People who know me are aware that I have interesting tastes in reading. I'm currently reading, for apologetics purposes, Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong's 1998 book Why Christianity Must Change Or Die. He and I don't agree on much in the realm of religion, and reading his book is strengthening my self-discipline, increasing my patience, and shrinking my definition of "insufferable". Like I said, we don't agree on much and I'm sure he would not care for much that I write about in this blog.
A full-fledged review or fisking of Change Or Die is wa-a-a-ay beyond the purpose of this post. But I will say that Spong worships at the altars of modernity and scientism, though the supreme deity in his practical pantheon is himself and what he thinks good and right. Obviously, I came to his book with perspectives very different from his, but I am trying to give Spong - as I would with any book I read for apologetics purposes - the courtesy of trying to understand what he says.
I haven't finished Change Or Die, but I've noticed a curious contradiction. On one hand he invokes the "Problem of Pain" argument to impeach the existence of a God Who is good, Who is omnipotent, and Who is involved in Creation. On another hand, he rejects acts of divine justice and punishment (e.g. the mandate that Israel destroy the Canaanites and Amalekites) as savagery and tribalism and contemptuously rejects out of hand the possibility of miracles (by which God might alleviate some people's pain or mitigate/punish some evils). To sustain his "Problem of Pain" argument, Spong uses his special definition of god and the universe. In other words, Spong builds his conclusion into the god and universe he premises.
No comments:
Post a Comment