It was also something of a watershed moment for me. I can't even tell you the last time I was the most theologically conservative person in a room--but I'm pretty sure I was last night!
(I know, I know--you can pick your jaw up off the floor now... ;-)
Before I go on, I need to say a word about +Spong. As some of you know, it was +Spong's books Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism and Living in Sin? that brought the Episcopal Church to my attention. For better or worse, Jack Spong is responsible for my being an Episcopalian.
But these days, I tend to find +Spong annoying. It's as if he can never stop reacting to the fundamentalism in which he was reared. He's like a reformed smoker/drinker/gambler, who now has to lecture everyone on the evils of whatever it was he used to do. Everything is black or white--no grey allowed. It gets tiring after a while.
I grew up as a fundamentalist, too---and, to a certain degree, my current approach to the Christian faith will always be a reaction to the bad things about that experience. But, after well over a decade of wrestling with very serious theological questions, I have somehow gotten past the need to define myself in opposition to the literalists.
+Spong hasn't. In his own way, he is as dogmatic as any biblical literalist. He states categorically "This could not have happened," and we are expected to exchange our unthinking obedience to one set of fundamentalist beliefs for another, arguably more "progressive," one.
Worse, he blithely states that, if you don't agree with him, you are child-like and refuse to live in the modern world.
Alrighty then....
The discussion last night moved along those lines. My first uncomfortable moment came when the discussion leader used the word "brainwash." He was talking about telling children stories about the miracles of Jesus, and asked the group how we could tell those stories without brainwashing our kids into believing things that clearly were not true.
I asked him if he was uncomfortable telling children fairy tales? After all, those aren't true either---but most of us don't have a debrief with our kids after their nightly story time to explain that frogs really can't talk and they won't turn into princes if you kiss them!
In addition, I dare say that stories like "Cinderella" and "Beauty and the Beast" are at least as deeply embedded in our culture as any biblical story---and as the mother of a daughter, I would contend that they do infinitely more psychological damage to our children than stories of Jesus turning water into wine or healing lepers.
(On second thought...maybe we SHOULD debrief our kids after those stories! I know that the myth of the Prince and "happily ever after" harmed me in ways that have been much more painful and long-lasting than anything I learned in church...)
My next uncomfortable moment came when the discussion leader and a couple of others started putting clergy "in the dock." There were numerous assertions that clergy don't preach what they really know to be the truth because they fear offending parishioners--and a call for them to "tell the truth" to those people who still believe in things like the virgin birth and the miracle stories.
All eyes whipped immediately to Dear Friend...who had chosen to attend "in collar," and was, I suppose, "fair game." ;-)
At that point, I had to comment. I told them I was struck by the irony of a group of people who are unhappy because ministers tell people what to think....demanding that ministers tell people what NOT to think!
After 35 years in the ministry, Dear Friend has a much tougher skin than I do. I was really proud of him for the way he responded. He said that he didn't see sermons in the same way they did. He is a great lover of poetry, and he asked them:
"Do you 'believe' a poem?"
In his view, the Bible is a poem--not a scientific or historical treatise. The stories about Jesus are "poems" about God's love for us and God's way of interacting with us on a human level. To illustrate, Dear Friend recited this poem from Alfred, Lord Tennyson:
The EagleAs he pointed out, if you read that poem "literally," you would have to say "An eagle is really a member of the Accipitridae family. It doesn't have 'hands,' it has CLAWS. And it is not close to the sun, which is between 91-94.5 million miles (depending on where we are in the orbit). And the sea is not 'wrinkled,' nor does it 'crawl."'
He clasps the crag with crooked hands;
Close to the sun in lonely lands,
Ringed with the azure world, he stands.The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt he falls.
And if you did that, you would have ruined it. A poem and a scientific paper on eagles are two totally different things. Both have their uses, but it is a mistake to confuse the two.
Dear Friend observed that most people seem to yearn for transcendence, and that a sermon should speak to that yearning, rather than be an academic lecture on textual or historical biblical criticism. He does talk about scholarship in Christian Education classes, small groups, or one-on-one discussions with people--but he believes that to do so in a sermon is to exercise an abusive form of clerical power by telling people what to believe. And he talked about transcendence being largely a "right-brain" thing--one of elusive experience, rather than left-brained, factual knowledge.
(As an aside, I have never, in all the years I've known him, heard Dear Friend tell anyone what to believe. In fact, his sermons are almost always a series of questions, without any answers. This unnerves some people, but it appeals mightily to people who are seriously engaged in theological reflection.)
I don't know what the other participants made of that. My reaction was to spend the rest of the evening wondering why people want to murder mystery.
****************************************************
I run with a pretty well-educated group of people. I was trained in the social sciences, so I have a nose for methodology and I can read statistics and ask the right questions to see if they represent any shade of reality. I work with lots of people who have M.D.s or PhD.s in the hard sciences, and--even though I don't have a degree in science--I'm something of a science geek. I've got no problem with the prevailing paradigm for scientific research, which demands testable hypotheses and replicable results.
And I've also got no problem believing that Jesus actually turned water into wine or literally healed people. I can say the Nicene Creed without crossing my fingers. I absolutely believe in the Real Presence in the bread and wine during Eucharist.
I suspect the people in the group last night would be flummoxed by my ability to reconcile all these things in my head. And a few years ago, I probably would have been too. I used to struggle, HARD, with the insane things that Christianity asks you to accept--a fully divine/fully human, sinless incarnation of God who was put to death, rose again, and ascended into heaven.
What kind of crazy stuff is THAT?!?!?
But for a variety of reasons (some of which I have shared here and some of which I haven't), I have come to feel the "truth" of those things. I have learned to open my hands, shrug, and say "It's a mystery."
For many people, that's a cop-out. I can understand that. But I have found that there is a role for mystery in my faith. I have discovered that mystery and Truth are not strangers, or enemies, but are engaged in an intimate--even erotic--dance. I have learned that leaving room for that mystery brings me much closer to that transcendence for which I long.
Every Sunday, I drink from the cup of Mystery, and am transformed.
************************************************
The more I think about +Spong's title, Jesus for the Nonreligious, the more puzzled I become. Why would the "nonreligious" even be interested in Jesus? With only one or two exceptions last night, everyone in the group gave a religious affiliation. They weren't nonreligious--just not happy with traditional Christianity. THAT, I understand!
But if you take +Spong's view of Jesus and you remain in the Christian fold, I'd really be interested to know why. I confess that I am mystified by the lengths to which people will go to hang on to a Jesus who is really just another "good teacher." What is it about that Jesus that makes you want to hold on to him?
If you choose to look at Jesus in a way that strips away all of the mystery, you won't get any argument from me. I won't tell you that you are going to a Hell I don't believe in. I won't think you are evil or disobedient to God if you don't accept that Jesus was divine in some way (whatever that means).
But I will wonder why you bother. I'd really love to know.
58 comments:
Truth and mystery in an erotic dance. Love that image. And love this piece. You won't get your question answered by me, however. I'm with you most of the way. Not so much the Nicene Creed ... but mystery, miracle, Presence, transcendence. Yes, yes, yes. Love DF's answer. Will have to hear him preach one day.
Oh, my. I am laughing; you are sounding soooooo much like many of my posts!
As you know, my apiritual mind is a constant dance between the poet and the scientist. Like you, I got re-introduced to even considering church again b/c of +Spong's books. But like many "lighting rod people," sometimes I think he might have read too many of his press clippings by now, and has gotten a little full of his lightning. But I remember in the back of my head how Elizabeth still sees him as a wonderful human being, and trust her judgment. So I take +Spong's newer books with a grain of salt and assume the stridency of some of them is b/c he simply likes being a shit-stirrer a bit.
You have brought up the most important question; is mystery same as a fairy tale? I don't think it is. Mystery has potential in the human heart. I think that's the difference.
Oh, and FWIW, last time we did a +Spong book at our book group, my pal Sue and I were p.o.'ed at him b/c he asserted that dogs didn't have souls. We fantasized about going to one of his talks in St. Louis and asking, "So...tell us why you don't think so!"
As a scientist and a priest I find mystery in both science and religion. The more I learn about the amazing way our universe is put together so that we mere mortals can exist, the more in awe of the One that created all of this, I become. Most of the scientists I know who do not believe have a rather mechanistic or reductionistic approach to science and to life. I find that the more we do learn, the more mystery there seems to be. My own personal faith has at times in the past wavered,but never went out. However, once I sensed the awesome mystery of a presence that loved me, some 30 years ago, there did not seem to be an issue any longer that believing in God and accepting the learnings from science were compatible. I find Spong a wonderful gadfly who makes me think. I don't agree with his conclusions very often, but I do like the man.
I am soooo going to ramble on here next week. Thank you for this. Meanwhile, from the land of big deadlines, let me just say that +Spong irritates me for the very reasons you mention. All due respect to the fine things he's done, but I find him literalist and in some ways, a lot like Bart Ehrman -- and it's interesting they are both Protestant in background. I'll have more to say about Catholic sensibilities and the analogical imagination as this relates to your thoughts on mystery. Stay tuned. And meanwhile, a big fat thank you. Mwah!
P.S. Dogs don't have souls? What is he, nuts?
Don't just go to his talk with Sue (fabulous as she is), take Jasper too!
LJ---you MUST! He's wonderful! :-)
Kirk--I hope you will forgive me. I've been trying hard not to read or comment on blogs lately, so that's why I haven't been commenting lately. I am so underwater with my Big Project! I had absolutely no business writing this blog post today, but I simply couldn't concentrate on anything else until I got it out. I'll be over to visit soon.
I take your point about Elizabeth+ and +Spong. I did see a post she did recently on prayer where she recounted a lovely talk she had with him about that. I am grateful for what he gave me--but I'm not any more willing to accept what he says, hook, line and sinker than I am to accept Pat Robertson or Albert Mohler.
Mother Amelia--I think that being a priest AND a scientist would be just about the best job in the world! I figure if John Polkinghorne can manage to hold the tensions as a priest and a physicist, I can too.
Jane--How's this for funny? Bart and Dear Friend are chums from their Princeton days. Bart was here a few months ago, and it was his lecture that people were citing last night (the ones who were saying that clergy don't "tell the truth"). Bart *is* like +Spong in that, if it isn't "true" in the historical/factual/scientific sense, he can't believe it. Again, he's traded one form of fundamentalism for another...
As for dogs (and cats) having souls...+Spong can't even "prove" that humans have them. I think it takes a bit of chutzpah to make a blanket assertion that animals don't! ;-)
And clearly I am so tired of editing that I can't write any more either...sigh.
Wonderful post! My take on +Spong is pretty much the same as yours. I laud him for bringing Christianity up for discussion in public, but he's gone way off the deep end into his own sort of fundamentalism. I love DF's explanation, and yes, he is a wonderful preacher!
Doxy, I enjoyed this piece very much. Thank you for posting it. I won't go to deeply as I think most of the salient points have been covered by our panel of commentators, but I will say that I am with you regarding the Creed, which I do believe in as well as turning water to wine and the Presence of our Lord in the wine and the bread. It is so clear to me that they are mysteries of truth, and truly worthy of science's investigation...not that science would get anywhere with analysis but as with many things investigated by scientists, not everything is proven or disproven.
Bishop Katharine is both a scientist and a priestly bishop. If ever the twain has met, it is in her most assuredly and in others as well but not so prominently as she has done so.
You are a wonder, Doxy. I am thankful for your writing.
Catherine--you are far too kind. I just do my "wondering" here...
And, again, it shows my level of distraction that I didn't mention the Presiding Bishop!
Why would the "nonreligious" even be interested in Jesus?
Well geez, Doxy. That's just what I kept asking myself the first time I worked up enough nerve to comment at OCICBW. ;)
Everyone in western society internalizes Jesus to some extent -- it's impossible not to. And he's a pretty compelling figure whether you're "affiliated" or not. It was the literary aspect of the gospels that sucked me in. Jesus is a terrific character. Judas Iscariot is a stupendous bad guy. Or is he? The conflict!
If you're a person with any interest whatsoever in the development of civilization, you have to be interested in Jesus.
Anyway, sorry to go off track. About Spong, I cannot comment.
Spong irritates and bores the hell out of me. God, it feels good to type that. I think everything you said about his approach is true. Here is my gripe.
He is stuck in the modern world, the rationalist Aufklärung world. The people with whom you and I have spiritual discourse are in the postmodern world. One may argue of what those terms mean but the postmodern world is one that has come to recognize the truth of ancient wisdom and that there are important things that are not measurable and reproducible. I think scientific method is a wonderful thing but it is not the only means of human "knowing" and it is very limited in fields such as poetry.
I am totally with Dear Friend on this, btw.
We have moved on and no longer see the world in a true/false dichotomy. We are more yin AND yang, more wave AND particle, more aware of the mysterious connectedness of things revealed in modern physics. We are post-Newtonian and post-Cartesian. Spong is trapped and cannot let go a battle that to many of us is simply no longer meaningful. I understand it and went through it myself decades ago but I kept moving. To me he is as irrelevant as those he refutes. And I find that sad.
Mystery, passion, AND critical minds altogether!
I tend to agree with +Spong but I've gone beyond him. He seems to be stuck in his perspective. Perhaps he should just make the leap of faith like I have and not worry about the factuality/historicity or whatever. Following Jesus is a good way to live. It works. That's all I need.
PJ--thanks. Good point, and I get that. I'd be interested to see what you would make of +Spong's book. In my view, he wants to cut Jesus down to size--and I'm just curious about what draws people to THAT figure. Especially people who have had bad experiences with traditional Christianity.
Why not just dump Christianity altogether? Why try to "rebrand" Jesus as someone who was just a "good guy"? There are plenty of "great teachers"--why hang on to one who has such "baggage?"
And let me be clear--I'm not saying people CAN'T do that. I just want to understand why they want to...
I certainly see Jesus' appeal as a literary character. (And I have my own theories about Judas--maybe I'll write about him one of these days...)
Paul--I adore you. (You had my heart before, but when you got to "wave AND particle," I was a goner! ;-)
I share your feelings about the battle being long over. I'm just not that interested in talking about whether or not Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth. That "fact" is irrelevant to my experience of the risen Christ.
But his arguments still resonate with a lot of people I know. And that's why it's important to me to think carefully about what he says and push the boundaries of the discussion.
LOL. My fiction is about a society steeped in light mysticism.
I share some of your criticisms of Spong's dogmatism, but ultimately I think that we need people to fight the good fight against fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is not innocuous; on the contrary, it is insidious, it is influential, it is powerful it has political and theological influence, and it damages people's souls. I think we need the Spongs of the world, even if at times I don't always agree with him. We need him because there are a lot of people who think that religion doesn't speak to them because they have been brainwashed into thinking that Christianity = fundamentalism.
That being said, I don't really place myself within the Christian orbit, although I am attracted to to the Christian faith tradition. So I am not the best person to answer the question you posed at the end. I do think, though, that while what you say about children and fairy tales is true, there is one huge difference between Cinderella and the resurrection stories of Jesus in the Gospels. Grown adults recognize that the former are literally true, while there are grown adults wbo actually believe that the latter are literally true. One reason I have trouble attending church is that even in ostensibly progressive churches, these stories are told as if they are historical.
Sure, I can listen to a story that isn't really factual or historical but which is told as if it really is, but in most cases everyone knows and accepts that a given story doesn't have historical validity. But for those of us who grew up in fundamentalist churches, we are all too aware of the fact that otherwise intelligent adults throw their credulity out the window when it comes to religious stories. That is why I am uncomfortable with these stories being told as if they are true and without any sort of concession to their implausibility. I never know when I hear pastors talk about the fantastical stories whether they really believe that these things happened or not. And for some of us, these things really do matter. If some of us thought that you had to believe certain incredible stories in order to be religious, we would simply reject religion altogether. And this is precisely what Spong addresses. Spong speaks to people like us.
I would say, by the way, that following Jesus without taking the mythical stories literally goes beyond merely believing he is a "good teacher". One can be a follower of Jesus without believing he was God or that he was resurrected, just as one can be a follower of Buddha without believing that Buddha was God or that Buddha was resurrected. The rightness of the way that Jesus showed, his mystical closeness with God, his overturning of established paradigms, his inclusive message, his nonviolence, his rejection of political and religious authority, and his willingness to die for what he believed all point to a way that others can follow. The mythology is simply not necessary, and I never understood why some argue that not making him God or not believing the fantastical stories about is somehow not consistent with a religion based on Jesus's life and teachings--that you can't be a follower of Jesus in that case-- when there are plenty of other religions that derive from what other teachers had to say even when the followers don't consider those teachers to be divine or to have been resurrected from the dead.
What is it about that Jesus that makes you want to hold on to him?
Don't I wish I knew!
I haven't read any of +Spong's work. I'm very skeptical about any sort of scriptural authority and prefer to look at the Bible as a sort of anthology of inspirational texts (and feel free to add my own inspirational texts to that). I'm not convinced about the historical accuracy of the stories in the Bible, or about the veracity of various miracles (and that goes for the Old Testament too).
I actually walked away from the church for a number of years and took up Judaism in a fairly serious manner, despite being raised in a rather liberal, easy-going denomination. Fundamentalism was never something I had to fight against in my own family or my own church, but my experiences didn't leave me any room to question or explore and so I left. And now I find myself being drawn back, and I can't quite put my finger on why... there are some obvious reasons but they don't seem to account for everything. And the Anglican tradition in particular seems to appeal to me: again, I can see some of the reasons for that, but not all of them.
Some of it is definitely due to having been rescued from situations I could not deal with alone. All of my human rescuers are full of what I can only describe as grace. In some (though not all) of these people that grace is intrinsically bound up with their Christianity, their relationship with God through Christ.
And then the explanation breaks down, because I'm not using Christian prayer structures to please these people, or in a sort of simple imitation, or merely doing uninvolved research in order to better understand their beliefs. I really have no idea what is going on.
And that's rather terrifying to the side of me that wants to have concrete explanations for everything... and even though I am a musician and deal every day with things too complex or mysterious (choose a term depending on your worldview) for me to ever understand, it isn't enough for me to just say "Well, it's a mystery, but let's get on with it, shall we?" at this point in the journey.
If this is anything like my belief in the existence of God (which has always been strong despite the complete lack of ability to prove existence or non-existence), then when I can relate my own experiences to Christian theology and when my ongoing experiences of God include experience of Jesus, the mysterious won't scare me as much. So I guess I'm chasing that experience, as much as anything, and I'm chasing it because people like you have said it exists, and I desperately want that to be true.
I so enjoyed this post, Doxy, and the good discussion that has followed. I too came to Spong's writings years ago and was thrilled to encounter someone who took on fundamentalism and helped me to think about "givens" in Christian Orthodoxy in a new way.
And yet... and yet... I have always felt/ said that, once you get to God... in other words, once you affirm a wholly Other, all-powerful, utterly transcendent and yet immanent Being who creates and loves all that is... well, things like the virgin birth and the resurrection just don't perturb me. Does that make sense? I am also not attached to these particular doctrines (I love Dear Friend's question, Do you believe a poem? No... it makes my heart sing.) I can accept them and affirm them, but if an ossuary with Jesus' bones turns up it will not rock my faith. It might just deepen it.
Thanks for this lovely discussion.
Pax, C.
I share your feelings about +Spong on both the plus and the minus side. It is very dangerous to define a theology by being against something. Take the dismal performance of the “anybody but Bush” counter campaign a la John Kerry as a secular example
Reading Bishop Spong’s book “A New Christianity” I was both impressed by my agreement with many of his ideas, and yet disappointed by his lack of vision in the area of spiritual meaning and power in both the mystical and sacramental elements that have long fed Christian development on both the macro and micro-level.
Like you, I am about as far away from being a literalist as one can get, but still the Christ in my view certainly isn’t just another wise person. The Incarnation of the eternal Logos is far more exciting than that The ensoulment of Jesus of Nazareth (or at least the concept) provides us with the model of the Divine and the human intermingling. Christ then represents the transmutative “salvation” of each individual through theosis. I think the Orthodox have been very good at articulating this concept. The reason that the Johannite communion is at once (and by necessity) catholic, esoteric, mystical and sacramental is precisely because of that “magical” transmutative “at-one-ness”, in lieu of the standard atonement theology. This is a peculiarity of Johannine exegesis – the sacraments (John 3, Baptism) and (John 6 the Holy Eucharist), is providing a set of tools for each of us to engage in the unio mystica – that is, to incorporate the Divine “Body” within ourselves, and to finally realize that we are one with the Divine.
I am here after many wise and thoughtful comments have been left at your wise and thoughtful post...and also with little time.
So I simply say, thank you - what you have written is wonderful.
BTW, I find +Spong completely annoying but have never really said so publically, mostly because I am not an Episcopalian. And Lord knows (and Lord DOES know!) how many annoying clergy there are in my own church.
Mystical Seeker--thanks for your very thoughtful comment! Actually, you ARE a good person to answer the question I asked, since you say you are drawn to the Christian tradition, if not the traditional understanding of Jesus.
I hope I have been clear in saying that I do NOT believe you can't be a follower of Jesus if you don't believe the stories. This is helpful to me:
The rightness of the way that Jesus showed, his mystical closeness with God, his overturning of established paradigms, his inclusive message, his nonviolence, his rejection of political and religious authority, and his willingness to die for what he believed all point to a way that others can follow.
I can see that. Could you tell me more about where you believe you end up by following that Jesus? And I don't mean "heaven" or anything like that---I'm asking because I take it from your nom de blog that you are interested in mystery. Would you tell me a bit about that? If you can't bring yourself to believe in fantastical stories, how does that fit in with your conception of yourself as a "Mystical Seeker?" (I hope the tone of this question comes across as sincerely interested, not combative...)
we are all too aware of the fact that otherwise intelligent adults throw their credulity out the window when it comes to religious stories.
I resemble that remark. ;-)
And that's part of my issue. I'm not a fundamentalist in any way shape or form. My score on the last IQ test I took would seem to indicate that I am not UNintelligent. ;-)
But because I love the mystery and the poetry of religious stories and consider them "true" on some level, other intelligent people label me as credulous, delusional, or just plain stupid. Or they lump me in with the fundagelicals who want to force their warped version of Christianity down other people's throats. It's just another form of fundamentalism to me---"you have to believe what I believe or there's something wrong with you."
As I told the discussion group the other night, I think it's possible to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast and then go to the lab and work on a new drug to cure HIV. I am just not convinced that there is a hard, bright line between "fact" and "faith."
Like Cecilia (Hi!), I am not perturbed by fantastical stories. I have had enough experiences in my life to know that not everything can be explained and that there really ARE some strange and wonderful things that happen in this world. I think it's entirely possible that there are places and times where miracles can happen--and places and times where they cannot. I suspect we are in one of the latter, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have happened before--or later. (Now you will probably be CONVINCED that I'm nuts... ;-)
I guess what I'm calling for is an acknowledgment that it's possible to be a thoughtful, intelligent person who finds something nourishing and inspiring in mystery. To borrow from Francis Bacon, I don't see that we have to kill the patient in order to cure the disease.
Donald--I think the Orthodox have it all OVER us when it comes to theology of incarnation and kenosis/theosis. Although on my darker days, I think Augustine had it right about the essential depravity of human beings, I think the Orthodox were right to reject his gnostic attitudes toward the body and the pernicious atonement theories. I would love to know more about your own faith tradition, and when I'm through with this Big Project, I hope we can engage in some discussions.
Fran--most of the progressive Episcopalians I know found +Spong helpful in the past and now see him as an obnoxiously self-promoting, one-trick pony. But, as Kirk notes, some of our number (including Elizabeth Kaeton+ and Louie Crew) love him dearly, so I'm sure he has his good points. ;-)
It's immediately clear from the quality of the comments that Doxy has done it again: woooo!
I agree with Paul; I've never been able to read more than a bit of +Spong without getting annoyed. I would have welcomed it eagerly when I was 18, but managed, with the help of companions in the way, to get along anyway.
I have found the concept of "realms of discourse" helpful; each--scientific, poetic, etc.--develops its appropriate methodology, questions, tools, etc.--and aspires to "tell the truth" in its way. These can be almost completely discrete at some levels, but may also lead back to a --common?--sense of depth and mystery. Often, as perhaps in Spong's case, the use of categories from one realm may reduce or distort when applied to questions or observations based on others' methodology. We live with different, overlapping paradigms.
I'm glad ya found the time for this!
I agree with you Doxy. There is a place for mystery. BP and I have this conversation periodically. I am certainly able to "believe in" things that are mysterious and inexplicable in life, the big one being LOVE. I have total faith in BP. That's not logical or fact based either. Music can make me weep. So can poetry. Wazzup with that? Lots of mystery!
As for Jesus, well, I view the Bible as a nice set of stories with good morals written by some early followers. It's a cult, really, that got big enough to be a religion. In principle it's got some nice ideas. In practice it's dangerous as all get out.
My question back to the hoity-toity theologians who condescend when I dare to believe in miracles and call me 'childish' is, What's wrong with being a child?
I think this culture does a great disservice to children, doing its best to shove them into teenagerhood and then they recommend spending their entire adult lives grasping back to those 'glory years' of 12-19.
Jesus had a couple things to say to people who held back children, if I recall correctly.
Doxy,
"I guess what I'm calling for is an acknowledgment that it's possible to be a thoughtful, intelligent person who finds something nourishing and inspiring in mystery"
Of course it's possible. I find inspiration in mystery also. To me, the fact that we have a well-ordered universe that obeys certain physical laws is not incompatible with belief in mystery. The fact that we exist at all--that's a mystery. The fact that there is love--that's a mystery. I don't have to believe in the literal truth of fantastical tales in order to believe in a mystery. The universe is for me such an amazing source of awe, I don't have to revert to a five-year-old mentality and believe in Santa Clause in order to feel this awe.
(One of the problems that I see in religious credulity is that it often boils down to "my fairy tale is true; your fairy tale is false." So Christians can believe that Jesus literally walked around after being resuscitated, but they will refuse to believe the fantastical claims of Muhammed or Joseph Smith. Incredulity with other religions, credulity with my own.)
I think the comment about finding truth in the mythological and fantastical tales in the Bible is certainly valid. The stories don't have to be literally true in order to speak a kind of truth. As Dominic Crossan says, Emmaus never happened; Emmaus always happens. And that's the key.
I realized that I made a typo in my earlier comment. The difference between Cinderella and Jesus's resurrection is that adults don't take Cinderella literally, but lots of adults do take the fanciful tales in Matthew, Luke and John about his resurrection literally. That's why I think it matters. I discovered a lot of churches where people read Borg or Spong in reading groups, but when push comes to shove, as this discussion bears out, most Christians, even progressive or non-fundamentalist ones, seem to prefer to treat these stories as if they are true.
All of this matters to me because rationality matters to me. My interest in religion has been how can we synthesize an awe of mystery with a rational understanding of the world? I think that the two are possible. For me, one of the ways that I found it possible to believe in both God and in a rational universe was through process theology.
Just recently I encountered an acquaintance who asked friends to keep praying for a sick friend, because so far it "is working". She is a nice person, and I appreciate her sentiment, but I had to figuratively roll my eyes. I could only think back to what Spong writes about this idea of intercessory prayer, where if you have friends who are willing to pray for you you are more likely to get God's interventionist attention than a friendly and marginalized person will. Spong is right--morally and theologically, this is untenable nonsense. This is why, as much as Spong does annoy me sometimes, he really raises issues that need to be raised.
Regarding your question to me, being mystical means being in touch with the Divine. I am probably not all that mystical, but mysticism is something that I admire. I believe in God, but not in an interventionist omnipotent God who violates the laws of physics. I think that Jesus was particularly in touch with the Divine in his life--he was, in Borg's words, a "spirit person". He was not the only one. I am a religious pluralist, but since I was brought up in a Christian home (unfortunately, fundamentalist), much of the language and traditions of that faith still hold a small place within me, so that is the hook that I tend to hang my spirituality on, but in reality I am a freelancer who hasn't found a true spiritual home. As this discussion and the comments you are receiving are illustrating, most Christians are believers in supernaturally directed miracles that contravene the laws of nature. This is simply something that I cannot accept, and that is one reason why I am only in the far reaches of the Christian orbit.
Johnieb--"realms of discourse" is a great phrase. I know people who seem to have only ONE realm of discourse (like certain of Mother Amelia's colleagues), and they are not the people I enjoy spending time with. I think EVERYONE ought to be able to speak/understand more than one language, and this is nowhere more true than in realms of "fact" and "faith."
And I had no business blogging yesterday, and none answering comments today, but you people WILL keep challenging me and making me think! ;-)
IT--Love is the big one, isn't it? My love for Dear Friend is, on the one hand, no mystery at all. Everyone loves him. But the depth and intensity of my love for him is outside the bounds of anything I've ever experienced before. I've called it "holy" and it is. I suspect you know exactly what I'm talking about...
Which makes me want to ask: Do you, as an atheist, feel any sense of transcendence? If music or poetry moves you to tears, I would consider that a "pull" to the transcendent. Do you?
In principle it's got some nice ideas. In practice it's dangerous as all get out.
Thank you for my first laugh of the day! Absolutely spot on. ;-)
Mary Sue--good to see you! You make an excellent point. I don't want to remain in childlike ignorance, but I think it is a great loss to give up our capacity for wonder and (dare I use the term?) "magic". There is a reason why Christmas time is so much more fun when you have small children in your life.
I have never forgotten the first time I read Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. There is a scene at the end where Arthur Dent returns to his hometown, and the spaceship lands right in the middle of some big town event. But the only person who "sees" the ship is a small child who hasn't yet had his ability to see the unusual trained out of him. I think of that scene often....
Song--thanks for commenting! Like you, I've never doubted the existence of God, but Jesus gave me a lot of problems for many years. I'm going to have to go back through the blog and see if I've written about my rather contentious relationship with Jesus. If I haven't, I should probably do that, as it informs a lot of how I came to this particular theological viewpoint.
So I guess I'm chasing that experience, as much as anything, and I'm chasing it because people like you have said it exists, and I desperately want that to be true.
Ah...but it exists for ME. I freely admit that it may be as mythical as frogs who turn into royalty when smooched.
But I will say the experience of transcendence I feel through liturgy and Eucharist is something I would share with you if I could. It is quite powerful and often moves me to tears. I'm not sure that experience has actually changed me in positive, practical ways, but it has made me WANT to be the "face of God" in the world, and I figure the wanting is the beginning point. I'll be working on the "theosis" part (thanks again for that, Donald!) for the rest of my life.
Mystical Seeker--your comment came in while I was finishing this one, and I have GOT to get back to work for now! So let me say "Thank you!" again for your wonderful contribution here, and I promise I'll come back later and engage what you have said.
"Realms of discourse" isn't my original, but I forgot from whom I stole it. ;-)
Transcendence? Oh, yes. Hence poetry and music and drama and all those other arts I dearly love.
I don't see transcendence in a church (to be honest, looked at objectively the ritual is rather....cannibalistic!) , but then again, there are some people who don't find it in music.
All this comes down to how my particular neurons fire. but it doesn't invalidate it because of that, or because others see ti as something outside themselves.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?
and who cares whether heaven is real, or a construct that we create?
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield....
Doxy --I think +Spong would agree with you, and be the first to say he is his own brand of fundamentalism.
I am a cradle Episcopalian --and seriously, there are patterns which shaped, formed and haunt me. I will never forget not being able to be an acolyte because I was a girl. I will never forget the day women were ordained. Both of those experiences inform me as a Christian....
And even though I am a Christian and ordained, I do not consider myself 'religious.' At all. I do consider the likes of Bishop Lawrence and all the other raving biblidolators to be VERY religious..... buncha damn pharisees.... interested in rules, power, and answers and keeping it all in order. That's religion.... finding a way to get to 'god' instead of letting one's self be present to God who has already pitched a tent in the neighborhood.
So, +Spong's view of Jesus for the nonreligious makes perfect sense to me... those interested in the mystery, the myth, the deep stories, the truth in fairy tales, the death of power... no answers.... yeah.
Sigh... hope that makes sense.
Good post Doxy.
Doxy,
That's exactly what I was trying to say at Friends of Jake about Spong, comparing him to St. Paul.
Paul was a pharisee. After his conversion, he was just as passionate a rule-maker for Christianity as he had been rule-enforcer for Judaism. His Christianity was an expression of his pharisee background, and that's not necessarily a good starting place.
In the same way, Spong has become just as self-righteous in a liberal theology as he was in a conservative theology. As with Paul, we can discern and use what is good while ignoring the clearly unhelpful aspects - though it is often referred to dismissively as "cherry picking religion," it is what all religious people do and is only dangerous when done without the integrity of awareness.
Forgive me, I'm tired and allergy-sick and rambling.
Still under water with work, people, so more later (especially to Mystical Seeker who has so graciously given me lots to think about and respond to!)
But I wanted to do a quick driveby on a couple of things:
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield....
IT---I actually find the yielding to be the most pleasurable part. ;-)
I will never forget not being able to be an acolyte because I was a girl. I will never forget the day women were ordained. Both of those experiences inform me as a Christian....
Margaret--one of my most powerful personal experiences of God came the day our suffragan bishop, Jane Holmes Dixon came to visit my parish in DC. After having grown up in a church where women were not even allowed to pray in public(!), it was truly a "religious" experience to see a female bishop, a female priest, and all female LEMs and acolytes (I think that part was a "holy accident") up on the altar. I still get shivers thinking about it....
That's exactly what I was trying to say at Friends of Jake about Spong, comparing him to St. Paul.
Mark--that's actually a VERY helpful analogy for me! Thanks. (I'm sorry you are feeling poorly. Hope today is better!)
I got to the ECUSA via Rome. What else would a nice apostate Jew do, after all? In addition to RCIA, I had periodic meetings with another priest who, as the 1998 Easter Vigil approached, asked me what I thought of the article of faith that Jesus was of a virgin born. He prefaced his question by saying that most converts he'd known slammed into a wall with that one. I shrugged and said "Honestly, I don't know if it's literally true. I just feel like it should be if it isn't." Surprisingly, he told me nobody had ever said that before.
At the time I came into the RCC, I lived in the Archdiocese of Newark, which was the same territory as the Episcopal Diocese of Newark. I'd been "coaxed" to accept the idea that Jesus Christ himself founded the Roman Catholic Church and that the Anglicans were born from the adulterous passions of Henry VIII. As I began to become discontented with my original choice while distancing myself from a priest I call Rasputin, I visited one Episcopal parish a few miles away and was totally turned around by the giving nature of the place, and yes, by the novelty of a female Rector who was an unclosed lesbian in an active relationship. Reportedly, Bishop Spong loved that parish.
As time went by I started growing problems with Spong. I started picturing not a dignified and dissenting cleric but a little boy with a slingshot in his pocket, raising his middle finger toward not just other churches but toward the more centrist and conservative elements of his own. The message "Here I Stand" seemed to be "If you don't think like me, you're defective. If you don't grow the way I did, then there's something wrong with you." And it was not in theological or political terms; it was couched in a sense that the dissenter was psychologically disturbed. When Spong turned his psychosexual lens of St. Paul, that was the last straw. Do we derive something new and improved from Paul's letters if we agree with Spong that Paul was a repressed homosexual? So what? Who cares? Spong made himself sound like Peter Akinola because both of them tolerate dissent with equal amounts of equanimity.
Am I wrong or has John Shelby Spong shed a lot of his influence? Ten years ago he helped clear my head on the way to befogging it again. I don't hear anything from or about him in the disputes that began in 2003. I for one do not particularly feel a loss.
Here's my name, Dox: Ken Wolman. Same as my username.
I agree with many of those who criticize some of Spong's unfortunate tendencies. I think that Spong's theory on Paul's sexuality was an example of this, in that he offered a theory of Paul's supposed homosexuality not as speculation but as a strong assertion that he was convinced of. Okay, it's an interesting theory, but to take such a strong position in favor of what is basically speculation seems a little absurd. Spong's involvement with the ideas of Michael Goulder's revisionist reading of the two-source theory was another problem where Spong went off a little half-cocked. All of which is to say, Spong isn't right about everything.
I personally think the biggest of Spong's failings is that he identifies his own brand of theology as the only way forward for progressive Christianity. His Tillich-influenced, non-theistic God is certainly an interesting idea, although very vaguely expressed (he never really comes across, to me anyway, as really spelling out what he means by "God".). But in fact, there are many other progressive theologies out there--the panentheism of Borg, or the process theology of Cobb, for example--that can address many of the same criticisms of conservative Christianity that concern Spong, but which Spong simply ignores as he merrily proclaims his own Tillich-like Christianity as THE alternative to the failings of Christian orthodoxy.
But whereas I think Spong goes off base in the prescription that he offers, I think he is DEAD ON in his diagnosis of the disease. He is correct on the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of fundamentalism. He is right that there are many of us "believers in exile" who belong to the "church alumni society". He is right when he critiques the theology of supernatural intervention. He is right when he critiques the idea of intercessory prayer. He is right when he critiques a literalist interpretation of Jesus's resurrection. He is right when he points out that the Bible is full of stories that are morally or scientifically untenable if taken literally.
I think that, despite Spong's failings, he has done a lot of good, because he makes the case that needs to be made against certain forms of Christianity. Fundamentalism is a powerful force in our society, and it takes forceful opponents to really show that the fundamentalist emperor has no clothes. So his value lies in his critique, more than in what he proposes as an alternative--but it is a critique that needs to be said.
The question that I have in this discussion and a lot of discussions about Spong is how much of the objection to Spong has to do with his prescription, and how much has to do with his diagnosis. As I stated, it is his prescription and the dogmatism associated with it that I find problematic, but his diagnosis is in many ways on target. The biggest problem with a lot of "progressive" Christianity that so much of it really falls in line with many of the same theological premises that conservative or fundamentalist Christianity hold--which is to say, they believe in supernatural interventionism, they still engage in intercessory prayer, and so on. This is why I find going to church so problematic, even ostensibly "progressive" ones.
I appreciate the witty thoughtfulness of your post. Very refreshing.
If I may ask, what are your thoughts on Frederick Buechner and Robert Farrar Capon?
Hi Doxy and everyone,
I see that I'm quite late to the party. I confess that I haven't read ALL of the comments. Once again, I'll haul out my quote from the crusty old Evelyn Waugh from Brideshead Revisited:
“Oh dear, it’s very difficult being a Catholic!”
“Does it make much difference to you?”
“Of course. All the time.”
“Well, I can’t say I’ve noticed it. Are you struggling against temptation? You don’t seem much more virtuous than me.”
“I’m very, very much wickeder,” said Sebastian indignantly.
“… I suppose they try to make you believe an awful lot of nonsense?”
“Is it nonsense? I wish it were. It sometimes sounds terribly sensible to me.”
“But my dear Sebastian, you can’t seriously believe it all.”
“Can’t I?”
“I mean about Christmas and the star and the three kings and the ox and the ass.”
“Oh yes. I believe that. It’s a lovely idea.”
“But you can’t believe things because they’re a lovely idea.”
“But I do. That’s how I believe.”
That's how I believe, too. Myth, poetry, mystery? Yes, I believe it all. It's too lovely an idea not to be true, and if it's not, then it ought to be.
Ken--thanks for commenting! Those of us on the progressive side of the Episcopal aisle heard a LOT about +Spong in 2003, and continue to hear his name bandied about by the rabid right-wingers as Exhibit A of "what's wrong with the Episcopal Church" (though I confess that he's recently been replaced by our Presiding Bishop as their chief target). He's their great big boogeyman---and I will vent my spleen and say they have used him like a two-bit hooker. They are always whining about what a heretic he is--but no one has ever filed a presentment against him because he's too convenient a whipping boy.
Mystical Seeker--I am in the process of writing my own version of War and Peace in response to your terrific points. I have a Big, Bad Deadline on Tuesday afternoon, so expect me to get back to you by the end of the week if not before.
It's too lovely an idea not to be true, and if it's not, then it ought to be.
Mimi--Yes. Yes! YES!!! (And you, too, Ken...great minds think alike. ;-)
I truly love you for bringing that to my attention--and I can see that I'm going to have to add ANOTHER novel to my pile of "must-reads."
Okay--I'm crawling back under my rock now. I don't believe that God will come down and finish this project for me, but I would appreciate prayers for me to have the energy for this sprint to the finish line. ;-)
Cheers,
Doxy
Doxy -- This has been an absolutely GREAT post and a great set of comments. Thank you. Someone (sorry, I have oldtimers) said something about not having a clue -- that is where I am -- don't have a clue but I believe (or trust which is, I gather, sometimes the same word in Koine Greek).
I worry that Spong may have a problem with spiritual pride -- for me, intellect is neat but can only take me so far. And this is from some who LOVES being intellectual -- sadly, I have found that, for me, exclusive focus on the intellect provides a safe distance from being actually involved in a relationship with God and the world of his/her children. The Epistle of James really suckered me in.
For what it's worth, I have found paths to God in fiction, poetry and science fiction. And -- I became an Episcopalian while majoring in Physics and Astronomy. All about mystery. All of it. And we call wave AND particles: wavicles. Yes, both.
Constantine--your comment got caught in my filter...sorry it took so long to post it, and thanks for stopping by. I love Buechner--his Listening to Your Life is one of my very favorite books. I don't know Capon, but will have to look him up now.
So many books, so little time...sigh.
SusanKay--oh cool! Another physics and astronomy geek! I can tell we are going to have a marvelous time when we finally meet. :-)
I grew up in a "head faith"--it was all about believing the "right thing." It was only when I came to the Episcopal Church and discovered liturgical worship that something began to change in me. That's why I talk about "feeling" things to be true--it's actually some kind of kinesthetic experience, I think.
Okay, I really AM gone now.... ;-)
But we have to be careful that we don't equate not believing in the literal truth of the miracles as being unreligious.
What matters is the deep, mystical, theological truth of the miracles and about Jesus, and it doesn't matter which way you get there. If your emotional and intellectual make-up means that you have to accept the miracles as factually true, then so be it. But if your emotional and intellectual make-up means you can only reach that core of your faith after you have given literalism of any form, then that's fine too.
What matters is that we move closer to God and into God. How we do that is irrelevant.
By that reckoning, Spong is a little annoying in his certainties, but he is still the man who writes:
"I dismiss the literalism of every religious symbol, I cling to the reality to which those religious symbols point me. I live my life as a human being, as a Christian, as an Anglican and as a bishop, as one who is journeying into the wonder and mystery and truth of God which is beyond anything that I can understand. A God who is real beyond my constructs of the divine one and a God who constantly impinges upon me as I open myself to that inbreaking presence and as I walk into the wordless wonder of that reality."
I am coming very late to this discussion - goodness knows I can hardly keep up with my own blog! I am, nevertheless, deeply grateful for this post and this discussion, Doxy. Thank you. There is much rich gospel nourishment on which to feast. Thank you one and all.
I want to address my remarks to the comments made about Jack Spong. I am deeply grateful for Erika's quote of him. That's exactly the one I would have used.
Part I:
First of all, I've known Jack Spong since 1989 when I met him at a clergy day in the Diocese of Maryland. Even though I corrected him publicly, which annoyed him deeply, he spent the next two years recruiting me to the Diocese of Newark. I've been here since 1991.
He is the best chief pastor I have ever known. Bar none. And, I've had 10 to date in three dioceses. I could fill the better part of an evening telling you countless stories of how he pastored me and so many other clergy. Some of you have read my story about my exchange with him about prayers. Here's another:
When my father died, after I got my composure, I called the bishop's office to notify them. Jack was in Australia at the time.
At 6 PM my phone rang. It was Jack, calling from Australia. After he allowed me to express my grief he said, "Now, Elizabeth, my plane leaves tomorrow night, but there is also one that leaves in about four hours. I can be on that plane if you want."
I was undone by his generosity, thanked him and said that I would see him when he got back. He pressed on, "Darlin', I want to be there for you but I also want to be there for your beloved. I know what your family thinks of her and I know they will probably try to keep her away from the funeral (they did). They'll have a harder time doing that if I'm there. So, if you think there will be any trouble and my presence there will help in anyway, I'll be on the next plane."
You know, it just doesn't get much better than that.
Part II
Now, having said all that, is Jack Spong annoying? Oh, my, he certainly can be. He is one of the best self-differentiated selves I've ever known. He is a free man - free from the enslavement to what others think of him as a guide to living his life. That can be very off-putting and annoying at times. It can come off as arrogant and aloof. He is not. Absolutely not. He just believes what he believes.
Does he enforce that on others? Not in my experience of him. He would say repeatedly to clergy and laity alike, "If you are charismatic, I want you to be the best charismatic Christian that ever was. If you are Anglo-Catholic, I want you to be the best Anglo-Catholic that ever was. It is not important to me that you believe what I believe. It is essential to me that you know what you believe and why you believe it and communicate that clearly and effectively and with joy and passion."
Once, he wrote an essay in our diocesan newspaper, taking apart the Christmas Carols and the Service of Lessons and Carols as historically erroneous and something that should probably no longer have a place in the post modern church that strove for relevancy in people's lives.
I (along with other clergy, apparently) wrote him and told him that he apparently didn't understand the power of myth and the power of symbol. I chose my words very carefully, made my argument, and asked him to soften his stance.
Within two weeks, we had an hour long conversation in his office. I learned later that he did the same thing with every single other clergy person who had written him.
By the time the next issue of the diocesan paper came out, he wrote an apology - well, of sorts; as close to an apology as anyone is going to get from Jack Spong for something he has written - not for what he believed in but for missing the power of symbol and the power of myth. Shortly after that he began to write more about the mystery of God.
I do not write this to convince you to change your mind about Jack Spong. There are many who believe what some of you believe and Jack has heard them all. It doesn't matter to him whether you think you're right about him and others may think you're wrong. He will tell you that he doesn't need defending and neither do you, if you have thought through what it is you believe about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
He is who he is - a Son of the South, a proper gentleman who is of't times a loving, kind man who is generous beyond measure and respectability, who strives to be as lavish and wasteful with his love as Jesus was on the Cross. He is sometimes annoying and strident but always, always human.
And, to his credit, his annoyance always brings me back to what it is I believe, driving me deeper into my intellect, my heart, my soul. That, to me, is precisely what a Chief Pastor is supposed to do.
Then again, I have had the rare privilege of knowing Jack, of being in his home countless times, and he in mine, of worshiping and studying with him, of laughing raucously with him, and weeping inconsolably with him. That makes my experience a wee bit different than just reading the one-dimensional image one gets of him from words on the pages of a book.
I've gone on far too long. Thanks for hearing me out. I hope this has been helpful to you.
Elizabeth--I am deeply grateful to you for taking the time to write so movingly about Bishop Spong. It does help me to know something about the person behind the book cover. I know that he has been similarly helpful and loving to Louie Crew, whom I've never met, but who is one of my true heroes. From here on out, I will try harder to read +JSS' words with your portrait in mind.
I love the story about the diocesan newspaper! I'm glad to know he was willing to listen to clergy. Since I'm now married to one, that particular episcopal characteristic has taken on much greater importance... ;-)
Pax,
Doxy
Our parish is viewing the DVDs "Living the Questions", and Spong is quite good in the series.
Okay, Mimi--'fess up. Are they doing that as an apology for making you watch Nicky Gumbel? ;-)
Doxy, in a word, yes. I believe he introduced the series, at least in part, for me.
We have a great group for the discussions afterward, quite a number from the university faculty, and one drawn from another church, because she though it was so good.
Here's the blessing Bishop Stacy Sauls uses, which I offer in thanksgiving for your generous spirit:
Be careful as you go into God’s creation, for it does not belong to you.
Be gentle with yourself and with others, for we are the dwelling place of the Most High.
Be alert and be silent, for God is a whisper.
And the blessing of the eternally loving Triune God be with you and remain with you always.
Thank you, Elizabeth, for the tribute and for posting that wonderful blessing.
It WAS a wonderful blessing. Thank you.
But we have to be careful that we don't equate not believing in the literal truth of the miracles as being unreligious.
Ericka--If I have given that impression to you, or anyone else, I apologize.
Basically, I am reacting to what I perceive as people telling me that there is only one way to see the Bible and Jesus--and that is THEIR way. Believe it all, as written, or don't believe any of it (except the parts we like, of course).
I'm' a Leo--I don't do well with ultimatums. ;-)
And maybe the truth is that I want to have my cake and eat it too. I want to believe in the Incarnation and miracles and resurrection and still get to hang on to my good standing (such as it is) with intelligent people who find such beliefs crazy.
A girl can dream...
What matters is that we move closer to God and into God. How we do that is irrelevant.
Totally agree with you, Ericka.
doxy, this is such compelling reading... and you already know some of my thinking, having sifted through my 'feral christianity' blog, so i won't try to summarize that mess here.
i so admire the eloquence of elizabeth kaeton and the several voices of grace in your conversations... once again i am in your debt-- you are truly blessed with beautiful spirits in your orbit!
the only thing that i would underscore in this conversation is to consider the presence of many truths in God. i feel/think/believe our own individual experiences of that Presence are as myriad as stars in the infinity of the firmament. and as true.
here we are, all being of spiritual substance in a physical setting, bringing our own gifts to this world, and also growing in spirit by experiencing here what we came to learn.
another view of the 'many truths' idea... we're all chained together in the platonian cave, speculating about what's going on here, why we're here, what we can believe based on what we see and experience by observing the shadows on the walls. and then someone leaves the cave and experiences the sunlight, and comes back to share what that higher truth is...there is so much more, but i am narrating my own view of a slide from plato's story because it serves the purpose of presenting how i experience Jesus, who shows me how we experience God's Light.
such is my speck's view from the window sill ... i believe we cannot say that spong is wrong here or right there, if only as another instance of judging not ... only can we speak the little truths we experience for ourselves. my little truth springs from much of spong's writings and some of tilich, bonhoffer, teilhard, chuang tse, merton, rumi, etc. as well as mclaren & rob bell & the current crop of greens... i'm just kissin frogs all over th place...it makes for a many-splendored/splintered view! and for all that, the baptist truther in me clings to the priesthood of the believer while dancing in an episcopal tribe!
doxy, there is a wonderful presentation by brian mclaren that includes a 15-second clip from the cognition lab at the u of illinois... it is a powerful and direct experience of different truths. ... i'd be glad to set it up for you and see if you can 'grok' it at a distance. let me know.
how beautiful are the feet of you--i love where you walk, and i love journeying with you. track on!
...
p.s. this is such a late note, and too much, and there isn't anything brilliant here so you need not publish. i just wanted you to know that i came by and once again fell into your wonderful gathering of beautiful minds and once again appreciate the abundance of light around you!!!!
Thanks for this remarkable post, Doxy. But then I expect nothing less...
Please forgive me---I keep trying to get back to this post, but I am absolutely covered over with work right now.
Thanks to those who have commented so far, and I WILL answer Mystical Seeker's and Duck's points as soon as I can.
(This is what happens when you write a post rather than doing your work. It inevitably leads to all these thoughtful and interesting comments!)
Pax,
Doxy
Regarding Bishop Spong, I find him a little over the top on some things. The books aren't my cup of tea. But, give the man some credit! He's doing his thing, and people are talking about Jesus. I say, let him alone and hope he keeps at it.
I am SOOOO late to this, and perhaps have nothing good to add, but we'll see: I agree with Grandmere Mimi (and Frederick Buechner): It's too good not to be true. Who was it that said Spong's diagnosis is correct, but his prescription is off? That one, too. I have found him annoying, but I'm Lutheran, so I wonder if I have a right to an opinion (on Spong). Parts of what he says are right on, but it just doesn't add up to anything compelling to believe (for me, anyway).
Great post.
Doxy,
When all of the hullaballoo following +Gene's election and I lost my parish, I was so angry at TEC, my diocese, etc., I wrote +Jack. I have followed his work but always felt as though something was missing. One of my online colleagues said like a grade school math teacher: "He doesn't show his work".
But + Jack is as much of a pastor as he is a writer. He is stuck in the modernist age and has not moved to the post-modern age.
His response to my letter was wonderful and galvanizing. He sees his purpose is to stand against the fundamentalists and not allow them to take over TEC or for that matter the whole of the church.
+Spong is who has KEPT me in TEC and the Church and I am grateful for his wisdom and his remarkable service. And I beleive that there are still many who have not heard the broadness of the Christian message. It is obvious by the group that you attended is that many feel that they have been duped by church. +Spong has done more for demystifying the Christian message than most of us who studied at seminary but have never been able to help people understand that Chuch is not a place for mind control. Dear Friend is like many of us in the ministry, those who have never tried to tell people what to believe. But the message that clergy are there to judge is still deeply ingrained in peoples minds.
I celebrate +Spong. I am grateful to him for what he has done for those who want to believe with a thinking mind. I am grateful to him for giving advice to this priest to keep up the good fight. But I don't expect him to be a post-modernist who can hold both the mystery and the scientific easily at the same time.
For those of us who are older facing this emergent age, sometimes we have a hard time making that jump.
I am thankful for your ablilty to embrace the mystical and the scientific. Keep preaching it because it is the future of Christianity.
Thank you for this post....
I was going to make some clever comment but really, I am just so glad to read what you had to say and the experience you had, as it reflects some of the issues I've been struggling with myself of late. Thank you for your insightfullness.
My deadline has come and gone--and I met it, for the most part. (Still doing some mop-up...)
But, of course, something else happened---namely my carpal tunnel syndrome decided to act up with a vengeance. It also looks as if I have developed a ganglion cyst on my right wrist.
I have a doctor's appointment on Tuesday. Until then, I am trying not to type or mouse (it's the mousing that really kills me).
In the meantime, I am mulling my long response to all of your questions. Rest assured I have not forgotten. I hope to have a new post up by mid-week. I hope you will all come back and keep talking.
A group in one of my parishes (the one where Dear Friend is NOT) will begin discussing the Spong book next Sunday and one of the discussion leaders has already sent a link to this entry and your comments to the folks who have signed up for the discussion. I think you are all doing a remarkable job of articulating your viewpoints about something with which I think that EVERY Christian needs to wrestle. Thanks for your patience--I look forward to more discussion soon!
Doxy, just a word to let you know that I'm praying for your wrist. Yes, it's the mouse. Don't bother to answer this comment, since that will require typing.
I have FINALLY posted the beginnings of a response to Mysterious Seeker's wonderful points. I'd love to get more feedback--though, as you have all noted, I am notoriously slow about responding. Somehow life (especially earning a living) seems to interfere with thinking Big Theological Thoughts.... ;-)
Cheers,
Doxy
Post a Comment