So, it's been a while, hasn't it? In fact, almost a month. Sorry
about that; I fear a number of factors, including poor health, but
also including things like my own poor organisation have kept me from
blogging for quite a while. I was spurred to get back to this by my
discovery that John Shelby Spong has a new book out.
For those unaware, Spong is the retired
Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, in the Episcopal Church, American
branch of the Anglican Communion. For decades now, Spong has been one
of the most prolific voices in advocating a form of “Christianity”
which systematically denies just about every belief historically
considered definitional of the Christian faith. Spong denies not only
the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible and the historical
nature of the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ, but even goes
so far as to define God in such a way that would be incomprehensible
to any kind of traditional theism. At one point in my
theological/intellectual development, Spong was a hero of mine. What
can I say; we all have periods in our lives we'd probably rather
forget.
Spong's latest book is entitled The
Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic. I
hasten to add, I haven't read the book, so this is not a review. It
is, however, a response to this article, which Spong recently
published in the Huffington Post.
Spong
writes that his book is the result of five years of “intense”
study of St. John's Gospel. He then lists six findings of his period
of study which, he says, will upset traditionalists, ie. Anyone with
remotely orthodox beliefs. These six findings are: 1) The Fourth
Gospel was not written by the Apostle John or any other disciple of
Jesus, 2) Jesus probably never said any of the things which the
Fourth Gospel attributes to Him, 3) None of the miracles recorded in
the Gospel actually happened. 4) Many of the characters in the Gospel
never actually existed. 5) John's Gospel contains literary hints that
it is not meant to be taken literally. 6) The Gospel frequently
engages in exaggeration.
My
first thought, Spong says these conclusions are the results of a
recent study of the fourth Gospel, but they are, so far as I can see,
things he has been saying for decades. I first read Spong close on
twenty years ago and I'm pretty sure he was saying all of these
things back then.
My
second thought, the article talks about how traditionalist Christians
who love the fourth Gospel would be surprised and angry with modern
scholarship regarding said book. Well, here's one traditionalist
lover of St. John who feels no such anger. I do, however, feel a
certain annoyance that Spong seems to equate scholarship of the
Gospels with scholarship that agrees with him. This is a common
feature in Spong's writings and wonderfully illustrates Protestant
apologist James White's point that conservatives read and interact
with liberal scholars while liberals generally pretend that
conservative scholarship doesn't exist.
Spong
also seems remarkably blind to the fact that his scholarship is based
upon a number of debatable philosophical positions. To give just one
example, Spong's third “finding” that none of the miracles
reported in the Gospel actually happened. I've read Spong, and others
like him, on this subject before. The standard procedure is to begin
your study of the biblical text with the philosophical assumption
that miracles can't happen and then claim that your finding that none
of the biblical miracles are historical events was based on your
textual study. No it wasn't, it was the only possible conclusion
because of the presuppositions you started with.
When
Spong attempts to defend his philosophical claim that the miraculous
is impossible, things get embarrassing really quickly. His standard
claim is that, before Newton, people could believe in miracles
because they didn't know that nature worked in accordance with fixed
laws but, now that now we know better. This is rubbish. The post
Newtonian world certainly knows more about the details of the laws by
which nature works than our pre Newtonian ancestors, but the fact
that nature works according to fixed laws was as well known to Plato
and Aristotle as is it today. Indeed, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, the
very notion of a miracle implies the idea of such laws, if we didn't
know the laws of nature exist we couldn't recognise a violation of
such laws, which would really make miracles impossible.
If any
apologetically minded Christian has more time and money to spare than
I have, he or she would probably do us all a favour by purchasing the book
and writing a critique of it. Even if I had the time and money, I
don't think I'd have the patience.
Spong and the Huffington Post are made for each other.
ReplyDeleteIn what sense does he even consider himself "Christian"??
ReplyDeleteMonica, he believes that the life and Jesus of Nazareth offers a unique window into the love of God.
DeleteThe simplest way to dispose of his position is to use it to prove that he doesn't exist -
ReplyDeleteIf we replace 'Miracles' with 'Spong' in David Hume's argument, we get:
1) There is no reliable evidence that Spong exists, therefore:
2) Any claim that Spong exists can be dismissed as a lie;
3) Since we've dismissed all witnesses as liars, we have used circular logic to prove (1).
Cheers, Fish.