Review of Spong's a New Christianity for a New World (1)

[Editor's Note: Spiritual Perspectives has reviewed some previous writings of Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong (rhymes with wrong), who has written several books over the years that contradict both the doctrine and morality of the Bible: Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (1991), Why Christianity Must Change or Die (1999), Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality (1988), and Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (1994). In May and June of 2007, we reviewed Spong's Sins of the Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love, published in 2005.]

Beginning in 1972, John Shelby Spong began publishing books. In 2001 he published his 15th book, which some hoped would be his last, but alas! he published another dozen after that, ending in 2018, just three years before he died. If he could write one now, it would be the most accurate of all his verbiage. The only value in considering the message of A New Christianity for a New World is that it provides some insight into the thinking of modern-day liberals.

Most of us who are members of the body of Christ believe the Scriptures to be true (excluding some of the faculty members of "our" Christian universities). We believe God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1) and all that the Bible teaches from that point on. It is, as Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16, the case that all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God. Liberals do not agree with either of these statements.

Spong claims, in the introduction to this book, that he has much in common with John A. T. Robinson, who praised the work of Rudolph Bultmann and his efforts to demythologize the Bible (x-xi). According to the AI overview on Google:

Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) proposed "demythologizing" the New Testament to make its message relevant to modern, scientifically-minded people. He argued that the Bible uses 1st-century "mythical" language—miracles, a three-tiered universe, and supernatural intervention—that must be stripped away to uncover the core existential message (kerygma) about authentic human existence.

What meaneth this gibberish? Some people think King James English is hard to understand. Imagine what it is like to listen to these theologians! The meaning is that the Bible was written a long time ago, and it includes such things as miracles that modern man knows could not have happened. Therefore, evolution must be depended upon as it concerns man's origin, miracles cannot be taken at face value, and God (if He even exists) could not have intervened in man's history. In other words, the perception that the Bible is God's Word is wrong.

Spong laments that there was such a negative reaction to John A.T. Robinson for giving credence to and promoting such anti-Biblical concepts. Spong says Robinson was attacked "in the name of something called 'the faith once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 1:3) [sic] as if such a body of fixed doctrine had ever existed" (xi).

This one statement says a great deal about Spong and the Bible. First of all, Jude does teach that a body of doctrine called "the faith" does exist. It is also called "the apostles' doctrine" in Acts 2:42 (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-4), the gospel in Galatians 1:8-9, "one faith" in Ephesians 4:5, "the straight ways of the Lord" in Acts 13:10, and so on.

Spong questions whether there was ever any "fixed doctrine," but the New Testament repeatedly mentions it—not only at the very beginning of the church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:42), but continuing as the church grew and spread. Luke records that Elymas the sorcerer sought to turn the proconsul "away from the faith" in Acts 13:8. Luke records that disciples were exhorted to "continue in the faith" (Acts 14:22) and that entire churches were "strengthened in the faith" (Acts 16:5). Years later Jude said that "the faith" had been once for all delivered to the saints (Bultmann's demythologizing notwithstanding).

So, what do these passages of Scripture tell us about Spong? Miracles or no miracles, he simply does not believe what the Scriptures teach, period. The Bible clearly teaches that there is a body of doctrine called "the faith," but it does not suit Spong's manmade theology. Like most arrogant scholars, he thinks his views are more correct than those taught in the Bible.

So, yes, Robinson was attacked for challenging and disagreeing with the Scriptures. Spong does the same things, as will be noticed shortly. Thus, he ought to expect to be opposed. But it is a matter of no consequence to Spong, who freely assaults what most people believe.

The Five Fundamentals

Spong begins chapter one by referencing five fundamentals that conservative "Christians" enunciated to combat the liberalism that existed in the early 20th century. Scholars were denying that Moses wrote Genesis – Deuteronomy, that David wrote Psalms, and that various prophecies in the Old Testament referred to Jesus. Conservatives came up with five fundamental beliefs (which your congenial editor has summarized):

1. The Scriptures are the inspired Word of God.
2. Jesus was born of a virgin, which was prophesied by Isaiah.
3. Jesus paid the penalty for our sins on the cross.
4. Jesus's body was resurrected from the dead.
5. The second coming of Christ is a reality, as is the Day of Judgment. All shall be judged and assigned a place in heaven or hell (1-2).

These are standard, fundamental beliefs of all who claim to be Christians. More could have been added, but the conservatives apparently wanted to keep the beliefs as simple as possible to be sure and include all those who profess to be Christians. But what did Spong have to say about these most basic, fundamental truths? In a 2001 speech he gave to the Graduate Theological Union, in Berkeley, California, he said:

Today, I find each of these fundamentals, as traditionally understood, to be not just naïve, but eminently rejectable. Nor would any of them be supported in our generation by reputable Christian scholars.

Scripture is filled with cultural attitudes that we have long ago abandoned…. Concepts such as the virgin birth, the physical resurrection, and the second coming are today more regarded as symbols…. The substitutionary view of the atonement has become grotesque… (2).

To Spong's mind, such as it is, all the fundamental truths that Christians believe and hold dear are simply naïve. Really? Why, yes—because Spong is so vastly superior! And how does he know that? He measures all these matters—not by the objective, Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God—but by what "reputable Christian scholars" say. What makes scholars "reputable"? They are the ones who agree with Spong. The scholars who do not agree with Spong are not "reputable."

Therefore, forget Keil and Delitzsch, the Pulpit Commentary, Clarke, Barnes, Henry, and a vast array of other writers (not that all of these are flawless). No. Only modern liberals are to be believed because they are the newest, best, and brightest scholars since ever the world began. They believe in science and "scholarship." Hah! Not everything old is wrong, and not everything new is right. Some have left the truth, just as the New Testament foretold (2 Peter 2:1).

People allied with Spong will claim that Moses did not write the first five books of the Old Testament (referred to as the Pentateuch). Jesus said that Moses gave a commandment concerning a certain gift that should be offered after being cleansed from leprosy (Matt. 8:4; Lev. 13-14). Moses wrote about a writing of divorcement, Jesus acknowledges (Matt. 19:7-8; Deut. 24:1). Moses also wrote about a man marrying his brother's widow (Mark 12:19; Deut. 25:5). Jesus, in Mark 12:26, also cited Exodus 3:6 as being part of the book of Moses. There is another reference to the Law of Moses in Luke 2:22 (Lev. 12:2-8). What Moses wrote concerning marriage is considered valid by Jesus in Matthew 19:3-9; cf. Gen. 2:18-24. John refers to the serpent lifted up in the wilderness (3:14) from the book of Numbers 21:8-9.

Just briefly we have seen that the New Testament writers have claimed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Poor Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul! They didn't consult modern, "reputable" scholars. They were just inspired by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-13). If only they had possessed the insights of Robinson, Bultmann, Spong, and others! Instead, they were naïve and therefore must be rejected. How can Matthew and Luke have any credibility when they believed in and wrote of the virgin birth? And what about Peter and all the apostles testifying that they are all witnesses of the resurrected Christ (Acts 2:32)? It does not take long to deduce that, if one listens to Spong, there is nothing in the Bible that is to be believed.

And Yet….

More astounding than all of the arrogance that has been displayed thus far—and we've only got to page 2—is the first statement provided after the words of the speech were recorded. After badmouthing the inspiration of the Scriptures, the virgin birth, Christ's atonement for our sins on the cross, the resurrection and the Day of Judgment, Spong asserts, "I am a Christian" (3). Questions come to mind?

1. What does he mean by being a Christian?
2. Why would he want to be a Christian?
3. Who would want to claim him as a Christian?

He adds, "I believe God is real" and "I call Jesus my Lord." The reader might wonder, "Has he ever heard of Luke 6:46?" The verse reads: "But why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say?" He either ignores or repudiates all of Jesus' and Paul's teachings on morality. He is not a Christian by anyone's definition except his own. And that is the secret of understanding Spong. One must realize that he makes up all of his own definitions, which is the reason it seems as though he is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Therefore, he calls himself "first and foremost a Christian believer" in one sentence and, in the next sentence can say, "Yet I do not define God as a supernatural being" (3). Well, then, what is He? The answer is just about unintelligible. Spong's God seems to be a hodgepodge of the philosophy of hippies mixed with ethereal sentiments based on emotion. He claims God is "the ultimate source of life" and that one worships Him "by living fully and sharing deeply" (70). What authority says this?

He adds that "our God-experience is like swimming in an eternal ocean of love" (71). Cue the Beatles' song—"All You Need is Love." For Spong, God is not the name of a supernatural being (italics his). He is nebulous but real "as a holy presence" (71). This holy presence accepts those living in fornication and homosexual relationships, however (he must redefine holy, also). Spong's version of God is one that can scarcely be defined—one which most people will never understand. Incidentally, where does Spong's non-personal God come from?