Your opinion on Why Christianity Must Change Or Die?

[Breathe]

Hey guys,

I'm currently in the process of reading Spong's book, "Why Christianity Must Change Or Die". I'm wondering what your opinion on it is, if you have read it, and do you agree with his overall message, or disagree, or something else?

Do you consider his message to be a more modern form of Christianity, or something he has made up that bears no resemblance to traditional Christianity?

 

[Bob Dixon]

Well, Christianity, as it is taught traditionally now, bears little resemblance to the religion Jesus taught and practiced. Even if we don't take "dying" into account, it should still change back to what it was!

 

[Breathe]

Well, Christianity, as it is taught traditionally now, bears little resemblance to the religion Jesus taught and practiced. Even if we don't take "dying" into account, it should still change back to what it was!

From what I've read of the book, it seems to be quite the opposite. It doesn't seem to want to go back to what Jesus taught -- it seems to want to go past it, in some respects, ans massively change.

No virgin birth, no Jesus as saviour (seriously), and God as "the ground of being", as opposed to as widely understood.

 

[Me Myself]

Jesus taught us that it is best to die being compassionate than to live being an *******. If what people today call "Christianity" can´t take a hint, let´s hope it goes to heaven at promptly

Haven´t read the book but it sounds very interesting.

Compassion is true christianity though, and that, is immortal.

 

[Bob Dixon]

From what I've read of the book, it seems to be quite the opposite. It doesn't seem to want to go back to what Jesus taught -- it seems to want to go past it, in some respects, ans massively change.

No virgin birth, no Jesus as saviour (seriously), and God as "the ground of being", as opposed to as widely understood.

I know, I know. I'm fairly familiar with Spong.
But you know, as well as I do, that Jesus never taught virgin birth, or that he was the "Saviour". Or the Trinity, or any (non-Jewish) rituals... or 90% of what's taught in "Christianity".
But he DID teach God as "ground of being", I'd say.

 

[Breathe]

I know, I know. I'm fairly familiar with Spong.
But you know, as well as I do, that Jesus never taught virgin birth, or that he was the "Saviour". Or the Trinity, or any (non-Jewish) rituals... or 90% of what's taught in "Christianity".
But he DID teach God as "ground of being", I'd say.

Ah, okay.

 

[Adamski]

The church Jesus founded (Matt 16:18) is unchanged for 2000 years and will stand against the gates of hell.

 

[Bob Dixon]

The church Jesus founded (Matt 16:18) is unchanged for 2000 years and will stand against the gates of hell.

Good one, dude.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Christianity must change because people change. If Christianity remains the same, it will be irrelevant and utterly foreign even to its own followers.

 

[Hope]

I remember picking up the book a long time ago and just reading the back cover, and perhaps a few passages within, and that was enough for me.

Christianity must change only so far as that means changing back to what it originally was. I don't believe it will die, because I don't think God will allow it to die. Maybe diminish, but not die.

 

[roberto]

In the year 325 Emperor Constantine placed a mercides bens emblem on a Forde and drove around for many years impressing the lay people.

Internet removed that false impression.

jesus has been replaced with Yeshua and the vehicle is now what it was before 325.

 

[Breathe]

Christianity must change because people change. If Christianity remains the same, it will be irrelevant and utterly foreign even to its own followers.

This seems to be Spong's general impression.

Although it still seems odd to see an idea for Christianity to be moving away from theism into panentheism (or as Spong calls it, non-theism), from the Nicene creed, from Jesus as a saviour, etc.

Is he taking Christianity too far from its philosophical roots too quickly to consider it Christianity, or do you think he's doing Christianity a service by allowing it to become more meaningful and less, well, 'foreign' to the modern world?

 

[Bob Dixon]

This seems to be Spong's general impression.

Although it still seems odd to see an idea for Christianity to be moving away from theism into panentheism (or as Spong calls it, non-theism), from the Nicene creed, from Jesus as a saviour, etc.

Is he taking Christianity too far from its philosophical roots too quickly to consider it Christianity, or do you think he's doing Christianity a service by allowing it to become more meaningful and less, well, 'foreign' to the modern world?

The latter. Definitely not the former.
Any Church will die out when it loses meaning for everyone. But the easily-adaptable, evolving religion will not.

 

[Doulos]

This seems to be Spong's general impression.

Although it still seems odd to see an idea for Christianity to be moving away from theism into panentheism (or as Spong calls it, non-theism), from the Nicene creed, from Jesus as a saviour, etc.

Is he taking Christianity too far from its philosophical roots too quickly to consider it Christianity, or do you think he's doing Christianity a service by allowing it to become more meaningful and less, well, 'foreign' to the modern world?

If you wish to know what Christianity teaches, then read the Bible.

If you would like more orthodox (in this case meaning faithful to what has always been accepted) Christian authors, might I suggest:
John Stott
Ajith Fernando
NT Wright
John Piper

A very entertaining and thought provoking speaker on sound Christian doctrine is Francis Chan. I'd suggest you look up his 'Balance Beam" message on YouTube

 

[Jacksnyte]

Christianity must change because people change. If Christianity remains the same, it will be irrelevant and utterly foreign even to its own followers.

I'd say this is very nearly the case now!

 

[Mister Emu]

Is he taking Christianity too far from its philosophical roots too quickly to consider it Christianity

This.

Any Church will die out when it loses meaning for everyone. But the easily-adaptable, evolving religion will not.

The Church should change how it relates to people; it should not change what it relates.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I read Spong's Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, and now I'm reading Liberating the Gospels.

I realize theologians might take issue with the way he presents his arguments to a lay audience. But I think Spong, despite his emphatic titles, is trying to stay away from radical reinterpretations. It's not exactly a stretch to contextualize the Gospels as midrashic interpretative texts, as he does in Liberating. He's trying to illuminate the similarities between OT myths and their echos in the NT narratives.

His disdain for literalism is refreshing, and his focus on the humane message of Christ is encouraging.

-Nato

 

[ratikala]

This.


The Church should change how it relates to people; it should not change what it relates.

excuse me as I am out of my DIR , but have been reading with interest and canot help but agree with emu here ,

I am very frightened of change in any religion if it means diluting the original purity or relaxing standards , surely it is a matter of looking at approaching things in a fresh way and inspiring others to do likewise , how to put the principles into daily practce and bring christianity back in to the lives of others in a more meaningfull way .

sounds like an interesting book .

 

[Storm]

The Church should change how it relates to people; it should not change what it relates.

1) The difference being?
2) Why can't theological understanding be improved over time, like every other field of human knowledge?

Forgive me if I've misread your statement.

 

[ratikala]

1)
2) Why can't theological understanding be improved over time, like every other field of human knowledge?

please forgive my questions ,
but are we realy so arogant that we think that we can improve upon a realisation of the truth ?
after all ar'nt the basic tenents of christianity built upon the principle of rightiousness? can there realy be new descoverys in the feilds of rightiousness in the same way that we can make new descoveries in a material sence ?
or are we simply moving the goal posts and calling that an improvement because it happens to fit within our new lifestyle choices ?