I have a dog in this fight because, inter alia, I come from the Diocese of Newark. More importantly, I grew up and ever since then have lived in a world where religion, possibly apart from attenuated Buddhism, was simply not done. And Christianity, in particular, was declassé. It was what was disputed in the Scopes Monkey Trial, back in the olden days, though there were apparently some Christians still lingering in the rural south. The white ethnic working class, of course, was Catholic: it was part of being Italian or Polish in the way that being Jewish was part of being Jewish. That is the way things were in the Diocese of Newark.
Spong made his living, both during his episcopal career and on the lecture circuit afterwards, by appealing to an audience that came out of conservative Evangelicalism and others who lived in a socially conservative subculture. ‘Much of the Bible palpably untrue’? Well, duh. Who didn’t know that? I learnt in Biblical studies classes that the only thing we know about Jesus was that he habitually said ‘truly, truly’ in Aramaic and that, as everyone knew, ‘Behold a virgin shall conceive’ was a mistranslation in the Septuagint. To ex-Evangelicals this was a revelation and to hear a clergyman tell them that they weren’t obliged to believe everything or, in fact, much of anything in the Bible was thrilling. It was a relief after they’d felt that they ought to have faith and that doubt was, at best, forgivable rather than, as I’d learnt, an intellectual virtue.
I wasn’t Spong’s audience—and, I suspect that now, with Nones the fastest-growing ‘religious group’ in the US, most people aren’t. I needed someone to tell me that religion wasn’t just stupid—but when I was coming up that wasn’t on. There were Thomas J. J. Altizer and William Hamilton, whose book, _The Death of God_ made the cover of Time Magazine. And then there were the bishops: Pike, who ridiculed the Trinity as ‘sort of committee god’; Robinson, who asserted that belief in a God ‘out there’ was as naïve and stupid as belief in a God ‘up there’; and Spong, who announced that theism was completely untenable in the 20th century.
Books I read for college religion classes and consumed on my own had moved beyond any mention of religious belief as ordinarily understood. Harvey Cox cashed out religious belief as working in the Secular City and there were endless books about what ‘real’ Christianity was, i.e. social service, community organizing, and political action. Churchgoing was, at best, a waste of time, and every grain of incense was bread from the mouths of the poor. Churches should be gutted and repurposed as soup kitchens and homeless shelters. The righteous remnant of Real Christians would meet in basement rec rooms to sing Kumbaya to guitar accompaniment and plan the next demonstration. I felt guilty for demonstrations I had missed because I was studying or writing papers for class.
There will never be a bishop like Spong again, getting publicity, adulation, and hefty fees on the lecture circuit by rehearsing platitudes of village atheism and material that undergraduates learn in Biblical Studies class. Much of which, in fact, one of my kids learnt in religion class at a Catholic high school. Now even the New Atheists who made a splash 20 years ago have sunk. Déjà vu—before that there was the Death of God on the cover of _Time_, and before that _Elmer Gantry_, and before that, of course, Nietzsche, and before that…well, duh, duh, duh.
Jeez, I do write fast when I have a dog in the fight. Woof! And I just saw after I'd pasted this in and was making paragraph breaks that in one place I had written 'Trump' instead of 'Spong', which I fixed.
Very enjoyable. I only met him once, about that time, and his immense charm and personal likeability is what I remember too. I believe he also once preached at my parents ' church when he was over for a Lambeth conference and astonished them with an excellent sermon of impeccable orthodoxy!
How is this 'impeccable orthodoxy'? https://churchandtheology.org/john-shelby-spongs-twelve-theses/ ? Or maybe Spong feigns orthodoxy when preaching to the benighted groundlings at church. And I myself speak as someone who is definitely not orthodox by any standard and doesn't value orthodoxy. My Christianity is: there may be something supernatural or other--dunno, I hope for post-mortem survival but not counting on it, and I like church history, church buildings and other churchy stuff.
Rereading the piece, and remembering his charm, I think he was fundamentally just a conman, with a wonderfully developed sense of what his audience wanted to hear. Perhaps that's too harsh; but I don't think he had any intellectual integrity at all, and no sense that his words should affect his life. I don't believe for a moment that he spent two hours every morning in prayer and bible study.
The worst of Spong was what I saw in a debate he had with John Stott—decent, smart, but in principle opposed to homosexual activity, speaking reasonably in support of a view I myself don’t hold. Spong turned on the ad hominums, and ad miseracordiums, and self-righteous rhetoric. And he had a claque of gay activists in the audience cheering him on and shouting down Stott. It was vicious.
I also have a personal story from a priest of Spong’s diocese, who had been a monk and, in his 50s felt a call to work in the world and, in particular, to work with gay men, which he was doing in the diocese of Newark. He was himself gay, but had been celibate. (Jeez, I just typed ‘Trump’ again) Spong insisted that he find a partner—the policy was that all gay priests in his diocese had to be ‘partnered’. My friend complained that in addition to the fact that he didn’t want to be partnered, he didn’t think it was even feasible since he was middle-aged, not particularly good-looking, and didn’t think he could pick up men in in a gay bar, which in any case he didn’t want to do, and that he didn’t think it would be right to partner with one of the gay men who were in his pastoral care.
I have a dog in this fight because, inter alia, I come from the Diocese of Newark. More importantly, I grew up and ever since then have lived in a world where religion, possibly apart from attenuated Buddhism, was simply not done. And Christianity, in particular, was declassé. It was what was disputed in the Scopes Monkey Trial, back in the olden days, though there were apparently some Christians still lingering in the rural south. The white ethnic working class, of course, was Catholic: it was part of being Italian or Polish in the way that being Jewish was part of being Jewish. That is the way things were in the Diocese of Newark.
Spong made his living, both during his episcopal career and on the lecture circuit afterwards, by appealing to an audience that came out of conservative Evangelicalism and others who lived in a socially conservative subculture. ‘Much of the Bible palpably untrue’? Well, duh. Who didn’t know that? I learnt in Biblical studies classes that the only thing we know about Jesus was that he habitually said ‘truly, truly’ in Aramaic and that, as everyone knew, ‘Behold a virgin shall conceive’ was a mistranslation in the Septuagint. To ex-Evangelicals this was a revelation and to hear a clergyman tell them that they weren’t obliged to believe everything or, in fact, much of anything in the Bible was thrilling. It was a relief after they’d felt that they ought to have faith and that doubt was, at best, forgivable rather than, as I’d learnt, an intellectual virtue.
I wasn’t Spong’s audience—and, I suspect that now, with Nones the fastest-growing ‘religious group’ in the US, most people aren’t. I needed someone to tell me that religion wasn’t just stupid—but when I was coming up that wasn’t on. There were Thomas J. J. Altizer and William Hamilton, whose book, _The Death of God_ made the cover of Time Magazine. And then there were the bishops: Pike, who ridiculed the Trinity as ‘sort of committee god’; Robinson, who asserted that belief in a God ‘out there’ was as naïve and stupid as belief in a God ‘up there’; and Spong, who announced that theism was completely untenable in the 20th century.
Books I read for college religion classes and consumed on my own had moved beyond any mention of religious belief as ordinarily understood. Harvey Cox cashed out religious belief as working in the Secular City and there were endless books about what ‘real’ Christianity was, i.e. social service, community organizing, and political action. Churchgoing was, at best, a waste of time, and every grain of incense was bread from the mouths of the poor. Churches should be gutted and repurposed as soup kitchens and homeless shelters. The righteous remnant of Real Christians would meet in basement rec rooms to sing Kumbaya to guitar accompaniment and plan the next demonstration. I felt guilty for demonstrations I had missed because I was studying or writing papers for class.
There will never be a bishop like Spong again, getting publicity, adulation, and hefty fees on the lecture circuit by rehearsing platitudes of village atheism and material that undergraduates learn in Biblical Studies class. Much of which, in fact, one of my kids learnt in religion class at a Catholic high school. Now even the New Atheists who made a splash 20 years ago have sunk. Déjà vu—before that there was the Death of God on the cover of _Time_, and before that _Elmer Gantry_, and before that, of course, Nietzsche, and before that…well, duh, duh, duh.
Jeez, I do write fast when I have a dog in the fight. Woof! And I just saw after I'd pasted this in and was making paragraph breaks that in one place I had written 'Trump' instead of 'Spong', which I fixed.
Very enjoyable. I only met him once, about that time, and his immense charm and personal likeability is what I remember too. I believe he also once preached at my parents ' church when he was over for a Lambeth conference and astonished them with an excellent sermon of impeccable orthodoxy!
How is this 'impeccable orthodoxy'? https://churchandtheology.org/john-shelby-spongs-twelve-theses/ ? Or maybe Spong feigns orthodoxy when preaching to the benighted groundlings at church. And I myself speak as someone who is definitely not orthodox by any standard and doesn't value orthodoxy. My Christianity is: there may be something supernatural or other--dunno, I hope for post-mortem survival but not counting on it, and I like church history, church buildings and other churchy stuff.
I report only what I was told. Perhaps a stopped clock twice a day, and all that.
Rereading the piece, and remembering his charm, I think he was fundamentally just a conman, with a wonderfully developed sense of what his audience wanted to hear. Perhaps that's too harsh; but I don't think he had any intellectual integrity at all, and no sense that his words should affect his life. I don't believe for a moment that he spent two hours every morning in prayer and bible study.
The worst of Spong was what I saw in a debate he had with John Stott—decent, smart, but in principle opposed to homosexual activity, speaking reasonably in support of a view I myself don’t hold. Spong turned on the ad hominums, and ad miseracordiums, and self-righteous rhetoric. And he had a claque of gay activists in the audience cheering him on and shouting down Stott. It was vicious.
I also have a personal story from a priest of Spong’s diocese, who had been a monk and, in his 50s felt a call to work in the world and, in particular, to work with gay men, which he was doing in the diocese of Newark. He was himself gay, but had been celibate. (Jeez, I just typed ‘Trump’ again) Spong insisted that he find a partner—the policy was that all gay priests in his diocese had to be ‘partnered’. My friend complained that in addition to the fact that he didn’t want to be partnered, he didn’t think it was even feasible since he was middle-aged, not particularly good-looking, and didn’t think he could pick up men in in a gay bar, which in any case he didn’t want to do, and that he didn’t think it would be right to partner with one of the gay men who were in his pastoral care.