Mark Tooley explains a great deal in the opening paragraph of his article, “And Malice to All: Episcopal Bishop’s Parting Shots,” which appeared in Insight (March 13, 2000):
He is America’s most media-savvy bishop, and he finally retired. John Shelby Spong of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, N.J., became a fixture on the Phil Donahue and Oprah Winfrey shows during the 1980s and, more recently, gravitated toward Larry King Live and Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher (45).
Whether he possesses media-savvy or not might be debatable; the media just loves his message. When they find a representative of Christianity (erroneously so-called) who hates fundamentalists, says that Christianity is outdated, and thinks people are foolish for believing in God, naturally they will fawn all over him like groupies to their favorite rock star.
At any rate, Spong has become quite well-known. The article says he has speculated on Mary’s virginity (45). Big deal. An ACU professor did the same thing a few years ago (“Christmas at Matthew’s House”). It just shows that if a fool receives an education, he only becomes an educated fool. Anyone who would denigrate one of the most revered (and godly) women of all time has said much more about himself than he has about her. Her reputation has stood the test of time. One must flatly reject the inspiration of the Scriptures in order to question Mary’s purity because there is no hint of a sexual scandal in the Scriptures. An angel spoke to Mary, telling her that she was highly favored before God (Luke 1:28). Spong, on the other hand, apparently listens to demons.
“The God of the biblical story has become inoperative. Theism became all but irrelevant with laws of cause and effect that governed the natural universe” (45). One wonders if God has a hearty laugh over such statements or if He weeps instead. Pharaoh was fairly confident God had become inoperative in his kingdom, also. Spong is not unlike those described by Peter who, in their vanity, said: “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4). Furthermore, theism did not become irrelevant with laws of cause and effect. Such laws are found all the way through the Bible.
There is, for example, the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2). It works like this: “If you sin, you die.” Is that statement plain enough? God ordained cause and effect laws in the spiritual realm just as He did in His physical universe. Who does Spong think set in motion those laws? He who established them can also set them aside.
Spong “thinks the discoveries of Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Freud have made belief in a personal God absurd” (45). Exactly which discovery of the facts in God’s universe by Galileo and Newton made Him absurd? The orderliness of everything only makes the demand for a designer even more compelling. Darwin didn’t “discover” anything; he theorized. Worse than that, he theorized incorrectly. Evolution remains unproven and unprovable after a century-and-a-half. What did Freud discover–that everyone’s problems are caused by sexual hang-ups? The amount of actual truth Freud discovered is infinitesimal; his theories are disputed.
The reader might wonder if the things Spong teaches are the result of some new information that has surfaced in the past 50 years as a result of our ever-expanding technology. Mark Tooley, who wrote this article, assesses Spong correctly when he describes his theology as merely “boilerplate seminary liberalism that dates back at least a century” (45). Following are a few more of Spong’s beliefs.
He thinks traditional religious people are neurotic, stupid and “immature….” “The whole Christian enterprise is tottering….” The fundamentalists will “finally go down in flames…” (46).
Apparently, Spong hangs out with Ted Turner and Jesse Ventura, although he might have picked up the “neurotic” comment from Freud. He thinks traditional religious people are stupid because they lack his spiritual insights. Probably, only really intelligent and mature people agree with him. This is a good political trick–just demonize the opposition, which is even more effective if the news media joins in.
Spong’s assessment of Christianity, present and future, reveals a colossal ignorance on his part. His own spiritual vacancy (and that of his colleagues) does not in any way imply that the rest of the country shares his views. Not everyone thinks that prayers are “adult letters to Santa Claus,” that Christ’s death for our sins is “strange, bizarre and, finally, repelling,” or that the “bloody hymns we sing in worship” reflect “threadbare concepts” that “have become grotesque” (46).
Most people who believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God do so on the basis of the evidence for it. Discerning people can recognize words of truth compared to obvious man-made religions: they know that whatever promises the Bible makes it keeps. What it teaches about abundant life is accurate (John 10:10). Millions live according to the Scriptures; they depend on God and offer Him the worship and adoration that He deserves. They are fully trusting in Jesus to save them on the day of judgment through His blood. Like Paul, we can say, “I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day” (2 Tim. 1:12).
So what should men live by–in the event that they take Spong’s advice and give up the Bible? Why, everyone should listen to him, naturally. He offers a “radical reformation” (46). All one must do is give up the belief that the Bible is the Word of God, that God exists, that Jesus atoned for our sins, that there will be a day of judgment, and in their place substitute this credo: fornication and homosexuality are all right. In the Newark diocese, from which Spong just retired, 15% of the priests “now are openly homosexual” (46). What an impact this man has had with his basic approach of: “Forget the Bible; just trust me.” Tooley comments about Spong’s success:
In 24 years the diocese has lost 42 percent of its membership, surpassing even the nearly 20 percent loss suffered by the Episcopal Church nationally during that time (46).
Spong’s approach to life in modern times is “to stop telling people they are sinners” (46). Somehow, that makes perfect sense. After all, if God is not there and “the stories of Christ’s sacrifice are ‘nonsensical,'” then it only stands to reason that we have no sin from which to be redeemed. Sexual sins are all right, and we are all probably just governed by our genetic makeup anyway, right? Obviously, Spong has drunk deeply of Freud and Darwin while sipping sparingly from the Scriptures.
Another recent article about Spong appeared in The Washington Times on March 6, 2000. This one was written by Larry Witham; he reports on three speakers at a February 24th “Church in the Third Millennium Forum” to discuss the future of Christianity (26). If Spong had his way, he would simply wish to bury it.
“You and I have inherited what I call a basic Christian myth,” Spong told several hundred people at this Forum (all references are from page 26). Spong is not satisfied to call Genesis 1 and 2 “creation hymn myths,” as one professor from ACU did; no, he has moved on to the New Testament and is referring to Christianity itself as a myth. Does he think that Christians hid in the catacombs of Rome and were put to death in the Coliseum on behalf of a myth? The arrogance of liberals knows no bounds. Without any specific facts, except their scholarly “hunches,” they deny or ignore the plain facts of history. They can assert anything without the need for such trivial things as evidence.
We have not inherited a “Christian myth”; we have inherited the Word of God, which is able to build us up and give us an inheritance among all them that are sanctified (Acts 20:32). Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). We do not deal in myths; we deal in truth (John 8:31-32; 17:17).
Spong thinks Christians should admit that “the Bible and Christian doctrine are first-century inventions now refuted by science. Most of us suspect there never was an age of miracles.” Precisely when did science prove that miracles could not exist? Did they learn that from Darwin? How would science prove that Jesus did not walk on water? All that we can prove is that we cannot do so. When did science prove that Jesus was not raised from the dead, when it was prophesied beforehand and observed by over 500 eyewitnesses? The tangible, empirical evidence is what convinced Thomas! John wrote down the evidence that we might all believe (John 20:30-31). Jesus’ doctrine, the Gospel, was revealed in the first century, but it was in the mind of God from the foundation of the earth (Eph. 1:3-6). Mortal men have never concocted anything so great!
Other bits of “wisdom” from Spong echo ideas mentioned in the other article: “Perhaps the whole idea of redemption needs to be rethought if Christianity is to survive in the 21st century.” Did he say survive? In what sense could Christianity be said to survive if the miracles are removed (the evidence for faith), the New Testament is termed a myth, and we become convinced that “the doctrine of the crucifixion portrays God as ‘rather barbaric'”? Take all of these things out of the New Testament, and its size will be diminished considerably. Spong does not seek the survival of Christianity; he seeks its destruction. His restructuring of the New Testament would be comparable to presenting Shakespeare’s MacBeth without witches, without any deaths, and without the theme of ambition. The removal of such elements would leave only unintelligible gibberish, which is exactly what would be left of the New Testament with everything removed from it that irritates Spong and a few of his Ivy League cronies.
This latest addition to Harvard’s faculty (pity the students) thinks that “Christianity is doomed if it continues affirming a supernatural God.” Is there some other kind of Deity? If God is not above the physical creation (supernatural), then he must be a product of the blind forces of evolution. In other words, God would be nothing more than a fanciful invention of man, in which case He is false. Why would anyone want the story of a fictitious God, with a fictitious Son, to survive? It would possess no value whatsoever. If Spong really believes what he teaches, he should be advocating the eradication of God, the Bible, and Jesus–except as a quaint curiosity.
Spong is not only opposed to the supernatural elements in the Scriptures; he is also opposed to their moral purity. He affirmed that the “breakup of modern Protestantism is in the cards” and that “the tripwire is sex.” What these statements mean is that people want to be free to be sexually promiscuous and, as long as Protestant “churches” continue to teach chastity, monogamy, and marital purity, they will continue to lose members. Actually, Protestant “churches” are losing members because they frequently do not stand for Biblical doctrine. Once people figure out that they can be worldly with the “church’s” blessing, they eventually see that they have little need for God since He ostensibly approves of their corrupt behavior anyway.
Few liberals would go so far as to say that “Paul was a self-hating homosexual.” Spong has as much evidence for this conclusion as anyone would for asserting that Paul died of an overdose of Hostess Twinkies. Paul condemned all sins of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21)–not just one. To accuse one who was noble enough to forego the pleasures of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of being a homosexual (contrary to his own teaching) is character assassination most foul. Spong ought to be ashamed, but his conscience is seared.
On the issue of sin, Spong avers that people are not sinful, but “incomplete and evolving.” What, pray tell, is the basis for this assessment–Darwin? Perhaps Spong could cite evidence for man’s change of character over the past 6,000 years. Although technology and knowledge have advanced, nothing indicates that human character has kept pace. Is mankind suddenly above fighting? What about the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda? What about Bosnia? What about the ghetto gangs in our own country? Television shows center around jealousy, lasciviousness, and violence; certainly, there is no spirituality there. This year’s Academy Award winner, American Beauty, marks the third year in a row that the Best Picture featured some actress’s bare bosom; the movie displays not only nudity and extreme vulgar language, but the main topic of it is sex. Apparently no one in Hollywood these days has the John Wayne philosophy, who once proclaimed at the Oscars: “I’m an actor, and I work with my clothes on.”
The Best Actress of the year went to a woman who played a woman living as a male because she was having a “sexual identity” crisis. It seems as though there is only one topic that interests society today: sex. How is that any different from Greece or Rome? How is it any different from Sodom? How is it any different from the world before the flood when every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart were “only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5)? Violence was dominant in the earth in those days, also (Gen. 6:11). Man has not changed one iota in thousands of years. God called these things SIN then, and they are sin now, Spong notwithstanding.
So what is the bishop’s concept of God? He thinks people ought to think of God as one who “is mystery and wonder beyond my ability to comprehend.” How convenient! Since he cannot comprehend Him, He can be anything Spong wants Him to be. Obviously he wants Him to approve of lust and lasciviousness: so holiness is out. Whoever God is, He cannot have the power to work miracles; so the supernatural is out. Darwin proved evolution; so creation is out. Freud disproved the concept of sin: so personal accountability and the day of judgment (not to mention justice) are out. Spong may not be bright enough to figure out that he has redefined God out of existence, that there is nothing left to believe in, and that mankind really has no need of whatever is left of Deity after he has strained out all of His infinite attributes, but those who listen to Spong are.
His mission is to destroy God, Jesus, the Bible, and Truth in the third millennium, but he will fail. In the process he will undoubtedly destroy the faith of some, which (in the judgment) he will regret having done; but he will ultimately fail, just as Satan always has. God will win in the end; His followers will be vindicated. Spong will die, just as Ingersoll did and all other infidels have; the Bible will continue to inform, inspire, and save those who have ears to hear.