Organization: University at Buffalo
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.bitnet
X-VMS-To: CHRISTIA
X-VMS-Cc: PSYROBTW
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:19:41 -0400
From:         Robert Weiss <PSYROBTW@UBVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      quoting from Spong

Darren writes...

dp> In a previous article, somebody asked about the arguments used by people
dp> who think that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity.  Ann
dp> Carlson wrote referring to some books, one of which was by Bishop Spong.
dp> In reply to that, Robert Weiss produced a review of another book by Rev
dp> Spong which quotes him as saying various heretical things.

     Actually, this is not even a reasonable facsimile of what was said.
     Ann Carlson wrote (to Michael Kline):

  ac> Read Boswell, read Mollenkot, read Spong and the
  ac> others; talk to Integrity (Episcopal), Dignity (Roman Catholic),
  ac> More Light (Presbyterian), Affirmation (Methodist?) and other
  ac> Christian groups who believe that the Bible does not condemn gays
  ac> and lesbians or their relationships.  Find out why they believe as
  ac> they do, they have good reasons.

In trying to show what Spong believes, I posted some brief excerpts from a
book that John Shelby Spong wrote.  It was a book that explains what Spong
views as the proper role and meaning of Scripture in the modern world. It was
put forward to address one of the authors that Ann encourages us to read.
I am trying to find out why they believe as they do, and also, at the same
time show what it is that they believe.

I wasn't responding to a pointer to a specific book.

dp> At this point, I weighed in saying that all this other junk is
dp> irrelevant.  If Bishop Spong's arguments about homosexuality are sound,
dp> then his arguments about other things -- and his own beliefs about other
dp> topics -- do not matter.  _Ad hominem_ fallacies won't change the
dp> validity of his arguments, either for good or ill.

Bishop Spong briefly mentions homosexuality in _Rescuing the Bible from
Fundamentalism_, but his major advocacy of homosexual acts comes in _Living
in Sin?_.  However, part of _Living?_ is dependent on his views of the Bible
which are presented in _Rescuing_. So even though _Living?_ came first, the
foundational thoughts are found in _Rescuing_. Spong even mentions this in
the 1st chapter of _Rescuing_, in which he writes that "sex drove me to the
Bible." He goes on to explain this by saying that the furor over _Living?_ is
what lead him to try to educate people to embrace a Bible that was
not-literal, but that could be re-mythed with every generation.

So taking a look at Spong's view on the Bible is crucial to understanding his
interpretation of Biblical mores. And his view on the Bible is found in
_Rescuing_.

In _Rescuing_ we find that Spong is against those who "literalize" the Bible.
By this he does not mean that people are taking poetry or apocalyptic terms
at face value, or that people are not taking into account genre and culture,
rather he is talking about those people that accept the historical accounts,
ethical precepts and theological doctrines of the Bible as completely true.

He states that, "A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than
assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship; a deity whose
needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own. I meet in the literal
understanding of Scripture a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind
cannot believe the heart can finally never adore (p.24)."

In viewing what Spong believes to be the Biblical understanding of homosexual
acts, we need to first understand the view that Spong has of Scripture. If he
holds that the meaning of Scripture is transient and variable for each
person, each generation and each culture (which he does), then his drawing of
meaning on any subject is not based on an objective standard but rather is a
sign carved in jello... wavering and flopping with each bounce.

Spong writes in _Rescuing_:

"My quarrel is not with Bible and creeds but with the freezing of these
instruments in time or with the assumption that somehow the Bible or the
creeds escaped the subjectivity of the era that created them. The Bible and
the creeds are windows into truth. They are not themselves the truth. They
are valued documents in the faith journey of the people of God. They set
parameters and call us to take those parameters seriously. But neither Bible
nor creeds are to be taken literally or treated as if somehow objective truth
has been captured in human words. Until that barrier of understanding has
been crossed, the Bible and the creeds of Christianity have no chance to be
live options or respected sources of truth as the twenty-first century dawns
(p.233)."

Once we understand that Spong doesn't view the Bible as objective truth then
we can examine his views on what the Bible states on other subjects. But our
understanding of his views is first of all dependent on the knowledge that
when Spong states what he believes the Bible teaches, he himself does not
take it to be objective truth:

"What we need to do is demythologize in order that we might remythologize. We
must seek the truth that lies beneath the mythology of the distant past so
that we might experience that truth. But when we put that experience into
words in our day, we will not escape the use of subjective, inadequate words
in our modern mythological understanding of reality, for we have no objective
words. We will have succeeded only in remythologizing the truth of the
Christ event. Our efforts will serve us but for a time. Our remythologizing
process will capture truth no more eternally than did the creators of
Scripture or the framers of the creeds (p.237)."

Gospel truth is what we say it is for our time, independent of the gospel.

[...]

dp> Mr Weiss was saying that Rev Spong's books are not worth reading, and to
dp> him perhaps they aren't.  But to someone who has already asked for
dp> references, the objection "his other book said dumb stuff" is of no use.

[...]

Not really. I find him, well, interesting. I really do. His works show that
he advocates heresy frequently, and that is quite apostate. But by golly, he
is sure an interesting apostate. I would be judicious in referring anyone to
him, however.



=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU