Can a Bishop Be Wrong? [Paperback]

Peter Moore (Editor)

Editorial Reviews

Review

... fascinating reading for all Christians, and of vital interest to an Anglican perspective. -- The Midwest Book Review

... fine essays and models of Christian debate... -- Robert F. Allen, Richmond, as printed in The Living Church

... invaluable resource... a must-read. -- Graham Scott, as printed in Theological Digest and Outlook

... written for the educated laity... carefully explain Bishop Spong's ideas... then equally carefully explain his errors in logic and scholarship. -- David Mills, Trinity Episcopal School of Ministry's Director of Academic Publishing and Editor of Mission and Ministry, writing in Foundations, magazine of Episcopal Synod of America

There's no mistaking the firmness of the writers' disagreement with the well-known bishop, but the tone is never histrionic. -- Dallas Morning News

This volume is both interesting and thought provoking... -- The Counselor, a syndicated column

Product Details

• Paperback: 176 pages
• Publisher: Morehouse Publishing (March 1, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0819217263
• ISBN-13: 978-0819217264
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 10.1 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (16 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,828,521 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

17 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Will comfort those who already think that Spong is a nut., November 10, 1998

By 

Robert F. Allen "tristanva" (Richmond, VA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Can a Bishop Be Wrong? (Paperback)

While one of the contributors to this volume accurately points out that the appeal Bp. Spong has to communicants, listenters, and readers is that he addresses the questions people are really asking, the writers in this collection largely miss the point and engage in mean-spiritied, ad hominem attacks without getting at the underlying issues. The former Bishop of South Carolina (Allison) is an exception and his critique is right on target without being viscious.

11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Good concept; poorly executed, June 18, 1998

By 

Jeanne Sirovatka ([e-mail]) (Ft. Collins, CO) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Can a Bishop Be Wrong? (Paperback)

I was very excited to see a critical book covering Bishop Spong's work. It is always important to read both sides of any argument, and this book attempts to give a cogent response to Spong's theses. However, the actual execution of these articles was very poorly done. First, it was obvious that this was a series of completely independent articles that were only minimally edited, resulting in a massive amount of repetition. Second, the commentaries were mostly emotional, and rarely delved into Spong's specific arguments. There are 5-10 pages of actual rigorous criticism in the entire book (these pages do bring up 2-3 good points). Overall, this book does not successfully shoot down even a minority of Spong's theses. Buy it for your reference library, but only to demonstrate unconvincing arguments.

29 of 40 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Literal vs "Liberal", March 5, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: Can a Bishop Be Wrong? (Paperback)

If you are new to the debate, John Shelby Spong is a "liberal" theologian. That his detractors think Spong merits this book gives testimony to the power of Spong's ideas, or rather, ideas developed over a century of modern Bible scholarship but are only now finding their way to believers. Here's one example of what I'm talking: the idea, popularly accepted in scholarly circles, don't ya know, that the New Testament gospels are midrashic inventions devised by piecing together stories from the Old Testament (or less derisively, "First Testament") into a running dialogue on the life of Jesus. The Gospel writers found in Jesus a new experience of the Divine. First century Hebrew readers, intimately familiar with their sacred story, would immediately have recognized these references to their holy scripture in the Gospel stories and would have understood Jesus as the New Moses. To interpret the Gospels literally rather misses the point. Another example: God makes light, day and night, on the first day of creation. Yet God gets around to creating the sun, the stars, and the moon (the "lesser light") not until Day Four. How do literalists explain this? Why do "conservatives" burden the Good Book with the dogma of "infallibility" when such literal contradictions are apparent to modern believers? If you, like me, are at a loss why Spong's detractors seem threatened by new understanding, read between the lines of this their book. But don't take them literally.