Along with the other things I'm doing (does that sound stuffy, or what?!), I'm continuing to read Why Christianity Must Change or Die, by former Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong. It's slow going, as I'm finding it taxes my patience! It's not that I disagree with almost everything he has to say, though that certainly is the case. Reading books with which I thoroughly disagree is far from a new experience for me. And my main problem isn't Spong's flippant arrogance (which is all too real). Change or Die has me feeling like I'm winding my way through a forest of scarecrows in search of a cornfield!
One of the most basic errors (or deceptions) in advocating an idea is making what is called a “straw man argument”. This consists of falsely attributing a ridiculous or outrageous idea to one's opponent and then demolishing that idea as if doing so refutes the opponent's real ideas. While a straw man argument can arise accidentally from misunderstanding one's opponent, I think straw man arguments are more commonly made knowingly and dishonestly.
Having read a bit more than 20% of Change or Die, my impression is that straw men have been pervasive! While I obviously cannot reproduce here everything I've read, I found a blatant example of a straw man that epitomizes much that I've read so far.
In the context and in support of arguing that most/all religions' concepts of God(s) are nothing more than humans-writ-large, Spong says (on pages 47-48; chapter 3, "In Search of God"):
'Indeed, a closer look at some of these gods we human beings have worshiped historically will reveal that they were recorded as having acted not just humanly, but sometimes in the very worst manner of human behavior. The Jewish God in the Hebrew scriptures was assumed to hate anyone that the nation of Israel hated. The gods of the Olympus, served by both Greek and Roman civilizations, were portrayed in a wide variety of what we today would call “compromised” sexual activities. …
'The familiar Christian God acknowledged by almost all of our European ancestors not only blessed the imperialistic and colonial expansion of those nations in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries but also declared that this colonialist domination of the underdeveloped peoples of the world was the very will of the Christian deity. So under the banner of Christ, native populations in what we today call the third world were subjugated and converted, while the resources of those conquered nations were being extracted from their soil to bring wealth to the Europeans. …'
Where to start?! Well – credit where credit is due – Spong's representation of the Graeco-Roman pantheon is largely correct, though whether they would have acknowledged that their gods' behavior was ”the very worst manner of human behavior” is open to question. But his representation of the “Jewish God” is ridiculous, and what he says concerning the teachings of Christianity is grossly false!
Before justifying my claims, consider who and what John Shelby Spong is. He received his Masters in Divinity degree from Episcopal Theological Seminary in 1955 and was ordained an Episcopalian priest that same year. After serving in several parishes, he became Bishop of Newark in 1976. To say the least, John Shelby Spong should not be unacquainted with the contents of the Bible! Therefore, if my claims above are true – that he badly misrepresents the teachings of Judaism and Christianity – then Spong's straw men are conscious deceptions, not accidents or misunderstandings.
“The Jewish God in the Hebrew scriptures was assumed to hate anyone that the nation of Israel hated.” Really? Is that why God forbade Israel to invade or annex the neighboring nations of Moab and Ammon (unless attacked first), despite the ongoing ill will between Israel and its neighbors? Is that why the book of Judges is a continual tale of God using various nations to bring judgment on Israel? Is that why, in the books of Kings and Chronicles, God used the nation of Aram (Syria) to bring judgment on Israel and Judah? Is that why God sent the prophet Jonah to Israel's enemy, Assyria, to urge Assyria to repent? Is that why God used Assyria to bring judgment on Israel and Judah? Is that why God used Babylon to bring judgment on Judah? And why did God bring judgment on Israel and Judah at all? The “Hebrew scriptures” reveal a God very different from the tribal god Spong claims those scriptures portray.
As for his claim about, “The familiar Christian God,” Spong is playing a deceptive bait-and-switch game, and he must know it. When speaking of the “Jewish God”, he refers to the “Hebrew scriptures” as the authoritative source of Jewish teaching. Spong understands the necessity to cite authoritative sources. In the same way, Spong knows that the New Testament is the authoritative source of Christian teaching. Yet, knowing all this, Spong did not derive his characterization of, “the familiar Christian God,” from the New Testament, or even allude to the New Testament! Why? Because the New Testament directly and diametrically contradicts Spong's blatantly false characterization of Christian teaching! I do not doubt that Mr. Spong could cite, by the ream, sermonic and published rantings from Christian clergy of the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries rationalizing all manner of nationalism, racialism and racism. But to a word, those sermonic and published rants are contradicted and condemned by the New Testament. Those clerical rantings are not authoritative Christian teaching! And John Shelby Spong understands this very well (or if he doesn't, his scriptural knowledge is less than what a first-year seminary or Bible college student should have)!
So I'm finding it very trying to continue reading and working to understand some one who, putting it bluntly, is a bold liar. Putting it bluntly again, if an ordinary Christian like me can spot and call out his lies, John Shelby Spong is not even a very good liar!
No comments:
Post a Comment