Bishop John Shelby Spong has a unique view on the resurrection of Jesus; it was not really a resurrection at all as we understand it. In his book, Resurrection: Myth or Reality (1994), he states repeatedly that he believes in the reality of the resurrection; he explains (page 106):
Easter, for me, is eternal, subjective, mythological, nonhistorical, and nonphysical. Yet Easter is also something real to me.
On page 143, he asks:
Did Easter reverse the verdict of Jesus’ death? No, I don’t think so…I think Easter is real, but it is not an event that takes place inside human history.
Simon Peter Has an Epiphany
Spong describes his idea of the origin of the resurrection stories beginning on page 255. After a successful catch while fishing in Galilee, Simon Peter and some others ate a meal.
Simon, as the oldest member of the group, did the ceremonial blessing. Images flowed together: the psalm of Tabernacles, “I shall not die, but I shall live”; the words of Zechariah, “They looked on him whom they pierced”; and that awful night when Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them, calling that bread his body…
Suddenly it all came together for Simon. The crucifixion was not punitive, it was intentional. The cross was Jesus’ ultimate parable, acted out on the stage of history to open the eyes of those whose eyes could be opened in no other way to the meaning of Jesus as the sign of God’s love…
That was the dawn of Easter in human history. It would be fair to say that in that moment Simon felt resurrected. The clouds of his grief, confusion, and depression vanished from his mind, and in that moment he knew that Jesus was part of the very essence of God, and at that moment Simon saw Jesus alive…
With a burst of animation Simon tried to bring his breakfast mates into his vision. He tried to open their eyes…The bread in his hand was broken over and over until light dawned in James, John, and Andrew.
My Response to Bishop Spong’s Theory of the Resurrection
I respectfully reject Bishop Spong’s theory that it was in the imagination of Jesus’ followers. I enjoy biblical fiction—it is good to see things in a different light—but fictional reconstruction is still fiction.
My response is not a critique. A critique would be much longer, more in-depth, and require more creds than I have. There is much in Spong’s book that I really like. He emphasizes the use of Jewish midrash in the New Testament, which is important to understand in order to avoid over-literalizing many passages. And I like the description of midrash he quotes from The Jewish Encyclopedia: (page 15):
[T]he attempt to penetrate into the spirit of the [Old Testament] text, to examine the text from all sides, to derive interpretations not immediately obvious, to illuminate the future by appealing to the past.
I agree with him on many cases of midrash, such as Jesus’ flight to Egypt and the story of Jesus’ temptation in the desert. Spong says he believes the experience of the resurrection is both real and true but that the details that describe it cannot be literalized (page 21). And I agree to a great extent, as I have mentioned in previous posts on strange stories surrounding the crucifixion and the resurrection of many holy ones.
Spong builds slowly to his conclusions but bases his reconstruction on very tenuous connections. It is an interesting theory but reads like those contrarian documentaries that search for unlikely clues in order to uncover some hidden ‘truth’. Spong, himself, calls it a speculative reconstruction (page 237); and I don’t find it convincing. There is much conjecture, and many connections are extremely flimsy.
Spong, Paul, and the Resurrected Jesus
Acts 9 reports Paul’s encounter with the resurrected Jesus. While Paul (Saul) was on the road, a light from heaven flashed around him, and he fell to the ground. He heard a voice identifying itself as Jesus; the men traveling with Saul heard the sound but did not see anyone.
Spong points out that Paul once said, referring to this experience, “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9). In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul writes that:
[Jesus] was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living…Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also.
So Spong suggests that all Jesus’ resurrection appearances were visionary—like Paul’s:
I would argue…that these witness were the recipients of revelatory visions of the living Christ at God’s right hand (page 51).
In other words, personal, close up encounters with the resurrected Jesus never happened. But I don’t think Paul’s ‘vision’ was a model for the resurrection experience of others just as I don’t think the experience was in their imaginations.
What is Essential about the Resurrection of Jesus?
Is Bishop Spong really a believer? Is he a fellow-follower of Jesus? Of course he is! Bishop Spong makes important contributions to Christian thought, but I think he is mistaken about Jesus’ resurrection.
At the very least, resurrection includes consciousness that is not present in death—and a body. I don’t mean a resuscitated corpse; the body is a new body—perhaps even a spiritual body as Spong says. But, to me, the most important question is whether Jesus was present and conscious during face-to-face resurrection appearances; did he interact with people? If not then he was not there. For Spong, resurrection was in Peter’s inspired imagination, and that is not sufficient for me.
The essence is that Jesus was dead and then he was not. He is risen! He is risen indeed!
- Be sure to follow this blog in the right-hand column of this page.
- Like Jesus without Baggage Page on Facebook.
- Follow @JesusWOB on Twitter
Jesus Without Baggage 
I do enjoy your take here, and I also appreciate that you didn’t dismiss Spong as a Heretic as so many have before. As so many have called me thus as well. I would argue that it is a much more important take especially for those who have found that there is no historical literacy to many of the accounts of both Paul and Jesus. I do agree with Spong. I do see your point however. I do not believe in a literal resurrection as with all historical statistical probability, Jesus was probably never removed from the cross (See John Dominic Crossan’s work and Bart Ehrman’s work). That is something I struggled with this year. as I have always romanticized the Passion. Though, I’ve come to find that the message, the story, the heart of the Gospel is much more real and important to me if I remove the resurrection from the equation. Again, I do appreciate your take, and I thank you for sharing.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Honest, I don’t see the point in calling anyone a heretic; can’t we disagree without such name-calling and disparagement? And good people do disagree.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Precisely! ☺
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said and a great post Tim!
I think the resurrection of Jesus provides us with a vision of what is possible, and perhaps even more important, of what we are meant to be – transformed into God’s character or image.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“For Spong, resurrection was in Peter’s inspired imagination, and that is not sufficient for me.” I don’t get bogged down in whether there was a virgin birth or a physical resurrection. This will startle some, but I don’t, as you do, need those miracles. For me, it is miracle enough that a little-known person, in a small and little-known part of the world brought a message that resonates around the globe and across 2000 years That is the importance of the story…the message itself.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John, I don’t believe in the virgin birth either. I think it was a midrash by the writer of Matthew on an OT passage. However, I think the resurrection of Jesus is key to our own eventual resurrections after death.
LikeLike
I share your beliefs where it comes to those doctrines which supposedly define the deity of Jesus such as the virgin birth and the resurrection. I agree completely with bjohnmasters in that the miracle is His life its self. He was the perfected mirror of the love of God for all, the witness to that love being totally unconditional. What He taught, how He exemplified The Father in all that He did while here is the miracle; the rest is just window dressing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tim, if there was no virgin birth, in what way was Jesus the Son of God?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chas, this is not a big deal for me one way or the other; I only mentioned it because someone asked. I speculate that God chose (adopted) Jesus as his unique and anointed messenger to the world..
LikeLike
I am a little bit unclear (I haven’t read the book) on whether Spong suggests that the ‘visions’ were imaginary or spiritual visions. Spiritual vision are real not imaginary.
I believe that they are like sightings of loved ones after death. Dreams, visions but real.
I don’t believe in the physical resuscitation of Jesus’ body. I believe like Paul in a spiritual resurrection.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Michael, Spong suggests both. At one point he describes Peter’s resurrection experience as taking place in his mind–imaginary. At another point he suggests that all resurrection appearances were visionary–as Paul’s was on his way to Damascus.
I don’t subscribe to the resurrection being the resuscitation of a corpse, but I think Jesus was physically, visually, and consciously present in some way at the various resurrection appearances.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is that the same as visionary visitations?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael, do you mean is Spong’s theory the same as visionary visitations? I don’t know; I don’t recall whether Spong used the term ‘visitations’.
LikeLike
I meant your own attitude.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael, I don’t think they were visionary visitation but I could always be mistaken.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tim, thanks for this piece. Always an interesting discussion. I am big fan of Spong, but I don’t take him as infallible, and in this case I think his position is a little too vague. As Mike said in a comment too, it’s a little unclear whether we’re talking about real visions (like Paul reported), or individual imaginings, or even if the story itself is a form of midrash altogether that became literalized over the generations. My take on why I don’t take the resurrection as physical / literal it is a bit more cut and dry, and here is the link if any of your readers are interested in more about it: https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/why-i-dont-believe-in-a-physical-resurrection-of-jesus/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice article. Thanks.
LikeLike
Eric, I was wondering where you were in the Facebook comments! 😄
Can’t say I’m surprised you didn’t comment there!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric, we have had similar discussions about the resurrection of Jesus, of course, but it is good to discuss it again. And I appreciate your respectful approach.
You quoted Mehta that that “dead people do not come back to life.” I think that is rather the point; resurrection is not a normal event. Even other ‘resurrections’ found in the Bible and in today’s news I take to be cases of coma or medically induced interventions with people who are not yet really ‘dead’. This is the reason I think Jesus’ resurrection is so different; he was really dead and then he was not.
In that same paragraph, you mention the belief among churches that the resurrection of Jesus involved a dead corpse coming back to life. Well I don’t subscribe to that at all; I don’t think the resurrection has anything to do with the resuscitation of a dead corpse. However, I do believe Jesus was dead and then he wasn’t and that he appeared in some visible form and interacted with his followers.
You will not likely be surprised that “the mere fact of [your] questioning the resurrection [does not start my] heart racing and [my] palms to sweat.” People have different ideas and come to different conclusions, which is normal and natural.
Your subsequent review of, and objections to, the many events associated with the resurrection was very good. You addressed them very well for the most part. Recently, I too demonstrated the problems of Matthew’s resurrection of the holy ones at the time of Jesus’ death or resurrection.
Yet Jesus was dead and then he was not. He appeared to some of his followers in a visible and tangible body of some sort, and Jesus was conscious of being with them and he interacted with them. This is a singular event. It is also an enormously important event in that the resurrection of Jesus points to our own eventual resurrections after death.
You ask, “if the physical and literal resurrection never happened, should Christians stop having concern for the poor, hungry, orphans, widows, and marginalized…If we remove the physical resurrection from the equation, do the virtues of Christianity break down and lead to pure hedonism?” I agree with you that the answer is No. But there is more to Jesus’ good news than being moral and treating people right–though those are very important parts of his message. Learning that we will die and yet we will live again is a very important part of the good news as well.
LikeLike
Tim, I’m with you. I don’t know exactly what happened, but I do know that when Jesus spoke in parables, the Gospels had no problem pointing out He was doing so. If the “Resurrection” was spiritual or metaphorical or a parable of some sort, I think the apostles would have had ample precedent of their Teacher to simply say so. They did not. In fact the mystery of the Resurrection became front and center. They proclaimed (to their own very literal, bloody death of all but one of them) that the Resurrection of Jesus was of the body, and they were at pains to describe both how He could appear and disappear suddenly, and yet eat fish and be touched. So I don’t understand what happened, but I think Spong’s explanation leaves more holes and questions than the original explanation that grew up in the early Church when people were so confident in the reality of their own resurrection someday that they had incredible courage in the face of Roman persecution.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks, Karen. I really like, and agree with your final comment, “I think Spong’s explanation leaves more holes and questions than the original explanation that grow up in the early Church when people were so confident in the reality of their own resurrection someday that they had incredible courage in the face of Roman persecution.”
Well said!
LikeLike
I think of when Jesus said Lazarus had “fallen asleep” and the disciples didn’t understand that Lazarus had died. So Jesus said “plainly” that Lazarus had died. He didn’t let them continue to misunderstand what He really meant. It’s hard to imagine these same disciples would go on to perpetuate a misunderstanding of what they meant by “Resurrection of the body” in their day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As one, like Tim, who has been privileged to ponder the NT for much of a lifetime, and who has also been blessed, since childhood, with the gift of faith in Jesus’ God (Abba), I have come to the place where I can take or leave the physical resurrection. The oral tradition underlying the gospels seems to contain, along with sayings and parables, a litany of signs and wonders, primarily healings but other miracles as well. So a physical resurrection fits comfortably within the earliest Jesus tradition that we can recover. On the other hand, the wide disparity in the accounts of the resurrection incline one to take the physical resurrection stories, as we have them, with at least a grain of salt. Here is where the essential difference between two forms of Christianity–one based on the transaction (forgiveness/salvation) that Jesus accomplished for us, the other based on the revelation of Jesus as the model for human existence–stand looking at each other across a chasm that apparently cannot be crossed, like that which separated Lazarus from “Dives” in the afterlife. I would argue that, rather than being primarily an evidentiary issue or logical conclusion, the belief in a physical resurrection is inextricably linked to which side of this fundamental divide a particular Christian stands upon. The transactional Christian needs the physical resurrection in one form or another. The model-based Christian can accept it or let it go without substantial impact on his or her faith.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Newton, as I have said before: Good people do disagree on things.
LikeLike
Between the time of Jesus’ death and Easter morning, the disciples were afraid for their own lives. They huddled in locked rooms. They feared death itself. That all changed after Easter. They went out among the crowds and faced the Jewish leaders with no fear at all! What could have made that difference? If it happened as Spong believes, would the disciples have suddenly lost the fear of death? I don’t believe so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jimm, I totally agree! Something quite significant must have happened to induce such a massive change in behavior.
LikeLike
I also agree that something special must have happened to bring about this change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fully agree that people are free to come to their own conclusions about many things in the Bible.
I know I have. And i haven’t heard of Bishop Spong or his opinions before and haven’t read them for myself as of yet.
I do intend to correct that.
However, there is one thing that bothers me.
Does he have more evidence to offer than his ideas of what may have been going through Simon Peter’s mind?
I sure hope so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dennis, I don’t think he has any real evidence. He depends primarily on reconstructions he has developed–a lot of which is very tenuous.
LikeLike
Tim, after looking into it even lightly, it becomes obvious that you are correct.
It does seem to be mostly conjecture and imaginings.
I find it interesting that when I was involved in Buddhism I was offered a lot of well thought out teachings about the nature of reality, how the mind participates in bringing our experiences into being, and how the mind is capable of doing many things which we usually don’t even imagine, all based on the direct experience of meditators from the time of Buddha until the present day, a lot of which science and psychology are now confirming,
and here is someone who is a major player in Christianity who offers his imaginings on what someone may have been thinking and experiencing 2000 years ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dennis, I like the way you put that: “here is someone who is a major player in Christianity who offers his imaginings on what someone may have been thinking and experiencing 2000 years ago.”
I think you paint an effective picture.
LikeLike
Tim, I just read your response to Eric and you said something interesting, “the resurrection of Jesus points to our own eventual resurrections after death.” Are you saying that only Christians who have accepted Jesus Christ will experience this resurrection, or is this resurrection for non-Christians too”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agent, you raise a very good question! I would say that the resurrection is for non-Christians also–depending. I write about this here:
LikeLike
Thanks Tim it was a good article and I have only heard a message with your suggestions once.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Agent!
LikeLike
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Wild, the resurrection is immensely important!
LikeLike
And as that is true, I don’t understand why you would give this man’s ideas a second thought. He’s simply a false teacher.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wild, I think Spong is terribly mistaken about this but he is a very, very influential writer in some circles.
LikeLike
Which makes his teaching all the more disturbing. Having the discussion I understand. Giving his views any legitimately I don’t. From what little I know of him, he sounds like a gnostic, not a Christian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wild, you could be right about the Gnostic leanings. I haven’t read enough of his work to determine that one way or the other.
LikeLike
My challenge to Spong’s idea is that is hardly seems like a compelling reason for people to continue in following Jesus. If resurrection isn’t real, then why are spending all this time proclaiming resurrection? If resurrection isn’t whole body, then aren’t we just pushing the heretical idea of the division of body and spirit and saying that the spirit is more important than the body? That doesn’t match up with the creeds. If resurrection is only in the minds of Peter and his companions, would the church have survived to this day? It sounds more like a rationalization of what happened, as opposed to something that goes beyond our understanding – a matter of faith. That doesn’t mean we just accept things without question. But it seems as though accepting a bodily resurrection is a key element of Christian faith. If it’s just an idea, I don’t see how Christianity would have survived to this point. I don’t see how people would give up their lives for just the idea of a spiritual resurrection at some point. It seems more like a way to process grief – something nice, but not something life changing. If Christianity isn’t life changing, then it’s just another philosophy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One last thing. If resurrection were just in Peter’s head, then Christianity would probably only be a footnote in history, not something that has drawn billions of people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Luther, I agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Luther, I think you are right on target! Jesus didn’t come just to tell us to be nice to each other–there was more involved, and the resurrection was part of that in my opinion. I like your question, “If resurrection is only in the minds of Peter and his companions, would the church have survived to this day?” My answer is ‘I don’t think so’.
Some believers, though, just can’t fathom a genuine resurrection; it is unnatural and just does not happen. I think that is very much the point! Jesus’ resurrection was a singular event.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree, but am also amused that you seem to discount numerous other miracles on a similar basis, that such things just don’t happen. I don’t think we get to pick and choose which miracles are real.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wild, I think we must analyze and evaluate each passage, including its context. Just because we accept the resurrection of Jesus does not mean that we must accept all the ‘miracles’ mentioned in the Bible.
LikeLike
To wilswonderer I would respond by saying that I have discovered after much reading and research that we are not all living in sin or cursed with sin because of what Adam and Eve had done. Rather we all have the potential of being good, some choose only a small flicker of God’s Light and others are glowing with God’s light. So if the Adam and Eve story is just that a “truth filled” story then Jesus did not have to die for our sins because we are not all sinners and the literal (from a dead body) resurrection wasn’t necessary to conquer the curse of sin, death. I am still alive in Christ and after working as a missionary in Asia for over 14 years I believe I will see the Hindu doctor who gave up a rich practice to work in the slums and the Muslim clown of Allepo who died while bringing joy to children. The challenge I give you is: What are you DOING versus what are you believing?
LikeLiked by 3 people
agentle01, I think you have also made a really good point. When I reflect upon Jesus life and His teachings, I see perfect unconditional love, not only from His words but perfect unconditional love as much as from the way He acted. So in other words, Jesus’ sayings (words/belief) were always in perfect harmony with his actions (doing).
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you have ever sinned in your life then, yes, Christ had to literally die. None of us have the potential to be good by ourselves, and believe me I’ve tried. Whatever good works I have done can not repay the debt I owe. Focusing on good works always ends up with me comparing myself with someone else, which is not a healthy way to live. If I lived like Mother Teresa, it would make me no more able to save myself, or any more deserving of God’s love. Yes, do good to everyone as often as possible, but never believe that your works merit glory. It is also possible to do all the right things for all the wrong reasons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agent, I agree with you that we do not carry ‘original sin’. Wild, I agree with you that good works do not merit glory. I think the issue at hand is how to describe sin. I believe sin is not infractions against God but our human state of alienation, brokenness, and fear. I further believe that God wishes to heal us of these human characteristics with empathy, compassion, and care.
LikeLike
I regret that a Christian thinker and leader of the caliber of Bishop Spong is being so flippantly dismissed by some on this open-minded, envelope-pushing website. As Tim humbly admits in his post, he lacks the “creds” for an in-depth critique of Spong’s rather subtle and complex theological thinking. While I myself have some fundamental disagreements with Bishop Spong, I have been deeply moved and greatly enriched by his “Jesus For The Non-religious,” which echoes much of what Tim talks about on this blog. Indeed, Spong’s entire life has been devoted to the painting of a picture of “Jesus Without Baggage,” and, in many ways, his portrait is stunningly beautiful. It seems that Jesus got it right, as usual, when he said that a prophet is not without honor…except in his own country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Newton, I don’t think I dismissed Spong; in fact I stated that he has made good contributions to Christian thought. But I disagree with his conclusions in his book on Jesus’ resurrection. And I am not impressed with his ‘subtle and complex theological’ on this issue. I don’t think he is subtle or theologically complex here at all.
LikeLike
Just what defines the man as a Christian? He has denyed every Christian doctrine including the resurrection. I have never made a secret of my basic Orthodoxy. So of course I dismiss him as heretical. I wonder how one would become a Martyr to Sprong s form of Christianity, as there seems to be no defining characteristic to it.
To accept Jesus with out baggage is to embrace every miracle in the book, to let go of my cynicism and allow faith to rule me. Jesus praised those with fervant faith, not those with human reasoning that explains away the miraculous.
LikeLike
“Just what defines the man as a Christian?”, you ask. Well, let’s take a brief look at his life. Bishop Spong “received his Master of Divinity degree from the Virginia Theological Seminary in 1955. He has had honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees conferred on him by Virginia Theological Seminary and Saint Paul’s College, Virginia, as well as an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters conferred by Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania. In 2005, he wrote: ‘(I have) 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.’ Spong served as rector of St. Joseph’s Church in Durham, North Carolina, from 1955 to 1957; rector of Calvary Parish, Tarboro, North Carolina, from 1957 to 1965; rector of St. John’s Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, from 1965 to 1969; and rector of St. Paul’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, from 1969 to 1976. He has held visiting positions and given lectures at major American theological institutions, most prominently at Harvard Divinity School. He retired in 2000. As a retired bishop, he is a member of the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops.”
Bishop Spong may not be your kind of Christian, and, in certain ways, he’s not my kind, either. But his form of Christianity, however unorthodox and radical, seems to have resonated over the years with a significant segment of believers in Jesus, and, clearly, he has been a dedicated servant of the church. It’s one thing to passionately disagree with his theology (which I, myself, do in many ways), but it’s quite another thing to question his credentials as a Christian. In Tim’s words: “Is Bishop Spong really a believer? Is he a fellow-follower of Jesus? Of course he is! Bishop Spong makes important contributions to Christian thought, but I think he is mistaken about Jesus’ resurrection.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
How many titles or degrees the man has is completely irrelevant. The fact that he wants to redefine Christianity as something you will never find in your Bible tells me all I need to know. Whatever he teaches, it’s not Christ crucified. I see no reason to put the title of Christianity on an individual who teaches a false gospel.
LikeLike
From your comments, I believe that that you are teaching as inaccurate a gospel as Bishop Spong. But that’s a theological dispute, and reasonable minds can differ, especially about that which transcends human understanding. Thus, I would never accuse you of not being a Christian, a fellow believer in Jesus who is struggling to understand him while firmly caught in his net. It’s obvious that you take your Christianity seriously, that it forms the center of your consciousness. Yet the spirit of your comments about others seems foreign to JWB as a place where we engage each other respectfully in thinking through our mutual faith. Respect is a two way street, and this should be especially true among the followers of Jesus, who himself so often taught through symbolic stories, evocative sayings, and the asking of questions–probing us to answer the question, each in our own way: “Who do you say that I am?” Have you come to JWB to learn and to grow, to bounce your thinking off others, to learn to appeciate other points of view, and to thereby deepen and expand your understanding of spiritual things? Or have you come here to do battle for your particular viewpoint against the infidels? When this blog invited inerrantists to dialogue with us, I believe the intention was to open the door to a broader exchange of ideas in an atmosphere of Christian love and acceptance. Certainly that’s not asking too much of every brother and sister in Christ, is it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am here to offer the Orthodox (you might say traditional) perspective on any topic. You might think it uncharitable to name someone a false teacher. I disagree. And I simply don’t see any other option in this case, and it is actually quite biblical. Jesus’ and Paul’s examples can be viewed as a great deal less charitable. Jesus was clear that many false teachers would come in his name. Paul flatly calls them evil. The author of first John says those who deny the incarnation are the spirit of anti Christ. Were these men being unloving? On the contrary, the most unloving thing I could do would be to fail to warn brothers and sisters about wolves in sheep’s clothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wild, I am already on record as rejecting Spong’s understanding of Jesus’ resurrection–which I consider to be a supremely important issue. I think his understanding is tremendously misguided. However, I cannot say he is not a believer–that is above my pay grade. Who am I to judge another man’s servant?
Jesus is extremely inclusive, and I don’t think holding orthodox beliefs is the final standard in being a Christian. I think Spong is mistaken in some beliefs; I think you are mistaken in some beliefs; I am sure I am mistaken in some beliefs. But I would not hesitate to take communion with you or with Spong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wild, you are right that both Jesus and Paul called out false teachers. But guess what? I am neither Jesus nor Paul. However, throughout church history Christians have considered other Christians to be false prophets and heretics–to the point of putting them to death.
However, I do think many Christian leaders are ‘misguided’ teachers, and I do not refrain from contesting their teaching when it is important to do so. But it is not within my understanding of my mission to determine whether or not they are genuine, though misguided, Christians or followers of Jesus.
Of course, you are welcome to express what many consider to be orthodox views; but I am convinced that some ‘orthodox’ views are terribly misguided as well.
LikeLike
Well said, Newton!
LikeLike
In my book, Wildness Cry, I show that Jesus was a pure human genius, not the product of a “virgin Birth” Also I show that it was Jesus’ death that absolved us ; resurrection was neither necessary nor possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philo, it seems that we are in different places regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection.
LikeLike
I was not referring to your post, Tim. I thought I made that obvious in my second sentence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Newton, thanks for the clarification. Perhaps, when comments are out of order, including the name of the commenter would be useful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t toss out the heretic card lightly. I don’t think Jesus or Paul would either. And putting people to death over it is obviously evil. Obviously I don’t know for sure what is in Sprong s heart. But his words blasheme God. He has gone so far as to claim God is both good and evil. Which is just one of many reasons why I will continue to call him gnostic or new age, not Christian. I have Christian friends with what I consider some whacky theology, and that’s ok, but at the basis, there has to be a risen, divine Christ, or, as I have repeatedly said, any thing goes. Shalom until next time, I’ve said all I mean to on this topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe it would help, ww, for the sake of discussion of future topics on JWB, to again highlight an essential difference in Christian viewpoints. You believe that it is necessary to say certain things about Jesus, to have certain concepts in your mind about him. And you are quite correct in calling that the orthodox or traditional perspective, for which there is ample scriptural support. We non-orthodox believers find it sufficient if Jesus is the focus of our lives, the model we look to for guidance in how to live and understand the meaning of our existence, a stance for which there is also ample scriptural support. There are some on each side of this theological divide who do not believe that those on the other side are truly Christian. And then there are those, again on each side of the divide, who believe that both sides are Christian, albeit in very different ways, and despite whatever theological “errors” they may intermix with their genuine faith in Jesus. When it all boils down, I think it’s really that simple, as vexing as this fundamental difference in viewpoints can be. Peace to you, my brother. I appreciate your presence on JWB, your advocacy for the traditional orthodox position, and I look forward to learning more from your input and that of many others in this extraordinary dialogue, which God, through Tim, invites us to engage in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, Newton.
LikeLike
Just read my little book, Wilderness Cry. You will understand all clearly
LikeLiked by 1 person