Review of Spongs Biblical Literalism a Gentile Heresy

The accuse of heresy is a strong i. In the past charges of heresy could get 1 thrown out of the church if not worse. It'southward probably not a word to be thrown around lightly. Then, when a volume arrives carrying the championship Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy one will want to proceed with caution. When the person writing the book has been called a heretic himself, we might wonder what we're in shop for as we read. The question raised by the title concerns the way we ought to read the Bible. If to read the Bible literally is a Gentile heresy, what does that mean? In what ways did Gentiles introduce heretical ideas into the Christian customs? In other words, how did Gentiles mess things upward?

The author of this book with a provocative championship is John Shelby Spong, the long retired Episcopal bishop of Newark, New Jersey. Spong has long been a provocative voice within the Christian customs. He has regularly pushed boundaries with a "take no prisoners" mental attitude. On the positive side he has pushed the crusade of women in ministry building and welcoming LGBT persons into the life of the church building. On the other mitt, he has frequently used his position in the church to disparage those with whom he disagrees. And we see some of that in this volume. Those who would hold the Bible, for example, to be Word of God (a theological term) are said to be illiterate. He also suggests that ending the read reading of Scripture in worship with the ofttimes-used phrase "this is the Word of the Lord" is, in his words, "little more than the perpetuation of religious ignorance and religious prejudice" (p. 11) It would seem that his purpose in writing this book (and previous books) is to relieve Christianity from itself past making information technology intellectually acceptable.

In many ways Spong is a restorationist. Like other Restorationists (my own tradition has a restorationist element), he wants to restore "true Christianity" and then that information technology will be attractive to those who cannot abide a supernaturalist religion. In some ways Spong reminds me of Schleiermacher's speeches to the "cultured despisers" of religion. But, whereas Schleiermacher's vision of Christianity had a romanticist chemical element, Spong at times seems closer to Enlightenment rationalists similar John Toland and Matthew Tindal. While Spong embraces a Modernist vision, it has become apparent that nosotros take entered a postmodern historic period that is ameliorate able to hold faith and reason in tension in a way that Spong doesn't seem to cover.

At the centre of this book is Spong'southward rather eccentric reading of the Gospel of Matthew. It needs to be noted that Spong is not a Bible scholar, though he seems to desire the reader to grant him that role. Rather, he is a popularizer of biblical scholarship. It appears that he is well-read in the biblical scholarship of the age and is a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar (1 needn't exist a scholar to be a fellow). In that location's nothing wrong with being a popularizer. Like most preachers, when I enter the pulpit I do so as a popularizer of biblical scholarship.  I have biblical scholarship and bring its rewards to a congregation through teaching and preaching. I've fifty-fifty written a couple of books that exposit and translate the Bible, merely that doesn't brand me a biblical scholar (I do not have advanced degrees in the study of the Bible). With that said, nosotros turn to Spong's premise. That premise is that Gentile readers have misread the Gospels. They take read them literally, when the Jewish writers and recipients of the Gospels never would have understood them in that way.

In many ways Spong is engaging in the never catastrophe quest for the historical Jesus. The question is whether he has uncovered the historical Jesus or has simply looked downwards that proverbial well and has seen his own reflection. The style in which this reflection is cast will change with time, but the Jesus seen reflected in the waters of that well will likely be in sync with the vision of reality held by the i doing the looking! John Spong is no different than the rest of u.s.a..

At the center of the book is Spong'south desire to undo what he believes is an unwarranted and even dangerous atonement theology that emerged after Christianity became a Gentile faith. It is true that the atonement is a subject area of deep debate in the present era (and really ever has been). Nonetheless the cantankerous remains cardinal to the Christian faith, and so the question that faces us is the function it will play in the life of the church. In lodge undo the harm he believes is perpetrated past an atonement theology that denies man worth, he wants to recast our reading of the Gospels.

Those who take studied the Gospels probable know that they emerged belatedly in the second half of the first century, decades afterwards the decease of Jesus. The only New Testament texts that predate the Gospels are the letters of Paul, which say very little about Jesus' earthly life. The cross and resurrection are central in Paul's thought, though there is lilliputian narrative given to these 2 key points. It is true as well that in that location is divergence in the Gospel narratives that must be accounted for. Scholars have been decorated seeking to explain the points of agreement and disagreement.

Spong offers us ane particular take on this effort. He does and then by popularizing a theory introduced in the 1970s by the British biblical scholar Michael Goulder that the Gospels are Jewish liturgical texts, which offer up the story of Jesus in terms of Goulder's reconstruction of a Jewish liturgical year. It should be noted that Goulder's theories have never been accepted past mainstream biblical scholars. Part of the problem with Goulder'southward reconstruction, and thus Spong's popularization of it, is that we but don't know enough of what occurred in synagogues to say anything definitive about how scripture might be interpreted. We particularly don't know how Jesus would take been understood in that context—except for what seems to be revealed at points in the Gospels. But, for me a more pertinent question that never gets answered is why Jewish synagogues would accept been reconstructing the story of Jesus in the grade of a Jewish liturgical calendar.

Another attribute of Goulder's view, which Spong takes up, is his rejection of the being of "Q," the sayings source that biblical scholars believe Matthew and Luke used in tandem with the Gospel of Mark to create their versions of the Jesus story. While there are a few scholars who pass up what has become the accepted theory (sort of like the theory of evolution within biological sciences), information technology remains the accepted theory. In Spong's view Matthew uses Marker, but and so rewrites information technology in line with a Jewish liturgical yr. He and then suggests that Luke took Matthew and revised it for a more than cosmopolitan Jewish audience. suggested that while Mark is the earliest Gospel, he rejected the idea of the existence of a sayings source (Q) that was later used by Matthew and Luke. Spong takes up Goulder's view and suggests that we should pass up Q and assume that Matthew was written in the context of the synagogue liturgy. He then suggests that Luke took Matthew and revised it for a different synagogue context. If we accept this theory, then nosotros will read the Gospels through Jewish eyes. And here's the kicker. If nosotros prefer Spong's view, and then no Jew would have ever read the story of Jesus literally. That means there are few if whatever historical elements to the story. Of course, this leaves the states with a largely mythical Jesus. There may have been a historical Jesus at the lesser of this story, a Jesus who did stop up crucified, just beyond that we know very piddling, considering Jews didn't take such things literally. Or so, he says. In some ways Spong goes even further than most Jesus Seminar participants.

I have to hand information technology to Spong, he is quite creative. His use of a liturgical calendar to create the story of Jesus seems rather ingenious, just for me he makes too many leaps of logic. While I think we practice demand to read the Gospels through Jewish eyes, I'1000 not certain that Goulder is our best guide. And while it'southward clear (to me) that the Gospel writers did translate Jesus' life through an Old Attestation lens that fabricated utilize of figures such every bit Moses, I'1000 non certain that this requires us to make nearly everything metaphor. This is, in my heed, the heart of the problem in electric current discussions of the story of Jesus. It seems as if we face up a choice betwixt taking everything as literal history or everything is to be taken metaphorically. I'thou also concerned that Spong shows no awareness of the power of oral tradition in the ancient earth. The fact that the Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus doesn't mean that they do non reflect stories that were passed on with great care from the time of Jesus. If we reject the value of oral tradition we're left with a Jesus who has very little to say to u.s.. After all, these parables that mean then much to so many, have no connectedness to this grapheme of Jesus. Then why carp with him? In the terminate Spong did nothing to convince me that the long rejected Goulder thesis should be resurrected.  While we need to exist conscientious with the influence of later traditions, I'chiliad not so certain that nosotros should call a literal reading a Gentile heresy.

Yes, Jesus was Jewish. His teachings would necessarily align with Jewish idea. His earliest followers would accept been Jewish, only over time the church took root within a Gentile context. It was natural for the church to recast the story in a way that would make sense, fifty-fifty every bit Spong himself seeks to do in order to brand Christianity palatable to a modernistic skeptical audience. Besides,  I'm but non certain John Spong is the all-time guide to a modern reading of Jesus. While he offers a lengthy bibliography at the end of the volume but he shows little appointment with an of these resources, most of which support the current theories of transmission. For a Jewish reading, perchance we would be meliorate served by reading Amy Jill Levine than John Spong.

I know Spong gets lots of attending. And that's okay. The tent is broad. The Episcopal Church for that matter has always been rather wide theologically (and that goes back into the seventeenth century). Earlier Spong in that location was James State highway. He will have his day, but I just think there are better places to go if one wishes to notice a balanced motion-picture show of the Gospels. For me, Spong'southward book offers a rather sad flick. We're non left with much to build a faith upon when everything becomes metaphor.

I'll admit that I've never been a fan of Spong'southward. This book did nothing to convince me otherwise. I have no want to separate him from the Christian community, simply I do find his attitude toward those with whom he is at odds to be disappointing. Many of us seek to read the Bible in a critical just beholden manner. Nosotros struggle with texts that espouse violence and oppression, at the same fourth dimension many of us accept plant the Scriptures to exist a place where nosotros encounter a give-and-take from God. Thus, to say of those who speak of the Bible as the Word of God are "illiterate" is unnecessary. At the same time, if Spong can elicit from us a serious conversation about how we read the Bible, and read it responsibly, then perchance he has done us a service.

hughesenbraing.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.bobcornwall.com/2016/03/biblical-literalism-gentile-heresy-john.html

Share this post