Spong'ed – Of God and Scarecrows

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!

More from Just Under the Clouds

It's been over 8 weeks since I last weighed myself, so I don't have a new, magic, here's-where-I-am number. I haven't gone on a crazy binge or even simply been eating a little too much (I hesitate to call what I'm doing, tracking and watching what I eat and exercising with some regularity, a "program"). If you're losing a pound or two a week, a very reasonable and respectable rate, weighing yourself every couple of weeks poses problems. If your "method" isn't consistent - same scale, approximately similar time of day, similar clothing and shoes - your progress can be diminished or exaggerated as a result of having eaten an extra (or one less) meal, or a different pair of shoes, or wearing jeans instead of light exercise shorts. So I've been focusing on doing well: eat right; find "right" things to eat that are enjoyable; regular, challenging (for me) exercise (which I can't imagine being enjoyable).

But there are tangible, if less measurable, signs of progress. Many of the XL shirts I've been wearing since summer are fitting loosely. The 38 waist jeans I started wearing in August, which were marginally comfortable (not close to sausage-like, though), are now quite comfortable and getting loose. The belt I started wearing in July, starting at the 2nd notch, is now at the 5th and last notch, and comfortable (time to get out the drill!). Last Sunday we went to Kohl's and I learned that some L shirts fit. There are limits on shirt size reductions - my broad shoulders and my greater than average height waist to shoulders - that I probably am close to reaching. I doubted whether I would be able to go from XL to L (other than those that are also denoted "Tall"). So this is cool and a bit unexpected! I also tried on - and bought several pair - some 36 waist jeans. I'm not sure about comfort, but if I had to, I definitely could wear them without damaging the jeans or me. I have not worn 36 waist jeans since college, maybe not since high school! We aren't on Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig, but losing weight (and not accidentally self-disrobing while walking down the street) is still expensive.

I'm also preparing - "training" sounds way more athletic than I am at this point - to do a 5K run-walk with my son. He runs marathons and half-marathons (approximately 26 and 13 miles, respectively), so I expect to see him at the Start and the Finish of this ~3 mile event. But it's something that, just a year ago, I would never have imagined doing! So, for the past week I have been doing something I have not done since high school, running ... for tortu ... errrr ... exercise!

So I'm still making progress in becoming less of a man than I've been. I'm now at a point - weight and clothes - that I don't think any of my kids have ever seen me, possibly excepting my oldest in her infant and toddler years. It's progress. Maybe for my 40th high school reunion next year (if there will be one) I can be around the weight I was when I graduated! In immediate prospect, the holidays are coming, and planning moderate ways of thoroughly enjoying family, food, and thanking God for His blessings and love are the current challenge.

Keeping Balance

It occurred to me this morning while driving to work that keeping spiritual balance is interesting. I'm always looking at Scripture wanting to see what is practical, what applies to my daily life. It's not a bad habit! But what about more abstract and doctrinal stuff? It's certainly there in Scripture! Do I give that second or third place in my attention? Not a good idea! That God is eternal, the Creator, that Jesus is God, and so much more are not exactly practical on a day by day basis, but such things speak to the nature of the universe and the nature and character of God. They speak to my nature as a human being and to the nature of the One in whom I have placed my faith and entrusted with my life!

It all seems so mind-bogglingly huge, but then ... what kind of God would I have if I, a creature, could understand the One Who created me?

The Deity of Jesus in Philippians Chapter 2

Our church home group is studying the book of Philippians, and will be considering this passage soon. This is the first of two really deep topics found in the chapter. What follows is an edited version of what I prepared for our group.

Philippians 2:6-8

6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

In a relatively few words, these verses take us into really deep water – the nature of Jesus. Historically, these verses speak to and have been at the heart of several controversies in the early church. Understanding Who Jesus is is at the heart of Christianity, so on a for what it's worth basis, here is Pete's Paraphrase of these verses:

Who, though He was in nature and character, God, did not see His equality with God as something to which He should desperately and proudly cling. But He voluntarily and humbly gave up some of the expressions of His nature to express Himself as one of His servants, a man, subject to the limits of the time and space He created. And having thus humbled Himself, He further humbled Himself by being obedient to God's will and purposes: despite being without sin and innocent, He allowed Himself to be executed in the most excruciatingly painful manner devised by man, as the lowest and worst sort of criminal.

Here is the information from which I drew to compose that paraphrase:

Philippians 2:6-8 Key words:

form (of God), form (of a servant) – morfe (morphe)

Strong's Concordance – 3444, shape; figuratively nature; form

Thayer's Lexicon – the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance

Vincent's Word Studies – used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. … form is identified with the person or essence of a thing

Wuest's Word Studies – the Greek word for “form” refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds directly from within.

equality (with God – isos (isos)

Strong's Concordance – 2470, similar (in amount or kind); agree, as much, equal, like

Thayer's Lexicon – equal, in quality or quantity

grasped – arpagmos (harpagmos)

Strong's Concordance – 725, robbery

Thayer's Lexicon – 1. the act of seizing, robbery; 2. a thing to be seized, or to be seized, booty

Vincent's Word Studies – (1) a robbing, the act. (2) a thing robbed, a piece of plunder. (3) a prize, a thing to be grasped.

Wuest's Word Studies – The Greek word has two distinct meanings, “a thing unlawfully seized,” and “a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards.” when a Greek word has more than one meaning, the rule of interpretation is to take the one which agrees with the context in which it is found.

made himself nothing (NAS “emptied himself”) – kenow (kenoo)

Strong's Concordance – 2758, make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain

Thayer's Lexicon – 1. to empty, make empty; 2. to make void i.e. deprive of force, render vain, useless, of no effect; 3. to make void i.e. cause a thing to be seen to be empty, hollow, false

Vincent's Word Studies – He laid aside the form of God. In doing so He did not divest Himself of His divine nature.

Wuest's Word Studies – It was the outward expression of the essence of His deity which our Lord emptied Himself of during the time when He was giving outward expression of Himself as a bondslave. But the emptying Himself of the expression of Deity is more implied by the context than stated specifically by the verb “emptied.”

likeness (of men) – omoiwma (homoioma)

Strong's Concordance – 3667, likeness, shape, similitude

Thayer's Lexicon – that which has been made after the likeness of something: a. a figure, image, likeness, representation; b. likeness i.e. resemblance …, frequently such as amounts well-nigh to equality or identity

Vincent's Word Studies – likeness of men expresses the fact that His mode of manifestation resembled what men are. This leaves room for the assumption of another side of His nature – the divine – in the likeness of which He did not appear.

Wuest's Word Studies – The word “likeness” in the Greek text refers to “that which is made like something else.” Our Lord's humanity was a real likeness, not a phantom, nor an incomplete copy of humanity. But this likeness did not express the whole of Christ's being.

(human) form (NAS “appearance of a man”) – schma (schema)

Strong's Concordance – 4976, external condition, fashion

Thayer's Lexicon – the habitus, as comprising everything in a person which strikes the senses, the figure, bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life, etc.

Vincent's Word Studies – That which is purely outward. … “Likeness” states the fact of real resemblance to men in mode of existence; “fashion” defines the outward mode or form.

Wuest's Word Studies – The word “fashion” is the translation of a Greek word that refers to an outward expressionthat is assumed from the outside and does not come from within … His expression of His humanity came, not from His inmost nature as God, but was assumed in the incarnation. … He was always in His incarnation, more than a man. There was always that single personality with a dual nature.

More comments about the passage

Of the New Testament writers we know, Paul is the one who was raised with both Jewish language and culture and Greek language and culture. Though writing centuries in advance, Paul's skillful writing in this passage precluded many of the Christological errors that were to come.

With just one word, morfe, morphe, Paul defined Jesus at once as truly human and truly God. For those who tried to claim Jesus was just a man or some other creature, Paul attributed to Jesus the "form", the nature of the one utterly unique being, God. Only God has the "form" of God. No creature, anger, human or something less can have the "form" of God. For those who tried to claim that Jesus humanity was an illusion, Paul attributed to Jesus the "form" of a human, and rubbed it in a bit by using the term "servant" (or "slave"). While not going into the "how", Paul defined the "what" of Jesus' nature: Jesus was at once truly human and truly God.

Full titles of reference works used above:

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament

Word Studies In The New Testament – M. R. Vincent

Philippians In The Greek New Testament – Kenneth Wuest

Strong's and Thayer's lexicons give the meanings of the words. Thayer's adds some etymology and illustrations of how the words are used. Vincent and Wuest give the meanings and add much more information about how the words are used and their particular meanings in context.

Spong'ed - Equivocated Words and Preaching to the Choir

This is my second post about Episcopalian Bishop Spong's book, Why Christianity Must Change Or Die. It probably won't be the last. I'm not trying to do a Lieutenant Columbo routine, but I'm sure things in the book will continue to interest me.

One tendency I've noticed in Change Or Die is Spong's use words and phrases that have well understood meanings, but in ways contrary those meanings. This is called “equivocation”. A glaring example of this is found near the end of Chapter One, page 20 in the hardback edition I'm reading.

“... my deeply held commitment to Jesus as Lord and Christ ...”

My! That almost sounds positively Evangelical! In the context of this phrase, however, Spong makes very clear his “Jesus” and the words “Lord” and “Christ” mean something very different from the Jesus of the New Testament and what “Lord” and “Christ” mean in New Testament. Because I haven't yet read far enough into Change Or Die – I've only read through page 30 of the book's 228 pages – I am not yet sure what “Jesus”, “Lord” and “Christ” mean to Spong. But Spong makes very clear his rejection of anything even slightly resembling Biblical Christianity.

One other thing Spong makes reasonably clear, but without stating it outright, is that Evangelicals like me are not really the people for whom he wrote Change Or Die. His intended audience are people who already agree with him (preaching to the choir) and people who don't believe in much of anything and might be persuadable to “believe” Spong's idea of what god should be. Spong holds Evangelicals and other Bible-believing Christians in contempt, and is not shy in expressing it.

Spong'ed - Commenting on a Skeptic's Book

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.

More on the Deity of Jesus from Colossians 1:15-20

The pastor of our church recently preached on Colossians 1:15-20, focusing, as does the passage, on the Deity and Greatness of the pre-incarnate Jesus. He pointed out how much meaning there is in the passage, and I'm sure he felt the limitations of a 20-30 minute sermon in trying to teach the heart of what is there.

One thing our pastor pointed out is the frequent recurrence of the word “all” - 7 times. The frequency and the scope of how Paul used the word indicate that he wasn't using a figure of speech or hyperbole. He really meant, “All”. Jesus is:

• Preeminent over all creation;

• The Creator of all creation;

• The agent of the creation of all creation;

• The purpose of all creation;

• Is before all things in creation;

• Holds all things in creation together;

• All the fullness of God dwells in Him;

• Reconciled all things to Himself, bringing peace through His blood.

Another problem with the idea that Jesus is anything less than God is that it would destroy the meaning and purpose of verses 15-20 in the context of Colossians 1. The immediately preceding verses, verses 13 and 14, say: He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Paul uses verse 15-20 to make really clear Who our source of redemption is and how supremely great He is. Jesus was not some creature God happened to use. Were He a creature, His death and resurrection could not benefit any and all who believe. Were Jesus a creature, at best His death would allow a one-for-one or maybe one-for-two swap. Being God, Jesus' death brings salvation to all who believe, and Paul made that fact clear.

Underlying this passage, Paul is addressing a problem being experienced by the church at Colossae and the church as a whole, Gnostic and pagan philosophies. Among other things, those philosophies taught a spirit-matter dualism: spirit good, material things bad. Maintaining that philosophy presented a problem. If God, being spirit, is good, how could God create the evil material world? The Gnostics and pagans “solved” their dilemma by positing a descending series of demigods emanating from God and successively from each other, each slightly less perfectly good than God, with one being sufficiently less perfectly good and wise so as to be suitable to be basically good, yet create the evil material world. Thus God, purely good, could not be blamed for creating evil matter. Confused? Well, some people are fascinated by understanding complicated systems that “explain” the nature of reality, and that's what these religious philosophies did. In Colossians 1:15-20. “Thrones”, “Dominions”, “Rulers” and “Authorities” were names for these demigods. The word “Fullness” in verse 20, “pleroma” in Greek, was a technical term used by the Gnostics to designate the “sum-total of the divine powers and attributes” (Kenneth Wuest). Since modern Christians are unlikely to meet a true Gnostic, this information is more historical curiosity than practical. But it also shows that Paul really meant that Jesus is the Creator, not a creature. Were Jesus just a creature, He would have been inferiors to all the demigods. Paul sweeps all thought of that aside in verse 16: “For by him all things were created, ... whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.” Were Jesus just a finite creature, the fullness of Divine power and attributes could not dwell in Him. Paul settles that matter in verse 19: “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” Were Jesus just a creature, verses 15-20 would have been nice sounding but insignificant to the Colossian church.

Thus, if Jesus were just a creature:

• Paul, as a writer of Scripture, could not be trusted to say what he means and mean what he said;

• Jesus death would mean pretty much nothing, and all believers would be eternally lost;

• A large section of Paul's letter would have been loquacious near-nonsense verbosity to the people of the Colossian church.