Review of Spong's a New Christianity for a New World (6)

Former Anglican Bishop, John Shelby Spong, builds his thesis for his 2001 book (A New Christianity for a New World) largely on assumptions. He does not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God; thus, he imagines that Paul was unaware of certain details of Jesus' life. Mark (as an early writer) also did not know that, when he wrote, various theological positions had not yet been enunciated.

For example, Spong writes: "There is in Paul no mention of an empty tomb, suggesting that the empty-tomb story is not known to him" (88). Seriously? Paul quotes from Psalm 2:7 concerning Jesus: "You are My Son. Today I have begotten you" (Acts 13:33b). Paul next says: "And that He has raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption…" (v. 34a). When Jesus was raised from the dead, he was begotten from the dead. And if Jesus was raised from the dead, then (wait for it) the tomb was empty!

Paul then cites Psalm 16:10—the same Scripture used by Peter on the Day of Pentecost: "You will not allow your Holy One to see corruption" (Acts 13:35, 37). Paul also wrote that Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God with power…by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4). Again, if Jesus was resurrected from the dead, His body seeing no corruption, then His tomb had to be empty.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul defines what the gospel is. In 1 Corinthians 15:1, Paul writes that he is about to declare the gospel to them. It is what he delivered to them while he was with them—that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He arose again the third day according to the Scriptures." The theology of the empty tomb did not begin in the New Testament. David wrote of it in Psalm 16:10. Hello!

Impugning Mark's Knowledge

Spong concludes that since Mark does not record a miraculous-birth account of Jesus, he "clearly never heard of the miraculous-birth tradition" (91). Well, at least this declaration answers the question: "Is it possible for Spong to become even more presumptuous?"

With the same illogic, one might assert that Luke and John never heard of Jesus being transfigured (Matt. 17:1-5; Mark 9:2-8) since they do not reference it. And why did Matthew, Mark, and John not speak of the Good Samaritan or the rich man and Lazarus—two important teachings? Or why didn't Matthew, Mark, and Luke not mention the woman taken in adultery? Do we honestly expect all four writers to record everything identically? If so, we only need one person writing about the gospel of Christ—not four. Spong also concludes that what Mark wrote ended at 16:8—and that the last twelve verses do not belong. He errs on that matter, also.

Most of Spong's criticisms of traditional theism are based upon such flimsy and unconvincing arguments. He bases his conclusions on unsubstantiated theories. He asserts, for example, that "Matthew is dated in the early eighties and Luke in the late eighties or early nineties" (97). He insinuates that Matthew and Luke helped form Christian theology, adding to Paul's previous teachings their doctrine of the virgin birth. Thus, he tries to make Christianity an evolving doctrine.

The problem with such speculation is that it does not square with what the New Testament teaches. Paul and Luke traveled and worked together (Col. 4:14); Luke was with Paul at the end of his life (2 Tim. 4:11). Are we to believe that Luke made up a story about the virgin birth after Paul was killed? Paul also worked with Mark briefly (Acts 12:25; 13:5, 13; 2 Tim. 4:11). Wouldn't one conclude that they all knew what each other taught? And how likely would it be that Matthew, one of the original apostles, made up a miraculous-birth story, when even the place of Jesus' birth is prophesied in Micah 5:2? Furthermore, conservative scholars date Matthew and Luke in the sixties—not two or three decades later.

Spong is not shy about claiming that Matthew and Mark contradict each other. He writes: "Matthew allows the women to see the risen Christ in the garden (Matt. 28:9), even though Mark had said that the women did not see him (Mark 16:8)" (101). He adds that Luke said that the women did not see the risen Christ. But notice how similar Matthew and Mark are. An angel said:

"And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you in Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold I have told you" (Matt. 28:7).

"But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you" (Mark 16:7).

"So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word" (Matt. 28:8).

"So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" (Mark 16:8).

Both of these are quite similar, but then Matthew adds another piece of information: "And as they went to tell His disciples, behold Jesus met them…" (Matt. 28:9).

Mark did not deny that Jesus met the women; He simply did not record it. Matthew also describes the Jews bribing the Roman soldiers to say the disciples stole His body (Matt. 28:11-15). Do Mark and Luke deny that event because they didn't mention it? How silly! Each writer recorded different aspects of the events.

Chapter six contains many more of these unwarranted conclusions, such as "John appears to have dismissed the virgin-birth story as an adequate explanation for the God-presence met in Jesus" (107). So, because John went further back into time, describing the incarnation ("And the Word became flesh"), he didn't believe the virgin birth? How preposterous! Oh, but there's more. The very next sentence reads: "He even refers to Jesus on two occasions as the son of Joseph (1:45; 6:42)."

The implication of this sentence is that John did not believe in the virgin birth and counts Joseph as his real father. Has Spong ever studied John 1:1-17? He writes that Jesus is the Word, and the Word is God! But also, it is not John who refers to Jesus as the son of Joseph. He records Philip designating Jesus as the son of Joseph (1:45). In John 6:42, the Jews asked if Jesus were not the son of Joseph. John was not confused as to Jesus being God; he chose to open his gospel with that fact. Spong is dishonest in relating these matters.

The Evolution of Jesus' Deity

According to Spong, Jesus' Deity was not known at first; it developed and grew over a period of time. Paul starts the ball rolling, then Mark enhances the idea, followed by Matthew and Luke, capped off by John. So, if John emphasized the Deity rather than the humanity of Christ, why is John the one who writes, "Jesus wept" (John 11:35), which shows His utter humanity? And why does Mark begin by proving the Deity of Christ on the basis of Jesus healing a lame man (Mark 2:1-12)? If Paul emphasizes the Deity of Christ the least, then why does he call attention to the fact that Jesus did not remain in the form of God, being equal with God (Phil. 2:6)? All that Spong writes is merely conjecture—and not very good conjecture at that.

As proof of the evolution of the Deity of Christ, Spong recounts the practice of the Roman Catholic Church—which is not "the church" that Jesus established. He states: "When the church needed to incorporate new truth, it simply proclaimed new dogma" (111). What is wrong with this statement? First, it is wild and reckless theology to compare the Bible being composed over a period of less than 50 years to what the Catholic Church did over thirteen centuries. Just because every New Testament writer did not sit down and pen everything within a month's time does not prove that New Testament doctrine evolved.

Second, the Roman Catholic Church has changed its teachings over the centuries, claiming more revelation. But the New Testament says that all things have been revealed (2 Peter 1:3), and that "the faith" has been "once for all" delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Third, the church (as described in the New Testament) does not invent "new truth." God delivered all truth (as seen above). The church's job is to proclaim that truth; it has no power or ability to invent something not in the Scriptures; rather it upholds New Testament teaching. The only other thing it can do is restore truth.

The first item Spong lists is papal infallibility. The New Testament does not even describe the office of a pope—let alone his infallibility. This doctrine was adopted in 1870. Prior to that date, Alexander Campbell debated Catholic Bishop Purcell. Campbell asked what Purcell would do if the pope claimed infallibility. He was assured that such would never happen and that if it did, he and other Catholics would rebel against the idea. Needless to say, when the doctrine was announced, Purcell and others fell right in line with it.

Doctrines pertaining to Mary that arose over the years are also mentioned—Spong adds the false doctrines of Mary's perpetual virginity, her alleged immaculate conception, and her alleged assumption into heaven (111-12). The adoption of these teachings reflect Catholicism, but the Scriptures neither implied nor explicitly taught any of these doctrines.

What Is Christianity?

Spong opens chapter 7 with a quote from the "Right Reverend" (so, you know this must be good) John Eldridge Hines: "Gracious God, when we would make much of that which cannot matter much to thee, forgive us" (113). Hmm. While it may sound good at first, the question must be asked, "Who determines what does not matter to God?" If we're speaking of something in the Scriptures, He probably put it there for a reason.

Nadab and Abihu undoubtedly thought it would not matter where they got the fire for their censers, but that was a huge human miscalculation; fire came out from the Lord and devoured them (Lev. 10:1-2). Ananias and Sapphira just told a teensy lie, but they both fell dead at the feet of an apostle (Acts 5:1-10). Who is man to decide what is unimportant to God?

Spong's high opinion of himself is seen in the following claim that "the reformation I am proposing may well kill Christianity." Really? Does he actually think that his own wisdom is so great and so powerful that he can put to death the religion founded by and upon Jesus, the Son of God? He further adds that if current Christianity is not reformed (according to his specifications) it will certainly kill Christianity (115).

The fact is that the word Christianity encompasses too wide a variety of definitions. People use it to describe Roman Catholicism and Protestant denominations, not to mention various cults, all of which conflict with each other. One ought not to think that everything calling itself Christianity is such.

The only true way to speak of Christianity is not the way any religious group is doing it today—but what was practiced in the first century. Yes, the virgin birth is taught, but the perpetual virginity of Mary, the office of pope, papal infallibility, etc., are not found in the Bible. If a doctrine is not found in the Scriptures, it cannot be considered part of New Testament Christianity. Spong does not distinguish between original truth and later teachings added by men after the Bible was completed.