Review of "Jesus for the Non-Religious" (John Shelby Spong)

[1emanres]

Regardless of whether Spongism or Theism is the case (I think both must be if God exists, and I have experienced real miracles from both directions), God's wishes for our behavior are found in the way the human body is built. It it is built to bathe its children, for instance, using spit and the tongue and bare fingers. This is not Sodomy nor child molestation. It's bathing. Hence pedophiles don't exist, nor to queer nor heteros. Lots of bullshit in religion and Spong hates bullshit. Love him.

[vonHindenburg]

"Avoid the theistic understanding of God." - i.e. avoid the understanding of God of those who believe in God - i.e. accept God as non-existent - QED

[beaster29]

"but he never clarifies what he thinks god is."

Wouldn't that be the point? Rejecting the theistic understanding of god is to avoid the theists' tendency to attempt to define and explain god.

[lauragabriel]

@beaster29 I think we can agree that, in order to talk about something, one must define it. It is no use to talk about "God" without defining it, or at least giving a hint what exactly do you mean by such a concept. Does it make sense to talk about a "Schutrea" (whatever that may be), and yet refuse to define it? If you talk about something without even attempting to define it, your talk simply becomes meaningless.

[beaster29]

@lauragabriel Not necessarily. When people start defining what a god is, don't they just end up creating that god to be what they want it to be, or what they think it should be? I think so anyways. Not that i have a problem with people defining what their god is and isn't, i just don't believe that, if there is a god, that it has sufficiently made itself known. Hence all the various definitions of what "god" is. People just create a god that works for them. I prefer to just leave it a mystery.

[MrBiblicalscholar]

@lauragabriel Let me help you here, because I have problems with his book too, but he knows what he is talking about. God to the Hebrew people was love, nothing more, nothing less. Love requires a giver and a receiver. The receiver needs love. The receiver and the giver represent the two sides of our humanity, as explained in the creation account prior to creation of man. He is also correct that there is no literal or more to the point, letteral, interpretation intended. Letteral means words...

[MrBiblicalscholar]

@lauragabriel at face value. This was never the intention of any ancient writers, including Hebrews. These are anceint people for whom the meaning to life was never based on a physical understanding as we do now, but purely a spiritual or meaningful understanding of the human charactor. As for matthew 10:5-6. Samaritans were Gentiles, non-Jews. They were not considered to be lost people as they were seen to do exactly as Jesus commanded, and Jesus rigidly points this out in his parable. ....

[MrBiblicalscholar]

@lauragabriel Also read Samaritans in Exodus. As for Mark, this story is about a mother trying to do what is right by her child, but other people are becoming a bad influence of the child. Look at the region, and why he does not want to be recognised? Refer also to the story of the Lepor. He does not reject Gentiles at all.

Going back to love, God was love. Hebrews called God Father. Jesus was love in the human form, called the son. The Holy Sprit is the Spirit of Love, that you and all...

[MrBiblicalscholar]

@lauragabriel all possess. All three aspects are love, and love is love, and all are equal.The Trinity is not a biological doctrine.

[BurnsDillon]

You make some very good points. I admire Bishop Spong's works very much, but I also noticed ambiguity where a definition of God was concerned. Perhaps Spong, like me and many others, can't find big enough words or appropriate words to define God. I once read that any attempt to define God will always fall extremely short. Interesting thoughts.

[lauragabriel]

@BurnsDillon Thanks a lot. Well, you could try the via negative to talk about God, as Medieval philosophers and theologians did. Instead of saying "God is good", you could say "God is not bad", and so on. But, frankly, I think that if something is supposed to be too big to talk about it, it's better to simply ignore it.

[35starfish]

I am almost finished with this book and find it a great source of inspiration and thought. Unlike Spong, and perhaps like yourself, I must always say that I am an atheist first and a Christian second so that there is no ambiguity. As for references to Matthew and Luke (I believe), perhaps the anger towards Gentiles comes simply from those writes, not their subject- Jesus.

[liminalD]

I have read a few of Spong's books, including 'This Hebrew Lord,' 'Living in Sin,' "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism' and his autobiography, 'Here I Stand.' I found them illuminating and quite healing after all the hurts and frustrations I'd been through with my family and church, but I agree with your points here :)

[liminalD]

Great review man, top marks ;) I am curious though, why do you keep looking up? It looks like you're scared God will smite you from above XD

[lauragabriel]

@liminalD LOL! Yeah, may be I am scared that Yahvew, or Thor, or Allah, or whoever, will strike me with lightning. Actually, I am looking at a monitor reflecting my image. I just read and write books; I am quite an amateur making videos. But, now I've got a radio program going on, (unfortunely, it's in Spanish). Cheers!

[LewDaCrys]

A fair criticism. Thank you for your willingness to share.

[lauragabriel]

@LewDaCrys Thank you for your comment

[thegimprevolt]

Your review is utterly brilliant. You go beyond the structure of the book and provide critical analysis. I've yet to read any of Spong's books but I'm about to order said book. Anyone who wants to know more on Spong would do well to see this review. Well done.

[tbayou]

i been reading John Shelby Spong other articles and listening to his lectures. as you clearly pointed out his definition of "god" is not clear. at the same time he seems to have some good points.

[lauragabriel]

Yes. I like his well-informed Biblical Criticism. But, I dislike his philosophical approach as a liberal Christian. He seems to want to hang on to God too hard, even if a religious outlook seems too problematic. It is the same problem I see with Bultmann, Tillich and others.

[phoenixtimes2]

If we practiced Christianity as Bishop Spong teaches, our churches would be places of love filled to overflowing.

[mleonsmith]

i'm currently reading the book, and concur with your criticisms. i do have to say though, the book is a magnificent read.

[lauragabriel]

Thank you for your comment. Yes, it is a very good book, although I insist that his depiction of an impersonal God as the ground of all being is quite confusing.

[mleonsmith]

I agree. He makes so much sense most of the time. It is a very honest book. He's a believer who is only willing to believe facts and not dogma, however at times i agree with him so much, i just wonder why he clasps to the god concept, instead of following the logic all the way through. It's like there just HAS to be a God. no matter how vague the description.

[southernfriedbeans]

I'm quite impressed with your english skills. you really seem to have a firm grasp of the language and meaning of some very difficult words. good job!

[lauragabriel]

Thank you; English is the new lingua franca. It is definitely the international language. Cheers.

[TheWhimReaper]

I just viewed your really great review. I just read the book and tried to explain some of the problems ti my wife. When I saw your video, I let my wife watch it because I could not have put it any better than you did. I also viewed your video "can a person believe in Darwin and be a Christian" in Spanish and found your viewpoint interesting. I am a Christian and studied Biology in college. I don't feel as if evolution is blind. There is much one can never know in science or religion. Thanks

[lauragabriel]

Thank you for the compliments. You say that evolution is not blind. Therefore, you think that there is some sort of purpose in evolution. I wonder: where is the evidence for such a purpose? Furthermore, if there is much you can never know in science or religion, then why talk about it at all? If there is some hidden purpose, why does God hide it?

[atessmann]

The purpouse of evolution is that imperfection can be transformed into perfection over time. It is creativity over time. Exactly as we develop new cell phones according to our needs over time, the universe also create new types of living beings in order to know and change itself. It is an eternal living system. That's what I think.

[lauragabriel]

I strongly disagree. There is no purpose in evolution, the universe is not a living thing itself, therefore, it does not create anything. Your claims are strongly rejected by science.

[atessmann]

Depend on which scientist do you believe. I can prove that current science is strongly deluded regarning the nature of reality. And there are many scientist that agree. Science is run by dogma, exactly like the church. Anyone who see the possibility of intelligence in the universe is totally discarted. This is totally absurd. Why intelligence itself can't be a attribute of the universe? How can YOU decode the universe into something that has meaning if it is all made of waves? Think about it.

[lauragabriel]

Where is the evidence that supports the claim that the universe is itself intelligent? I may be intelligent, but that does not imply there is a cosmic intelligence. I think darwinism has shown quite well that inteligent beings came arise from uninteligent proccesses.

[atessmann]

The point is that a law is not an unintelligent process. The fact that we created languages before we even knew about the dna code is an evidence for a mind. Anyway, you are an agnostic/atheist, and I am a theist. I know that the universe is energy with will and intelligence. You believe it just happened by chance and it is dumb. We will never agree with each other. Read Walter Russel work. With his work and life is that I changed my mind. This guy have proven in his life that God exists.

[lauragabriel]

A law, as I see it, is simpy a causal sucession of events: each time A happens, B follows. There is nothing inteligent about that. I insist, how do you know the universe has will and intelligence? Where is the evidence for that? I believe the universe is dumb and came out chance, because I see no evidence of it being created by an inteligent agent. Read Victor Stenger, among others.

[atessmann]

I did. Russel won because when I practiced what he told me in his books, it worked in my personal experience. Victor offered absolutely no proof. He was debunked. Nothing can prove that God exists or not. Its a worthless discussion. Natural Science is to explore what is outside of you, assuming that reason itself is valid. Natural Religion is to explore what is inside you. Its logical. One is about external analisys, another is about inner thinking.

[lauragabriel]

A theory is not scientific just because it works well in your personal experience; it is scientific if it fits the facts. Victor does not have to proof that God does not exist, simply because the burden of proof is on the theist. If you can't prove that God exists, then you must assume that He does not exist. You can't prove green little men do not exist; but it is perfectly rational to assume that they do not exist.

[spinhook888]

Good review, very clear and to the point.

[confluential]

Well,he rejects the supernatural, yes, but let tell you why I say that. When he was on the lecture circuit for his book, "Sins of Scritpure,"in May of 2005,he autographed my book, and I spoke with him.He was familiar with my church, "The Church Of Religious Science," Ernest Holmes teaching is based in "panentheism," and Spong remarked briefly on the similarities in view.Holmes rejects the supernatural as well.I do as well.PANTHEISM would mean everything is god?Thanks again.You know your stuff.

[confluential]

Hi panentheistic means "God within and throughout all." In Panentheism, there is no separation from "God,".You may or may not agree with Spong on this idea, but I was just trying to clarify the meaning of the term for you.Thanks for your comment.

[lauragabriel]

Yes, thank you, I know what panentheism means. Hegel is many times considered an exponent of this religious doctrine. However, I am not sure Spong would be panentheistic, because a God that is "throughout all" implies a God beyond nature, and Spong rejects the existence of the supernatural. Thus, I'd say his more of a PANTHEIST, non panentheist.

[confluential]

Panentheistic Scientism would be one descriptor of what Spong espouses.But he definitely does NOT believe in anY anthropomorphic, literalist idea of a "God."Spong simply says that the current definition is not acceptable in theistic terms anymore. He takes exception to being billed as an "atheist bishop," however.

[lauragabriel]

If he is panentheistic, I suppose he would believe that God exists as separate from human beings; that is to say, if there were a nuclear holocaust and the human species became extinct, God would still continue to exist. Even if this concept of God is more intellectually satisfactory than the anthropomorphic deity, I still find it irrational. Why should we believe there is something beyond the universe?

[tajohnsonma]

I believe that the "Love" we know has to be infinite and timeless to give us a real direction. It was there before the world and will continue to be there after the world. If love is only a finite human imagination and creation, it can be just as meaningless as life itself and it won't be able to give us a sense of purpose. We also need to know that hate is also prominent in this world. If love can conquer hate, then it must be larger than the finite "hate". That is what I mean by God is more.

[lauragabriel]

Correct me if I'm wrong: you are saying that "love" precludes any "lovers". So, if there is a nuclear holocaust and no human being remains, "love" will continue to exist, nevertheless. I simply can't agree here. In order to be "love", there must be "lovers" first, and if these "lovers" dissappear, so will "love". I do not see why love must be ifinite in order to have a purpose.

[tajohnsonma]

Fair Criticism. I like the possibility of Paul's extension to the gentiles being projected on the personality of Jesus in the gospels. However, I believe Jesus' prejudice towards the gentiles as recorded in the gospels was the author's personal understanding knowing the fact that non of them met the historical figure. That does not eliminate the possibility that the historical person of Jesus was indeed compassionate towards the gentiles.

[lauragabriel]

Fair enough. But, bear in mind that Jesus was a Galilean farmer, not even a Judean. That is to say, he came from a small village and had no cosmopolitan consience, as opposed to someone who came from Jerusalem or, even more, a Hellenized Jew. This, I think that his provincial background may have enforced his nationalistic prejudices, but, certainly, we shall never know for sure.

[tajohnsonma]

continued...least of all using our imperfect human language. Love is certainly who God is but I would be very careful to say that is all God is. Can we really define love perfectly? Once again, thank you for your contribution by asking tough questions.

[lauragabriel]

Thank YOU for your thoughts. I agree human language is not a perfect device. But, that does not imply God's existence. Furthermore, there is the danger of appealing to a God-of-the-gaps: in as much as you can't define something, you label it "God". Now, let me ask you personally (since you seem to be fond of liberal theology): besides, "love", what else is God? How do you define such entity (if you consider it an entity, anyways)?

[tajohnsonma]

continued.. There are also many different methodologies available to reinterpret those problematic texts you mentioned. I am sure Spong will appreciate your criticism. I sure see your point.

Progressive theologians understand the fact that there is not a set definition or understanding of who or what God is. That is why it is a life time quest. Human beings can only know God through experience. Since God is so transcendent and above all finite understanding, we can't really label God,

[lauragabriel]

I am not sure God exists. But, I think any God-talk, in order to be significant, must first clarify what God is. I am willing to accept God's existence if you claim that "God is love". But, again, why not just call it love? I think liberal theologians should be more honest, and just accept that they are quite close to atheism.

[tajohnsonma]

If your definition of Love is similar to my definition of God then our disagreement would be just the label of what that wonderful entity within each of us is. My definition of faith is simply to let that entity take charge of our imperfect lives and progress to a better future which I call "Kingdom of heaven". A day in which we will live harmoniously with this entity and with one another.

[lauragabriel]

I accidently removed your comment on the "God of the Gaps". Please write it over, so I may reply.

[lauragabriel]

You see, here again comes the confussion regarding terms (I am not blaming you in particular but liberal theology as a whole). "Faith" is widely held as "belief without evidence", as the author of Hebrews famously defined it. Now, someone as Spong, who claims to not believe in the supernatural, should simply disregard faith. Allowing love take charge of your life is not faith; it is simply living life to the fullest. Liberal theologians should be less ambiguous in their jargon.