right, Craig. I've written a more careful response privately but the main critiques of weight are in the book Can a Bishop be Wrong (ed. Peter C. Moore), especially the article by E. Radner who says rightly that Spong's god suffers from aphasia, that is, cannot speak. I also appreciate the remarkable response to Spong's new reformation theses by Rowan Williams titled No life here, no joy, terror, or tears.
I think it is always a temptation, as I said, to not seek to find the most gracious construction on what another says or does, in a loosely pauline way. but of course one must still say, as we do in baptismal dying and rising daily, yes and no.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.