Review of Spong's a New Christianity for a New World (7)

In order to set up his "new Christianity," Bishop John Shelby Spong must first try to demolish the Christianity of the New Testament, which has stood for 2,000 years. One might think that someone trying to take on this task would need a gigantic ego, and one would be right. One way to attempt to accomplish such a task is to allege that the Bible is full of contradictions from without and from within. This procedure is nothing new; Thomas Paine tried it in the eighteenth century. He and all others with the same motivations have failed utterly. Spong is nothing more than a Johnny-come-lately to the fray.

He claims that "scholarly research" (meaning anything that agrees with him) has discovered that when Jesus was born, Herod was not governor of Judea and Quirinius was not governor of Syria. If true, that would undermine anything recorded by Luke in his gospel and the Book of Acts. Spong does not stop to ask himself, "How could Luke be so stupid to get such details wrong when he lived so close to the era he is describing?"

The answer is that Luke recorded the facts, and the critics have it wrong. Spong points out that Herod died in 4 B.C. He is correct in saying so, though he does not document it. It was discovered centuries ago that the estimation of when Christianity began was off, and that Jesus was actually born in 4 B.C. Wikipedia says:

The exact year of Jesus' birth is not known, but most biblical scholars and historians estimate he was born between 6 and 4 BC. This estimation is based on historical records, including the death of King Herod the Great in 4 BC. When the modern calendar system was created in the 6th century, the monk Dionysius Exiguus miscalculated the timeline, which is why the traditional BC/AD calendar does not perfectly align with historical events.

What about Quirinius? Spong almost has a point here. What Luke records in 2:1 has not been verified by secular history. Such an absence is not unusual. Over the past 300 years, many details in the Bible have been confirmed, which were once thought to have been invented—such as the Hittite nation. Archaeological research has now verified most of these.

In other words, Biblical critics operate like this: 1) A city's name is mentioned in the Bible; 2) But secular history fails to confirm its existence; 3) Therefore, the Bible is in error. Of course, when that city (or king or nation) is discovered, the critics are shown to be wrong. They assumed that a name not found from some other historical source than the Scriptures meant that such a place did not exist. No, it just had yet to be confirmed. Now, what makes Luke 2:1 more interesting is that a Quirinius has been found, but he ruled in A.D. 6 rather than 6 B.C. The solution is still the same. We simply have no confirmation yet from history that he also ruled earlier.

As the Defending of the Faith Study Bible puts it: "Absence of evidence does not prove evidence of absence" (1848). Nothing in secular history states that Quirinius was not governor of Syria previously.

Spong moves on to assert a contradiction exists between Matthew and Luke. Matthew comments that "Mary and Joseph lived in a house in Bethlehem" while Luke states "the family lived in Galilee in the town of Nazareth" (117). Anyone who has read the texts of Matthew and Luke closely knows that both gospel writers are correct. Matthew describes the family as living in a house in Bethlehem until the wise men visited. Then they moved to Egypt to escape Herod's persecution. But when they returned, they went back to Nazareth, where they had lived prior to Mary's pregnancy (Luke 1:26; 2:39, 51; Matt. 2:23.) Spong has the gall to suggest that Matthew just made up the Herod story to fit with ancient prophecies (117-18). The Bible is consistent; Spong is the one inventing stories. He is egotistical enough to think that his inventions are right and that Matthew's inspired account is false!

The author is correct to attack Calvinism—that babies are born in sin and must "receive baptism in infancy" in order to be cleansed from original sin (122). The problem is that he equates Calvinism with Christianity. If he did not know, he should have—that true Christians oppose the teachings of Augustin and Calvin on original sin.

But then he attacks God using blood to redeem mankind and that it should be honored in the Lord's Supper. He calls it "thinly disguised liturgical cannibalism" (123). He is not the first to do that. Critics of Christianity in the first century accused them of cannibalism. These charges are fatuous. Who is Spong to question the plan of redemption originated by our Creator and set forth clearly in the pages of the New Testament? He cannot answer many more questions than Job could (see chapters 38-41). In fact, the ones Spong would answer would be wrong because he believes in evolution rather than the Creation.

Despite what Roman Catholicism teaches (that the bread and the fruit of the wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus), the rest of us realize they symbolize the body and blood. There is no cannibalism in this weekly reminder of the way we have been saved.

He also errs in his assessment of baptism, which he says is "a sacrament designed to wash away the effects of a fall into sin that never occurred" (124). The Bible defines sin at the very outset of the Scriptures (Gen. 3); it further defines and explains a multitude of ways to live in rebellion against God. Taking sin out of the Bible is an impossible endeavor. Baptism is not a sacrament, nor does it compensate for a "fall"; it removes the sins we commit by means of the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5).

Churches and Humanistic Thought

As one might suspect, churches upholding the Bible, according to Spong, will just eventually die. His assessment is: "Most churches will die of boredom long before they die of controversy" (125). It is the case that many churches have closed their doors. but it is also the case that many are alive and vibrant. Are people less interested in spiritual concerns than in previous generations? Undoubtedly, this is the case, but there can also be a resurgence. But if not, we might ask ourselves, "How many were bored with spirituality prior to the Flood? Or before being taken captive by Assyria? Or being led into captivity by Babylon?"

A lesser interest does not prove something is wrong with God or the Gospel; it just shows that a significant portion of the population has become dull of hearing. The world, with its wondrous technological wizardry, has captured a significant portion of people's time and interest. Societal trends offer no proof that Spong's ideas will garner any more adherents than the real thing.

Spong and others desire "a humanity without barriers" (135). He thinks Jesus' life taught that we should "put aside all gender and sexual distinctions," along with racial differences (135). The last one is legitimate. That there should be neither Jew nor Gentile erases all racial distinctions (Gal. 3:26-29). Racism has no basis to exist and should be eradicated entirely.

Gender is another issue. Yes, men and women are of equal value to God, but God has listed some restrictions concerning females (1 Tim. 2:11-14). Males are to exercise the leadership role in the home (Eph. 5:22-25) and in the church. The New Testament so teaches, and He makes equally plain that this distinction does not diminish the value of women. Spong, of course, insists that women can lead as well as men.

What does the author mean when he advocates no sexual distinctions? He means that "sexual orientation" must be ignored. In other words, homosexuals must be accepted—no barriers. He blithely asserts that gays and straights must be accepted. Shall we also accept adulterers along with those faithful to their mates? What about pedophiles and necrophiliacs? No barriers? Remarkably, Spong does not comment on such matters.

Furthermore, he has the temerity to say that Jesus violated the sexual boundaries of His day (136). All that he is referring to is Jesus' conversation with the woman at the well and the fact that women were among His followers. These may have violated social customs, but they did not transgress sexual boundaries set forth anywhere in the Scriptures. The following statement about Jesus is nothing short of blasphemous:

If he had had the knowledge that we have today about the nature and origin of homosexuality, there is no doubt where he would have stood or on which side the loving Jesus of Nazareth would have come down (136).

Where does one even begin to sort out this gibberish? Neither Spong nor today's modern world is capable of teaching anything to Jesus. Hebrews 1:1-3 tells us that "God…has in these last days spoken to us by His Son…through whom also Hew made the worlds…." Can anyone miss it? Jesus made the worlds; there is nothing he does not know about the Creation. Spong fancies that some psychologist or scientist is going to come along and tell the Lord something about homosexuals that He does not already know? This is silliness squared (silliness2)—not to mention the height of arrogance.

Another obvious deduction is that the author has absolutely no idea concerning what the love of God means. Does it mean that He sent Jesus to redeem us? Yes (Rom. 5:8). Does it mean that all of our sins—no matter what they were—can be washed away? Yes (Rev. 1:5). The love of God is precious to all who have taken advantage of it. But one thing it cannot do is save anyone who continually lives in rebellion against God and His teachings (see 1 John 5:15-17).

"Oh," but Spong would say, "Jesus never said a word in any gospel about homosexuality (136). Yes, He did, and that word is porneia. One would think that a seminary graduate would know as much vocabulary as a first-year Greek student. Anyone who has Blue Letter Bible can go to Matthew 19:9 and click on the number that Strong assigns to porneia, which is 4202. The definition is "illicit sexual intercourse," which is then further defined as "adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc." Yes. Jesus used the word that includes homosexuality. If one mate decided to become a homosexual, the other could seek a divorce—and later be entitled to marry again.

Nothing Matters

According to Spong, Jesus calls people to walk beyond their "religious differences" (136). This means we should quit thinking of people as "baptized or unbaptized, right or wrong, orthodox or heterodox, Christian Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu" (137). What kind of foolishness is this? Jesus taught nothing remotely akin to this principle.

The difference between being baptized and not baptized is the difference between life and death. If it did not matter, it would not be part of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). Jesus is the One Who said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Do these words indicate he thought baptism didn't matter?

On the subject of right or wrong, Jesus said that by continuing in His Word, people could know the truth, and the truth would make them free (John 8:31-32). Does that sound as if right and wrong don't matter? Nor did Jesus commend Buddha or Confucius They did not appear with Him on the Mount of Transfiguration. Instead, He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Spong does not understand Jesus at all.