What happens when you get New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof and former Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong together – not much of consequence.
If I cared enough about the thoughts of either of these two men, or at least thought they had some type of actual knowledge in the field Spong discusses in his book and Kristof in his column, I would fisk this column (and book) from now until my sons are in college.
Spong has no (or at the most very little circumstantial) evidence for the inflamatory things he throws out – Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, Paul was gay, Christians hate women, Christians hate sex, etc.
Kristof overplays the significance of yet another book by Spong attacking the basic doctrines of Christianty, while still maintaining that he is not a heretic as if it is a new revelation in the culture war.
Spng and Kristof have been saying the same things for years. They just repackaged it.
If you feel like it, read the column, do your own fisking or agreeing. I have better things to do.
Oh well, I have been hearing the same things from you xtian conservatives for years as well. I think xtians really have to face the fact that their religion and their holy book has been used for centuries as a bludgeon to wield power (or at least abet it). The history is there; there's no use hiding from it. Just because Spong says some outrageous stuff doesn't mean that he doesn't have some very important critiques of xtian doctrine and history.
btw: Just saying that those bad things don't represent "real" xtianity isn't very satisfying either. I think some of 'em are central to xtian belief.
I have read spong, and for a long time, received his newsletters. He is well meaning, but basically takes a very liberal approach to scripture, and certainly does not view it as "the only inspired word of God."
He is also a gay apologist. He is outspoken, and feels like he must take back Christianity from the conservatives – in his words, "Christianity must change or die." But his change is a type of modernization that is a Christinity that is inclusive and nice, another member in the pantheon of nice religions.
I think he is significant for two reasons.
(1) He clearly calls out many of the sins of the conservative church.
Sure, some of his accusations are just a liberal take on scripture, but others are worth listening to, at least for the grain of truth they contain. You can always learn from your detractors, esp. if they are not really trying to harm you, but believe that they are trying to help you.
(2) He is the one of the most clear voices of Christian heresy today.
Forget the prosperity preachers and megachurches. If you want to see how heresy is being intellectually justified and mainstreamed today, read Spong. He is masterful in his reasoning, especially if you don't know the scriptures. I'm sure he is a nice guy – heck, we might even see him in heaven ;).
But I don't think he should be lightly dismissed. I think he should be considered because of his influence, and his anti-biblical ideas should be countered with the balanced, biblical truths that actually have the power to transform people into new people.
So-called "liberal" ideas also have the power to transform people. Conservatives don't have a monopoly there (although it's obvious they think they do).
As to the rest of your "critique": everything you say against him is a plus in his column for me. It's really kind of funny that way.
btw: Isn't it horrible that he's called a "gay apologist"? I know that this is one of the most horrible things you think you can accuse someone of, but that's just a measure of how radical you are. And how deep and wide the divide between us. As it stands, I wouldn't touch your version of religion with a million-foot pole.
I know, Spong is very influential. It was not meant as being dismissive of everything he does. I'm not even saying that he is lost.
I simply grow tired of the fanfare given to him or Crossan or any other Biblical scholar by the New York Times everytime they release a book.
When they clearly do not do the same for the vast majority of Biblical scholars who release books in support of a mainly literal intrepretation of Scripture.
And one of the reasons I wrote that is just to get some more discussion going. Actually, I wanted to fisk the article, but I didn't have time before I left work and I figured this was an even better way to discuss the issues.
Well, really, what did you expect from the NYT? I imagine more conservative publications don't review him as fawningly?
Isn't it horrible that he's called a "gay apologist"? I know that this is one of the most horrible things you think you can accuse someone of, but that's just a measure of how radical you are.
Well, I never did say that his being a gay apologist was horrible – you just decided to interpret what I was saying. I was remarking that this is one of his prominent attributes. You "know" that this is "one of the most horrible things" I think he could be. But that's not my spin on it.
I mention it because it helps cateogorize his theology. The most negative thing that I said about him, admittedly not postitive, was that I feel his positions are heretical. I didn't say he was bad, horrible, or morally wicked. I merely said I think his theology (gay apologies included) is incorrect and heretical.
Louis, why do you have to read the wagging finger into everything? Sure, I was a little cynical in saying that his reasoning was masterful "if you don't know the scriptures." But "horrible" is a value judgement that you read in. "Heretical" is about the worst you can get out of what I wrote, I think.
You are right in one thing, however. Homosexuality will always form a divide between the orthodox biblical positions and those who seek to accept it as normative.
Very true Louis, for some reason I continue to hold out hope that the media will actually attempt to be somewhat unbiased, but I am afraid there is little room for that hope any more.
"You are right in one thing, however. Homosexuality will always form a divide between the orthodox biblical positions and those who seek to accept it as normative."
Ergo, xtianity (at least in its traditional forms) is the enemy of gay people.
And I find "gay apologist" to be, at least, a negative term, especially from you, the person who thinks gays are pathological sinners who need to be "converted" to heterosexuality, and who doesn't want gay people to become mainstream. No "wagging finger"? Puhleeze!