Friends,I am reading this profoundly thought-provoking (albeit poorly titled) book by John Shelby Spong, titled "Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile." The book was a Christmas present to Ben from his mom, who also found it to be very thought-provoking. I've posted the "12 Theses" below as a way to possibly start a conversation.
The material he presents is honest and deconstructive - and as someone who attends a fairly liturgical church, I'm finding it more and more difficult to participate in some of the readings and especially the Nicene Creed that is so a part of our worship experience. Marcus Borg, another Jesus scholar, would say that the creed (Nicene) is a way to identify ourselves with a particular culture and story of the past - the story of how the man Jesus was understood to 'believers' at that time in history, to rule out a contending point of view (the Arius v. Athanasius debate), and to maintain the peace under Constantine. The creed for us today, he would say, is not an exercise for our intellectual approval. Well, that sounds nice - but if that is the case, why do we still recite it every Sunday, as if it were literally true? I'm pretty sure when people hear or say the words, "I believe..." they are not thinking to themselves, "I think this is a bunch of crap but I'll say it anyway..." - Most people truly believe the words - or feel as though they should - the virgin birth, the 2nd coming of Christ to judge the world, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, etc. etc. And, moreover, they think that if they are to call themselves Christian, they better believe it, because that is the truth.
Marcus Borg, in a lecture a few weeks ago that I attended, talked about reclaiming the Christian language. One of the words he focused on was the word believe. He said that the word, at it root, was more akin to belove or, "to give one's heart to" - the subject of the word believe was never a statement, it was always a person. Thus when we say "I believe..." in the creed, we are more saying, "I give my heart to...". This doesn't solve the problem of the creed for me...but it does help to some extent. In my opinion, I think we should write new creeds that are in accord with our understanding of God and the nature of the universe today - creeds that do not reflect the 3-tiered worldview that so framed the creeds of the past. I guess the question is, Why do we still use it? and, Can we speak it with honesty?
I would be interested in your thoughts - on the 12 theses below, or on the creed, or on any related matters. Here are a few points Spong makes - think of these as similar to what Martin Luther did while nailing his theses to the the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, protesting what he believed were the fallacies and malpractices of the established church of that time.
----
A Call for a New Reformation
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.
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.
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.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, 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.
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 that must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
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.
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.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
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.
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 cither rejection or discrimination.
Spong's Note: These theses posted for debate are inevitably stated in a negative manner. That is deliberate. Before one can hear what Christianity is one must create room for that bearing by clearing out the misconceptions of what Christianity is not. Why Christianity Must Change or Die is a manifesto calling the church to a new reformation. In that book I begin to sketch out a view of God beyond theism, an understanding of' the Christ as a God presence and a vision of the shape of both the church and its Liturgy for the future.
4 comments:
Richelle,
Thanks for posting this! Really interesting. I'd love to know more and have conversations about it...
Here's my immediate reaction:
The 12 theses are certainly very provocative, and if Spong's intent is to generate interest (attention), I think they are well-crafted. If his intent is to generate genuine dialogue with the huge majority of Christians who would proudly claim and affirm the Nicene Creed, I'm not sure these theses, even with the disclaimer, are the best approach.
It does make me want to know his reasons for these claims, because as stand alone statements, almost all of them leads to the question, "Uhh, why?!" #11 and #12 needed and I am glad he is pushing for those things.
What seems like he is doing with most of the others, honestly, is saying, "These beliefs that Christians have affirmed for centuries, in the midst a variety of dominant worldviews, no longer makes sense with the current dominant worldview." The problem is, fiath in Christ and following Christ (in my view) IS a worldview.
I would plead with anyone who is reading Spong (or Borg) to read Leslie Newbigin (particularly "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society") alongside them... and I, as someone who has read only snippets of those guys, should definitely read and listen intently to Spong and Borg alongside Newbigin (as soon as I have time to read!).
Thoughts?
David! Thanks for your thoughts. I so wish we could carve out a few hours (or days) over tea and a fire (tracy showed me a fire she made last month cooking bacon-wrapped veil - but that's another story :) to discuss these things. I'm part of my church's Catechumenate - meaning that I am wrestling with so many questions about God and what I believe, what belief even means, Who Jesus was/is, who I want to be in light of it all. It's been an amazing journey, I wish I could talk it over with you and Tracy in person.
I've gotten about 100 pages into Spong's book, only to stop because I don't have time to go on w/ nursing pre-reqs, catechumenate studies and everything else, even though I so want to. I agree with you that Spong should be read alongside others who tackle similar questions but perhaps come out w/ different understandings that might be more consistent with the whole of Christian belief and practice, that, as you pointed out, have been a source of unity for centuries of Christians. As I wrestle with the creeds, I am beginning to have my whole posture changed as I learn more about what they actually mean. Alongside this is a more deeply held conviction and realization that I've come to - that faith never seems to come about because of intellectual ascent...but as we both know it is about a *way* of living, and can only be understood if one is living in it. It is this 'living in it' that I have found most life-giving and inspiring. It's hard to put all of this to words.
With that said, I think Spong makes some excellent points that are vital for the church to wrestle with, particularly in light of how the rest of the world views Christian belief (and all of the misconceptions therein). I would LOVE to read Leslie Newbigin (also when I have time!). In the meantime I am reading "Tokens of Trust" by Rowan Williams, which deals with a lot of similar questions/dilemmas around the creeds - but in a way that is not so, "let's throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach that seems to come from Spong.
I'd love to continue this dialogue. Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Grace and peace...
Spong is arguing from the perspective that too much of the public face of this discussion has been turned over to the framing and limiting rhetoric of the fundamentalist and evangelical wings. We are currently living in a world with four powerful ancient religious traditions that have spawned out over the last millennia to include the most reactionary views as mainstream. Hinduism begets Buddhism and Sikhism and the Hindu nationalist party. Jewish-Christian-Islam have each been led to appear to be highly reactionary with each other and with the world around them. Confucius devolved into Taoism which led to Chinese Buddhism which today is Maoism.
If we can work, in cooperative measures, to open the discourse of language in religious affairs, we can become more balanced and less rigid, less harsh. Glenn Beck opened a huge can when he attacked social justice, and that is remarkable, both because of his stupidity in doing so, but also for allowing the more progressive, less dogmatic voices to rise up in protest.
Mark, your wealth of knowledge in world religions is vastly more encompassing that mine, and I appreciate your reflection on how the more dogmatic, fundamentalist wings of each religious tradition seem to always get all the press...unfortunately. But, like you said, Glenn Beck's mistake was perhaps to everyone's benefit, hopefully showing the world what so many people of faith consider vital to their practice and belief (social justice, etc.) I love your thoughts regarding opening the discourse of language amongst our various traditions, because so often our communal gatherings are what Marcus Borg would suggest to be 'language events' - if we can share similar language perhaps we will find ourselves on common ground.
Post a Comment