Subject: Re: Spong is a HERETIC
Date: 27 Jun 1999 19:09:05 -0500
From: "Daniel Pflager" <>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.episcopal,alt.christnet,aus.religion.christian

> excesses of the Roman Church.  He  did not change any central doctrine
> of Christianity (trinity, Virgin Birth, Hell, atonement, heaven)

That was HIS genius.

> Spong is not impressed with the worldview of the Bible, basically
> non scientific and naive, too.  So he wants Christian education to
> reflect modern realities. For instance the Ascension, literally
> understood, is laughable science.

I think it is the folly of the arrogance of North American culture that
assumes that the empirical standards which we feel have brought us our
economic success should equally "liberate" us from the paradox inherent
in Christianity.

> Also the stone age concept of blood sacrifice atonement, understood as
> sacrifice to appease a vengeful God out-of-his-head angry at our sin,
> is ridiculous and blasphemous at the same time.  It too has served
> its purpose and should be dumped.  There is still lots of saving
> significance left in the cross to preach and convict.

I agree that the concept was most meaningful to the Jewish culture into which
Jesus was born. Does that imply that we need to "debunk" that notion. Not in my
opinion. I think the blood sacrifice concept is one of the weigh stations along
the road of a developing individual's faith that can be truly useful.

Biblical literalism is another. At one stage in my own journey, I deperately
needed biblical literalism in order to manage my life. At my current place, I
have found that I don't need its protection as I once did. It would have hurt my
growth, however, if someone had lambasted me with the inadequacy of biblical
literalism. At best, it would have hurt my relationship with the bearer, at worse
it might have bumped me to another denomination or religion.

> These proposed changes are not original.  Actually common among
> liberal theologian for over a century.  But they are significant
> changes to central Christian thinking which Luther touched not.
> But Spong does.

What is significant is the extravagance with which Spong wields his "sword of
truth". I suggest that his proposed changes are genuinely harmful to those in
countries outside the first world. They weaken and detract the faith of those at
less advanced stages of moral development in order to feed first-world religious
fancy.

For examnple, I myself could introduce my children to the cold realities of
Christianity gone wrong. Would that be loving? Would that encourage their
emotional and spiritual growth? NO! It might ease me into a more comfortable
frame of intellectual smuggery, but it would increase their anxiety and
ultimately hurt their infant faith!

I don't need scriptural support to show the evil inherent in that kind of
situation.

> The word "foist" should read "suggest his solid ideas to others."  And Spong
> is clearly operating in a democratic mode commending the ideas of thousands
> of modern theologians to whoever cares to listen to them.  Or reject them.

As a bishop, he expresses his opinions from a position of power and privilege.
The word should read "foist". If his ideas are THAT significant, then they should
be tempered by the love of his flock. If he still feels compelled to preach them
due to their significance, let him do it as a layman. Or does he need his
ecclesiastical authority to express them? Hmmm.

His ignorance of the harm he has caused dishonors the office of bishop, and
discredits the ecclesiastical organization generally. I don't see it as an
expression of courage to bring about constructive change - as were Luther's
propositions - but as an expression of a bishop who's lost touch with his
responsibilities.

I think that is inexcusable.

Obedientia et Pax,

Daniel Pflager