Review of Spong's a New Christianity for a New World (2)
Comprehending Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong's concept of God is not easy. He does not believe God is a supernatural being Who could "help a nation win a war," cure sicknesses, or "affect the weather" (3). In the unlikely event that anyone missed it, he does not believe that God fought for Israel to obtain their land for them under the leadership of Joshua. Yet we read: "And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel" (Joshua 10:14).
Spong acts the part of Satan, who told Eve, "You will not surely die" (Gen. 3:4), thus denying the very word God had spoken. Spong looks at Joshua 10:14 and says, "The Lord did not fight for Israel." Later, in the days of King Jehoshaphat, the people of Moab and Ammon (and others) came out to fight against Judah, but God assured Jehoshaphat:
"'You will not need to fight in this battle. Position yourselves, stand still and see the salvation of the Lord, who is with you, O Judah and Jerusalem!' Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out against them, for the Lord is with you" (2 Chron. 20:17).
After that battle, the text says, "And the fear of God was on all the kingdoms of those countries when they heard that the Lord had fought against the enemies of Israel" (2 Chron. 20:29). Of course, Spong repudiates what the Bible clearly teaches, claiming that God neither could nor would help a nation win a war.
He also defies God by saying that He could not cure sickness. That would be startling news to King Hezekiah. He was sick and near death; in fact, he was told he would die (2 Kings 20:1). He prayed for more time—and received it God granted him fifteen more years (20:5-6). Spong must deny that this event occurred. He must also conclude that the author of Numbers was mistaken when Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness to heal those bitten by fiery serpents. They only needed to look upon it in order to be healed (Num. 21:8-9). This event also parallels Jesus being lifted up to save mankind (John 3:14-16)—but Spong doesn't believe that, either.
The third assault on God mentioned above was that Spong says he cannot believe in a God who affects the weather. Hmm. Of necessity, then, he must take issue with the chapters of Genesis that describe a worldwide flood (6-9). Oh, and the crossing of the Red Sea is out, since "the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land…" (Ex. 14:21). How about when God caused the sun to stand still (Joshua 10:12-13)? Or when He brought the plague of thick darkness upon the Egyptians (Ex. 10:22)? And what of the famines in Egypt (Gen. 41) and in Israel (1 Kings 18:2) caused by a lack of rain?
Jesus
And we have not even discussed the New Testament and Jesus. Spong, however, is fearless (and faithless); so, He attacks the Divinity of Jesus as well. He writes: "Since I do not see God as a being, I cannot interpret Jesus as the earthly incarnation of this supernatural deity…" (4). He had previously affirmed, "I am a Christian" (3), but now he boasts that he does not believe Jesus is the incarnation of God—that is, God in the flesh.
He disagrees with the Apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, when he wrote, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (1:14). He would also have to challenge the very purpose for which John wrote his gospel, which was to prove that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:30-31).
Peter, however, made this confession in Matthew 16 when Jesus asked the twelve, "But who do you say that I am?" Remember that Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (v. 16). So did the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:37). So did Jesus! When the high priest said, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!" Jesus said to him, "It is as you said…" (Matt. 26:63-64a).
The fact that Jesus is the Son of God is the foundation of Christianity (Matt. 16:18). No one can be saved without believing and confessing this fundamental truth. Since Spong died five years ago, he no doubt understands now that his denial of Jesus' Deity has cost him salvation. He undoubtedly devoutly wishes that people would neither read nor believe the numerous books that he wrote. He continues with a list of things that he cannot believe about Jesus—that He:
Calmed the storm
Walked on water
Banished demons
Multiplied the loaves and fish to feed the 5,000
Raised the dead
Healed a paralyzed man
Gave sight to a man born blind
Healed the deaf
Was born of a virgin
Was raised from the dead
Talked with anyone after He died
Ascended back into heaven
Founded a church (4-5).
Spong doesn't believe hardly anything that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John tell us about Jesus. Clearly, he does not believe in miracles, and he denounces them at every opportunity. Yet, he has the temerity to say, "I am a Christian." Jesus said, "…for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).
The Bible
Is there anything that a Christian could agree with Spong on? Not much. He is correct when he says: "I do not believe that human beings are born in sin…" (5). Tres bien. Children are innocent—so much so that one who is converted must be like them. They are also humble (Matt. 18:3-4). They do not inherit their parents' or anyone else's sins, including Adam's (Ezekiel 18:20).
"I do not believe that either skin pigmentation or ethnic background constitutes a matter of superiority or inferiority…" (6). Amen. God created the human race, of which all human beings are part. Peter expressed it this way: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" (Acts 10:34-35).
On what basis do we agree with Spong on these two issues? The answer is that the Bible teaches these principles. But the question should be asked, "Why does Spong believe those principles?" He has no authority for believing them—except that they are his opinions. "Is it possible he believes them because they are in the Bible?" No—because he says he does not believe the Bible, and he wants to make sure that his readers know it:
I do not believe that the Bible is the "word of God" in any literal sense. I do not regard it as the primary source of divine revelation. I do not believe that God dictated it or even inspired its production in its entirety. I see the Bible as a human book mixing the profound wisdom of sages through the centuries with the limitations of human perceptions of reality at a certain time in human history (7).
This description of the Bible may be one of the worst ever concocted. Spong does not bother to explain how 40 different writers over a period of 1,500 years could have forged such a unified document, whose theme from the beginning is the salvation of mankind. One can envision Moses recording the prophecy concerning the seed of woman (Gen. 3:15) and the promise to Abraham that through his seed all the nations of the world would be blessed (Gen. 22:18) and confide to Joshua, "The next prophecy about Christ won't be given for another 400 years" (2 Sam. 7:12-13, 16). Even the last of these would not be fulfilled in Christ for 1,000 years.
These facts are mere trifles to Spong who thinks their significance can be dismissed with the wave of a hand and a strong expression of his own opinions. He does not seem to realize that, without the objective authority of the Word of God, no one is compelled to believe anything another person says. All we are left with is the subjective ideas of each individual, which carry no weight. Spong might recall having read in the Bible that there was a time period that once operated on this basis, and it was a very dark time in the history of Israel. The nation had God's holy law, but (like Spong) they did not regard it as Divine revelation—"…everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).
Opinions
When the church began, those who had gladly been baptized continued steadfastly in "the apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42). Thus, there was unity. But if everyone goes by his own opinions, chaos results. This is the situation that Spong champions; he just thinks that his opinions are more worthwhile than those of others. Those who believe the Bible have weighed his opinions and found them wanting.
We've already seen how many concepts and truths the Bible teaches that Spong has personally rejected, but there are more. We can agree with another of Spong's principles—but not his application. He argues that women are not "less human or less holy than men," which is true (5). It is true, however, not because Spong said it, but because the Bible (which he denigrates) so teaches. Women were made in the image of God just as men were (Gen. 1:26-28). Furthermore, in Christ there is equality: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).
Spong erroneously concludes: "I cannot imagine being part of a church that would discriminate against women in any manner or even suggest that a woman is unfit for any vocation the church offers to its people, from the papacy to the humblest role of service" (5). What church is he talking about? He already said he did not believe that Jesus founded a church. If he is referring to manmade churches (and he must be), then they are free to make up whatever rules they desire.
But Jesus did build His church as He promised (Matt. 16:18), and He purchased it with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Therefore He (as the head of the church) has all authority in His church (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 3:17). While males and females are equal before God, Jesus has designated males for leadership roles (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). If Spong wishes to violate the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, he is free to do so, but with all he does not believe in, why bother at all? If there is no church that Jesus founded, why bother with worship at all? Most people would just as soon sleep in, go fishing, play golf, or watch television.
Spong has lots of opinions about sexuality in general: "…sexuality itself, including all sexual orientations is morally neutral" (6). Really? Does that include bestiality and pedophilia? He further states: "I cannot imagine being part of a church that discriminates against gay and lesbian people on the basis of their being" (6). No one is discriminated against on the basis of their being; it relates to their actions. Everyone who is a Christian must be excluded for violating the teaching concerning sexuality that is found in the Holy Scriptures.
Apart from God's objective Word, there will never be agreement concerning what is moral and what is not. For that reason God gave us commandments, which are for our good (Deut. 6:24; 10:12-13). In the last day, we will be judged by Jesus' word (John 12:48).