The American Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong is speaking at a university in San Deigo, California. He calls himself a progressive Christian. Many of his views are identical to Dan Barker's autobiography, Godless, which I'm reading at the moment. The difference I see between Spong and the atheist is that there is no doubt in Spong's mind that God exists and he uses what he believes is God's ideal as the standard for the human ideal. The atheist takes on the responsibility for knowing the human ideal for him or herself without having a god in there. Barker talks about some of this on pages 212-213, though the entire chapter "For Goodness Sake" is on morality.

Burke Lecture: John Shelby Spong, Nov. 18, 2004, starting at about 12:30 minutes into the video to about 15 minutes, Spong says:*



Like many Canadians, I am very aware that American politics probably affect my life at least as much as do those of my own country. Thus, it is with great interest that I listen to an American address an issue that nonAmericans discuss everyday.

As the speech progresses, I come across a few more tidbits that I take down and comment on as follows.



Major applause even though it was right in the middle of the lecture. I guess quite a few Americans disagreed with the war already back in 2004.



Spong quotes that verse from John as being central to Jesus' purpose for coming. Spong believes that anything that violates or interferes with the ability of humans to live life fully cannot be of God. Earlier, he spoke against slavery, intolerance of other religions, abuse of women and children and minority groups. He also spoke for gay and women's rights.

In Q&A he is asked about the War (about 1 hour mark). He speaks about it on a very personal level because his daughter is in the Marines and the orders she had been given made no sense. He believes, on Nov. 18, 2004, that in a year the war would be over. I am writing this on Nov. 30, 2008. It's not over yet so far as I know.

Next question is about conversation with fundamentalists. He says he grew up as a fundamentalist in North Carolina, has used the mechanisms, and understands them. He does not believe that conversation is possible with people who think they speak for God. What will happen, he speculates in Nov. 2004, is that:



He says he has a book coming out in April (2005) by HarperColin with the title Sins of Scripture: Shattering the Texts of Hatred in Search of the Love of God. That subtitle is somewhat different from what I find on Amazon; possibly it was changed. However, he ends his speech with the subtitle he quotes, saying that this is why he clings to the Bible. He had been asked why he continues to cling to the Bible, and this is his response.

He talks about a journey through the sacred text, shattering the texts of hatred to reveal the God of Love. He uses the story of Hosea and Gomar (recorded in the book of Hosea) to illustrate love. If I correctly understand, the theme of his entire speech is to move beyond the tribal mentality to love all people.

*All quotes in this post are my transliteration.

"God is not a Christian!" John Shelby Spong says in this video, 'Hell' as an invention of the church. He thinks heaven and hell were invented by the church to control people. He thinks the doctrine, "Ye must be born again" is used to keep people from growing up and from taking personal responsibility. Here's a brief quote:



I'm not sure where to draw the line between religion and humanism. If there is such a thing as a Christian humanist, I would say Spong is it. I read somewhere that "humanist" does not necessarily mean "atheist."

An atheist gives a summary of Spong's theology in This atheist's favorite Christian is.... It's not very well done. She seems to be a mother who is doing this in the middle of taking care of young children so she's kind of harried and ends up just reading her notes into the camera. However, her summary is good. She demonstrates having listened to or read more of Spong than I have, and knows more of his theology than I do. I think the video is worth listening to for anyone who wants a quick overview of Spong's theology.

I'm in conversation with another person about Spong's theological views. As in the post above, the question has arisen as to whether or not Spong is Christian and where to draw the line. I found a video Marcus Borg and the Bible. Borg also identifies, near the end, as Episcopalian/Anglican. Mostly he refers to "mainline congregations." Spong is also Episcopal. I understand that Episcopal is the American form of what is in other countries known as Anglican or Church of England.

I think the video on Borg may lend insight because he speaks specifically on how, in mainline congregations, views on the Bible have changed in his lifetime and why. While Spong will hardly agree with Borg on every item, I think it's fair to expect him to be closer to Borg than to the conservative Christians.

Here are some of the things Borg looks at:

Old Way: Biblical Literalism

A literalistic understanding of the Bible--hard form or soft form--stopped making sense to us at some point.

Hard form: Everything the Bible says is the absolute will of God, and if it says something happened, then that thing really happened.

1. Origin

The Bible is seen as a divine product.

• Hard form: It comes from God and is therefore inerrant or infallible.
• Soft Form: The Holy Spirit guided it in such a way that there are no serious mistakes in it.

2. Authority

Because the Bible comes from God as no other books does, that's why it has authority. There is a hard form and softer form of this expression.

3. Interpretation

The Bible is read literally.

• Hard form: Arguing against evolution, for example, because evolution conflicts with the account of creation in the Bible.
• Soft form:Accepts evolution, but still insists that the most spectacular things in the Bible really happened pretty much as they are described.

Newer Alternative Way of Seeing the Bible

1. Origins

• taught in all mainline churches and seminaries for past couple centuries
• Bible is human product of two ancient communities, i.e. ancient Israel (OT) and early Christian movement (NT)
• contains thoughts of early ancient communities as opposed to God's thoughts, i.e. what they thought life with God involved.

2. Authority

Our ancestors declared at some point for these documents to be authoritative.

Accept these documents as the most important documents we know and live in the world created by these stories, by this vision.

3. Interpretation

• historical-metaphorical interpretation of the Bible
• Historical:What did these texts mean in their ancient context?
• Metaphorical: What is the "more than literal," the "more than factual" meaning of these stories?

15 Videos

• Video 1
• Video 2
• Video 3
• Video 4
• Video 5
• Video 6
• Video 7 Spong expresses my reasoning on the situation, i.e. that no one would choose a life of the deep prejudices to which homosexuals are automatically subjected in our society.
• Video 8
• Video 9 Young gay man Roger Montgomery, age 29, dying of AIDS, tells his story.
• Video 10 Montgomery talks about being changed into a hetersexual. In Video 9 he said he does not know if he really was a homosexual or whether it was all because of his background. This raises the question for me re whether he was a real homosexual person. He feels Jesus gave heterosexuality to him as a gift.
• Video 11
• Video 12
• Video 13
• Video 14
• Video 15

In this series of John Ankerberg shows, we see one liberal attacked by two professional evangelicals or conservative Christians, along with their audience, and not flinching in the face of severe opposition. Spong says he was raised fundamentalist in the South. Martin says he was raised Episcopal. It seems they have switched positions as adults and that can each hold his position well. In the first video, Martin is referred to as "the late" Dr. Walter Martin. He must have passed away since this show was aired.

The Case of Roger Montgomery

Montgomery says homosexual relationships are only for getting out of you what they can get out of you; they do not give. However, he cites not a single loving homosexual relationship in his entire experience. His own experience started with being a pedophile victim as a child of six. As a teenager he may have had a consensual relationship with his roommate but he was kicked out of the school. Thus, the relationship must have been short-lived. He does not say who told on him; it may have been his partner, in which case the relationship was not exactly a relaxed loving relationship.

He then took up prostitution. So far as I understand prostitution, the prostitute is at the service of his or her customers for pay, and the customers are in it for their money's worth. Of course such a relationship is "only for getting out of you what they can get out of you; they do not give." They gave money; that was the contract. In Video 10, Montgomery talks about being changed into a heterosexual when he accepted Jesus into his heart and was born again. He talks about his changed life and about feeling whole. He married a woman and had a daughter with her. At the time of the show he and his wife were expecting a son.