John Shelby Spong is an Episcopal bishop based in Newark, New Jersey. He is well-known for being outspoken: two of his books have raised eyebrows, if not blood pressures: Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Sexuality (1989) and Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture (1992). He was also part of the infamous “Jesus Seminar,” which made it a point to distinguish between the words Jesus actually said and the ones this group decided He could not have said. Spong also has a new book just recently published, entitled Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile (April, 1998).
Spong claims a “love for Holy Scripture” (Rescuing 10), but one needs very little familiarity with his writings to understand that he believes only what he wants to believe and tosses the rest of it away like a thoughtless litterbug. Consider a typical sample:
Am I suggesting that these stories of the virgin birth are not literally true? The answer is a simple and direct “Yes.” Of course these narratives are not literally true. . . . I know of no reputable biblical scholar in the world today who takes these birth narratives literally (215).
Of course, if a Biblical scholar did take them literally, he would not be “reputable.” As long as Spong controls the definitions, he can say anything he wants. His mission is to “free the Scriptures from the killing straitjacket of literalism, fundamentalism, and inerrancy” (226). In other words, he refuses to believe that the Bible means what it says. Spong is the only one who actually knows what it means. Just ask him.
This Episcopal bishop thinks that the Bible is too old to be of any use to “modern man.” All of our ideas, medicine, and technology require new ways of thinking and new interpretations of the Bible. William Murcheson’s introduction to an essay about Spong captures the essence of this heretic. The article is entitled, “A Wolf in Shepherd’s Clothing,” and it appeared in The Dallas Morning News on May 20th. Murchison wrote:
Well! First, there’s all that “sin” talk we gotta get rid of. Plus, who believes in all those miracles the New Testament mentions? The cross as the enduring sacrifice for sin? “A barbarian idea.” Nor was Jesus raised physically. Morality isn’t external or objective. And don’t ask some “theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way” (25A).No, Spong doesn’t believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection, miracles, or the morality taught in the Bible. But he loves the Holy Scriptures. (What else would he have to use for target practice?) Spong’s conviction is that “it’s time to throw out the whole Christian faith and start over. Why? Well, you don’t keep month-old bread around, do you?” (25A).
Start over? What need would there be to start over? There is already a faith which teaches what Spong believes; it is called secular humanism. It believes in human potential, subjective morality, and man-made rules. In humanism there are no miracles, no Savior, no system of objective morality. Since we are starting over, why bother to retain that old burdensome name of Christianity? People might associate it with all that confining fundamentalism. Why not choose a new name?
If humanism will not suffice, let’s call it Lascivianity or Licentianity, or Libertarianity. Then people will know immediately that this is a group that refuses to hold to those old stuffy morals. They will know that we have moved into the modern era–with a new vocabulary and everything. Spong is wasting too much time trying to reform a bunch of old fuddy-duddies. Consider what he wants to do this summer.
A pivotal moment in modern Christianity’s history could be coming in England this summer at a worldwide gathering of Anglican bishops, whereat Mr. Spong proposes to talk up gay rights, the Joy of Unmarried Sex and the need to dress Christianity in modern glad-rags (25A).Oh, what an exciting time! But it will probably result in a lot of frustration. How many of those stuffy Anglicans will listen to a man with Spong’s vision? They will probably just tell him that the Bible does not teach those doctrines or provide him with some other staid, safe answer. John, these guys are boring and out of touch. Who cares what they think? Why not spend the time more profitably writing new Scriptures to accommodate the 21st century? Instead of calling the new holy book I Ching, call it something catchy: I Change. Here are a few suggestions:
1) In the beginning man created himself. 2) And society grew upon the face of the earth, and with it came ever-changing culture. 3) And society said, Let there be change, and there was change. 4) And wrinkles came forth upon the faces of the deep-thinkers. 5) And they said, “Let us create morality in our image.” 6) And so they said, “Morality is defined as whatever is right in our own eyes.” 7) And they agreed that a second principle was like unto it: “Truth changes daily so that it is ever fresh.” 8) And all the people said, “Amen.”
Now that’s the kind of Bible people can really relate to. Why doesn’t Spong just write it the way he thinks it should be? Why does he spend all of his time trying to reform the one God gave, but which he thinks is hopelessly out of date and full of inaccuracies? And why would anyone want to spend his time studying something that is full of errors? There are old textbooks and computer manuals galore that may be purchased for a buck. Everyone knows the reason for the cheap price: the material is outdated.
Spiritual truths remain valid, which may be the reason that millions of Bibles are published and sold each year. Most people (lacking the bishop’s great knowledge) think that the Bible is relevant and that it deals accurately with sin and its remedy. Spong justifies sin (especially sexual sins). He cannot help anyone spiritually. Appropriate for him are the words of Psalms 52:3: “You love evil more than good, and lying rather than speaking righteousness.” Spong is wrong; the Bible is right.