I too like John Spong.  In general I agree with his 12 points.

 

Yes, our concept of the theistic God is well outdated.  This whole idea of a God sitting up there, somewhere, and writing down the sins of individuals in some great book (just picture a large book of stone tablets LOL) is medieval thinking and no longer holds.  This is why I, personally, aspire to paentheism and process theology.  Damn, I can't get that picture of the stone book out of my head.. LOL.

 

I do think there are some point, though, where I do not agree with John Spong but that is okay too.  I believe that prayer is efficacious.  That is my experience and I cannot deny what I have experienced but in general that is a minor point in the whole scheme of things.

 

I have no problem with the "Trinity" since it seems to me that is a very human concept, a metaphor, for that which we cannot and do not understand.

 

Shalom

Mate

Ben

 

BTW an excellent topic.

 

I've been reading about Celtic Christianity and it seems to me that they were much closer to panentheism than the church from the reformation on.

 

Shalom

Mate

You're interesting. But I don't think my faith is like that. I'm a gay, liberal, scientist, but I can still have faith sometimes. I believe in love your neighbour, love your God. I don't have archaic views towards sex, and I don't impose my beliefs on other people, nor go on crusades, nor do I think that God hates anyone.

 

I don't think that Jesus was really about rules or dogma or judgement. He called for love. He said that religious people missed the point when they just follow rules but don't have love in their heart. Hmm...

 I know but I was referring to the church, in particular the Roman Catholic Church though what I said would apply to many other churches. 

I agree with what you said about Jesus, btw, the personal change he evoked from the diciples is evidence of his having the personal power to encourage someone to risk martydom for what was largely a pacifist doctrine (which for religious causes in the western world is rare).

I think many people wanted an arbitrary god so they could glorify themselves and condemn others...............................................................

Cough, cough, the southern USA

Well, this came up a bit with discussion surrounding Gretta Vosper's book; the theism rejected by Spong is not the only form theism can take.  Process theology, which Spong mentions as an alternative in his book Why Christianity Must Change or Die, is still a theistic model of God, albeit quite different from classical versions.

I was raised Catholic too but they don't want me anymore . That's why I go to the united church (well...sometimes). It's very open minded.

 

Hm...I don't think God is dead. We should definitely coexist even if we don't have the same belief. You can get along with me right?

Yes, Kinst, you can come to my United Church anytime. We welcome heathens, atheists, agnostics, pagans, progressives, liberals and fundamentalists alike. Chips on shoulders rub off eventually. (I got mine rubbed off :-)

 

God is not dead, just re-imgained.

sponge sounds like an illuminati member

 

Spong is a sponge?  Well I knew there wasn't much substance to him.

 

 

Ben_dw,

 

I can agree that you and many agree with the twelve points you listed but I can also tell you that the majority of Christians don't believe that.

 

The majority of posters on here will agree with you too and they feel that they are the majority of christianity but that is the draw of this site and they don't even come close in the worldwide Christian community.

 

It's kind of like Perez Hilton's comment about Miss California when he said that the majority of Californian's were against her comment on same sex marriage.

 

The fact is he believes that so much that his head is in the sand. The California vote was actually a majority against same sex marriage.

 

Be Blessed,

IB

 

IB wrote: "I can agree that you and many agree with the twelve points you listed but I can also tell you that the majority of Christians don't believe that. The majority of posters on here will agree with you too and they feel that they are the majority of christianity but that is the draw of this site and they don't even come close in the worldwide Christian community."

Actually, IB, I think you are wrong, but not in the way you would expect. I would venture that the majority of the people on this site would NOT agree with Spong's thesis.

Spong rejects theism and all language of theism. That's just bad theology dressed up as shock value. Spong is a liberal fundamentalist, and anything religious which doesn't agree with his secular scientific worldview is to be discarded.  He is a sloppy Tillichian, which is sad.

Despite his shortcomings as a theologian, Spong is popular because he expresses the disatisfaction many people feel when their spiritual experience and the meaning behind our traditional religious language don't match up. He and Vosper take it someplace it doesn't deserve to go.

Most of the liberal Christians you meet here do believe in God, and are trying to find a way for their language of God to match up with their experience of God. We're not ready to give up on God. So don't give up on us!

 

Thanks RJM, That's a response that makes sense and I don't feel attacked.

 

Be Blessed,

IB

 

 

 

Kinst,

 

What kind of 'scientist' are you?

 

LL&P

Spock

I'm a physicist.

Ah, hah!

 

You have to have a LOT of faith if string theory is your field!

 

LL&P

Spock

Hey.

A few years ago I heard Spong speak in Montreal. The majority of his audience were senior citizens, most of them were church members. He talks a lot about speaking to the 'church alumni', but his message is popular within the church. To me, this is a symptom that our language has not kept up with our experience. Thankfully there are more creative and positive theistic voices emerging which don't try to burn it all down, as Spong and Vosper often seem to do.

Perhaps the whole point is not the message but the fact that it makes people think.  I once attended a church that had a minister who did just that,; make people think but not in Spong's way.  Because he made people think the session drove him from the church.  He was the best clergyperson that particular church ever had.

 

Shalom

Mate

Many do like their "comfortable pew".

 

Shalom

Mate

 

Hi RevJamesMurray, 

 

Can you say more about the changes to language that you would like to see? 

I think the work of Brian McLaren and the Emergence movement are a good example of this, as evangelical fervour leaves conservative political theory behind to embrace the complexeties of this post-modern world. I think how Marcus Borg & John Domenic Crossan have gone from being unbelieving liberal academics to believers who have reclaimed the traditions are a good example. I think Diana Butler Bass' new book A People's History of Christianity is a good example. In that book, she traces the history of how people have lived their faith during different eras, and shown how our practice of the faith is a living tradition which evolves over time, in response to our context. 

One of Spong's 12 points is the fact that the Ascension language has Jesus being lifted bodily up into the clouds, and from there to Heaven just above the clouds. From Spong's liberal fundamentalist POV, this contravenes the laws of nature, so therefore there was no Ascension. For a literalist, they would say they believe it did happen that way, and God did this supernaturally, so they don't have a problem with it. A post-modern theistic option is to say 'given the laws of nature, we don't know how this could have happened, but regardless of how it happened, the bigger question is what does it mean for us to say "Christ has ascended into heaven"? The challenge of language is we need permission to ask this last question, and still be considered part of the Christian family without being demonized by liberal fundamentalists or biblical literalists.

RevJamesMurray wrote: "The challenge of language is we need permission to ask this last question"

 

EZ Answer: And to understand that language functions artistically, too.  If Luke used a simile in Acts, he would have written, "it was as if Jesus was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight."  The "as if" marking the simile.  A modern gospel writer might say, "It was as if Jesus was suddenly sucked into a worm hole and disappeared."

 

Or more than a simile, there is the metaphor, which goes beyond using "like" or "as".  Metaphor uses a "this is that" formula -- e.g., time is melting. (Or to return to the simile, the persistence of memory is like a melting clock.)

 

In this sense, all language is metaphorical -- for all language (all propositional language) presents a "this is that".  "My head is big" is just as metaphorical as "My head is 24 inches around."  Metaphor exposes language's dynamic meaning-making by holding in tension a proposition's literal and non-literal sense.

 

This is why RevJamesMurray can plumb the scriptures as metaphor, holding in tension the literal and non-literal sense.  Metaphorical language is not synonymous with fiction.

 

This also distinguishes the Borgs and Crossans from the Spongs and Vospers.

Welcome back you furry little rat. You finally woke up after a long winter's nap?

RevJamesMurray wrote: "You finally woke up after a long winter's nap?"

 

EZ Answer: You're sweet.  I haven't been too far, though....posting here and there...even taking the Church Lady for a spin.

Our friend EZed's comments ought to be raised up, lifted up, ascended for the begin of all discussions on narrative and language and sent off to Vosper and  Spong - and maybe they will ascend from their fact fundamentalism.

Yes, I agree with our furry friend that all language is metaphorical. And I agree with everyone that we need to create new words and concepts.

 

In my thinking and experience, God mutliplied, diversified, and "uniquefied" ITself in the act of creating, and IT did all that while remaining an energetic singularity in a state of synthesis.

 

God should more properely be called the linking verb "creating" rather than Creator. When God is the linking verb creating—the ceaseless creativity in the universe—then the Cretaor-creating-created Trinity is also God. Then God is the very act of creating as well as Creator and created.

 

When we realize that God has multplied, diversified and "uniquefied" ITself in the act of creating, then we realize that every one of us is a unique form of the same God, and that God expereinces ITself uniquely in and through every one of us, and every one of us experiences God uniquely.

Yes and God experiences Godself in Godself as we experience ourselves as a self.

Panentheism wrote: "sent off to Vosper and  Spong - and maybe they will ascend from their fact fundamentalism."

 

EZ Answer: I heard Vosper has some speaking engagements coming up.  You're welcome to quote The Squirrel to her during question period.

 

I'd just like to get her attention!!

 

EZ Double Dare: "Ummm, excuse me Ms. Vosper, but I was talking with a squirrel the other day about your hermeneutical model, and the squirrel said...."

your nuts !

 

That's kind of personal talking about those thingies, don't you think??

 

And what about them??

 

 

well I was just finishing off squirrels sentence :)

 

Yes, Pan, I would add that.

 

....where are my nuts?"

 

Ms. Vosper answered: "God or no God evolved in the squirrel 50 % forgetfulness, so that he forgets where he stashed half of his nuts, so that new Trees of Knowledge and new Trees of Life may grow from them."

 

Would you guys get off my nuts already!

 

"United in Learning" and Huron-Perth Presbytery are sponsoring an evening with GRETTA VOSPER at Central United Church, Stratford, Ontario - Thursday May 7th : 7:30 - 9:00 pm.

Also you may be interested that Wesley-Knox United Church in London, Ontario is sponsoring a weekend with Marcus Borg on June 5, 6 and  7  The price is extremely reasonable (4 lectures for $40 total).  For more information go to the event website at: 

 

www.borgevent2009.com/

iwonder wrote: "borgevent2009"

 

EZ Answer: Sounds like an all you can eat buffet event or something.

 

I guarantee that if you stood up at each event and quoted me, they would both think you were crazy.  Borg would agree, but think you crazy.

Good stuff! one and all. While I respect theism, I think of myself, for the nonce, as one who admires the work of Alfred North Whitehead, who was process philosopher and theologian. I like panentheism--G0D in and through all things; but to avoid any confusion with pantheism--G0D as all things--I use the term unitheism--whatever is, is G0D-filled. See  http://www.unitheist.org/

 

BTW, I think of G0D--note that I use a 0 and not an O--as Being itself. G0D, in and through all that is, is not a being separate and apart from all that is.

The 0 tells us that, in the beginning, out of the no-thing, or the zero, came chaos. Out of the chaos, by the power of love--assisted by goodness and desire--came all that is, G0D--an acronym, not a noun.

 

 God is dead.

- Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.

God

 

Hi Patrick: We don't quite know what Nietzsche meant by that quote. To my mind, Nietzsche was a spiritual man. He may have meant that the traditionalist concept of the white-bearded patriarchal Zeus type sky God is dead.

Isn't that a bit of a misleading and hopeful cop-out on a Christian forum, Arminius?

 

“The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

“Convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies.” -- Friedrich Nietzsche

“The only excuse for god is that he doesn't exist.” -- Friedrich Nietzsche

“Christians call it faith ... I call it the herd.” -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Here is Freddy's original quote, from "The Gay Science"

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
  As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

  "Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

  Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

Freddy was a spiritual man. He was a preacher's kid. The Neitzsche's had been Lutheran Pastors for 200 years. There was an expectation that little Freddy would follow in his father's footsteps and take the vows of ordination. Like many preacher's kids faced with expectations too great to bear, he rebelled. Freddy was a brilliant man, and a tortured soul. He had a psychotic breakdown at the age of 44, and was dead at the age of 56, an obscure wreck. He was too far ahead of his time.

 O SNAP!  BURN!

 

Hi Brett:

 

Oh, I agree with these statements. I'm a spiritual Nietzschean.

I had a fellow explain math formulas, comparing them to a walk in the park. If you go out for a walk and step in the doo from the get go, the doo will follow you from beginning to end. In much the same manner, an error in arithmatic will follow you from beginning to end, resulting in an incorrect sum.

Spongs Theology is predicated by a naturalistic world view. For him the supernatural just isn’t and miracles are impossible. If he is correct, then his 12 thesis have merit. If he is wrong, however, they are worthless ramblings of an arogant fool.

I would contest that he is dead wrong and his theology is therefore corrupted; having stepped in it from the get go.

 

As for Nietzsche, I think he was aluding to the same philosophical presupposition and drawing the conclusion; without God there is no foundation on which to base objective morality.

Would there be an implication somewhere in there that if you are in error with your fairly strong: "I would contest that he is dead wrong", that you are an 'arrogant fool'?  Just curious, Brother.

 

*zing*

Yes Brett. Either he is an arrogant fool or I am an arrogant fool or we are both wrong and in the same company. I am comfortable with that.