Review of Spong's a New Christianity for a New World (4)
Do most of us imagine that liberals (whether religious or political) are kind and loving toward all? If so, we need to re-evaluate our thinking. We have all seen someone radiate love and warmth while saying the most encouraging and unifying things—only to hear venom spew forth later toward his opponents. Former Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong attempts to present himself as a reasonable soul, but he hesitates not to trash anyone who disagrees with him—especially Christians who believe the Bible is the Word of God.
He says he is not “interested” in debating the ”fundamentals of Christianity” (12). It's not difficult to figure out why; his beliefs can be easily assailed and disproven. It is much easier to present error when no one has the opportunity to show the fallacy of your position. But consider his reason for abstaining from such an examination: he believes that the views of conservatives will “die of their own irrelevance” (12). Whoa! What? Has he been hanging out with Rubel Shelly, who once affirmed: “My children will not stay with the church I grew up in. They will not be a part of an irrelevance.” Perhaps liberal minds just think alike.
Truth is not decided by the number of people who believe or reject it. How many people were on the ark? Were they part of an irrelevance? At least they didn't drown. Actually, they were the only ones who were relevant. Was Lot the irrelevant one in Sodom? He and his family were the only ones who ended up not inhaling sulfur. Of course, Spong would probably say these were stories made up by some irrelevant author. However, they fit together quite handily with what Jesus taught about the majority of people being lost (Matt. 7:13-14).
Christian Bookstores
Spong is only getting wound up; he next attacks “Christian bookstores” as being “anti-intellectual.” “Why is that?” one wonders. Maybe he objects to their having standards which they clearly enunciate instead of propagating wishy-washy verbiage that no one comprehends. He criticizes their support of “creation science” as if no “enlightened” person would dare challenge evolution. He says their books on childrearing (which probably teach discipline and corporal punishment) “border on child abuse.” Furthermore, they uphold “patterns of patriarchy” (meaning they follow the Bible pattern of men in leadership positions). And they are “negative toward homosexuality” (12). In other words, they believe what the Bible teaches on the subject.
Not unexpectedly, Christian bookstores emphasize the Bible. The authors of those books believe that the Bible was written by the inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore, they are going to teach what the Scriptures teach—that true science is in harmony with the Scriptures, but evolution is not true science; after 150 years, it remains a hypothesis—and a bad one at that.
All of the topics that Spong mentions have a source of authority to back them up—the Bible. The reader should ask, “What is the authority that backs up Spong?” There is none. To be sure, he can find many who will agree with him, such as atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and other liberals. But what is their objective authority? Nothing. They can cite experts, many of whom will disagree with one another. They can cite scholars and various countries' cultures, but these all vary as well. Spong relies upon subjective sources for what little “authority” he can muster. No compelling reason exists for anyone to follow these blind leaders.
Abortion
Of all the inane statements that Spong makes is this one regarding abortion. “Those who oppose abortion on what they describe as moral grounds see it as symbolic of the removal of punishment from sexuality” (13). Okay, read it again to see if it makes more sense. He seems to be insinuating that those who oppose abortion say that they are opposing it on moral grounds, but that's not the real reason. No. They think people ought to be punished for have illicit sexual relations, and pregnancy is the punishment. Therefore, they are angry that abortion removes the punishment they deserve.
Many of us have opposed abortion since the 1970s, and such a thought has never crossed our minds. The fact is that a child is alive before birth. Every mother knows this truth. In the Old Testament, when Rebecca was experiencing problems in her pregnancy, she inquired of the Lord the reason why and was informed that there were two nations in her womb (not literally). Each of her sons, Jacob and Esau would be the patriarch of a nation—usually in conflict with each other (Gen. 25:22-23). If Rebecca had decided to get an abortion back then, she would have destroyed both nations.
In the New Testament, Mary (the mother of Jesus our Lord) went to visit Elizabeth, who was carrying John the Baptizer at the time. When Mary greeted her older cousin, “the babe leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41, cf. v. 44). What if Elizabeth had said, “I'm too old to carry this child,” and obtained an abortion? The Elijah to come would not have been born. In Luke 2:12 and 16 Jesus has been born, yet He is still called “a babe.” The Greek word brephos describes both the unborn John and the newly born Jesus.
Some might view pregnancy as a penalty for fornication; no doubt, it has been a problem for many young women. But whoever saw a pro-life person marching and carrying a sign outside an abortion clinic that read, “PUNISH HER!” or “If You Have a Good Time, You Must Pay for the Crime”? Of course not. They are there to encourage young mothers to give birth to the child that has been created (usually with her cooperation). In many instances, they will offer financial help.
Homosexuality
In answer to where Spong finds his authority, it is obviously not the Scriptures. Here's the way he does it.
This mentality is countered by the overwhelming medical, scientific, and psychological data, all of which suggest that homosexuality is more like left-handedness. It is a part of the very being of a minority of the human family (14).
Wait just a moment. Are these the scientific people who believe in the theory of evolution, which contradicts Genesis 1, the very first words of the Bible? Are these the psychologists who reject the Scriptures and are humanistic in their outlook? Yet we are supposed to place their opinions on a pedestal and reject truth? Despite Spong's insistence and the blasphemous song by Lady GaGa (“Born This Way”) which will testify against her in the Day of Judgment, the fact is that homosexuality is a chosen perversion for which people were and will be condemned (Jude 7).
Superstition
The Anglican Bishop who wrote this tripe affirms that “almost any religion is a superstition employed by the weak” (15). Strong Spong could not have made the point any better than a handful of atheists in good health. It's an old argument—that people need God to lean on because they're too weak to stand on their own. Really?
Samson seemed to have plenty of physical strength. He took the doors of the gates, along with the gateposts and carried them to the top of a hill (Judges 16:3). Yet he called on God to help him avenge the loss of his two eyes—and received it (Judges 16:28-30). Job bore up under incredible adversity. He was not weak, but his faith in God did make him strong enough to endure all that befell him. Goliath was strong physically, but David defeated him because his own faith was strong.
Being a fisherman was not for wimps, but Peter, Andrew, James, and John developed their spiritual strength over time. And what about Jesus? How many men could have endured the scourging and the cross? He was weak neither physically nor spiritually. Saul of Tarsus used all his strength and energy to persecute Christians. No one possessed greater zeal than he did. Was it out of weakness he became an apostle of Christ? No, it was rather out of conviction. He was shown incontrovertible evidence that he was wrong in his rejection of Jesus. And it took great strength for him to follow Jesus.
There are plenty of superstitions in the Bible—held by those who worshiped idols. God's people, like Queen Esther, show themselves strong in their moral courage to do what is right. The charge, brought by atheists and whatever Spong believes in, of weakness against those who believe in God is simply a poor attempt to defame their opponents. Christians did not invent God or Jesus; we simply recognize the truth concerning them. This universe did not create itself (Heb. 3:4).
Traditional Wells
In speaking of today's society, Spong says he thinks there are people “spiritually thirsty but know they can no longer drink from traditional wells of the past” (17). Apparently Spong and your congenial editor know two different classes of ordinary people. Most people that we have come in contact with during the past few years (regardless of age) are happy to look at the Scriptures to see what they say—and abide by them. We are generally prepared to spend as much time as necessary on Christian evidences, but it is usually not needed. Despite the secular humanism and evolution taught in public schools, many people are not buying it, and they are willing to drink of the ancient wells provided by the Scriptures.
Not all things presented in the past are worth sipping. Calvinism is a cracked cistern that most people recognize as flawed. Many are willing to give up the traditions of men and abide by what the Scriptures actually teach. Although it may take a little time, most people understand the principle of Scriptural authority and are willing to submit themselves to it. Of course, there will always be some, like Spong, who are ready to believe the opposite of most Bible teachings—especially those related to morality (as already seen).
The Best Description of Spong
Since strong Spong is an evolutionist (“the survival of the fittest”) and does not believe in God as a personal Being, what does he think? He assumes that evolution occurred and opines that, after several million years “somewhere in that almost infinite span of time, incipient self-consciousness entered the life of this planet” (41). Later came “the birth of a theistic concept of God” (43). In other words, man evolved and invented the idea of God. “Theism was created by frightened self-aware humans.” In other words, “God, understood theistically is thus quite clearly a human construct” (45).
According to Spong, however, mankind's fascination with the God of the Bible is just about at an end. “Theism is dying,” he asserts. What? Like it did before the Flood? Spong declares that mankind is now open to “nontheistic dimensions of our existence, even nontheistic definitions of God” (54). Referring to the Bible and its basic doctrine, he scoffs: “Hysterical fundamentalism is not the way into the future; it is the last gasp of the past” (54).
When reading all of this nonsense, one wonders if the true God (whom Spong rejects) has a good laugh over the futile efforts of mankind to redefine Him and His teachings as an alternative to the truth. Spong claims to be a Christian but denies Jesus is God or that He worked miracles. He rejects God as a Being and claims that His Word is not inspired. After making wild assertion after wild assertion, Spong makes one of the truest statements in his book. He suggests that it will take “the process of time to determine whether I am friend or foe, Prophetic in vision or deluded by hubris” (18). From all that he writes, it's clear that the second alternative is correct.