A Response to ……John Shelby Spong
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Response to …… The Right Reverend John Shelby Spong Bishop of Newark, Retired What are we to make of John Shelby Spong? Spong does us a great service in his erroneous interpretation of the bible. He causes us to question why as Christians we must value the historicity of the bible. The key to understanding Spong lies in understanding his approach to the bible. Spong’s view of the bible · Non-historical. Spong strongly denies the historicity of the bible . It is a conviction, which is foundational for his proposed mythological interpretation of the Scriptures. In his words, ‘[the biblical texts] proved to be quite untrustworthy if what we were seeking was objective facts and consistent details.’1 · Mythological Spong advocates that the bible contains layers of myths . He describes it as containing kernels of truth, which were built upon over time, being deliberately embossed to make theological points or to convey religious experiences. He believes that this is akin to Jewish Midrash. 2 Consequently, Spong does not read the bible ‘literally’ in any sense. Perhaps what deceives so many Christians is that Spong claims to have a high view of Scripture. He does not abandon it. Rather, he considers them as being crucial to his ‘Christian’ walk. For him, the bible enables one to enter into religious experiences. The bible’s view of itself The bible views itself as being historically reliable. If we recall the beginning of Luke’s Gospel (1:1-4), we must note that Luke intends for what he wrote to be considered as being historically reliable. ‘I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning […] so you might know the certainty of the things you have been taught’ (Luke 1:3-4). Paul too goes out of his way to stress in many of his writings that he was an eyewitness to the events, the real actual historical events, which he describes and upon which he hangs his faith (1 Cor. 15:1-8). What’s more, we have it on good authority that Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Tim. 3:16) and we know that it comes from a God ‘who does not lie’ (Titus 1:2). If God is the author of 1 John S. Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?: A Bishop’s Search for the Origins of Christianity (San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 8. 2 Spong, Resurrection, 8. Spong defines Midrash as ‘both a collection of the interpretations of sacred Scripture and a method for the continued expansion of the sacred Scripture.’ However, it is doubtful that Jewish Midrash entailed re-writing or modifying Scripture, rather it was more like a commentary on Scriptural texts. www.newtownmission.org.au - page 1 history, it is not so hard to believe that his Word conveys to us aspects of that history reliably and accurately. ************* Case Study: Spong’s view of the resurrection Spong does not deny that the resurrection narratives of the Gospels ‘literally’ portray a physical resurrection. Rather he undermines their historicity and thus gains self-permission to dismiss any events that might advocate a view other than his own. In this way, he dismisses ‘the fanciful details’ of angels speaking, a newly ‘revived’ body walking, eating and speaking, of it appearing and disappearing at will, as irrational. 3 After stripping back these layers of ‘myths’, Spong then isolates the kernels of truth and then reconstructs the probable historical events surrounding Jesus’ death. Spong’s Easter is in essence the experience of Simon Peter seeing a vision (as opposed to a meeting in the flesh) of a spiritually resurrected Jesus (ie non-physically resurrected body) - an experience which caused him to be excited that Jesus was alive, not physically, but spiritually. As the experience was relayed and shared, layers of myths were added. (eg physical resurrection, empty tomb, angels, the women etc). According to Spong, the purpose of the Easter story is so that as we read it we too might enter into that same resurrection experience of Jesus and Simon Peter.4 Though Spong dismisses almost every critical detail to this historical event, he still considers Easter to be the ‘most critical moment of our faith story.’5 This is perhaps where Spong differs most sharply from many other ‘non-literalists’, for he refuses to dismiss the reality of a resurrection and its key place in the life of Christian faith. But we must ask of Spong, how does the ‘the experience of Jesus as risen Lord, the breaker of the barrier of death’6 actually break the barrier of death? Quite simply it doesn’t. Spong’s hope in life after death is baseless and misplaced. For if Jesus did not rise from the dead physically, breaking the barrier of death physically, what hope have we in being able to do the same? ************* In conclusion, the historicity of the bible matters. As Paul writes: ‘If Christ has not been raised your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.’ (1 Cor. 15:17) It matters that Christ’s resurrection was physical. It matters that it was an actual historical event. ‘If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (1 Cor. 15:32b). The bible offers redemption – freedom from the bondage of sin and death - and a living relationship with its divine author. If we minimise the bible’s message to a religious experience, we are left with no gospel at all. A religious experience, no matter how grand, will not guarantee us life into all eternity. Author: Rachel Jenner 2003 3 John S. Spong, Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes (San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 279. 4 Spong, Resurrection, 255. 5 Spong, Resurrection, 101. 6 John S. Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture (San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 222. www.newtownmission.org.au - page 2.