Review of Spong's a New Christianity for a New World (5)

Is Theism Dead?

In the book under review, Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong affirms that Theism is dead. He first offers as proof of this allegation God's silence. Quoting from playwright David Hare, he sets forth a rationale, part of which is included below:

God. Where are you? I wish you would talk to me…. There are an awful lot of people in a very bad way. And they need something besides silence. God. Do you understand? (21).

Did not Francis Schaeffer address this issue in his book, He is There and He Is Not Silent back in 1972, nearly 30 years before Spong wrote the book under review? No, it is not likely that so prominent a theologian as Francis Schaeffer went unnoticed by Spong. Likewise, David Hare wrote Racing Demon in 1990, eighteen years after Schaeffer's work.

What is it that these two men are after? Are they expecting God to speak to them directly? Do they not realize that God has already spoken through His Word? What question has God left unanswered? Do we want to know why war and suffering exist? The answer is that man possesses free will. Yes. Innocent people do die—whether intentionally or accidentally. Death itself is the result of sin entering the world, and sin is something we have all chosen to do. We are all responsible.

The Book of Job explains a great deal. Innocent people endure tragedies, and while not minimizing for a moment the intensity of their grief, God reveals to us that the soul has much greater value than our outward bodies. "Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day," wrote the apostle Paul (2 Cor. 4:16b). The physical body deteriorates and dies, but the spirit continues and is rewarded—if we are faithful (2 Cor. 5:1).

God is not silent; He has explained everything about the world, sin, and ourselves that we need to know. He has "given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3); The faith has been delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3). God is not silent; perhaps, those who read His Book are deaf.

The Age of Miracles is Over

In the use of this brief sentence, Spong is not stating that miracles are no longer happening (which is true); he means that they never did occur (that's part of his own personal deafness). He claims that the "things that our ancestors called miracles and even magic are explained today without appeal to the supernatural" (22). Really? We would all like to know how science explains a man coming back to life after four days, as in the case of Lazarus (John 11).

We would like to know how Jesus rolled away the stone of His tomb, relying on ankles that had nails driven through them for leverage. What scientific principle enabled the Lord to do that feat (no pun intended)? And how did Jesus give sight to a man born blind (John 9)? In what fashion does the universe operate to make a man lame from birth able to stand up and walk (Acts 3)? Since we understand so much more than we did in the first century, perhaps Spong can tell us how these healings took place.

People in the first century could tell the difference between magic and genuine miracles. The magician Simon the sorcerer certainly knew. By means of his magic, he had convinced the people that he was "the great power of God" (Acts 8:10). Yes, "he had astonished them with his sorceries for a long time" (v. 11). But when Philip came, healing the "paralyzed and lame" (v. 7), the Samaritans dropped Simon like a hot potato. They were able to discern between magic and actual power. Simon could tell the difference, also (who better?); he obeyed the gospel as well and "was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done" (v. 13).

Spong drones on about our understanding of germs and viruses, as well as remedies such as antibiotics, chemotherapy, and surgical procedures (22). The only problem is that he fails to explain how those make a lame man walk, the blind to see, or raise someone from the dead. Oh, but what he cannot explain he just insists never happened. How convenient!

Signs of Death

The reader might imagine several signs that could be cited for Theism being dead, but Spong provides an unusual perspective on this matter—and, for a change, he has a valid point—as far as he goes. One of first examples is the consumption of caffeine. (Yes, this sounds bizarre, but give it some consideration.) He mentions that caffeine is highly addictive and found in coffee, tea, and soft drinks. Furthermore, he picks on chocolate, which borders on not fighting fair, but what is his point? "What does it say about the life of our postmodern Western world that we have organized it so thoroughly around the stimulant caffeine?" (26).

From there, he moves on to alcohol and includes the statistic that 13% of Americans are alcoholics, and similarly asks: "Why does contemporary life seem to be so alcohol dependent?" (27) He certainly has a point here. Anyone who watches the Hallmark Channel knows that no celebration can be a success without everyone drinking alcohol. Nicotine is the next target (27), but the reader really does not want to know where he goes with cigarettes. He concludes this section by asking: "What is going on in human life… when a significant number of people…must be drugged or artificially medicated to cope with daily life?" (28)

In other words, if we believe in the God of the Bible, why do we need caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine as supports? But then he moves on to the increasing practice of suicide. He cites Darwin, Australia as particularly high; there the rate in 2024 was more than 19 per 100,000 (28). In 2022, the rate for all of Europe was 10.6 per 100,000. In the United States, it was over 14 per 100,000 in 2023. Of course, suicide runs counter to Christian philosophy. This is just one more area in which Theism is not winning out.

Finally, Spong gets around to a moral issue; he claims: "Churches universally oppose divorce, while the divorce rate skyrockets in the Western world, even among church people" (33). What "churches" actively oppose divorce? Seldom is heard a protest of any kind in various religious denominations; even some churches of Christ are silent and permissive on this issue. But generally speaking we are the only ones who seem to oppose unscriptural divorces (and marriages that follow afterward). Of course Spong does not oppose homosexuality or fornication; so he could hardly list those sins as indicative of a society not practicing Theism.

The author of this book could also have cited declining church attendance in the United States. It is estimated that as many as 15,000 church buildings will cease to function at places of meetings this year. Some of ours will be among them. There can be no doubt that Theism is weakening. However, that does not mean it is wrong; it only means that people are becoming increasingly satisfied with materialism and less enamored with spirituality.

The Undermining of the Scriptures

If your congenial editor were listing things that contributed to the death of Theism, he would mention the fact that so many spiritual leaders are modernists and liberals. Spong wholeheartedly supports such theology. For example, he is enamored with the Q document, which stands for the German word Quelle, meaning "source." What is Quelle? German scholars discovered this document in the 19th century (84). Well, er, that is not quite right; It would be more accurate to say that German scholars discovered this missing document in the 19th century. Is your cheerful columnist making that up? No. Is he exaggerating? The AI overview says:

Quelle is German for "source" or "spring" and refers to the "Q source" (or simply Q), a hypothesized, lost document containing sayings of Jesus that scholars believe was used by the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, in addition to the Gospel of Mark.

What? Yes. German scholars have strangely theorized that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all got some of their material from this missing "source." Why doesn't anyone have a copy of Q? According to Spong, "a majority of biblical scholars" believe that Q once existed (84). That should settle it, eh? Surely the majority of scholars can't be wrong! Why be bothered by a lack of evidence?

The fact is that we have all kinds of manuscripts of the New Testament—around six thousand. We also have copies of lectionaries, which were Scripture readings for the church. Also available are copies of New Testament manuscripts that were translated into various languages. Yet with all of the copies related to the New Testament, no one has ever seen even a fragment of the so-called Q document. How odd!

Now that might cause a rational person to question whether it ever existed, but whoever guaranteed that most Bible scholars were rational? Facts do not hinder Modernist scholars. Some "have made the study of the Q material [which is missing, GWS] their life's work" (85). What marvelous abilities these men must have—to study what is missing—and to write volumes concerning it!

Such men date Quelle as far back to A.D. 70 which they assert predates most of the New Testament. (Conservative scholars, however, fix a date of A.D. 62-64.) Spong believes in the non-existent document so strongly that he says: "Serious Jewish scholars, such as those found in the Jesus Seminar regard the Q material as a key to their endeavors…" (85). Hah! Serious scholars studying imaginary documents! How can any of this be taken seriously? If Christians defended Christianity with such tactics, they would be laughed out of academia.

Next, Spong touts the Gospel of Thomas as being another very early source; it is a non-canonical book which, according to Wikipedia, is dated during the second century, which would make it far later than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Yet Spong blithely asserts that the Gospel of Thomas and Q are early sources because neither of them mention a supernatural birth, miracles, or the ascension of Jesus back to heaven, (86). In other words, all of the miraculous events involving Jesus were added later on by zealous followers. This conclusion reduces Jesus to only being human—not the Son of God.

Spong tries to get Paul on his side, also, claiming that the apostle made "no reference to a miraculous birth" (87). Does Paul need to repeat everything that Matthew wrote to convince us of he believes the doctrine of the virgin birth? If Paul did not believe the truth concerning Jesus' Divine origin, how could he write Philippians 2:5-8, where he states that Jesus existed in the form of God and was equal to God? He departed from heaven to take "the form of a bondservant." He came in the likeness of man and humbled Himself in order to die on the cross. Spong champions Paul, but he would never agree with what Paul wrote in that passage.

Furthermore, Paul spent a great deal of time with Luke. The two were together when Paul wrote the Colossian letter (4:14), and Luke was the only one with Paul near the end of his life (2 Tim. 4:11). Luke and Acts were both written before Paul's death. Paul knew of the virgin birth account which Luke had written. Can anyone not think Paul would have refuted such a doctrine if it were merely a myth, as well as chastised the author of it? Spong just grasps at straws and reasons erroneously. Theism is not dead yet.