Review of Spong's a New Christianity for a New World (8)
As we come to the conclusion of this review, there are two main points yet to be made. The first pertains to the absolute hypocrisy of the author. We do not make this charge to be mean, but it is simply the case that Bishop John Shelby Spong tries to play on opposing teams at the same time. When it suits his fancy, for example, to teach some principle that Jesus taught, he quotes our Lord's words as authoritative. But if he disagrees with Jesus, he will act as though Matthew or Luke made up a story to establish a theological position.
Certainly, this arbitrary handling of the Scriptures does not constitute fair treatment of the holy Book. The same Jesus who taught, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," also proclaimed, "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). On page 137, Spong lists five actions of Jesus as though they are authoritative (such as calling a tax collector like Matthew to be a disciple), but then he does everything he can to undermine what Matthew wrote, treating him as if he is uninspired.
Either the Bible is the Word of God and can be trusted in all things—or it is the work of men and cannot be trusted in anything. Once someone thinks he has impeached the Word of God, he has no right to appeal to it as if it were a source of truth. But that's precisely what Spong does. How, then, can he not be a hypocrite? It is something akin to saying I don't believe the IRS published this humongous tax code. Bureaucrats added pages to the original document. How would it be, then, to quote constantly from the alleged forged document—complimenting it when it gave a tax break and castigating it when it required higher taxes?
"Love Is God"
Having treated the Bible in this way for well over half of the book, Spong now tries to explain how the "new Christianity" will work. It is embarrassing simple and unoriginal. His new system requires love, which the reader may recall that Jesus taught. However, it is not so much that God is love, but rather Spong's version of love it God. His version of love has little dogma in it and tends to discount human differences; in other words, you can believe whatever you want. Such is not Biblical love.
"This is love, that we walk according to His commandments" (2 John 6a). No. you won't find Spong citing this verse or any one similar to it, such as 1 John 2:3-4: "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, 'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Yet Spong proclaims that it doesn't matter whether someone is baptized or not (137). He arbitrarily divorces love from keeping commandments; therefore, when he discusses love, it is not necessarily the way the Scriptures define the word. It is his own idea of what love is; therefore, for him, it is not, "God is love," but, "Love is God."
If he were talking about Biblical love, he would be right when he says, "Love has to be shared" (140); love must "give itself away with abandon" (140); "love and God cannot be separated" (140). But Spong never comes close to defining love as the Scriptures do.
He cannot resist another attack on Christianity, claiming that the Bible was used to justify "slavery, segregation, and apartheid" (154). Anyone who had read the New Testament will know that these charges are fraudulent and baseless. Some may have misused and abused the Scriptures, but their arguments cannot hold up—any more than Spong's when he uses the Scriptures to try to justify homosexuality and fornication.
In fact, he says that everything he knows "about both science and medicine" tells him that "young gay adults did not choose their sexual orientation" (164). Who knows what his knowledge of science and medicine are? But he either fails to understand completely, or he just vehemently disagrees with what the Bible teaches concerning homosexuality. God says that it is a "vile affection" and "against nature" (Rom. 1:26).
Spong says such nonsensical things as: "The church must never pretend that it has the ability to separate good from evil or even God from sin" (168). Actually, Isaiah the prophet condemned meh like Spong: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa 5:20). How foolish to deny that we can tell evil from good. Has Spong ever heard of a jury?
He continues with another nonsensical statement: "Some of us need to be rescued from our own goodness to be made whole" (169). Thus far, it could be argued that most people need to be rescued from being influenced by such theological garbage.
Ignorance Is Bliss
Spong dislikes such descriptions as someone being a "true believer" or being a member of the "true church" (171). He disagrees with the Apostle John because he recorded Jesus as saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6) (172). [Earlier, he praised John for reporting that Jesus told the adulterous woman He did not condemn her. Spong has placed his own judgment concerning right and wrong above God's holy Book.] Spong calls Jesus' statement in John 14:6 "imperialistic theism" (173). The gospel according to Spong, has the unbaptized saved anyway and the doctrine of hell destroyed.
Spong also opposes evangelism because it presupposes people are lost (no kidding?). Only misguided Christians attempt "to convert the Jews" (178). He opposes such "a tribal mentality."
Consider these words: "We Christians today know that we possess neither certainty nor eternal truth" (179). Obviously, Spong suffers from a severe case of topsy-turvy-itis. Why would anyone listen to him speak when he admits he us uncertain about everything and understands no eternal truths. Apparently, ignorance is bliss. But he continues:
The idea that Jesus is the only way to God or that only those who have been washed in the blood of Christ are ever to be among the saved, has become anathema and even dangerous in our shrinking world (179).
How anyone could be more messed up would be hard to imagine. How anyone could possess enough ego to directly contradict the Scriptures and think that he is right while the Scriptures are wrong is nearly unimaginable. But the reader sees it for himself.
Probably, most Christians have seldom heard anyone disparage prayer, but Spong does. He writes: "There is no theistic God directing these processes of cause and effect to whom we can appeal" (192). God is not at the helm of the universes, according to him. He also asks, "Can we dare to embrace the possibility that we ourselves might be the second coming of Christ?" (194). Paul's description of the Lord's second Coming is tremendously more accurate (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Thess. 1:6-10).
Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Again, Spong seems to think all Christians believe in Calvinism and that baptism (which he seems to regard as sprinkling) was designed to get rid of our "sinful nature." Referring to baptism (erroneously) as a "ceremony," Spong declares that if baptism is to survive, it "must shed its negativity and concentrate on the wonder and hope of life, not the depravity and sin of life" (209).
Why would anyone think that baptism is negative? Is not the removal of sin a positive action? In it, a person is born again (John 3:5). The old man of sin is buried and coming forth is a new creation who walks in newness of life, the old person of sin having died and been buried (Rom. 6:3-5; 2 Cor. 5:17).
Concerning the Lord's Supper, Spong does not like to refer to the blood of Christ; he thinks there ought to be "a new eucharist" (a Greek word that denominationalists use to refer to the Lord's Supper (211). Yes, the new eucharist will not refer to sacrifice or rescue—but rather to "the ultimate power of love" (211), whatever that means.
Values of the New Christianity
Readers who have patiently waited for the definition and description of the "new Christianity" finally, after 200 pages are treated to Spong's vision of what this will look like. The reader already knows that one principle is "Love Is God." The second is borrowed from the Army.
According to AI, "Be All That You Can Be" is the iconic, historic slogan of the U.S. Army. Originally introduced in 1980, the legendary recruitment campaign highlighted teamwork, limitless potential, and personal growth. It is also part of Spong's description of "the new Christianity." The way to the future is for people to "seek help in becoming all that they can be" (216). The truth of this statement is not at issue, but it is hardly new or revolutionary
Another principle for "new Christianity" seems to have been borrowed from John Lennon. Spong says we will give up names such as Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu; all shall find a place in the church of the future. He adds that "we will walk together into the meaning of God—the joy of God, the wonder, the mystery of God—a God not bounded by our formulas, our creeds, our doctrines, our liturgies, or even our Bible, but still real, infinitely real" (214).
Of course, Lennon was an atheist, but is not the above paragraph reminiscent of the words of "Imagine"? "Imagine there's no countries; it isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for—and no religion, too. Imagine all the people living in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will be as one. Both Spong and Lennon are grossly naïve. Neither Lennon's secular vision nor Spong's nebulous "spiritual" revelation had a prayer of coming true.
The Closing
The book closes by making the same points made throughout, such as: The church of the future" will never claim that is already possesses truth by divine revelation" (214). Nor will it claim that the church "has all the answers." Why would anyone be interested in a church that claims not to have any answers? Jesus came to reveal truth and, in fact, is truth (John 8:31-32; 14:6). The future church "is not to impose its "truth" on anyone. Good. The less evangelistic they are, the quicker they will die out. Spong affirms that "missionary efforts to convert people to our way of believing are evil" (243).
The woke-ism Spong possesses is seen as he tries to get scientific and affirms that the "messiah we need [today]" should have a "bold proposal to close the hole in the ozone" (229). According to an AI Overview (as of June20, 2026), "The ozone hole is steadily healing, remaining on track to fully recover by around 2066."
Spong is so perverted that he thinks that aborting "a fetus"…"should be the subject of a liturgical act" (215). Getting a divorce would qualify, also. He cannot help but to champion those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender" (227). "Gay pride is the sign of the divine in human life for it enhances being…" (242). He also says: "Feminism is of God for it enhances being" (242).
Because he denies the Deity of the Lord, objective truth, and that we should be evangelistic—and because he champions evil rather than good (abortion, homosexuality, etc.), he is deserving of the Proverbs 30:2 award.