Customer Reviews

Can a Bishop Be Wrong?

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Peter C. Moore should be applauded for taking the initiative to finally put a book on the market that offers a rebuttal to Spong's New Age 'psuedo Christianity'. However, I have to whole heartedly agree with the other reviewers who comment on the repetition and inconsistent flow. In the beginning the editor does make clear that "Each Chapter stands on it's own, although together they amount to a remarkably unified and weighty challenge to the bishop's thought and an effective rebuttal of his conclusions." (Introduction). While each Chapter as an individual essay on one aspect of Spong's theology do stand alone, the way they are sort of bundled together seem to dampen it's effectiveness and lighten the weight of it's challenge.
Despite the editors claims to the contrary, this book seems to try to cater more towards the `scholarly' in it's language and writing style of many of its' scholarly contributors. In fact it rings most vigorously pointing out the flaws in Spong's logic and scholarship which they show most convincingly. However they fail to realize that this flaws of Spong's are self evident to any educated reader who picks up a copy of one of his works. Spong's appeal, and in turn his true danger, is his effect on people who are not as educated in Christian teachings and scholarship. Spong appeals to the 'modern' man and woman who was raised in an age of New Age philosophy. Things like absolute truth and logic are relegated to old stuffy text books hidden in the annals of Academia. Spong's audience wants to know what Christianity can do for them today and now. How can it fit their fixed world view and agenda. A niche that Spong's fills admirably by putting forth distinctively non-Christian thoughts and propaganda decorated nicely under his 'authority' as a Bishop.
To that extent only a few Chapters works to answer the true questions that Spong's theology brings to the church without soundly like they `just want to win a debate'. Stephen M. Smith's `Inside the Whirlwind' shows quite effectively that Spong's philosophy is just New Age monism draped in Christian terminology in a fain attempt to be labeled `Christian'. Though relegated to the back of the book, it is actually the first Chapter I would recommend be read.
`The Essential Spong' by James M. Stanton does waver from tedious read to engaging and thought provoking writing. One is taken back by the statement `The fundamentalist has no better friend then John Shelby Spong." but Stanton proves his point quite well in his essay. `The Sin of Faith' by Russell R. Reno left me wanting more. He does well in pinpointing the roots of Spong's interpretation of the bible through his work but he seems to go off on one tangent after another and never unifies his points. This `lull' point appears smack in the middle of his chapter and doesn't lighten up till near the end.
In conclusion, I feel this book is a stepping stone towards presenting Orthodox Christianity in contrast to Spong's New Age Christianity. It fails in the area of trying to do so much in so little space. Bishop Spong has spent a life time advocating and writing prolifically on his views. Each book he writes has a subject matter that accomplishes some point in his theology. To get the church to accept things that the modern world accepts in light of scripture, Spong must show that Salvation is attained through `living fully', i.e. in this world. To show salvation is attained in this world, Spong must show that it is not through Christ that he only exhibited how it can be done. To show this he must deny Christ's divinity. To deny the divinity of Christ he must deny the resurrection and miraculous accounts. To deny the miraculous he must deny the authority of the bible and so forth.
With each Book, Spong pointedly lays down a plank that is the foundation for his theology. Each plank must be examined and answered in it's own right. To that extent, I would like to see more books dealing solely with one of Spong's books. A clear and concise orthodox answer to the flaws logic and errant theology in each of his book. It is a hope that this book will show the need in the Christian community for good theology and teaching in spite of a Bishop Spong.

I confess-- I have something in common with most of the Rt. Rev. Spong's fans. Like them, I've read very little of what he's written. (For example, "Can A Bishop Be Wrong" has two five-star reviews from Spong fans who are under the impression that Spong wrote this book-- apparently, they feel comfortable praising Spong's work sight-unseen).

Don't get me wrong. I've tried to read Spong. But, alas, the Rt. Rev. S. is a ghastly writer. After a while, the charms of Spong's writing-- his relentless self-congratulation, his presenting of hackneyed 19th-century pop-biblical-criticism as his own daring innovation, his use of the passive voice to hide sweeping and questionable assertions ("...there is surprise at how insignificant were the theological issues dividing the two sides [of the Reformation]"), his utter lack of a sense of humor, his unforgivably poor skill with words-- begin to pall. I haven't yet met someone who can read an entire chapter of Spong at one sitting.

That's where this book comes in handy. They don't exhaustively categorize the intellectual sins of the Rt. Rev. Spong-- such a task could never be worth the trees killed. But they provide a good survey of his looking-glass kingdom. "Can A Bishop Be Wrong" isn't a work of Christian apologetics, because it doesn't have to be. Spong's main contention-- the foundation of all his work-- is his claim that no intelligent person of the twentieth century can be an orthodox Christian. To respond, one doesn't have to prove Christianity-- one just has to provide a counterexample. This book categorizes his errors and logical lapses with admirable thoroughness. Not an exhaustive thoroughness, to be sure, but sufficient to the silly task at hand.

This book has its flaws. As others have noted, it is a collection of essays, and they repeat some of the same points over and over. The authors sometimes let Spong goad them into anger. And they don't argue much against Spong's theological outlook-- but since Spong's outlook is just rehashed nineteenth-century "modernism", you can find plenty of orthodox arguments against heavier intellectual forces than Spong. (Try Chesterton's _The_Everlasting_Man_, for starters.)

This book has a limited market. Spong's fans will not be moved by what they read here, if they were inclined to try reading it. But to the traditional theist of whatever religion, who wonders whether he ought to read Spong and find out what all the fuss is about, this book offers a strong and well-reasoned answer: "Nope."

The back page blurb begins with "In the spirit of Christian brotherhood..." If the tone of the book's content - even if the tone of the preface's content - is an example of Christian brotherhood, I sure wouldn't want to see what most of these writers would come up with "in a spirit of Christian non-brotherhood."

After reviewing this response to the work of Bishop Spong, one cannot help but feel that one is witnessing the reason he is so needed. To paraphrase McCluhan, "Whomever discovered water, it was unlikely to have been a fish." Most of the writers contained within (and most of Spong's critics) seem so thoroughly indoctrinated and invested in the traditions of past-Christian churches, they are unlikely to recognize any changes are needed. Too removed from the reality of everyday life, and too biased to even recognize the possiblity of their own error. However, Spong, as a devout believer in Jesus the Christ, has managed to put forth serious critiques of the modern Christian church, without tossing out the true and deepest messages of Jesus. In a system which (unfortunately much like politics) usually only gives power to those whom will use it to sustain the status-quo; Bishop Spong is a much needed anomaly. In reading these, his critics, one hears the knocking of knees and the "death rattle" of a logic-less system of fear, mysogony and homophobia. One which, as Spong points out, is rapidly vanishing from our cultural landscape.

The principal difficulty with this book is timing. If it had come out as a response to Spong's theses, its structure would have made more sense; as it is, there is a lot of repetition and a certain inability to focus. I think a single author presentation would have been more effective and coherent.

If people are safe and comfortable with a faith based upon supernatural theism, the Bishop has nothing to say to them and has no desire to alter or weaken their faith. But for the millions who can no longer accept the theology of a 4th century cosmology and its subsequent human accretions, he gives new understanding of the Christ story. He has provided a profound spirituality that allows us to return to the true Christ, one who was not crucified to compensate for the mythalogical sin of Adam & Eve,but executed for speaking against those powers that oppress; the same powers that oppress today, economic and political elites and theologies that use guilt and fear to control. Bishop Spong understands that stoning has always been the fate of tthe Prophets and I admire his faith and courage to withstand the slings and arrows of little minds.

The book, a collection of essays from many different Episcopal Bishops, takes on the task of refuting some of the wild and unscholarly writings of Retired Bishop John Shelby Spong. The book receives an average rating because the writing styles from so many different writers (10) doesn't flow naturally.

Further, while some authors do a good job refurting Spong's theology, others are not as good at communicating their position. The book does a good enough job in refuting "Spong theology", but lacks a coherent focus because of the many different authors. The book would have been better if only two of the Bishops wrote this book seeking editing and assistence from the others.