Spong's take-it/leave-it

[_Roger Morrison]

Spong's answer to a question asked by reader. Both pasted below for your consideration:

Diana, from North Carolina, writes:

Since the Bible contains so much misinterpreted information, what kind of reference should a praying, spiritual person use? Are there certain translations that are less derogatory than others? Also, in looking at a deeper and clearer understanding of the Bible, are there metaphysical understandings that would enhance one's spiritual journey and that would be useful? If so, what are they?

Dear Diana,

Part of the problem that underlies your letter is that in your mind and in the minds of countless millions of others like you, a distorted Bible and a distorted understanding of the Bible has shaped your life for far too long. To undo that damage would almost take a lifetime. Some translations of the Bible are certainly more accurate than others, but any honest translation of the Bible will still confront the reader in many passages with an understanding of God who acts in an immoral way. That is simply part of the tribal story the Bible tells. Tribal gods have chosen people, which of course means that those not of that tribe are God's unchosen. Tribal gods hate the enemies of the chosen people. So the God of the Bible conducts a reign of terror against the Egyptians with plagues, against the Ammonites by stopping the sun in the sky to allow Joshua more daylight in which to slaughter them and even orders King Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites. No version of the Bible can remove the horrors of some of its stories. That, however, is not the way to read this book. It is not the word of God in any literal sense.

The Bible is a developing narrative, portraying the developing God-consciousness in human life. It moves beyond the tribal deity of some of its earlier parts to a universalism that defines God as both Love and Justice, and even calls us to love our enemies. The essential truths of the Bible, useful on all of our spiritual journeys, is that in creation God proclaims that all life is holy, in the Jesus story, the Bible asserts that all life is loved and that through the Holy Spirit, who is said to be "the Lord and giver of life," the Bible issues a call to each of us to be all that we can be.

I work on these primary premises of the Christian story, and that is why I still treasure, read, study and try to live into what I believe is the essential truth of the Bible. I do this by rejecting everything that is present in either the Christian Church or the Christian Scriptures that is used to diminish the humanity of any child of God, based on any external characteristic of tribe, gender, sexual orientation or religious tradition. I invite you to walk with me into this new perspective.

John Shelby Spong

Thoughts, comments?? Roger

[_Ren]

It is not the word of God in any literal sense.

...so -don't take the Bible too literally then?
...seems like a good idea. I heartily recommend such an approach :)

[_EAllusion]

Remember when Juliann used to argue that the LDS faith was theologically "liberal" largely based on her complete dogged ignorance of what she was talking about?

This is a classic expression of what theological liberalism actually is. Can you imagine finding it expressed in the Ensign or at a General Conference?

[_bcspace]

This is a classic expression of what theological liberalism actually is. Can you imagine finding it expressed in the Ensign or at a General Conference?

Indeed not. Liberal theology is to Atheism as Intelligent Design is to Creationism.

[_Roger Morrison]

Refreshing isn't it, from a Theists perspective... WHAT does the future hold?? Roger warmly wonders...

[_the road to hana]

The Bible is a developing narrative, portraying the developing God-consciousness in human life.

Thoughts, comments?? Roger

It seems to me this is the key point of Spong's comments above. The Bible really needs to be taken in context as a tribal narrative and as developing God-consciousness (or God-awareness), whether or not people believe it is a divinely inspired compilation.

Moving from the God of the Old Testament who punishes one tribe and rewards another to the more inclusive God of the New Testament is not necessarily a change in God, but a change in perspective.

Anyone who knows anything about Spong knows why he particularly advances the rights of people in same-sex relationships, and knowing that helps to understand anything else he says that is inclusive of that.

[_huckelberry]

I have admitted a few times that Spong presses some buttons for me. Paranoia? I read through these comments and think well yes, I thought these things were clear. How can I complain about these comments, they are true.

Yet buttons are buttons and I become uncomfortable, "come walk with me" and I picture some salesman grabbing my elbow.

I like to do some of my own thinking about the process that the Bible covers. I like to think about how the events relate. What experience is this about? How does the story get from primitive images of Gods wrath like a plague to the idea of Gods mercy and from there to Love for all humankind? The Bible does make that journey but as an enjoyer of journies I like the steps along the way.

I find myself thinking about that story of God attacking Egypt. It does not seem as simple as God was being mean to outsiders. That seems a perverse reading. It is clear in my reading anyway that God is pictured as protecting the weak and disadvaged. Now not all of what follows fits that. There is enough slavery in Isreal to show there was no sudden jump to the promised land. But from the beginning the God of the Bible is one whose concern is for those who have been injured by the pride and lust of the powerful.

NOt that human responses immediately lined up with that concern. Not yet, another thousand years maybe, or maybe it will be longer.

[_Roger Morrison]

I have admitted a few times that Spong presses some buttons for me. Paranoia? I read through these comments and think well yes, I thought these things were clear. How can I complain about these comments, they are true.

Yet buttons are buttons and I become uncomfortable, "come walk with me" and I picture some salesman grabbing my elbow.

I like to do some of my own thinking about the process that the Bible covers. I like to think about how the events relate. What experience is this about? How does the story get from primitive images of Gods wrath like a plague to the idea of Gods mercy and from there to Love for all humankind? The Bible does make that journey but as an enjoyer of journies I like the steps along the way.

I find myself thinking about that story of God attacking Egypt. It does not seem as simple as God was being mean to outsiders. That seems a perverse reading. It is clear in my reading anyway that God is pictured as protecting the weak and disadvaged. Now not all of what follows fits that. There is enough slavery in Isreal to show there was no sudden jump to the promised land. But from the beginning the God of the Bible is one whose concern is for those who have been injured by the pride and lust of the powerful.

NOt that human responses immediately lined up with that concern. Not yet, another thousand years maybe, or maybe it will be longer.

Hi Huck, Spong might be selling. What advocate, or reformer doesn't? "Buyer beware, in every case!" I think Spong presents the results of, to use your words, "...some of 'his' own thinkinking..." that represents a life time of study and "...processing...the Bible..."

His purpose, as i see it, is not in apologetic terms to confirm the traditional theologian's view that "God" did/does horrible things to protect His people, or punish the wicked. Rather Spong, as any thinking-person, represents the view that "God" had/has absolutely nothing to do with natural disasters or human slaughters as rewards or punishments. When that traditional view is purged from the minds of bible-folks, they will read these events as human atrocities by the hands of humans, not "God's".

That such abuses were/are subscribed to "God" was/is simply primitive justification of evil scammed as righteousness, being "God's will". In essence displacing the responsibility from were it belongs, on inhumane behavior.

More current application of that premise: Columbus discovered the Americas to Chistianize its heathen indigenous natives. "Empire expansion, resource value and speculation had/have nothing to do with colonizing..."

Believe that and you'll believe, "...we war in the Middle East to spred Democracy and to fullfil Bible prophecy...then Jesus will come and we'll have a thousand years of peace..." Such absurdity, and teaching of it should be rewarded by writing a zillion lines, "PLEASE, "God" fogive me. I knew not my ignorance."

"Pride and lust of the powerful" certainly do play their part in human exploitation and suffering, then as now. Interestingly the very things Jesus spoke against have become the watch-words of the materialistic Chritianized world we have seeded...Blah, Blah, Blah... Warm regards, Roger

[_huckelberry]

I have admitted a few times that Spong presses some buttons for me. Paranoia? I read through these comments and think well yes, I thought these things were clear. How can I complain about these comments, they are true.

Yet buttons are buttons and I become uncomfortable, "come walk with me" and I picture some salesman grabbing my elbow.

I like to do some of my own thinking about the process that the Bible covers. I like to think about how the events relate. What experience is this about? How does the story get from primitive images of Gods wrath like a plague to the idea of Gods mercy and from there to Love for all humankind? The Bible does make that journey but as an enjoyer of journies I like the steps along the way.

I find myself thinking about that story of God attacking Egypt. It does not seem as simple as God was being mean to outsiders. That seems a perverse reading. It is clear in my reading anyway that God is pictured as protecting the weak and disadvaged. Now not all of what follows fits that. There is enough slavery in Isreal to show there was no sudden jump to the promised land. But from the beginning the God of the Bible is one whose concern is for those who have been injured by the pride and lust of the powerful.

NOt that human responses immediately lined up with that concern. Not yet, another thousand years maybe, or maybe it will be longer.

Roger, I will add a few return comments below.

Hi Huck, Spong might be selling. What advocate, or reformer doesn't? "Buyer beware, in every case!" I think Spong presents the results of, to use your words, "...some of 'his' own thinkinking..." that represents a life time of study and "...processing...the Bible..."

Huck: I certainly do not mind Spong doing his own thinking. I hardly mind that his doing so may encourage more people to do so. There are many people who have done so over the years and Spongs views are one possible result amoungst a variety of reflections that may result.
.................

His purpose, as I see it, is not in apologetic terms to confirm the traditional theologian's view that "God" did/does horrible things to protect His people, or punish the wicked. Rather Spong, as any thinking-person, represents the view that "God" had/has absolutely nothing to do with natural disasters or human slaughters as rewards or punishments. When that traditional view is purged from the minds of bible-folks, they will read these events as human atrocities by the hands of humans, not "God's".

That such abuses were/are subscribed to "God" was/is simply primitive justification of evil scammed as righteousness, being "God's will". In essence displacing the responsibility from were it belongs, on inhumane behavior.

Huck: I think the division between what God did and didn't requires care and reflection. Well it does unless one decides there is no God and then of course God has nothing to do with any of it including the positives that Spong sees as an end conclusion. If those positives that Spong sees are in anyway divine, and Spong clearly thinks they are, then it could matter how Irsreals experience lead to those conclusions. Our understanding would be helped if we include Isreal experience in its nastier turns whether we see those as human or divine or both.(can those really be seperated if we have any sort of concept of the divine?) I myself would like a litle deeper understanding of why we have war than what I can find in arguing whether or not God did it or man did it.

.........................

More current application of that premise: Columbus discovered the Americas to Chistianize its heathen indigenous natives. "Empire expansion, resource value and speculation had/have nothing to do with colonizing..."

Huck; I confess I know of nobody who believes this. I do not of course know everybody so perhaps somebody does.
.....................

Believe that and you'll believe, "...we war in the Middle East to spred Democracy and to fullfil Bible prophecy...then Jesus will come and we'll have a thousand years of peace..." Such absurdity, and teaching of it should be rewarded by writing a zillion lines, "PLEASE, "God" fogive me. I knew not my ignorance."

Huck: " to fullfill prophecy" gag, I realize there are some people who might think something a bit like this. I agree it is repulsive. It would be a thought process unhelpful for dealing with reality. However I think we are in a war because of much more normal and mundane reasons. I am sure we are there for better or worse due to a stratigic response to perceived threat not Bible prophesy.
.................

"Pride and lust of the powerful" certainly do play their part in human exploitation and suffering, then as now. Interestingly the very things Jesus spoke against have become the watch-words of the materialistic Chritianized world we have seeded...Blah, Blah, Blah...

Huck: as if the world was all love and kindness untill the Bible corrupted it. You likely did not really mean that extreme, just the irony. OK.
..................
Warm regards, Roger

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Huck, your statements, that i'll try to address:

[quote]
More current application of that premise: Columbus discovered the Americas to Chistianize its heathen indigenous natives. "Empire expansion, resource value and speculation had/have nothing to do with colonizing..."

Huck; I confess I know of nobody who believes this. I do not of course know everybody so perhaps somebody does.
.....................
RM: Whether it was cannonized, i don't know. But i do know it was taught by the LDS that Columbus was led by the HG to discover America. It can be found in more than one place i'm sure.

Believe that and you'll believe, "...we war in the Middle East to spred Democracy and to fullfil Bible prophecy...then Jesus will come and we'll have a thousand years of peace..." Such absurdity, and teaching of it should be rewarded by writing a zillion lines, "PLEASE, "God" fogive me. I knew not my ignorance."

Huck: " to fullfill prophecy" gag, I realize there are some people who might think something a bit like this. I agree it is repulsive. It would be a thought process unhelpful for dealing with reality. However I think we are in a war because of much more normal and mundane reasons. I am sure we are there for better or worse due to a stratigic response to perceived threat not Bible prophesy.
.................
RM: I'm with you, while others, LDS & other Evan-sects are not...

"Pride and lust of the powerful" certainly do play their part in human exploitation and suffering, then as now. Interestingly the very things Jesus spoke against have become the watch-words of the materialistic Chritianized world we have seeded...Blah, Blah, Blah...

Huck: as if the world was all love and kindness untill the Bible corrupted it. You likely did not really mean that extreme, just the irony. OK.

RM: Right again. I certainly don't believe the Bible started the ball rolling. It just helped it a long>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;-) Roger

quote]