A Christian reformer?

[Ben Kenobi]

"The way reality was perceived when the Christian creeds were formuated has been obliterated by the expansion of knowledge.

The fact is so obvious that it need hardly be spoken.

(Therefore,) if the God I worship must be identified with these ancient creedal words in the literal sense, God would become for me not just unbelieveable, but in fact no longer worthy of my devotion. "

John Shelby Spong.

Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism

This author has recently come to my attention, so I felt I should share some of his ideas with Apolyton. This idea underpins most of his arguments for a reformation of the Christian church.

One note, by 'creeds' Spong refers to the Nicene and the Apostolic creeds. If there are any unfamiliar to either, I would be happy to post both creeds. Secondly, it should be noted that Spong is an Episcopalian.

So what do you think? Is Spong's statement so blindingly obvious or are there certain issues Spong has glossed over?

[monkspider]

Cool, sounds like a good man this Spong.

[Firelad]

please explain the long words...

[Giancarlo]

In my mind, Christianity is full of fundamentalism and this is built in deeply in its roots. Meaning it cannot be done away with.

[Ben Kenobi]

Which words Firelad?

[Sarxis]

What do I think? God is not bound by creeds, nor are his followers.

[Firelad]

All the long ones.You know, Nicene Apostolic and Episcopalian. Also, what exactly do you mean when you say "creed" in this instance?

[Ben Kenobi]

Glad you asked.

Creed simply refers to a declaration of faith, in this instance as to what Christians believe.

Episcopalian:

When the Americans revolted from the British Empire, they couldn't very well keep the Queen as the Defender of the faith, now could they? All the Anglicans in the US became the Episcopalians, retaining the same traditions, but without the Queen as the head of the church. They are currently part of the worldwide Anglican communion, though they may leave soon.

Nicene Creed:

First declared during the Council of Nicaea as a declaration of faith or creed expressing what Christians believe, later revised and affirmed in A.D. 381, at Constantinople.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.



Apostolic creed:

The current form is first found in the writings of Caesarius of Arles (d 542), this creed was apparently used as a summary of Christian doctrine for baptismal candidates in the churches of Rome.


I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

[The Mad Monk]

...and Spong has a problem with this how?

[Ben Kenobi]

"these ancient creedal words in the literal sense,"

Spong goes on to say that the world has changed, so Christianity should change to keep up with the world.

That's why I'm shocked that he refuses to elaborate on the rationale behind his first statement. Are these creeds really outdated for today's world?

[Proteus_MST]

Now, as lutheran Protestant I have come to learn the Apostolic creed (but with "the holy christian Church" instead of "the holy catholic church" and having "Descended into the realm of the Dead ones" instead of "Descended into Hell" )

I don´t see any problems with it.
It just sums up how Jesus is seen in the christian (and catholic ) church and what role he (according to this belief) will take in the Armageddon (as written in the Revelations).

After all, there are worse things which should be attacked than those creeds (like Creationists still fighting against teaching Evolution in schools).

I for my part can live with those words, I mean, after all there is not so much which interferes with todays Science.
God as maker of Heaven and Earth? Disputable, but at least the creed doesn´t contain, that he did it 6000 years ago and within 6 days made Earth and everything which lives on it, so it is much more believable that he maybe was involved in the Big Bang and therefore can be considered maker of heaven and earth (whereas all the steps which led to the evolution of the Universe and Mankind involved the Laws of Nature).
Jesus born from a virgin which conceived him from the Holy Spirit? Yes, thats could be ommitted, but after all I see this sentence to be harmlesss.
Jesus being 3 days dead and then being alive again?
I can´t speak against it, as the thing with people having a soul and someday experiencing some kind of afterlife ist an important part of the christian belief. It is difficult to prove or disprove, and I think, if you believe in some kind of God it is just part of it

And last this thing with the Armageddon and Christ being some kind of judge
Revelation of Johannes
Now, as the worlds has not yet come to an end everything is possible, and Christ being the judge foor the Dead? I can imagine worse

So I don´t think, that these creeds should be altered (at least not the Version of the apostolic creed I learned).

But as Sponge speaks of "literally". I think this is the main Problem which creates fundamentalism. You shoudln´t alter the creeds, but you should teach children (and also many adults), not to take the whole Bible and the words in it literally.

And of course you should teach children all of the facts surrounding the Bible.
For example Jack Chick (the one with the Comics) and many other religious groups believe, that only Bibles which are direct Translations of the "Textus rezeptus" contain the whole words of god, and every other version of the Bible contains delusions of Satanas. But those who propagate this forget to mention, that Erasmus of Rotterdam published 4 Versions of the Textus Rezeptus and each Version differs in many Passages from the other Ones. And they also forget to mention, that Erasmus makes some inmterpretations, which aren´t covered by the greek Originals (for example he substituted one time "Tree of Life" with "Book of Life", because he only had a handwritten Copy in Latin from a few passages and didn´t have enough time to gather other manuscripts to check this passage (as to this time it was a race between Erasmus and a spanish Publisher to print the first Version of the Bible [a race which Erasmus had won in the End, despite his work seemed to be qualitatively inferior]).
If you know this, it is much easier to question some fundamentalist beliefs.

So I think, if Pupils are taught the historical facts surrounding the Creation of the Bible it is much easier for them to avoid fundamentalism (and it is much more effective than rewriting the Creeds )

[PLATO]

Nothing in eithier creed is outdated in today's world. What else can one expect from truth. They will not be outdated in tommorow's world eithier. While I think that it is proper for Christians to examine the nuts and bolts of how their churches work on a regular basis, I think that changing the affirmations of faith would have the effect of changing the faith. This would not be proper.

[The diplomat]

Re: A Christian reformer?

Originally posted by obiwan18
"The way reality was perceived when the Christian creeds were formuated has been obliterated by the expansion of knowledge."

This statement is completely false. Science explains how the world works. that is it. It does not prove or disprove the existence of God. So, just because we know more about how the world works, does not mean that God is not behind it all.

What Spong is doing is very bad for Christianity. He is undermining the Christian faith. After all, if a Christian is not going to believe the fundamental tenets of the faith, then how can they call themselves Christian? After all, by definition, a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, fully God and fully Man, born of the virgin Mary, was crucified, and rose from the dead on the 3rd day.

[Jon Miller]

my faith says nothing about the credes (I didn't even know about them until one of my freinds talked about them in college)

however, they seem mostly to represent the key points of christianity (there are a few bones to pick, but mostly)

Jon Miller

[The Mad Monk]

Heretic is a old word, and due to certain abuses is now a very unpopular word to use today.

Nevertheless, I'm thinking that it may apply to Spong.