Saint Stephen's in Columbus, Ohio is hosting John Shelby Spong in a couple of weeks. Details here. Spong is very influential in the church, especially the Episcopal church of which he is a retired bishop. Here's his web site (or is this his web site? I don't know). You should come hear him speak!

Right now, I'm reading his book "A New Christianity for a New World". I briefly met Spong once before, and heard Him preach. He's a friendly guy, and a good preacher. I've also read a part of one of his other books.

I find the experience of his books very frustrating, though, and I'm having trouble getting through this one, though I have promised myself that I will finish it before he comes to speak in Columbus.

I really don't find Spong's arguments to be structured in a very convincing way. I contrast him with the only other theologian that I've really read much of, C.S. Lewis, who I find to be very convincing. With Lewis, I find myself thinking, "I might not want to believe that, but I feel like he's right" whereas with Spong, I find myself thinking, "I want to believe that, but I'm not convinced, and I feel that he's not right."

I'm only about halfway through his book, but I'll try to give you some impressions. I think that the book rests on the premise that the belief in Jesus Christ as a part of the theistic God is incorrect and damaging to the message of Jesus.

Spong goes on to demonstrate that the theistic interpretation of Jesus was a later addition to the faith and is actually foreign to it. I believe the rest of the book is about how we can get along without that interpretation, and what is left once that's given up.

As for the first point, I find Spong to be far from convincing. He seems to rest a lot on the idea that modern people are just smarter or different from ancient people and that theism doesn't work for us. For one thing, I think a lot of people are embracing theism. For another thing, ancient people knew that raising dead people and virgin births were impossible, even if they didn't know a lot more about the subjects. We're not particularly smarter or different in that sense.

Here's a quote from the book: "But do these symbols, literalized or not, still translate in this generation? Can they still convey meaning in a postmodern world? The magic of breaking the power of death by placing blood on the doorposts or on the cross is strangely primitive. The cannibalistic ritual of eating the flesh of the deceased deity is filled with ancient psychological nuances that are disturbing to modern sensitivities."

Sections like this bug me a lot. He states this and moves on, but he hasn't convinced me, and I'm not moving on with him. It makes what comes later just a bit harder to swallow. Why does he think that people are disturbed by the practice of communion? I've never talked to anyone who remotely related communion with cannibalism. I don't know; maybe a lot of people do think it's weird. Anyway, I feel like the book is full of sections like this.

He also asserts that religion is a form of coping with the difficulties of the world. In one sense, I definitely agree. I think that my religion makes my life more tolerable. Partly because prayer and meditation are healthy practices, and partly because I have a faith that God will make sure that things work out for the best in the long run. I don't think that this discredits the religion in any way. Lots of things make life more tolerable, friendship, love, fire, paper-clips... If God gave us religion, this is surely one good use for it.

Spong seems to say that the trouble in the world can be attributed to the fact that theism is dying (and he believes that it should be) and that we humans haven't replaced it with something better. I, personally, attribute the trouble in the world (he sites caffeine, smoking, and alcohol as coping mechanisms and random shootings, and genocide as evidence of failure to cope) to technology and culture much more than the death of theism.

As for the point that theism was a later addition to Christianity, the argument seems to be well structured, but I would have to be a Biblical scholar to be able to understand or criticize it, and I am not.

Oh, and on page 52 he says "It was a circular argument, as all irrational arguments are..." when it should be obvious that not all irrational arguments are circular. That kinda thing just annoys a guy like me. On the other hand, it may be that all arguments, rational or not, are in some way circular, or that at some point, you just have to come to postulates that are the foundation for the rest of the argument's system. Why is logic good? Because logic tells us so!

So I'll update you on more when I read the rest of his book and after his talk. You should come hear him speak :)

PS Sorry I'm not giving citations. Just read the book, if you think I'm wrong, let me know.