Spong on Church Evolution

[_Roger Morrison]

Song's answer to a common question:

Not a member? Subscribe now!


Susanfrom St. Paul, Minnesota, writes:

This Week's Essay
Bishop Spong Answers More QuestionsRead it now, and join the conversation on the exclusive member message boards, when you START YOUR FREE MONTH


I find it difficult, very difficult, to participate in the life of the Church because of its negativity and distance from contemporary scientific knowledge. What can I do? Where can I go? Is there any hope for a revolution within the Church?

Dear Susan,

The Church is a complex organism. Many seek in it security from all questioning. A few seek to move beyond its understanding into the world of the 21st century. The tension between the two groups is palpable. Recall that Galileo was condemned and forced to recant from his idea that the earth rotated around the sun and therefore was not the center of a three-tiered universe. Both Galileo and the Pope were members of the Christian Church. The Pope was seeking religious security; Galileo was seeking truth.

The same could be said for Isaac Newton, whose work made both miracle and magic unbelievable. Newton covered his vulnerability by stating that there were two books that revealed the Truth of God. One was the Bible. This, Newton stated, was the book the church and the theologians were meant to interpret and to determine what it says and what it means. The other book, said Newton, was the "Book of Nature," which, he stated, was the domain for the scientists to explore and to interpret. Thus their truths did not overlap. Newton got away with that simplistic distinction, but only because most people did not know much about either book. If one treats the Bible literally, it does proclaim a three-tiered universe, a seven day creation, God's ability to stop the sun in the sky to provide Joshua with more daylight, and the ability for a virgin to conceive and for a deceased person to be called back to life. None of these things is possible in the world we inhabit today.

When the Bible and empirical or scientific truth are in conflict, I think we need to recognize that the Bible is probably the one that is wrong. That is not a problem unless you think that God wrote the Bible, because that would mean that God had to be wrong. The gods of human beings are frequently wrong, just as they are frequently inadequate and frequently evil. Why is it that we do not recognize that no human being and no religious system can finally capture the truth of God?

The Bible was written between 2000 and 3000 years ago. Do you know anyone who would think that absolute truth has been captured in a 2000- to 3000-year-old textbook on any subject? Would you go to a doctor who practiced medicine out of a 2000- to 3000-year-old medical textbook? Would you study astronomy, geography, chemistry or biology out of a book that old? Religious claims for the literal accuracy of the Bible are nothing more than the conclusions of frightened people who cannot deal with the world of today and so they hide in irrational conclusions.

There have always been voices in the Church that force the Christian faith to face reality. I hope you might be willing to become one of them.

Could anything be clearer, and more a matter of fact?

[_harmony]

Reality and the priesthood are two diametrically opposed concepts. Just ask any apostate Mormon.

[_Roger Morrison]

Reality and the priesthood are two diametrically opposed concepts. Just ask any apostate Mormon.

It does seem that way. Always a dilema... Should we head for Emerg first then call the Elders? Call the Elders & tell them we'll meet them at Emerg? Forget Emerg and just call the Elders! Forget the Elders! GIT me to Emerg!!!

Could make this into a pole, but it might prove embarassing to the believing-faithless. While advancing the cause of nonbeliers... Ya know wadimeen eh, Har ;-)

[_bcspace]

Could anything be clearer, and more a matter of fact?

It's quite clear that the author believes one must interpret the Bible based on our modern understanding of language which denies the science of linguistic interpretation. For example, the word translated as day can also mean an epoch of time. He's also guilty of a great deal of presentism.

Being LDS causes me to understand that there is no conflict whatsoever between science and the scriptures.

[_Ray A]

Could anything be clearer, and more a matter of fact?

Spong's approach is way too rational. It would render religion meaningless. This is what you don't seem to understand, Roger. The more absurd a belief, the more likely it is to increase devotion in the true believer. That is why Spong is unattractive to the masses. He's too logical.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi BCS, I recall reading/hearing a LDS homily: "No dispute between true science & true religion." Sounded very acceptable to me for some time. Until I became more discerning and recognized that science is objective, impersonal, more dependable, trust-worthy and materializes substance that has moved humanity from primitive to civilized, and generally speaking from superstition to reality based on advancing/evolving knowledge.

Religion, OTOH, generally speaking, and in my seriously considered opinion, is subjective, personal, inconsistant in its advocacy, tends to generate fear and guilt--often to deleterious degrees over the ages and in many imbalanced folks today. Many religious folks seem to like their religion for those very reasons. So be it. True religion??

Other, more progressive informed church goers are less doctrinaire and find comfort, camaraderie and an environment that accomodates science with little question. True religion?? In your quote below I"ll inject in bold:

Could anything be clearer, and more a matter of fact?

It's quite clear that the author believes one must interpret the Bible based on our modern understanding of language RM: And natural sciences, that seems to be quite clear?? which denies the science of linguistic interpretation. For example, the word translated as day can also mean an epoch of time. RM: Which has little to do with the sun stopping to allow war. Or a boat accomodating every creeping, crawling, walking, flying life form et al... He's also guilty of a great deal of presentism. RM: Is that worse than pastism ;-)

Being LDS causes me to understand that there is no conflict whatsoever between science and the scriptures. RM: Nice that you are comfortable in your position. That makes two of us in comfort. :-)

[_Roger Morrison]

Could anything be clearer, and more a matter of fact?

Spong's approach is way too rational. It would render religion meaningless. This is what you don't seem to understand, Roger. The more absurd a belief, the more likely it is to increase devotion in the true believer. That is why Spong is unattractive to the masses. He's too logical.

Hi Ray, Gottchyer tongue in cheek (I think :-) all da way from Oz to Canada. Ain't this cyber stuff grand!? But I do think Spong is penetrating the masses to a greater degree than ever before. Like the stone cut-out-of-the-mountain, there's no putting it back. Truth will prevail...

[_Ray A]

Hi Ray, Gottchyer tongue in cheek (I think :-) all da way from Oz to Canada. Ain't this cyber stuff grand!? But I do think Spong is penetrating the masses to a greater degree than ever before. Like the stone cut-out-of-the-mountain, there's no putting it back. Truth will prevail...

I've read several of Spong's books, Roger, and, yes, maybe his approach will be the way of the future, but I don't see it happening for a long time to come. Right now, both baby and bathwater are out the window.

[_antishock8]

Would you go to a doctor who practiced medicine out of a 2000- to 3000-year-old medical textbook? Would you study astronomy, geography, chemistry or biology out of a book that old?

I would ask the good Bishop if he would skip the visit to the doctor's office and instead rely soley on a priesthood blessing? Would he go a priesthood holder and rely on him for answers about astronomy (Kolob), geography (Garden of Eden), chemistry (tumbaga plates), or biology (Adam and Eve)? After all, the Mormons have the Truth, no? Who was it that said when a religious person wants to give their myth the veneer of credibility they dress it up in science? Seems appropriate as always...

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Being LDS causes me to understand that there is no conflict whatsoever between science and the scriptures.

Of course. You have to be LDS to believe this. I know many LDS that believe this. The rest of the world doesn't agree with you.