"Religionless Christianity"

[metis]

The Bible is not really a history book, and it's the subjectivity that's found within it that's most important.

 

[JRMcC]

Your OP question is worded in a difficult way, for me. Do you mean, non-theistic Chrisitianity? Because, I don't ''quote Scripture'', or use it as some infallible argumentation default, or anything. I am however, a theist about Jesus. The Text, ie the ''religion'', is secondary, this means baptism, etc., are all separate from the Theism. I do believe that once someone does not believe that Jesus is G-d, then they are not a Xian. Even if they believe that Jesus is the ''son of god'', which, I believe to be metaphor, but not G-d, they are close to not being Xians... That being said, '''''Christian''''' is denoting a specific part of the beliefs of Jesus adherents; It's a description, not a definition.
Anyways, a follower of Isha has to believe in His ultimate divinity, or I don't think they are practicing the religion. They would be practicing an offshoot, imo, which is fine, as well.

Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response! Spong describes himself as "a God intoxicated person" but I don't think he sees God the way most theists do. So if you define God as an otherworldly and all powerful being who intervenes in the world, then Spong is a non-theist Christian. I think he says something about people having an experience of God in Jesus. Like Vishvavajra I would say you'd need to see his interviews and talks on video to really understand where he is coming from.

 

[JRMcC]

Of course you must believe and live as Jesus did to be a true Christian. Jesus warned that many claiming to be his followers were anything but. "Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’" (Matthew 7:21-23) Also 1 John 2:4-6.

Hi, in the Gospel according to John Jesus stresses the importance of believing in him. It's hard for me to know what believing in him really entails. Does it mean that you must believe that he is God? Or does it mean that you must believe in his teachings? And according to Spong it's hard to know exactly what Jesus said because he doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy.
I think it kinda comes down to Spong's word against anyone else's...

 

[JRMcC]

I read the link and he is no different than an atheist-materialist in my books; definitely not a Christian.

Yeah, Atheist-materialist wouldn't be super off the mark, but Spong describes himself as someone who journeys into the mystery of God every day. I think he is a bit like people like me, who don't believe in the super natural and take the side of mainstream science, but still see divinity in the world and contemplate it. It might be a bit unusual, but Spong seems to do this through Jesus. Normally people turn to eastern religions for spirituality, you know?

 

[Vishvavajra]

I haven't read Sponge, but I perceive that despite attracting a lot of media attention he hasn't convinced a lot of people. Like the scholars who have championed the Documentary Hypothesis he has failed to reach a broad audience, and he has lost credibility with fundamentalists. It means he is not going to be the person to bridge the gap between the fundamentalists and the liberals. He's there for those who "Seek to experience Christianity in a new and vibrant way." (From his web site.) In other words, he publicly insults current Christianity without providing much argument except claiming that it isn't 'Fresh' enough and is 'Doomed'. Does he make arguments that address the questions of fundamentalists? He's a resource for some people, but where is the bridge for people who want to cross over?

I should read him and find out what he has to say as well as why people keep trying to get fundamentalists to read him. There is some sort of a disconnect that needs to be addressed.

Well, the Documentary Hypothesis is the standard model in Biblical scholarship today, with no serious alternatives. The problem is that there's a huge gulf between proper Biblical scholarship and the knowledge of the average person in the pew. Despite all those years at seminary and all those hours of Sunday school, Christian clergy generally fail to teach their laity much of anything useful.

As for bridging the gap with fundamentalists, Spong himself says he isn't interested in that. He doesn't even try to engage with them directly. His work is aimed at reaching people who are already dissatisfied with the fundamentalist approach and are in danger of leaving Christianity altogether because they see no alternative. Or to put it in his words, he's trying to limit the numbers of the "church alumni association," as free-thinking people with modern sensibilities are already leaving Christianity in droves because they can't see a way to reconcile it with their innate reason and moral conscience. Like Paul Tillich before him, he's speaking directly to those who already feel there's a problem and are looking for a solution. He's not actually trying to convert fundamentalists.

Really, I'm not sure there is a way to meaningfully engage with fundamentalists. You can make information and alternative viewpoints available to them, but they're not going to seriously look at them, much less be persuaded by them, until their fundamentalist worldview starts to crack, usually as the result of a personal crisis of faith. Fundamentalism is a powerful antidote against things like reason and evidence, so arguing with them is mostly pointless. The only good it might do is if you manage to convince some bystanders who are on the fence.

 

[JRMcC]

Does he make arguments that address the questions of fundamentalists?

Well, his arguments are based on reasoning. So he points to different things in scripture that indicate that the Jesus story has been mythologized, and told in such a (non-literal) way that Jews of the time would be able to understand it and see Jesus as the Messiah.

but where is the bridge for people who want to cross over?

Tough one, I think a fundamentalist has to let go of the belief in biblical inerrancy before any change can be made.

I should read him and find out what he has to say as well as why people keep trying to get fundamentalists to read him.

Absolutely! It's hard for me to explain 2nd hand. I found out about him after picking up his book "Jesus for the Non-religious" at a book store and reading it. I would highly recommend it; his argument goes much deeper than "a change is needed." There's also an interesting debate over the resurrection on youtube between him and william lane craig. That's worth a watch I think.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Hi, in the Gospel according to John Jesus stresses the importance of believing in him. It's hard for me to know what believing in him really entails. Does it mean that you must believe that he is God? Or does it mean that you must believe in his teachings? And according to Spong it's hard to know exactly what Jesus said because he doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy.
I think it kinda comes down to Spong's word against anyone else's...

The interesting thing is that Spong's approach to the Bible is pretty much the standard one among Biblical scholars. For example, when he says the "I am..." statements in John are not original to Jesus, he's echoing the consensus view. Those bits of John represent doctrinal positions in the author's own sect, which are then placed into the mouth of Jesus. Note that the earlier Gospels don't feature those statements, although they are also products of an existing tradition.

It's probably not impossible to identify kernels of Jesus's teachings that are original to him, but one has to be very careful about assuming just because Jesus says something in the Gospels, that he actually said or taught that thing in fact. The Gospels are a clear case of retrojecting existing teachings into a narrative that is largely constructed for that purpose. They were written by people who knew many of the traditional teachings attributed to Jesus but had no first-hand knowledge of him.

 

[sojourner]

Well, the Documentary Hypothesis is the standard model in Biblical scholarship today, with no serious alternatives. The problem is that there's a huge gulf between proper Biblical scholarship and the knowledge of the average person in the pew. Despite all those years at seminary and all those hours of Sunday school, Christian clergy generally fail to teach their laity much of anything useful.

As for bridging the gap with fundamentalists, Spong himself says he isn't interested in that. He doesn't even try to engage with them directly. His work is aimed at reaching people who are already dissatisfied with the fundamentalist approach and are in danger of leaving Christianity altogether because they see no alternative. Or to put it in his words, he's trying to limit the numbers of the "church alumni association," as free-thinking people with modern sensibilities are already leaving Christianity in droves because they can't see a way to reconcile it with their innate reason and moral conscience. Like Paul Tillich before him, he's speaking directly to those who already feel there's a problem and are looking for a solution. He's not actually trying to convert fundamentalists.

Really, I'm not sure there is a way to meaningfully engage with fundamentalists. You can make information and alternative viewpoints available to them, but they're not going to seriously look at them, much less be persuaded by them, until their fundamentalist worldview starts to crack, usually as the result of a personal crisis of faith. Fundamentalism is a powerful antidote against things like reason and evidence, so arguing with them is mostly pointless. The only good it might do is if you manage to convince some bystanders who are on the fence.

The reason why Christian clergy generally fail to teach their laity much of anything useful is because most Christian clergy are at the mercy of their congregations, and many of the people in the pews patently don't want to hear it!! They want the clergy to reinforce their beliefs -- no matter how irrational, because it's the status quo of those beliefs that keep a lot of these people in positions of comfort and power -- much the same impetuses that drive the fundies. There is no easy way to engage with the people in the pews who largely aren't interested in anything that will actually lift them spiritually; they simply want to be comforted spiritually.

 

[JRMcC]

The interesting thing is that Spong's approach to the Bible is pretty much the standard one among Biblical scholars.

Among credible biblical scholars at least, right? I think there are a lot of "scholars" that believe the bible his an historical document, but they've already decided that it is the perfect word of God before beginning their work. So... it's hard to really count them.

For example, when he says the "I am..." statements in John are not original to Jesus, he's echoing the consensus view. Those bits of John represent doctrinal positions in the author's own sect and it's relatively well developed theological system, that are then placed into the mouth of Jesus.

Totally! That's what I figure when I read it. The problem is that if the Gospels are already interpretations themselves, then when I read and interpret it for myself my understanding is probably quite a bit off from what the original teachings or events were. Would you agree? Or maybe that isn't necessarily a problem?

It's probably not impossible to identify kernels of Jesus's teachings that are original to him, but one has to be very careful about assuming just because Jesus says something in the Gospels, that he actually said or taught that thing in fact.

I feel that I would need to go to school for years and years before I'd be able to really find those original teachings.

 

[rusra02]

Hi, in the Gospel according to John Jesus stresses the importance of believing in him. It's hard for me to know what believing in him really entails. Does it mean that you must believe that he is God? Or does it mean that you must believe in his teachings? And according to Spong it's hard to know exactly what Jesus said because he doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy.
I think it kinda comes down to Spong's word against anyone else's...

Jesus never claimed to be God, but rather God's Son. To be a true Christian, one needs to believe what Jesus taught, as recorded in the Bible, and importantly, to do what he commands. (Matthew 7:24-27) Regardless of what others believe about the Bible, it makes sense to me to investigate for myself whether the Bible is true. Many who have done this are convinced the Bible is what it claims to be, God's Word for all mankind. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

 

[Typist]

There is no easy way to engage with the people in the pews who largely aren't interested in anything that will actually lift them spiritually; they simply want to be comforted spiritually.

Great points.

Which is why we might be suspect of all religious and psychological authority, because one only becomes an authority by giving lots of people what they want, by telling them what they want to hear.

And what we typically want, as sojourner implies, is to reinforce the very thing which causes folks distress and brings them to experts in the first place, the thought generated illusion of division between "me" and "everything else".

There is an old saying I picked up somewhere....

If the things we want to hear could get us where we want to go, we'd already be there.

 

[metis]

I only read one book by Spong, but I believe he's pretty much top-shelf theologically. BTW, in general, I've found Anglican theologians to be amongst the best when it comes to Christian theology. Dr. Hanson's "Tradition In the Early Church" is to me the best single Christian theology book I've ever read, and it's worth its weight in gold if you can find it.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Among credible biblical scholars at least, right? I think there are a lot of "scholars" that believe the bible his an historical document, but they've already decided that it is the perfect word of God before beginning their work. So... it's hard to really count them.

Yes, there is a clear difference between actual scholars and people who just happen to study something. Real scholars adhere to certain methodological strictures and to a basic form of academic skepticism. The point of scholarship is to arrive at truth by means of systematically analyzing the available evidence and revising one's views accordingly. Someone who starts at the conclusion and works backwards from there in an attempt to prove it is not a scholar, regardless of what they happen to call themselves.

Totally! That's what I figure when I read it. The problem is that if the Gospels are already interpretations themselves, then when I read and interpret it for myself my understanding is probably quite a bit off from what the original teachings or events were. Would you agree? Or maybe that isn't necessarily a problem?

I'm not sure we can reconstruct any of the specific events of Jesus's life. The good news is I don't think we really need to. The teachings are trickier. It's just a fact of life that every great teacher from ancient times has had his teachings filtered through many hands before they get to us. We shouldn't despair, but it does call for a certain amount of discretion and critical thinking and not just accepting things at face value. Again, the good news is that what Jesus was trying to get at was the spirit of things, which can't be encapsulated in any specific string of words, so it doesn't matter so much if the exact words are in question. The real issue is whether we have enough to point the way to the truth that he was aiming at.

Jesus never claimed to be God, but rather God's Son. To be a true Christian, one needs to believe what Jesus taught, as recorded in the Bible, and importantly, to do what he commands. (Matthew 7:24-27) Regardless of what others believe about the Bible, it makes sense to me to investigate for myself whether the Bible is true. Many who have done this are convinced the Bible is what it claims to be, God's Word for all mankind. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

The Bible doesn't claim to be anything. It's not a unitary work. That quote from 1 Thessalonians isn't talking about the Bible; it's referring specifically to Paul's prior teachings, which we don't actually have in this case, since that is probably the earliest of his letters that survived. It's ludicrous to suggest that it's referring to Christian scripture as a whole, since not only was there nothing resembling the current canon, but it's likely that at the time of the writing of 1Thessalonians literally nothing else from our current canon of Christian scriptures had been composed yet.

It's true, though, that Jesus never claimed to be personally equivalent to God. Indeed, he suggests otherwise on numerous occasions. He does accept the title "Son of God," but that's not to be understood literally. It's a title of anointed kings and judges in the Hebrew Bible and thus appropriate to the Messiah, who fits that bill by definition. But note that he also opens it up and says that we all have a claim on that title as well, for we are all Sons of God. For example, in the Beatitudes he's not just being cute when he says that the peacemakers will be called Sons of God; he's saying that anyone who brings peace to the world is living as God's anointed representative (i.e. Christ) and is no lesser than Jesus himself.

 

[JRMcC]

Dr. Hanson's "Tradition In the Early Church" is to me the best single Christian theology book I've ever read, and it's worth its weight in gold if you can find it.

Thanks! I'll try to give it a read.

 

[metis]

Thanks! I'll try to give it a read.

If you can find it, please let me know what you think of it. I've seen it as a used book at Amazon, but even for that they want an arm, leg, and your first born.

What's so good about it is that Hanson heavily documents what these traditions were and how they got played out and sometimes altered, and his focus in mostly on the pre-Constantine church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

 

[Desert Snake]

The reason why Christian clergy generally fail to teach their laity much of anything useful is because most Christian clergy are at the mercy of their congregations, and many of the people in the pews patently don't want to hear it!! They want the clergy to reinforce their beliefs -- no matter how irrational, because it's the status quo of those beliefs that keep a lot of these people in positions of comfort and power -- much the same impetuses that drive the fundies. There is no easy way to engage with the people in the pews who largely aren't interested in anything that will actually lift them spiritually; they simply want to be comforted spiritually.

Do they teach a literal deity, when they teach the ''clergy''? What/who is it?

 

[Desert Snake]

Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response! Spong describes himself as "a God intoxicated person" but I don't think he sees God the way most theists do. So if you define God as an otherworldly and all powerful being who intervenes in the world, then Spong is a non-theist Christian. I think he says something about people having an experience of God in Jesus. Like Vishvavajra I would say you'd need to see his interviews and talks on video to really understand where he is coming from.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying...
But, regardless, I think that the label ''christian' is fairly broad. It isn't actually anything I personally would consider, even. I think that to follow, correctly, the Jesus faith, it does require that one recognizes Jesus as God.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response! Spong describes himself as "a God intoxicated person" but I don't think he sees God the way most theists do. So if you define God as an otherworldly and all powerful being who intervenes in the world, then Spong is a non-theist Christian. I think he says something about people having an experience of God in Jesus. Like Vishvavajra I would say you'd need to see his interviews and talks on video to really understand where he is coming from.

I think that sometimes, it is not always clear what people mean by god, or deity. Christians do have different perceptions of deity, however, the similarity, is recognizing a deity that is outside themselves, ie ''they are not the god'; once certain ideas begin to stray too far from this theistic stance, I would hesitate to group the beliefs under the same category, no matter what we are ''labeling'' them.

 

[rusra02]

You said:,"The Bible doesn't claim to be anything. It's not a unitary work. That quote from 1 Thessalonians isn't talking about the Bible; it's referring specifically to Paul's prior teachings, which we don't actually have in this case, since that is probably the earliest of his letters that survived. It's ludicrous to suggest that it's referring to Christian scripture as a whole, since not only was there nothing resembling the current canon, but it's likely that at the time of the writing of 1Thessalonians literally nothing else from our current canonof Christian scriptures had been composed yet."
To the contrary, 2 Timothy 3:16,17 says that "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." The Hebrew canon was complete before Christ began his ministry. The Christian Greek Scriptures were completed by the end of the first century. So the Bible does claim to be the Word of God, and Jesus Christ accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as God's Word, quoted from it continually, and taught and applied it in his ministry. As the Bible explains: " For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit." (1 Peter 1:21)

 

[sojourner]

Do they teach a literal deity, when they teach the ''clergy''? What/who is it?

Mine didn't, particularly. Mine was a progressive, liberal seminary that admitted students from many different denominations, so it didn't spend much time teaching us "How to Prove God's Existence." It spent time teaching theology, biblical criticism and ethics. it was more "God is ____ in relation to this school of thought, or in the eyes of those people." The God concept was relative, not absolute.