Your opinion on Why Christianity Must Change Or Die?

[Storm]

Sorry, I can't answer in the DIR. I'd be happy to do so in a new thread, however.

 

[ratikala]

Sorry, I can't answer in the DIR. I'd be happy to do so in a new thread, however.

dear storm ,

yes please genneral religion I dont mind where ever you think to be most suitable

many thanks .

 

[Storm]

OK, stand by.

 

[Storm]

Done: Theology: Progress?

 

[Darkness]

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?

I understand Spong's mission to fully de-mythicize the Christian religion, and therefore complete the modernist project. As a postmodernist, I do not believe giving supremacy to the scientific-objectivist model of the world is the correct path for religion to embark upon. The idea that miracles do not exist in the world is a metaphysical article of faith by those who accept a Hobbesian-Cartesian conception of the Universe. We should progress. We need to leave our bigoted, hierarchal discourses on sex and gender, and replace them with morals rooted in queer theory. We need to learn to treat others of different faiths and no faith as brothers and sisters, i.e. religious pluralism. We need to stop getting bogged down in the particularities of our nation-state and allow our religious faith to transcend our limited parochialism, i.e. universalism. And we certainly need to read our religious texts more metaphorically and holistically. However, that does not mean we have to commit to Deism.

 

[Breathe]

I understand Spong's mission to fully de-mythicize the Christian religion, and therefore complete the modernist project.

What parts do you believe he should, or should be, de-mythicized?

We need to leave our bigoted, hierarchal discourses on sex and gender, and replace them with morals rooted in queer theory.

What is queer theory?

We need to learn to treat others of different faiths and no faith as brothers and sisters, i.e. religious pluralism. We need to stop getting bogged down in the particularities of our nation-state and allow our religious faith to transcend our limited parochialism, i.e. universalism. And we certainly need to read our religious texts more metaphorically and holistically.

I like this.

However, that does not mean we have to commit to Deism.

Do you believe that Spong's theology is Deistic? It appears pantheistic to me, personally, but I thought it was supposed to be panentheistic?

 

[Breathe]

Also, how would a Spongian worship?

What would a church service in a Spongian world be like?

To whom would he pray, if at all?

 

[nazz]

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?

I haven't read the book but I do agree with that statement. A big part of it is that Christianity has to stop fighting against science.

 

[Doulos]

I haven't read the book but I do agree with that statement. A big part of it is that Christianity has to stop fighting against science.

I would agree fully, though I would say that it's not Christianity fighting against science, but rather some Christians.

I recently was at a bible study with what most people would consider 'fundamentalist' Christians. At one point I asked them what their understanding of evolution vs scripture was.

The unanimous response was that they saw nothing in the Bible which contradicted the idea of evolution.

 

[nazz]

I would agree fully, though I would say that it's not Christianity fighting against science, but rather some Christians.

I recently was at a bible study with what most people would consider 'fundamentalist' Christians. At one point I asked them what their understanding of evolution vs scripture was.

The unanimous response was that they saw nothing in the Bible which contradicted the idea of evolution.

Wow, that is encouraging!

 

[Darkness]

What parts do you believe he should, or should be, de-mythicized?

I do not believe we should discard Christ as the incarnation of God, nor do I believe we should discard all divine intervention in the world. I am not saying we can definitively prove miracles (and not that all the miracles listed in the biblical literature actually occurred), but we should neither believe that we can definitely disprove miracles. I reject his acceptance of a wholly materialistic-deterministic Post-Newtonian, Post-Hobbesian world.

What is queer theory?

It is post-structuralism and Derridean Deconstructionism applied to sexuality.

Do you believe that Spong's theology is Deistic? It appears pantheistic to me, personally, but I thought it was supposed to be panentheistic?

He calls himself a panentheist, but he does not seem to be. Perhaps, as you said, pantheist would be a more apt label for him than deist. Though, he does seem to understand God as first-cause, which is more deistic than pantheistic. His statements that all divine intervention is absurd, makes me think he is more in the deist's camp.

 

[Breathe]

I do not believe we should discard Christ as the incarnation of God, nor do I believe we should discard all divine intervention in the world.

Why not?

It is post-structuralism and Derridean Deconstructionism applied to sexuality.

I understood SOME of that sentence, lol. Can you elaborate a wee bit more for an idiot?

He calls himself a panentheist, but he does not seem to be. Perhaps, as you said, pantheist would be a more apt label for him than deist. Though, he does seem to understand God as first-cause, which is more deistic than pantheistic. His statements that all divine intervention is absurd, makes me think he is more in the deist's camp.

Hmm, pandeism, maybe? I've read in his book that God is the "Root of All Being". Although I don't think a lot of (theistic) pantheists believe in divine intervention, and I think a fair few panentheists don't either.


Also, do you think there is a way to use Spong's philosophy, with some of Karen Armstrong's views present in her books -- merging the "looking forward" and the "looking back"?

 

[Darkness]

Why not?

Why should we?, is a better question. Christ's divinity is a central part of the Christian faith. The Council of Nicaea defined these doctrines and established a true Christian religion.

I understood SOME of that sentence, lol. Can you elaborate a wee bit more for an idiot?

I could, but post-structuralism and deconstruction are not the kinds of philosophies you can sum up. If you are interested at all, I suggest purchasing Structuralism and Post-Structuralism For Beginners. It is a comic book, but written by a real philosopher, so it is accurate and actually quite good for learning the basics.

Also, do you think there is a way to use Spong's philosophy, with some of Karen Armstrong's views present in her books -- merging the "looking forward" and the "looking back"?

I think that Spong is next to useless for postmodern Christians to be quite honest. Spong tries to be a part of the emergent church movement, but his entire philosophy is rooted in Enlightenment philosophy. If the emergent church movement is going to seriously engage itself in postmodernism, then it cannot concede ground to modernism at every point. Spong is for people who want to call themselves Christians, but not actually believe in anything that the faith preaches.

 

[SageTree]

Just finished 'Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalist'.

Really good book. Highly enjoyed reading Spong.
Gives me a voice in a scene that I feel on the edge of.

 

[Katzpur]

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?

I haven't read the book, so I'll withhold comment on it. I will say, though, that the problem with Christianity is that it did change. It changed a lot within the first few hundred years of its inception. Had it never changed, it would not be in danger of dying now.

 

[Renji]

If there is any changes that should happen with Christianity, it should be that the whole Christendom would be united under one "umbrella". We should not divide the Church, IMO. But it should not "die" and never will, for the "gates of hell will never prevail against her".

 

[Breathe]

I haven't read the book, so I'll withhold comment on it.

It's probably not your cup of tea, but it may be worth lending from a library or something to see his perspective on how to, in effect, save Christianity from dying.

I will say, though, that the problem with Christianity is that it did change. It changed a lot within the first few hundred years of its inception. Had it never changed, it would not be in danger of dying now.

How would it differ from today, besides being more Jewish-y?

 

[SageTree]

If there is any changes that should happen with Christianity, it should be that the whole Christendom would be united under one "umbrella". We should not divide the Church, IMO. But it should not "die" and never will, for the "gates of hell will never prevail against her".

You mean actually DOING that catholic thing we talk about in the Creed. CRAZY!!!! LoL

**HUGS!!! **

Save Christianity from dying.

In 'Rescuing', Spong posits, to paraphrase, that:

Christianity has become just as rigid as Judaism was at the time when Jesus was trying to breath Life into the Law, because of literalistic readings.

And he feels that the Universality of the faith shines brightest when we understand the audience and context... the people to and the times... in which the book was written in the first place.

For instance:


He states that the Gospel of John was used to defend antisemitism over the ages.

However, if you know that:

• It was written by a Jewish Christian.

• Writing to support Jewish converts around the fall of the Temple,
  who were being through out of the synagogues because of various social factors at the time, but whom felt they were still part of Judaism.

You being to get an evolving picture of what was going on at the time.


John uses 'I AM' statements through out the Book... that is language that appeals to Jewish sensibilities about God, much like Matthew uses Moses and Mark uses Elijah.

Sure there was frustration.... but antisemitism?

Not exactly.


It was essentially a polemic rebuttal to 'The Jews' who were literally writing Jewish Christians out of their prayers.

#12 Known as Birkat HaMinim ("the sectarians, heretics") this asks God to destroy those in heretical sects, who slander Jews and who act as informers against Jews. -from: Structure_of_the_weekday_Amidah

I tend to agree with Spong in a lot of ways.

"We aren't here to judge good from bad. We're here to do the things that are right." -Marley

And that means doing what Jesus did.


Hanging out with sinners, mixing with who we 'should not'....
Seeing the point His words.... not clinging to the words themselves.


The Bible, to me, is the threshold on a doorway which leads onto greater Truths that words alone can't capture.


This is the essence that Spong also seems to by plying for.





I respect the opinions here, and I hope that my sharing was beneficial to understanding the topic at hand.




:namaste
SageTree

 

[nazz]

I've looked at this question (antisemitism in the GoJ) and come to the following conclusion. I believe "Jews" would be more properly be rendered "Judeans" and that what we are seeing in its pages is a clash between Galilean and Judean ethnic identities and religious views.

 

[SageTree]

I've looked at this question (antisemitism in the GoJ) and come to the following conclusion. I believe "Jews" would be more properly be rendered "Judeans" and that what we are seeing in its pages is a clash between Galilean and Judean ethnic identities and religious views.

That is probably fairly safe to say.

The Elhoist of the North and Yahwist of the South disagreements goes way back.

Obviously those further away from Jerusalem felt differently about the authority centred there.

In a way this REALLY resembles Rome and other parts of the Empire as Christianity evolved from it's early days. In the Protestant movement to make the Word more accessible (IE. Non-Temple Centric) as opposed to Rome holding all the cards.

Funny how history repeats itself... including the altering of creeds and reactionary dogmas.