 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fastmail98
Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 39
Location: CT
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:13 am Post subject: Discussion of a Call for a New Reformation |
 |
|
The decline in interest, membership, and perceived lack of relevence of the Christian church has created a crisis in the denominations. Some scholars have gone so far as to call for another reformation in order to refocus the Christian faith. Here is one of those calls:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Spong_Theses/spong_theses.html
Any thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BillSamuel
Joined: 06 Aug 2002
Posts: 772
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John Shelby Spong wrote: |
| The renewal of Christianity will not come from fundamentalism, secularism or the irrelevant mainline tradition. |
That's true. But Spong then lashes out at a number of components of the Christian tradition, presented in a very one-sided, biased manner, without suggesting what would replace them. Spong is from the irrelevant mainline tradition, and represents the far edge of a major wing within it now. I don't see any signs of renewal coming out of this. Nor do I see much indication that Spong is Christian at all. Those who reject the Christian faith will not renew it.
There are signs of renewal in many places. They often pull from different strands of the Church through the centuries, and add aspects that speak particularly to the culture of our time. They don't throw out the baby with the bath water. One part of this renewal movement is sometimes referred to as the emerging church movement, whose best known exponent is Brian McLaren. Like George Fox, a pioneer of renewal 350 years ago, he comes from outside the normal institutional religious channels, not having a seminary education.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Co-Coordinator, Friends in Christ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BillSamuel wrote: |
| Those who reject the Christian faith will not renew it. |
Which part of the Christian faith is being rejected that you accept without question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BillSamuel
Joined: 06 Aug 2002
Posts: 772
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spong uses such loaded terminology to describe Christian beliefs that you are sort of caught buying into a lie if you directly either agree or disagree with some of his propositions. He is so anti-Christian that he refuses to descrbe the Christian faith honestly.
But among other things, he rejects God and he rejects Jesus Christ as the incarnation.
Sorry, Bishop Spong, my God is not dead. Spong's characterization/caricature of God never existed except in some minds, but the true God is very much alive. And the incarnation happened, as did the resurrection.
That so many FGC Friends, having rejected the essentials of traditional Quaker faith, are glomming onto the likes of Spong illustrates the bankruptcy of this part of Quakerism. Like so many FGC Friends, Spong is voluble in describing what he does not believe, but much less articulate in describing what he does believe.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Co-Coordinator, Friends in Christ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know anything about Spong. What is he trying to achieve? Would I be wrong to assume that he is trying to present Christianity in a way that is acceptable and understandable to the logical and factual mind? Is he trying to get behind the words and define the principles and morals of Christianity in a way that does not undermine one's intellectual integrity? It this what is being described as 'loaded terminology?'
What defines an 'anti-Christian? If Jesus said that the two most important commandments was to love God and one's neighbour, how is Spong being disingenuous? Does it boil down to reciting certain verbal affirmations that God is that or this -how we think, rather than how we behave?
Bill, when you say Spong rejects God, are you really saying that he rejects your concept of God? When you say he rejects Jesus Christ as the incarnation, what do you mean? I know what the Bible says it means and theologians have told us we must belief (openly, many thinking differently in private) but if the incarnation was the spirit of God, then it could not have been physical, of the flesh, but rather demonstrated and witness through the flesh. Did not Jesus say that we were all made gods? (I may have misquoted or misunderstood this) Are we not all incarnations of God - made in His image and likeness, spiritual and not material? Does it really matter if we live lives according to the gospel of love? or do we have to believe a prescribed set of beliefs rather than love God and our neighbour?
I doubt that Spong claims that God is dead, unless he means that our old concepts and ideas of God are no longer credible (old man in the sky).
You say that the true God is very much alive. What do you mean? God is God - I'm not sure what God being alive means? What it the 'true' God? There is only one Creator and no matter how one worships one's Creator, if it is in the spirit of love, then one is worshiping God - there is not more than one God.
Bill, I recollect that you once inferred that you did not literally accept the virgin birth (I'm sure you did - it will be somewhere in a post) so, how do you accept the resurrection over the virgin birth? There is no evidence for the resurrection but one is entitled to believe in it, and Spong is entitled to deny it. I believe in the spiritual resurrection of Jesus - it is not uncommon for spirits of the deceased to appear (although many Christians deny this out of fear and superstition). There was a serious 1st century issue about whether flesh could be spiritual and have anything to to do with God - and this is the reason that some claim the story of doubting Thomas was inserted into the gospels: so it could be 'proved' that Jesus rose physically and not spiritually.
I see no problem with someone refusing to put into words what they believe because once one attempts to articulate spiritual discernment one loses the essence of the spiritual experience - I'm sure that there is a bit of Eastern wisdom that covers this point. I have no objection to others trying to confine their believes within material concepts and symbols - the human mind prefers a structure, but if someone refuses to do this, it does not make them less than credible.
Finally, Bill, (I don't know FGC) what you call the 'essentials' of traditional Quaker faith are not really essential, unless one is dependent on these 'essentials' (I'm more dependent than I sound). There are thousands of Quakers who do not profess strictly traditional Quaker beliefs, but they are still Quakers, and in many respects they are more traditional than those in the programmed meetings. We can so easily become dependent on concepts based on outward forms instead of the spirit of truth that knows no limits (even the limits of essential tradition).  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 1108
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BillSamuel wrote: |
| That so many FGC Friends, having rejected the essentials of traditional Quaker faith, are glomming onto the likes of Spong illustrates the bankruptcy of this part of Quakerism. Like so many FGC Friends, Spong is voluble in describing what he does not believe, but much less articulate in describing what he does believe. |
Bill, on first reading I am pained by this statement and its denigration of the liberal Quakerism I love so much, that has become my spiritual home in a way no other faith could have been. But, really, you're just being honest, and perhaps I should do likewise. I think conservative Quaker orthodoxy foolishly rejects what is most beautiful and liberating about early Quakerism, and about the teachings of Jesus, by tying it down to whether one believes that certain magical things happened 2,000 years ago. The essential innovation, the critical brilliance, of early Quakerism (and of Jesus) was to say that the genuine and original Truth is not in the Book, but in your heart. There is no other place to look. Pinning one's spiritual life to theological propositions is not faith, but faithlessness.
Yes, early Quakers tended to believe magical things about Jesus, along with very nearly everyone in 17th century England. In this time, before Darwin shattered the Bible as a source of literal truth, it was inconceivable to believe otherwise. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenny
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 330
Location: Portland, Maine
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well said, James. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simon
Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So of course everybody who believes in Jesus Christ is either a whacked out fundamentalist or plain childish.
I read the article and basically what is being proposed is a Christianity based not on the teachings of Christ, or belief in God as revealed by the prophets. What kind of Christianity is that? I'll answer my own question and say outright that it is not a new understanding of Christianity that is being proposed but rather the destruction of it.
Earlier on up the thread, Stuart posed two questions...
Are we created in the image of God?
Yes we are.
Are we incarnations of God?
Emphatically no.
I think the main difference between Christ centred Quakers and Liberal Quakers lies here. There is a huge leap from being made in the image of God to being an actual incarnation of God.
Sure it is a divisive issue, Christ did say that he would bring division.
I read folks calling out to be accepting of other faiths, that truth is truth (and I believe this), that there is wisdom in other faiths, however, Christianity without Christ is not Christianity. It would be great if those preaching acceptance of other faiths could turn their attention closer to home and begin with an acceptance of Christianity. Which is, after all, the cornerstone of the Quaker faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 1108
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So of course everybody who believes in Jesus Christ is either a whacked out fundamentalist or plain childish. |
I most certainly don't mean that, on any level. And I'm not sure what you mean by "believes in Jesus Christ." That phrase can mean many things, and many affirm it without affirming anything magical.
That said, I don't believe that those Christians who believe in magical events are crazy, childish or bad people. I know many who are eminently sane, wise, and decent. I do believe they are in error, and that Christianity, and religion in general, will not begin to fulfill its promise until we stop focusing on magical events of 2,000 years ago as if they were important. What's important about Jesus is his message, and his message was emphatically NOT "worship Jesus, the earthly incarnation of God, who rose again three days after his death, and you will go to Heaven when you die." That might have been a substantial part of the message of Paul, but not Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Simon 
| simon wrote: |
| So of course everybody who believes in Jesus Christ is either a whacked out fundamentalist or plain childish. |
Did someone say this?
| simon wrote: |
| I read the article and basically what is being proposed is a Christianity based not on the teachings of Christ, or belief in God as revealed by the prophets. What kind of Christianity is that? I'll answer my own question and say outright that it is not a new understanding of Christianity that is being proposed but rather the destruction of it. |
Simon, I think much of this is about semantics: the division caused by words and their etymology.
| simon wrote: |
Earlier on up the thread, Stuart posed two questions...
Are we created in the image of God?
Yes, we are.
Are we incarnations of God?
Emphatically no. |
Perhaps it depends on what one understands by 'incarnation.' Quakers claim that there is that of God in everyone. We are informed that we are made in the image and likeness of God (it would be splitting hairs to deny that this must mean we are in essence of God) - God cannot be separate from His creation and nothing can separate us from the love of God (St Paul) and the Kingdom of God is within us. This is sufficient for me to understand that we are one with God, however, this we have to accept: it is not to earned by deeds are by the repetition and affirmation of creedal beliefs - it simply has to be accepted, and this does not mean we have to witness our acceptance on the street corners or from house to house or to feel compelled to declare it at every opportunity, as do many traditional Christians in order to tell everyone that we are saved and you are not. Does it really matter, because it varies from your own, if in our hearts we have an understanding of our relationship with our Creator?
| simon wrote: |
I think the main difference between Christ centred Quakers and Liberal Quakers lies here. There is a huge leap from being made in the image of God to being an actual incarnation of God.
Sure it is a divisive issue, Christ did say that he would bring division. |
No, it is not a 'divisive issue' unless one intends it to be so. I think it is time to try and accept what unites us rather than continue to emphasis what divides - usually words - the letter rather than the spirit.
| simon wrote: |
| I read folks calling out to be accepting of other faiths, that truth is truth (and I believe this), that there is wisdom in other faiths, however, Christianity without Christ is not Christianity. It would be great if those preaching acceptance of other faiths could turn their attention closer to home and begin with an acceptance of Christianity. Which is, after all, the cornerstone of the Quaker faith. |
No, Christ as a word is not the 'cornerstone of the Quaker faith - certainly not for many Quakers. I have my understanding of Christ, and it is not contained within words and concepts. It is of the Spirit, it is the source of my being, it is known by unconditional love and is experienced from within and I know it when I feel it - it is an experience and not intellectual, conceptual or a belief system - it cannot be contained. Jesus said that he had to leave this world so that the Holy Spirit may do its work. The power of Christ is the Holy Spirit - it is witnessed in experience and then we demonstrate its power of renewal in our daily lives. I really don't think that Jesus meant to be worshipped as Jesus but in the power of God and the Holy Spirit that animated him. And I don't really need to depend on scripture to convince me of this - I know it by experience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
James I agree with Jenny about your previous post – it was very well said.
| james wrote: |
Christianity, and religion in general, will not begin to fulfil its promise until we stop focusing on magical events of 2,000 years ago as if they were important. |
I think that the so-called 'magical' events recorded in the gospels are important - they are inspiring, reassuring, and I think they show us how true healing should be achieved, as opposed to patching up the effects of disharmony. They cannot be denied with conviction because no one can prove that they didn't happen - we are only now beginning to reconsider that we may have more to learn about our human and spiritual potential, and that we have been living in denial and ignorance of things that we can't explain, and we have been too dependent on scientific evidence. What is reality? (Is it the same question as 'what is truth?')
I think that we have lost the art of spiritual healing (as opposed to natural healing and magic) and this is one reason why we depend on material medicine. The way that man was intended to 'cure' or correct illness or sickness was not necessarily by material means - a house divided against itself. We become sick because we (individual and universal belief or consciousness) are not in accord with the laws of spirit, we are inharmonious. I understand that this is what is meant in the Bible by sin. Vivisection, invasive surgery and drugs are not God's way of healing - there is a cosmic or universal law of health and in its accord we must live. We have either lost sight of it or we have not yet understood it but I think the healings and works of Jesus showed us a glimpse of its working: the blind man could not see because the true law of health (God) was not manifest in him. Did not George Fox claim to heal? These things should not be denied because we don't understand them or have not witnessed them for ourselves. There is much we don't understand.
I feel that I should apologise of going on about this, but I've only scratched the surface of this topic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BillSamuel
Joined: 06 Aug 2002
Posts: 772
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuart wrote: |
| Bill, when you say Spong rejects God, are you really saying that he rejects your concept of God? When you say he rejects Jesus Christ as the incarnation, what do you mean? |
I just went to the link posted in the beginning message in this thread, and read Spong's theses. Go there, and you'll see it starts with a thesis rejecting theism, in other words the idea that there is a God, and later rejects the incarnation of Jesus. It didn't require any extrapolation. It's there in black and white.
| Stuart wrote: |
| Bill, I recollect that you once inferred that you did not literally accept the virgin birth (I'm sure you did - it will be somewhere in a post) so, how do you accept the resurrection over the virgin birth? |
You misremember. I do literally accept the virgin birth. What I maintain is that it is not an essential belief to be a Christian. The resurrection is, and it is so indicated in scripture. The resurrection is of immense importance in the Christian faith, and spiritualizing it away takes from its power. Also, it has much better historical backing. The folks writing the New Testament either were witnesses of it or personally knew witnesses of it. There's no indication any of them witnessed the birth.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Co-Coordinator, Friends in Christ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BillSamuel wrote: |
| You misremember. I do literally accept the virgin birth. What I maintain is that it is not an essential belief to be a Christian. |
Sorry, yes, I now remember this is what you said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bishop Spong wrote: |
| The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity |
Perhaps much of what Spong says is a matter of semantics, although, I do see much misunderstanding on his behalf about spiritual law, for example, should we still be referring to miracles as 'supernatural when they are supremely natural. One does not call a correct mathematical calculation 'supernatural,' however, it may be a 'marvel' - especially if someone like me got it right.
A miracle is a correction of - not an interference in, the natural order of the 'physical universe' - this being underpinned by spiritual law (the truly natural law that is perfect and harmonious). It is an adjustment of disharmony back to harmony: it is based on a supremely natural law (spiritual) and is not a supernatural act. This marvel or 'miracle' takes place in consciousness and is manifested physically. God's (the potter) Creation (the clay) is already perfect but the 'clay' is not co-operating. The law of mathematics is perfect and its calculation should be accurate - if it's not, then it is recognised as a miscalculation. Therefore, I postulate that we have missed the mark - biblical terms: sinned (although I recognise that this term may not be archaic, or, at least, not be helpful).
Perhaps, just maybe, it should also be acknowledged that some of what Spong says may be worth considering - or at least try and get behind the words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fastmail98
Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 39
Location: CT
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I can understand the response to Bishop Spong's proposals because of the challenge that it makes to our conceptions of Christianity. As Stuart mentioned, it really is a question of language. Bishop Spong is not speaking of a Christianity without Christ or that there is no God. On the contrary. Bishop Spong represents a group of scholars and theologians that understand the clash between the ancient portrait of God and Christ that we are presented with by the Christian church and the post modern worldview. This clash has resulted in everyday people voting with their feet as is eveident in the decline of church attendence. Let's take the first article of Spong's proposal. Nowhere does Bishop Spong mention that God is dead. He does say that theism is dead. The theistic way of imaging God as a individual with the power to reward, punish, of life and death, and as a white-haired male Caucasian is antiquated and irrelevant. This way of imaging God is exclusionary and presents God as being an angry diety who must be obeyed with a correct way of living. This leads directly to living one's life in such a manner as to please God according to the rules and regulations of the church and as interpreted according to The Bible. To me, this is unnacceptable. Instead of theism as the way of imaging God, we need to consider panintheism instead. In other words, we can consider God as being everwhere and in everyone without an image based upon culture, race, or sex. If we view God as a being love and compassion, the old image begins to crumble and the foundation for it as based upon literal interpretation of The Bible becomes an anachronism. Thoughts or comments? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
