Talk:John Shelby Spong/Archive 1

Point of clarification
Can anyone tell me why Bishop Spong's private life isn't mentioned? He is at pains to tell that his second wife Christine (nee Christine Mary Bridger) is very much a partner in his work. His first wife died, and he discusses his private life in lectures. Cheers, Lyndel —Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 12:06, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Point of clarification: "Drawing salary". Bishop Spong is retired - is he drawing a salary or a pension?


 * I've no idea. It could be plain wrong (which from what I've seen of some of his critics wouldn't surprise me), could be outdated, or could be referring to a pension, seeing as he works at a university these days. Ambi 13:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... the ignorance here is that as a retired Anglican bishop he will continue to collect a salary. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * T, I don't know to what "ignorance" you're referring, but the article states that he's drawing a "salary". In the US, retirees typically don't draw a salary, they draw a pension (there is, in fact, an organization by the name of "Episcopal Pension Group"). That's the minor point I'm attempting to clarify.Daniel Luechtefeld 16:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As another point of clarification, it's probably an overstatement to call Spong a "biblical scholar." Without debating the merits of his writings, he simply fails the empirical test of whether (for instance) professional biblical scholars such as those so identified in the Wikipedia would regard him as a colleague. (I would estimate that he doesn't read Greek or Hebrew, either, but that's only a guess.) This particular categorization just doesn't fit for him.Akma 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is an overstatement to say that Bishop Spong is a "biblical scholar". He studied in Seminary and has studied the Bible practically every day for the past 64 years. He also reads the New Testament in the original Greek. Walter Max David 09:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Every year hundreds of people graduate from seminary; that doesn't make them all "biblical scholars." Relative to his proficiency in Greek, his writings suggest to me that he has only enough skill to appropriate arguments from others, but no capacity to form or evaluate arguments critically. Much as I dislike Spong and his work, I'm not suggesting that the article be tailored to fit my POV; I am suggesting that since (for example) there's no chance whatsoever of his publishing an article in a peer-reviewed journal, the term "scholar" is misapplied here.Akma 12:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You say you don't want to twist the article to your Spong-hating POV, yet that's exactly what your demands sound like. Uh, no. You remove "scholar" and I'll be sure to put it right back. ThAtSo 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I leave it to more active and profound Wikipedians whether I have demanded anything, whether I have indicated hatred, and whether the evidence and arguments I advanced matter more or less than the evidence and arguments that my learned interlocutors themselves propose. I have not removed anything, ThAtSo, but if I had been so inclined your threat would not have overwhelmed me with the logic of your position.Akma 03:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To put it another way: Isn't according Spong the designation of "biblical scholar" itself an emphatically POV gesture? Would the bishop's partisans accord the same designation to a popular theologian with whom they disagree (say, a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Tim LaHaye)? Or does that fact that Spong adopts less "traditional" conclusions render him a "scholar," as opposed to others who have masters degrees and participate in daily Bible study (I'd be interested in the verification for that claim, by the way) who reach different conclusions. I suggested an explicit, objective criterion: Has he published an article in a peer-reviewed journal (say, the Journal of Biblical Literature, or Catholic Biblical Quarterly, or New Testament Studies)? Does he belong to a scholarly association (say, the Chicago Society for Biblical Research or Societas Novi Testamentum Studiorium or Catholic Biblical Association) for election to which one must supply qualifications? These are not POV criteria; radical critics and inerrantists belong to all three associations. So far as I know, John Shelby Spong does not (nor do Falwell, Robertson, or LaHaye, AFAIK). Akma 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bishop Spong stated in several public lectures in Canberra in October 2003 that he has studied the Bible practically every day for the previous 60 years and that he reads the New Testament in Greek. Assuming that he continues that practice today, would mean 64 years of study in total. He says himself in the book "The Sins of Scripture" 2005, that "[I] immerse[d] myself in contemporary biblical scholarship at such places as Union Theological Seminary in New York City, Yale Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School and the storied universities in Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge."

Walter Max David 05:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Walter, for providing that backing information. Self-representation is not always a perfect measure by which to assess whether someone's a scholar, but at least we now know the source. In any case, my major argument remains that he has not shown the objective marks that typically distinguish a scholar from an interested reader. He does not participate in the community of scholars; he does not hold a research degree in the field; if Wikipedia identifies him as a scholar, we ought also to extend that recognition to a vast sea of daily Bible readers, which would then render the category less useful. If we heard that President Bush studied the Bible every day, which would not surprise me, does that make him a scholar? Akma 12:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is getting bogged down in semantics. A scholar is a person who studies a subject irrespective of whether that study is formal or personal and there is a distinction between study and reading. The fact that George W. may read the Bible every day certainly doesn't qualify him as a Bible scholar and I hazard a guess that the only similarity between him and Spong is that they would both pick up the Bible every day. Many years ago I was told that if I were to search hard enough in the Christian Bible I would be told what brand of instant coffee to drink. The answer is there although irrelevant. What the person was getting at was, the process by which the answer was reached was to take a fragment of scripture out of context to justify an agenda and I haave found from experience that the very people who criticise Spong's writings are the most prolific users of that process. To take scripture in the literal context is to lose sight of the spiritual meaning. I was once told that 'in the Word is the truth but the word is not the truth.' What was meant by this was that the core of God's Word and the teachings of Jesus was the truth but that not everything in the Bible can be held to be the truth, there are too many inconsistencies and contradictory passages for that to hold true. The core truth of the Bible (and also the Koran, the Torah and the teachings of Baha u llah) is the unconditional love that we are encouraged to show God and our fellow man, (the Two Commandments of Jesus) and if we can do this we will not only love our fellow man but respect him and his differences from us. From experience, I have found the those who are least likely to accept his different understanding of the Bible are those fundamental Christian 'scholars', especially those propenents of the 'Prosperity Doctrine' who are the most frequent users of 'instant coffee theology'. I have to admit that I do not agree with much of what Spong espouses, but I do admire his courage in challenging accepted theology.Leandara (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Leandara, that doesn't quite wash. A scholar is not just a person who studies things, but a person who participates in the community of scholars by publishing original research and engaging with (or raising) issues in his field.  Spong's books are manifestly for the popular market, not the academic community, and they are general theological works--not Biblical scholarship by a long shot.  As far as I'm aware, he has not published any scholarly works, either articles or monographs--certainly this page doesn't cite any.  Referring to Bishop Spong as a Biblical scholar dilutes the term into near-meaninglessness.  And this isn't about disagreement : I don't agree with much that Bart Ehrman or Robert Price have written, but they're bona fide Biblical scholars with the training, the credentials, and the chops to prove it.  Spong isn't. Frweber (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a "minimum bar" to being in the scholarly community. One may have rather off-the-wall views which are shared by few, but as long as one is able to bring a certain minimum of background material to those views in an honest manner, one frequently can find a scholarly journal willing to publish your work. The problem with Spong is scholarly integrity. One might believe what Spong is saying, or be a fan of his viewpoints, without endorsing the way that he tries to back up these viewpoints. The last that I checked, Spong had never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and he most certainly is not discussed in a scholarly manner by Biblical scholars - be they atheists or Christians (and there are atheists who are Biblical scholars). Fred Phelps writes a lot about gay people, he thinks a lot about gay people, he studies what LGBT people do. But thankfully he is not a recognized scholar of LGBT issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.79.250 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Category: Heretics
The intro to this category reads, "In theology, heresy is the holding of a belief that is in fundamental disagreement with the established teachings or doctrines of an organized religion. This category covers people known for their supposed heresy." As Spong believes that Christianity's fundamental doctrines need to be reformulated, and his beliefs are of course published and relatively well known, he seems to fit the category very neatly. Hence, I'm restoring that category. Wesley 04:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a blatantly biased label in this context. If you want to add it to the article with a proper source, by all means do so, but I'm removing the addition of the category, which suggests established fact. Ambi 05:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering that he openly disagrees with the established teachings of his religion, starting with theism, and is calling on Christians to change their traditional doctrinal stances, it exactly fits the definition of the category, within this context. All I'm doing here is comparing what the article says about him with the category's description. Are either the article or category description in error or misleading in some way? Or, am I misunderstanding one or the other of them? Wesley 16:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * One does not have to believe in theism to be a Christian. As per Wikipedia's article on Panentheism:


 * ''Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity


 * The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have a doctrine called panentheism to describe the relationship between the Uncreated (God, who is omnipotent, eternal, and constant) and His creation that bears ''surface similarities with the panentheism described above but maintains a critical distinction.


 * Most specifically, these Churches teach that God is not the "watchmaker God" of the Western European Enlightenment. Likewise, they teach that God is not the "stage magician God" who only shows up when performing miracles. Instead, the teaching of both these Churches is that God is not merely necessary to have created the universe, but that His active presence is necessary in some way for every bit of creation, from smallest to greatest, to continue to exist at all. That is, God's energies maintain all things and all beings, even if those beings have explicitly rejected Him. His love of creation is such that he will not withdraw His presence, which would be the ultimate form of slaughter, not merely imposing death but ending existence, altogether. By this token, the entirety of creation is sanctified, and thus no part of creation can be considered innately evil. This ''does not deny the existence of evil in a fallen universe, only that it is not an innate property of creation.


 * This Orthodox Christian panentheism is distinct from a fundamentalist panentheism in that it maintains an ontological gulf or distance between the created and the Uncreated. Creation is not "part of" God, and the Godhead is still distinct from creation; however, God is "within" all creation, thus the Orthodox parsing of the word is "pan-entheism" (God indwells in all things) and not "panen-theism" (All things are part of God but God is more ''than the sum of all things).


 * ''Other Christian panentheists


 * Panentheistic God-models are exceptionally common amongst professional theologians (exegetes, Christian ethicists, and religious philosophers). Process theology, Creation Spirituality and Panentheist Circle, three Christian views, contain panentheistic worldviews. Their models of panentheism are distinct from that of the Orthodox Churches. The Unity Church is another example of a Christian church with panentheistic views...''


 * Anglicanism/Episcopalism does not have rigid doctrines and dogmas like Catholics or narrow interpretations of the Bible like the fundamentalist groups that exist in the United States of America. It generally follows via media, with hardened liberals and conservatives and Anglo-Catholics on the outer fringes.  All are still welcome as members of the Church.  There is nothing particularly heretical at all about what Spong is saying. Would you also call the likes of Marcus Borg a heretic? 202.138.16.98 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Heresy" is indeed a very loaded term, outside the bounds of NPOV. "Criticisms" is sufficient as a categorization, and within "Criticisms" you can elaborate on the subject by stating something to the effect that "Spong's views are viewed as heretical by....". Daniel Luechtefeld 18:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So your objection is based on the emotional associations with the word "Heresy" and not based on the description of the category or of Mr. Spong. Perhaps a more objective reason is that the Episcopal Church has a process for identifying heretics in place, and have not as yet employed that process to officially identify him as one. On that basis I'll agree to leave the category label off for now, and instead add some more representative criticisms. Wesley 16:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wesley, I appreciate your compromise on this matter but your response says a lot. In my experience, Spong's views concerning Biblical literalism and the place of homosexuals in the Communion are maintained by a large plurality if not outright majority of North American Anglicans. If you wish to hang the banner of heresy somewhere may I suggest one of the other Anglican-related entries; an entry more specifically focused on the broader context of tension between the orthodox and reform wings of the Communion.Daniel Luechtefeld 03:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do North American Anglicans generally reject theism in favor of panentheism? Are they no longer part of the world wide communion of Anglicans, making it appropriate to ignore that larger context? Mind you, I didn't initially apply that category to this article, I'm just trying to learn exactly why it was removed once someone added it. Wesley 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wesley, labeling a whole section simply as "Heresy" is to endorse a certain view. "Heresy" is NOT a neutral term - it carries nearly the same connotation as "Fraud". Why do you find the category label "Criticism" insufficient? Charges of heresy by Spong's critics can be discussed comprehensively within this much less contentious term. Daniel Luechtefeld 16:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, however I really feel that the battle would be best spent on other endeavours. For the record: Spong denied the divinity of Christ, therefore I personally consider him a heretic. However, no current theologian or Christian leader will get in to that category (no matter what they do or say) because of their supporters and because of misinformed outsiders - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Where did he deny the divinity of Christ? He denied an immaculate conception but that is different.  To me Spong seems to be reflecting the views of Marcus Borg and other more serious scholars.202.138.16.98 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity, the edit being discussed was not whether to change the section title "Criticisms", but whether to add a 'Category: Heretics' tag to place the article in the 'Heretics' category. As above, I've agreed to leave this category off, but mainly because Spong has not been tried and convicted of heresy in the Anglican church, according to their formal procedures. "Heresy" and "Fraud" do carry some emotional connotations, but they also have specific meanings and definitions, and there should be no reason not to use such terms where it is appropriate and warranted. Daniel, I hope I can conclude from your answer that most Anglicans, even in North America, are still theists, and that most are still in communion with Anglicans around the world. (And TBSDY, you're quite right. Some people have been called heretics for disagreeing with just one or two words in an established creed; it seems to me that Spong has managed to set himself in opposition to most of the words in most of the older creeds I can think of. And it seems that he would not disagree at all with that assessment.) Wesley 17:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Heresy is a bit of an ahistoric category when discussing most modern churches. I think most believers who have done some thinking on theology will conclude that no one is completely "orthodox" and thus all are in some way heretics - i.e., won't be "totally accurate in every point of belief" until all is revealed. And "heretic" is also not a category in Scripture so has fallen by the wayside. A more relevant notion for today is that of "apostasy", which is scriptural, and far more serious than heresy - this is when someone claiming to represent Christian doctrine (some kind of Church teacher of authority) misrepresents Christ's teachings. The Biblical advice regarding dealing with such people isn't torturing them or burning them, but more along the lines of "not having dinner with them," & not having them in the congregation, i.e., excommunicating them. Had churches held themselves to scriptures - reading the full context, as living documents, instead of plucking out bits that were most useful - the aweful persecutions of heretics would not have occurred.

As for excommunication, then, the most "serious & aweful" instrument for dealing with individuals by the institutional ECUSA: The only known excommunication in the ECUSA in the last fifteen or so years was of Lewis Green, on May 30, 2000, who was angry that gay people were administering the eucharist, and expressed himself in a very inappropriate manner. But this then wasn't for apostasy, but rather "disrespect" - the excommunication was done on the grounds of disrespect for the eucharist, but it seems the real issue motivating both parties was Green's disrespect for having gay people administer the eucharist. Sources: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/28/story_2819_1.html, http://listserv.episcopalian.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0008a&L=virtuosity&H=1&P=1386 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.241.39.117 (talk • contribs).


 * Heresy is not an ahistoric category when discussing the Episcopal Church. Around 1999 or 2000, that church formally tried William Richter for heresy, with Spong defending him. He was found not guilty. Since it has a formal and specific meaning within the Episcopal Church, in which Spong is a bishop, that seems to be the most applicable, neutral way of determining whether it applies to him. By that standard it does not, which is why the article does not call Spong a heretic, or categorize himself. I think we agree that the article as it is now is appropriate in this respect, do we not? If a reasonably noteworthy source has called him one in a relevant, published forum, that might be worth including under the "Criticism" section. Is there anything else you would suggest changing in the article? Wesley 17:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would only like to add here that it's important to point out a typical misunderstanding about what is often referred to as the "nobody's perfect" doctrine. A form of it relevant to the heresy issue is summed up quite nicely in the above statement: "I think most believers who have done some thinking on theology will conclude that no one is completely "orthodox" and thus all are in some way heretics - i.e., won't be "totally accurate in every point of belief" until all is revealed."
 * That's remarkably beside the point and not at all consistent with both biblical and historical Christianity. Heresy is not most prominently concerned with how "orthodox" one is or isn't but how one sees God. Heresy deals with ackowledgment of fundamental doctrines about God. God is one and three, omnipotent, omniscient, and opmnipresent. That is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Jesus is God incarnate, a member of the Holy Trinity. That is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. He died on the cross as a sin offering and arose on the third day. That is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The day on which you celebrate, or whether or not you eat meat, or how much you put in the offering plate, these are NOT fundamental doctrine. Try Romans as a starting point for understanding this.


 * Wrong! "The sin offering" aspect of Christ's crucifixion is open to a very wide range of interpretations.  His death offers salvation but is it through atonement, loving submission or some other means?  The "sin offering" interpretation came in late.  Try reading some theology before you pontificate your views.202.138.16.98 00:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heresy (re: Christinity) is about denying aspects of God and the work of Christ. Spong fits that bill even if many want to deny it.
 * ~mjd 2007:05:29 18:02EDT

As a theologian, I agree that Spong's views fall outside the bounds of Christian teaching. As a Wikipedia participant, I would ask if, for instance, Spong has ever been formally declared a heretic by any church body? I'm not aware that he has -- so as much as I would argue that it would be fitting were he so declared, I agree that it's outside Wikipedia's bounds to be the agency that makes that assessment.Akma 12:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find some of the titles of Spong's books somewhat ridiculous?

 * Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture
 * Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile
 * Here I Stand: My Struggle for a Christianity of Integrity, Love and Equality
 * A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born

Honestly, Evangelical Christianity (which has roots in Fundamentalism &mdash; that's a loaded term but in it's original form is not as bad as people think it is) is not dying, and in fact seems to be growing stronger. And though mistakes have been made, Spong's "struggle" for a Christianity of Integrity, Love and Equality is quite mistaken: I believe these things are already here. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Tell that to the thousands of Iraqi civilians slaughtered due to the ideology of the Religious Right, one of the key support bases for Bush' failed policies. There is no "integrity, love and equality" in invading another nation.  That is as far removed from Jesus' teachings as one can be.202.138.16.98 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * T, "Evangelical" here refers specifally to an influential and very wealthy group of US Protestants.Daniel Luechtefeld 16:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Another trend is that in the US at least, many Episcopalians have been transferring to the Roman Catholic Church or to the Orthodox Church (Antiochian, OCA, etc.). So the trend towards liberalism in the Episcopalian church is happening at least partly because its more traditional members are leaving for more traditional churches, while their own continues to self destruct. Every few years the Episcopalians do something new to outrage their traditional members, and another wave of them join the Catholic and Orthodox churches instead. But I'm not sure how this helps with the article itself. Wesley 17:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, society's backward and ignorant have to have a place to express themselves; I guess the Episcopalian churches just don't want to be that place. Ambi 17:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Folks, this is getting kind of nasty. I know that Bishop Spong illicits strong opinions from many people, but I don't think this is the appropriate place to express them. Thank you. Rockhopper10r 17:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment
Spong writes:
 * Martin Luther ignited the Reformation of the 16th century by nailing to the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517 the 95 Theses that he wished to debate. I will publish this challenge to Christianity in The Voice. I will post my theses on the Internet and send copies with invitations to debate them to the recognized Christian leaders of the world. My theses are far smaller in number than were those of Martin Luther, but they are far more threatening theologically.

However, Luther didn't want to change the church initially. He had no intention of starting a new Protestant church, and it was only circumstances outside of his control (I think divine, but that's my opinion) that forced him to go up against the might of the Roman Catholic church. Spong, however, is far different. His goal is to fundamentally change the face of the church. In this he is different from Luther, who's goal was only ever to clarify matters of doctrine. For Spong to compare himself to Martin Luther is the height of arrogance and self-deception. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a Lutheran (Missouri Synod), and we have had at least one family join our congregation because they were so disillusioned by what much of the ECUSA now teaches. I have read Spong's book "Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism," and have leafed through several of his others. Spong comparing himself to Luther is simply inaccurate. Luther wanted a return to Scripture. Spong seems to want to "reinvent" Christianity in HIS own image to justify HIS opinions on homosexuality, etc. I personally think "apostate" would be a good description for him in the article, because if he leads people in worship of a Christ he doesn't believe in, distributes Holy Communion as the body and blood of a Christ he doesn't believe in, and leads people in recitation of the three Creeds, which speak very clearly of the divinity of Christ, then that is a perfect definition of apostasy.--MarshallStack 07:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You can just as easily say that Episcopal churches are full of people who had problems with the Missouri Synod's Biblical literalism, focus on guilt, anti-homosexuality, or insistence on Creationism. What you are saying is correct from your particular context. However, it is inappropriate to absolutize your own worldview and then expect everyone else to follow it. A Catholic might say that everyone in the Missouri Synod is an apostate, that does not mean they are correct. The breadth of Christianity is sold short if any of us say, "only my tradition's interpretation is correct." Think of Tillich or the last volume of The Church Dogmatics, then revisit just what makes apostasy. MerricMaker 14:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jet back. I'm more ecumenical than you may think.  I was baptised United Methodist, became Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and left that in 2001 for the LCMS over doctrinal disagreements.  I married an American Baptist girl in a Disciples of Christ church, and our wedding was performed by a female minister.  I also nearly married an Episcopal girl and attended her church with her several times.


 * You missed my point entirely. As a Lutheran, I think I have some credibility when someone like Spong starts comparing himself to Luther, which I think is a thoroughly invalid comparison.  I'm not holding Spong to the doctrinal standards of the LCMS.  What I AM saying is that by the doctrinal standards of the Anglican Communion - the Thirty-Nine Articles and Common Book of Prayer, as well as the three Creeds (all accepted by the Anglican Communion and ECUSA) - is Spong really walking his talk?  When he distributes Communion, does he truly believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ, as stated in the Thirty-Nine Articles?


 * Just to clarify, the Anglican Communion does not rigidly adhere to the Thirty-Nine articles. We are not a dogmatic church.  Also, the Common Book of Prayer is not always used either.  The conservative Sydney Anglican faction (who I do not personally agree with) do not use any form of Prayer Book. Anglicanism is an inclusive form of Christianity that tries to walkt he middle line but is big enough to welcome both extreme liberal and extreme conservatives into our ranks.  202.138.16.98 00:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

When he leads a congregation in recitation of the Creeds, does he really believe in what he is saying? I'm talking Anglican/Episcopal doctrinal standards here, not LCMS. If he is ordained in the ECUSA and doesn't believe in his own church's doctrines, in some cases defying them, yet still claiming to be a faithful member of that communion, I call that apostasy.


 * As a wise monk once noted regarding the creeds, Jesus asked us to believe IN Him, not to believe things ABOUT Him. All Creeds are man-made interpretation.  Spong has affirmed that He believes IN Jesus, which should be enough for us.  210.50.60.8 06:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And I'm certainly not saying that all Christendom must agree with the doctrines of the LCMS. That's not going to happen, and I know people have left our denomination too.  But I think you also misrepresent us.  I certainly don't believe we "focus on guilt," not beyond the doctrine of original sin (which Luther taught); our focus is a proper balance between Law and Gospel.  As far as Biblical literalism...yes, we believe in Biblical inerrancy, but we try to be careful (not always successfully) to interpret it as a unified whole, not just taking verses out of context.  Yes, we are creationist.  "Guilty" as charged.


 * Strange for Lutherans to be Creationist... No Lutherans in my country are.  Are you a more conservative branch?

But as far as being "anti-homosexual," that depends greatly on your perspective. We do not ordain non-celibate gay men and we do not perform gay union ceremonies. However, we do not in any way condone violence and/or discrimination against gay people; i.e., Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.--MarshallStack 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Those people who have criticised Spong for comparing himself to Luther have missed the point of that quote entirely. Spong was not comparing himself to Luther, rather he was copying Luther's invitation to debate. I don't know if anything ever came of this invitation, I hope it did, because the Christian church will falter if it continues to be peopled by different sects or denominations, who all believe that they have the only true interpretaion of scripture, but are unwilling to test the validity of their beliefs in a free and open discussion with other sects or denominations. If you were to study, and understand, the New Testament you will realise that the principle purpose of Jesus' time on earth was to open up the exclusive relationship that existed between God and the Jews, to one that was inclusive of all mankind. If you were to apply an interpretaion of John 3:16 as "For God so loved the world that he gave His only son that whoever believes in Him (God the giver) will not perish (in the spiritual sense) but have eternal life". This interpratation fits more closely with Jesus' exhortation for us to love our neighbours as ourselves. We are all different, we are not perfect so why should you or I expect everyone to comply with our beliefs in order that they may attain eternal salvation? Leandara (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Resume
Spong's resume can be found here. Might be worthwhile updating it. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No it can't, the link's broken! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.221.236 (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Falwell
I'm removing this mini-section for two reasons: 1) his words on Falwell not an important part or aspect of Spon's words, writings, or work; and 2) the statement about supporting Israel's policies regarding Palestinians runs counter to his writings (e.g. http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/97bpadd.html ) and I cound find no support for or reference to such a position anywhere. BCorr | Брайен 01:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Added a link to the Virginia Senator, William Spong. I'm actually related to them both and a search for spong is automatically redirected for the bishop. If someone would like to ass a disambiguation page for "spong" they might want to, for I don't know how. ~Shploo


 * I've removed it again. We only disambiguate at the top of the page where people share the same whole name. This isn't the case here. Ambi 05:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Still a newbie at this. Shploo 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

POV
Question: Can anyone prove claimed Antagonisim toward Palestine from his writings? I have read some of his work (including Here I Stand, and Gospels from jewish eyes) and found nothing along those lines.202.150.112.126 11:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Gabrielle

I know nothing about Spong other than what I see in this article, but I'm removing some passages which seem blatantly POV:


 * Spong is the bestselling and, arguably, most visible liberal theologian of recent times, though some liberal Christians would be uncomfortable in being classified with the same terminology and would prefer to think of Spong as considerably beyond "liberal" -- radical, perhaps.
 * Others are troubled by a lack of intellectual rigour in his thinking.

Also, would someone please change the "Spong, 1991" and "Spong, 1994" references to proper ref links? I don't know exactly what writings they refer to. - Brian Kendig 17:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good catch. :) Rebecca 11:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I have a few more comments on this article, but as I don't know anything else about the man, I don't feel comfortable making these edits myself:


 * The "New Reformation" section - is "New Reformation" a proper noun, is it the title of his movement? Or should it be capitalized as "new reformation", or is it a term coined for this article?
 * The list of twelve beliefs - is there really a need to list them here in this article? I think it would be better to simply link to the web page where he presents them, but I couldn't find that page.
 * In the "Criticisms" section, could someone please replace Many of Spong's critics... and Critics also argue... and Spong is also criticised... and similar weasel words with verifiable references of actual people quoted as saying these things?

- Brian Kendig 15:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "New Reformation" is a term coined by Spong, as best I can tell, to describe the movement he wants to see. At this link, it's capitalized in the title, but later in the essay he uses "new Reformation." His home page links to the essay as "A Call for a New Reformation." That page also lists the twelve beliefs, along with his intent to publish them elsewhere. I'm sure I've seen them elsewhere. As the article isn't terribly long, and they represent the core of his argument as best I can tell, it seems both fitting and helpful to include them here as a concise summary. I'll see about cleaning up some of the weasel words, using the critical links already present in the External Links section. Wesley 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wesley that the 12 Points are important to understanding Spong. I came to this page specifically to find out the basic premises of Spong's theology (essentially what makes him tick and what all the fuss is about) and the list was the most helpful part of the page to that end. 128.158.14.42 16:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, the "Spong, 1991" and "Spong, 1994" references probably correspond to the books he wrote in those years, which are listed in the "published books" section. Looks clear enough to me. (shrug) Wesley 16:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "In addition to this, Spong rejects every essential doctrine held by the christian church." - what is this THE Christian Church and what are its "essential" doctrines? And says who? --Hugh7 10:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

unsourced edits
Someone has recently added Category:Heretics and "heresy" in the article. I don't care one way or the other, but this kind of addition needs to be well cited to conform to WP:LIVING so I'm taking it out for now and requesting that other editors keep a close eye on this sort of thing. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 03:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

photos
I've added a couple of freely licensed photos today, commons:Image:Bishop John Shelby Spong portrait 2006.png and commons:Image:Bishop John Shelby Spong speaking 2006.jpg. The photographer who made them, Scott Griessel, has made one more available under a free license as well, http://www.flickr.com/photos/creatista/235228173/ which we aren't currently using at Wikipedia. Just making note of it here in case someone wants to put it on the commons later. Or just come knocking at my talk page if you want me to put it up; I'll crop it, adjust colors, whatever's advised. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 09:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tradition of Dissent
In the intro, a new couple of sentences mention Spong as representative of a tradition of dissent in the Christian church. Other dissenters are listed (John A.T., and Abelard). Someone had a problem with the use of Abelard because he would not theologically agree with Spong. Should Abelard be used because he was a dissenter, too? Or should we use Wycliffe, Origen, or Eckhart? Well, none of them would have agreed with Spong either, because the theological issues of their time (against which they dissented) were quite different. I think saying, "mention of so-and-so should only be made if they agree in total with thus-and-such" is rather narrow. Should the short passage in question speak of Spong as a part of the dissent tradition in a very general way or should we track down some antitheist "death of God" theologian of the earlier church? MerricMaker 14:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cupitt is a contemporary of Spong, we're talking about a tradition of dissent dating back to Arius, perhaps someone further back. 150.199.110.146 02:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC

Calling Wycliffe a dissenter in the English church is unverifiable? How on earth can you support that notion? He appears in a book called, "The Dissenting Tradition of the English Church". MerricMaker 04:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the most part, none of these people thought of themselves as part of a "tradition of dissent" so much as part of a "tradition of proclaiming the truth." The people they disagreed with also thought they were proclaiming the truth, of course; but they weren't just dissenting for the sake of dissenting. It seems silly to lump all these folks together just because they disagreed with something or dissented from... anything at all. Wesley 02:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

unsourced criticisms of Spong
These statements - "Some Christians see him as a heretic for his radical beliefs. Other Christians feel that his views are so opposite to church teachings that they believe he is no longer a Christian." - have only a single source, an opinion piece on a website that does not seem to be in any way notable. This sort of comment can be made about anybody, anytime; to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, especially in a biography of a living person, it has to be an opinion that is widely held, and clearly articulated; and to show that, there needs to be a citation from a more notable source. Given the controversial nature of Spong's views, I would not be at all surprised to find that this view is, in fact, widely held. In that case, there ought to be a reliable source we can quote in support of it; otherwise, we should not include it.Rbreen (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pretty much all Spong says is his own opinion.

I was unable to find any church leaders who accuse him of heresy. He has never been formally so charged in the Episcopal Church. There were no sources, so I have removed this. Lisztmacher (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Sydney Anglican criticisms
I've removed three of the five links that report on Sydney Anglican criticisms of Spong. They didn't seem to be adding anything that wasn't covered by the remaining links. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless those criticism was of the same weak quality as the criticism today, such as "www.creationontheweb.com" and such inherently dubious sources, then they're severely missing. Critical (whether positive or not) points from relatively non-biased stand-points, are very informative for a fast overview over his central points, c.f. Celsus as a fast overview of "fundamental (hehe!) Christian values", according to my subjective thinking. Said: Rursus (☻) 13:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Current standing within the Episcopal Church
Could someone describe which status now (late 2008) John Spong has within the Episcopal Church, i.e if he is still considered an emeritus bishop "in good standing"? or if he isn't anymore why (self-separation or defroking) and when? I think this info with such an "controversial" profile is vital.Wllacer (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Got some info. According to Louie Crew's unofficial page- which looks rather up to date- he seems still to be counted as a member of the TEC House of Bishops.--217.12.16.56 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

He is still a member in good standing of the House of Bishops. I added a citation. Lisztmacher (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why categories exist
It occurs to me that the debate about how to categorise Spong (which seems to have been resolved anyway - at least for the time being) fails to understand why categories exist. I would generally try to include people in any category to which they could possibly belong. The purpose of the Biblical scholars category is surely to help the reader to find biblical scholars. The reader can then decide whether the person really deserves to be called a scholar. Spong may or may not be a good scholar, but it's still useful to be able to find him. The problem is only when somebody might be put in a category clearly for the wrong reason. If we found Tony Blair categorised as a war criminal, for example, that would clearly be inappropriate, and would reflect somebody's opinion about what he did as Prime Minister of the UK. But to call somebody a scholar of a particular discipline is just to help to reader of Wikipedia to find as many articles as might be relevant to his or her use of this resource.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Midrashic theory
Some of Spong's critics have claimed that he subscribes to Midrashic theory, the notion that the New Testament is really just a re-invention of the Old Testament and that the overall historicity of the Gospels can consequently be put in doubt. He says that his entire interpretation of the Bible is based on the Midrash idea, which is not generally accepted by the mainstream exegetic community, where it is viewed as a kind of non-scholarly fringe theory. These criticisms amount to arguing that the vast majority of his writings have been profoundly contaminated by a thoroughly non-scientific thesis about the Bible. ADM (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?
I'm rather shocked that there is not a section of this article devoted to criticism of John Spong's ideology. Can anyone explain to me why this is? Deusveritasest (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears user ADM removed the entire section around August 12th on rather shaky grounds. It appears that he wanted to relate those criticisms to a specific book, but I think everyone should be able to agree that they belong in this article, as they pertain to positions which Bishop Spong has advocated for years now. To not have a criticism section in this article is grossly misleading. I don't know how ADM justified his change, but I'd recommend querying him and reverting back to the old version if he is not forthcoming. Cullinarn (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Those were criticisms of one of his books, not all of his writings. However, the book A New Christianity for a New World does accurately summarize many of his writings, so it is fair to say that a criticism of that particular book amounts to a criticism of his entire work. I don't think the entry about his book should be merged though, since it would still be possible to create several entries about his other notable writings which have also proven to be a source of argument and debate. ADM (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Two of the citations in the Criticisms section were from unauthoritative sources. (One is a college student's blog, another the blog of a lifelong parishioner at a Tennessee church.) I sharpened the criticisms from Mark Toole and Jonathan Sarfati -- even if you don't like them, they at least have some authority. I also added a paragraph on Spong's being banned from two archdioceses in Australia more than a decade ago. Lisztmacher (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"He promotes traditionally liberal causes, such as racial equality."
This statement is an obvious red herring. The overwhelming majority of conservatives support racial equality too, so it is not distinctively a liberal cause. His views on scripture, salvation, Jesus, miracles, and sexuality are distinctly liberal causes that he supports.

Furthermore the previous sentence indicates that he is a liberal Christian: "He is a liberal Christian theologian, Biblical scholar, religion commentator and author."

There is no reason to say that he promotes traditionally liberal causes anyway, since it already says that he is a liberal theologian. On top of that to latch it on to racial equality is simply biased. It implies that conservatives are against racial equality, when they overwhelmingly are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.112.37 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

He's also vehemently against indiscriminate killings and torturing babies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.79.250 (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian Humanist
I don't think Spong is a Christian at all, but I do think that, even if you did think he was one, you couldn't really call him a Christian Humanist. Whatever you may think about his views, Spong doesn't belong in the same category at T.S. Eliot and Thomas More. I can only suppose this is a conflation or confusion of the sense of the word "humanist", which can mean either Renaissance Humanist or a Secular Humanist in a given context. Some people may think of him as a "Christian", and they might describe him as a Christian and a Humanist (in the latter sense mentioned above). But that doesn't make him a Christian Humanist Corbmobile (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I find the above comments a little irresponsible for someone who has the ambition to edit a reference source. Personal opinions should not matter here, therefore whether someone thinks that Spong is not a Christian, or that he comes from planet Coxut is totally irrelevant. Putting someone in the "Christian Humanist" is easy if someone is both a Christian and a humanist (as Bishop admits himself). Is there anything wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.53.3 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

General Snakeoil Alert
Spong's own work is full of insinuations that people who don't agree with his shoddy arguments are backwater fundamentalists, completely irrational, etc. etc.. I wish I had time to address these things further, but like most theologians and Bible scholars, I don't even have the stomach to get into it - Spong is intentionally ignoring a lot of facts and trying to argue very cheap points. E.g., in his works on the resurrection, somewhere he's talking about the birth narratives in the gospels, saying things like "Mark says event A happened before event B, while Matthew says B happened before A, and well folks: both can't be right, one of these is lying or mistaken." The early church knew since the time of Papias of Hierapolis (early 2nd century) that Mark wasn't intent upon getting the chronology "right." His organization is much more topical. We "moderns" have "modern" reading and interpretive expectations, and expect pretty much all texts which are describing a history in narrative form, to be organized chronologically. Mark's original readers simply did not have this expectation, and it is more than backwards for Spong to be implying that we should simply ditch good hermeneutical practices to endorse his conclusion. I.e., Mark does not "tell" us that Jesus did this before he did that, if in chapter 4 he is doing that, while in chapter 3 he is doing this, Mark is simply relating different events and tends to put together events which have some connection with one another. Spong's writings are full of these kinds of remarks. And then he says something like "No rational person could ever believe something like this; this belief is characteristic of illiterate backwater fundamentalists." Ha ha ha, nice little laugh there at those poor backwater fundamentalists. It makes his texts more "fun" to read, schadenfreude is part of the appeal - there's that strident, "anti-fundamentalist" tone - "reader, I am going to dazzle you with some startling new revelations, about just how utterly stupid people are who believe these things." The problem is: the joke is on him, really, and sadly enough, also on those poor folk who read him and haven't had the background in theology, hermeneutics, and Biblical studies to know that they are being treated to 100% snakeoil. One also might ask one's self: why is a man like Spong so desperate to convince his audience, that he has to dredge up bloopers like this one? And also, sadly enough: what kind of respect does Spong have for his own readership? What kind of educational level does he expect them to have, if he thinks he can "get away" with stuff that a smart highschooler should be able to uncover as false and deceptive? What kind of integrity does he expect them to have if he expects them to "forgive" him after they have discovered his arguments are so flawed, and probably knowingly flawed; or does he expect them all to be such "fundamentalists" themselves and to continue to support him "for the good of the cause," or maybe just because it is just so fun to be trashing people who believe in such things - even when we know that most of what we are saying is false? I would suggest that if this latter is the case, the "humanity" and "charity" which he continues to invoke are very hollow, and closer to an odd form of fascism.

Since Spong is also willingly making allegations of complete irrationality based on "facts" which anyone with a wee bit of knowledge of church history & Biblical hermeneutics should know are false (not to mention "Biblical scholars" as Spong claims to be), he actually could be opened to the allegation of hate speech: he is encouraging his readers to think very unfondly of those who hold such beliefs, upon very deceitful grounds - some would say, outright lies. In the church, one doesn't do this kind of thing, however; so he doesn't get much blowback, people tend to just "let him be," except for some more fringy sources that feel that they need to address him. Sometimes I wish more would actually take it upon themselves to address these things. But please, let's not fall into the snakeoil trap here on wikipedia, this is the kind of thing that editors of scholarly religious journals tell their writers: "look, just ignore the man, we don't need to lower ourselves to this type of thing." I'd urge you all here to think similarly - Spong isn't being attacked, people tend to just "leave him be" - we don't need to attack him, but let's not make a porcelain saint out of him either.

It would be interesting to do a comparative literature study sometime, comparing Spong's language to that of Fred Phelps. My guess is that Fred Phelps would come out much more strongly in the hate speech category, but that Spong would be more prominent in the deception category. I am not fond of Fred Phelps but most of what I have read of his rhetoric is pretty "straight shooting" and I think that when he says delusional things, he is truly self-deluded. Spong, on the other hand, claims to be a "scholar." 91.176.79.250 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Pointing Out A Naked Emperor Really Equate To Peddling Snake Oil?
Spong needn't "claim" to be a religious scholar because he is one. Different scholars disagree on many issues theologically, philosophically, and otherwise. Having read his works I'm not seeing any evidence of 'snake oil salesmanship.' I don't know what your specific beliefs are concerning so-called  biblical historicity, but Spong is merely  pointing out that indeed the collected works in the bible are pre-scientific; and there's no way in the world an intellectual, rational, thinking person in 2013 can accept the writings as literally true given what we know today. Hermeneutics is just a fancy way of saying the "art of interpretation" regarding the bible. It's a device often used as an attempt to inoculate a theological belief against being seen in the cold light of day. It's basically knowing where babies come from in a secular sense, and having someone w/ a theological background attempt to obfuscate an obvious untruth such as a virgin birth. The poor realist must somehow be remiss in his understanding of human reproduction b/c he hasn't a background in so called "hermeneutics." What retired Bishop Spong is saying about the gospel writers being anonymous provides further accurate context. Anonymous authorship is not anything new, but many people DON'T realize this quality about the bible. So a 'smart highschooler' as you mentioned would certainly  question the veracity of the writings since we DON'T know who the writers really were in the first place. I don't know about you, but if I'm reading about zombies walking the street(Matt.27:52-53) I'm gonna need more sources of information. What's so desperate about pointing things out like this? Rest assured he's not a porcelain saint, but unlike some literal believers in Jesus I know Spong is mortal. I'd LOVE to do a comparative literature study between somebody like Fred Phelps and Spong. You may disagree with the guy, but since when does disagreement equal delusion on his part?SlowFatKid (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing "deceptive" in Spong's writing. His arguments are plain to see, and they can be argued against (if you choose), though not very many people tried, and no-one has successfully countered him. In the end it is up to the reader to decide whose arguments are more convincing. There is no hate speech in Spong's writing either, or perhaps you could provide an example? Stating that some views are outdated is not hate. Spong does not declare his adversaries as heretecs or call for them to be expelled from the church. Personally, I find the way you express your hostility towards Bishop Spong much closer to hate speech. Why not disagree respectfully? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.53.3 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've provided an example above re. Papias, you are free to counter it, but don't pretend that "no-one has successfully countered him." Theologians and Biblical scholars usually don't try, just like people don't really try to argue against Fred Phelps's rhetoric. I'm not writing on the main page, simply alerting the editors of this situation. He has "cleaned up" in the last few years on the rhetoric front, the most really vile stuff I found was on the net years ago. It's hate speech since it mischaracterizes theological positions, claiming that Christians believe in such things as "divine sperm" - and then going on and on about how utterly irrational, stupid, and morally reprehensible such persons are. The problem is - Baptists, Catholics, etc.. do not teach nor believe the things that he is claiming, and he is getting people very riled up and angry at such Catholics and Baptists for being such irrational, ethically reprehensible bigots. He does not merely "say that some views are outdated." As Alister McGrath points out in one of his books, Spong probably wouldn't be published at all if he weren't a bishop, it's the "shock value" & tabloid quality that interests publishers & sells books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.28.201 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does he stay?
If Theism, Scripture, the Virgin Birth, The Resurrection (is there any doctrine he still holds to?) are not compatible with Spongianity why does he stay, and still wear a clerical collar? And why do christians go to hear him, or debate with him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.133.139 (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer has to do with The Episcopal Church. It's not exactly "Trinitarian Christian" any more in practice - i.e., what most people associate with the word "Christian," and its leaders from time to time deny such things. Christians by and large don't go to hear him; William Craig did debate him. He became hugely popular because of his talk show appearances and because of the tabloid shock value of a bishop who doesn't believe such things. This is what allowed him to get on the talk shows, and continues to help him sell his books. Most people in The Episcopal Church don't really know what's up, and actually they sometimes even actively resist, seeing such behavior as "divisive." There are many parishes which are solidly Trinitarian but their clergy don't tend to speak out against the national church, or else their bishops are usually pretty fast at stopping them.

He stays because it makes him sort of a celebrity amongst some people; and probably for other reasons known only to him (and some unconscious ones as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.226.253 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I can make of Spong's vague replies during an interview he is not a even a theist (of any type), is he even a liberal (i'd say he was once) and is merely using the words "god presence". What that "presence" is for Spong I have no idea, but it is not the Triune God Who is there - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and witnessed to in the christian scriptures. It would seem to be what the late Francis Schaeffer refered to as, an optimistic jump to the upstairs, ie. faith divorced from reason. Faith in the modern sense.


 * Francis Schaeffer wrote: The jump of the new theology is upon the basis of religious and therefore personal terms which give the connotation of personality, meaning and communication. It is no more than a jump into an undefinable, irrational, semantic mysticism. (The God who is there, page 80)


 * It might be just the zeitgeist given a connotation of personality through his attempt at resymbolising christian terminology, or just his own ego. Whatever it is I won't be checking his books to find out. I'll keep what is left of my sanity! 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether Spong is "Christian" or not is contentious
There is a disagreement on whether Spong is a liberal theologian or a liberal christian theologian. I don't doubt that he self-describes as Christian, but many of his critics would (and do) say that he is not a christian at all. A typical criticism would be "Spong would replace Christianity with a new post-Christian religion" (see eg this though there are 73 ghits for this phrase. Now I don't think we should take a position on whether these criticisms are correct (FWIW I'm inclined to think they probably are, but others would I'm sure disagree).  But it is perfectly clear that these criticisms exist. In fact Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical and Pentecostal theologians would all consider Spong's positions to be well outside the limits of what can be considered Christian. (the Archbishop of Sydney refused to allow Spong to appear in any of his churches when Spong visited Australia [http://au.christiantoday.com/article/bishop-spong-attracts-new-criticism-from-adelaide-anglicans/3123.htm ref here]). So to describe Spong as a "Christian Theologian" is clearly PoV.  What everyone agrees is that he is a liberal theologian. NBeale (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Denying that he is a Christian when he clearly says he is one (read his web site) is POV, too. All you could say is that his critics think that his interpretations are outside Christianity. Ekem (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * People self-identify as members of a religion. It's all well and good to say that someone is not a "true" Christian because they disagree with your own specific theology, but that's not acceptable for us. After all, didn't the pope recently say something to the effect that non-Catholics are not true Christians? Certain the pope is more authoritative than "Virtue Online", so by that standard we'd have to remove the designation of "Christian" from all protestants as "POV". If you can find a BLP-appropriate source that discusses the issue, we can add it. But you can't just go around branding living people "non-Christians" because they disagree with you theologically. Guettarda (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that he is not a Christian! My point is that everyone agrees that he is a "Liberal Theologian", whether or not he is a "Christian Theologian" is highly contentious. And no the Pope did not say that non-Catholics are not true Christians. NBeale (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources for the idea that many serious people do not consider Spong to be a Christian Theologian. eg here and here Whether they are right or wrong is beside the present point. The fact is that to asset he is a Christian theologian, or to assert that he is a non-Christian theologian, is a PoV statement.  NBeale (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In fairness to a person of faith, you have, first of all, accept what they say about themselves, then you can let the critics speak. Also, it will be difficult to understand his interpretations outside of the Christian context. Ekem (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we should at least record the fact that whether he is Christian is contentious. Maybe "He is a religion commentator and author and a liberal christian theologian, though some believe he has moved beyond Christianity and he was awarded Humanist of the Year in 1999" NBeale (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have warned you before about adding unsourced potentially negative material to this article. Please stop doing so. In addition, if you're going to use the "Church of Humanism" as a source, please explain why you consider it a reliable, BLP-appropriate source. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to engage in the debate, rather than formalities :-). How can we get the balance of this article right so that it is clear to people that Spong's views are highly controversial? (I used "Humanist of the Year" because it was already in the article, if it not a RS it should be removed). NBeale (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Information needs to be sourced, and it needs to be given appropriate weight. That's not a mere formality...the fact that Spong's views are controversial is easy enough to source. Your assertion that he's not Christian, on the other hand, seems rather more difficult to source. The way you've tried to do so is telling - removing the term "Christian", without a source. Adding mention of a (seemingly non-notable) humanist award and juxtaposing that with the unsourced statement that "some believe he has moved beyond Christianity"...it's not a mere formality to point out that material needs to be sourced. That's a core requirement for trying to write an encyclopaedia. It's not a mere formality to point out that negative material in biographies needs to be well sourced - that's a non-negotiable Foundation policy. It's not a mere formality to say that you can't draw conclusions from sources that aren't in them - WP:NOR has been a policy pretty much since the beginnings of the project. And you can't give undue weight to fringe view. Again, that's deeply embedded in policy. Guettarda (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

<:I'm not asserting that Spong is not a Christian. I'm merely pointing out that whether or not he is a Christian is deeply contentious (and as a matter of fact the great majority of theologians would consider he was not). I agree of course that we need to source information properly, but it would be helpful to have some constructive suggestions on what we should say. Meanwhile I guess someone should remove the "Humanist of the Year" stuff it is really not notable. NBeale (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Distinction without difference. Nonetheless, if "the great majority of theologians" hold that position, surely it would be trivial to find a whole host of sources that support your assertion. If, as you say, you are merely reporting on a position advanced by "the great majority of theologians", why not share your sources? Then we can use those sources as a basis for what we right. Guettarda (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Who's Criticizing Spong
I added 3 critiques of Spong which were then reduced to saying simply Traditionalist Catholics. However, these websites are not Traditionalist Catholic Websites - and neither do the authors appear to be. The first one is Protestant. The other two ( and ) are center of the road sites as far as Orthodox Roman Catholicism goes (note: Traditionalist Catholicism refers to restoration of the pre-1969 mass and or divergence with regard to Papal Lineage, not traditional doctrines.) >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 20:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing windows I noticed this quote on Traditionalist Catholic that should clarify the situation: "Traditionalist Catholics are distinct from other Catholics who have a broadly "traditional" or conservative outlook." >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 20:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi MPSchneiderLC -- I will take a crack at rewriting it with your suggestion -- Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 21:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that that is better. However, what they are criticizing him for is for deviating from Orthodox Christianity (and Catholicism) not just "traditional" or "conservative". In the style guides that most Catholic press organizations use, these sites could not be called "conservative" because they would be considered mainstream among serious Catholics. Such titles damage WP:NPOV; they are not self-described titles; nor are they strictly speaking religious terms but rather political terms. I think dogmatic / orthodox works better. P.s. thanks for clarifying that sometimes they criticize Spong as liberal, sometimes Spong as Spong. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 22:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I have one additional concern, though. using the word "orthodox" in the article without it being wikilinked to anything is ambiguous, although you clearly mean something specific by it. I think I understand your points, but 1) when you refer above to "serious Catholics" there are assumptions built into that, and there are a wide variety of opionion about what that would mean; and 2) I don't think that we can base how we refer to things in Wikipedia on "the style guides that most Catholic press organizations use." To use this language requires qualification and context that is independent of the POV of subsets of Catholics or Catholic organizations.


 * Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 11:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, I would just put "Catholics" without a qualifier. If you read the critiques, they're critiquing him for going against Catholic doctrines. They usually critique how he goes against traditional Christian doctrines that Episcopalians would have all held 100 years ago too. "Orthodox" when used as an adjective for followers of a certain religion means those believers believe what the religion holds. I'll try to link it to Wictionary. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It turns out that one of the critiques, even though it was published on a Catholic website, is from a Methodist. I removed two from unauthoritative sources and sharpened the two that were left. It would be nice to get some authoritative on-the-record criticisms of Spong's POV, but I could find few if any after a thorough web search. Lisztmacher (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Storied?
In "the storied universities in Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge." what does "storied" mean? 86.132.221.236 (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. See definitions 1 and 2 in Wiktionary: . Probably the first definition is the one meant here, but the second one would also apply. Also read the lede (first few paragraphs) at University of Edinburgh, University of Oxford, and University of Cambridge. Corinne (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links content to be put into article prose?

 * Spong's official website - I kept this as it is an official website and the infobox doesn't allow it to be placed there
 * ABC Radio audio interview with Spong - Broken link
 * "A Call for a New Reformation" by Spong - Broken link
 * Compass interview with Spong - Any useful information from this interview should be used in the content of the article
 * Minnesota Public Radio interview with Bishop Spong - .RAM document which will be inaccessible to many users
 * Scott Stephens' interview with Spong: "I am very orthodox after all!" - Blog piece and most of text is comments from users - Any useful information from this interview should be used in the content of the article
 * - YouTube videos of lectures he has given are not useful for a biographical article about him
 * - YouTube videos of lectures he has given are not useful for a biographical article about him
 * 2013 Interview with Spong on his 2013 book about the Gospel of John and other issues - Again, another interview and him selling and promoting a book
 * 2015 review of Spong's "Fourth Gospel" - Completely irrelevant - its a review of his book not a review about him (though if book is notable enough for article this link could be used there
 * with William Lane Craig at Bethel College (2005). - YouTube video about a debate he participated in not useful for a biographical article about him & concerns over copyright of upload to YouTube

Criticism

 * Critical review of Jesus for the Non-Religious - Again a book review not a review about him (though if book is notable enough for article this link could be used there
 * Jesus for the Non-Religious (review) – Sydney Anglicans website - Dead Link
 * ‘Jesus For The Non-Religious’ Described As Gutting The Christian Faith - This could give 1 referenced sentence for the article but is no way near in depth enough to be an external link
 * What’s Wrong With Bishop Spong? Laymen Rethink the Scholarship of John Shelby Spong - Apologies for this one. This should probably remain in the External Links
 * Disagree. This is a narrow POV polemic against Spong. Have retained it as a footnote in Criticisms. Lisztmacher (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Review of Bishop Spong’s Jesus for the Non Religious:An Historical Approach by John Dickson (author) - Dead Link

ツStacey (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am a little speechless to why you would revert my edit.. and do nothing to address the issues of broken links and inappropriate external links.. so much so you put the tag back in from 2010 which identified the problem! I hope this will ease your concerns that I am making drastic changes - please see bold text above to show my concerns about the links used. ツStacey (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And I am more than a little "speechless" as to why you would mass remove external links without even the slightest attempt at explanation apart from some vague and useless comment about them not being appropriate. What is actually not appropriate is your removal of these links without giving an adequate reason. That is not how we edit articles on Wikipedia. If there is a problem with a link then fix it. If it can't be fixed then remove it. If you think a link is actually not appropriate for some reason then explain why you think so and then let other editors agree or not. Anglicanus (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've given my reasons. You have left them in. Can they now please be removed? I presume I need your permission? ツStacey (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is your original edit on this page. You did not give any reasons when you removed the links except for an incredibly vague comment that they were "not suitable" without substantiating why you thought so. You only added your reasons to your original edit on this page after I had reverted you. Apart from your untrue comments above, do you think that other editors are expected to be mind readers? Anglicanus (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question? Can I edit this article page? ツStacey (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)