Something Imaginative

Bishop Spong : Removing the image of the Divine Rescuer

In his book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, Bishop John Shelby Spong outlines many of the problems which he sees in modern-day Christianity. Though I agree with the statement, I’m not sure that I agree with his conclusions. Bishop Spong seems to want to remove the Theistic aspect from Christianity, which while I can see much good in his approach, I think the removal of Theism is currently unnecessary. That said, I very much agree that we should re-examine some of the baggage of Christianity with the full weight of modern theology, and strive to recover and reshape Christianity in a way that not only reflects our modern time, but also the beauty of the message of Christ.



In the book, Bishop Spong argues for the removal of the image of Jesus as a divine rescuer. This “Dead Wood” image, he feels falls too easily from the preachers lips, and has become nothing but empty homily to an assumed Theology of Original Sin which hangs around the neck of Christianity like mill stone, and will eventually drag Christianity down to it’s death.

Bishop Spong explores the story of Adam and Eve as the parents of Humanity, and how their falls and expulsion from the Garden of Eden has begun to unravel with the Darwinian idea of Evolution. A thinking person cannot, he argues, accept Darwinism, and yet still want to claim Adam and Eve as their ancestor. The fallness of Adam and Eve, so apparent in the first divine question to Humanity after the act of eating the forbidden fruit, showed Human’s tendency to repeat this original failing. As Adam and Even hid from God, so do we. As Adam and Eve passed the blame, so do we. Bishop Spong sees this story as having less of an effect in it’s traditional Augustinian formulation as they are not biologically related to us. How, then, can the Original Sin be passed down to us by the very human act of Sex? Even when this story is viewed as an Allegory, as the story being an encapsulation of the Human condition, it still successfully encapsulates being human as being sinful. This rather skilful manipulation means that it was possible to enfuse people with a sense of Guilt. A sense of guilt for simply being. For loving someone. For wanting to know someone in every sense of the word. Compelled by our desire for love, we were also compelled to feel guilty for it.

God for the ancients was distant. People had to go to Him or Her. They were to be found in temples, or the high-places. They were to be found in the places where there was thin separation between this world and their world, where ever that might be. If you wanted their attention, you must go to them. However, for the Jews, to come before God you would need to be perfect, pure, lest when his light fall on you and burn away your sin, it burns you away, too. An elaborate system was set up to help people achieve freedom from these impurities. It was thought that if the Law could be kept perfectly by one person for 24 hours, then it would be possible to roll back the stain of the Fall. It would be possible to redeem mankind, and allow us to stand, once again, side by side with God. The entire Jewish world, then, was calling out for a redeemer.

Prophet after prophet came to call Israel back when she had strayed too far, but like many great men before and since, they were often ignored in their time, and were persecuted for their words. Well, no-one likes being told off when they know their doing wrong, do they?

Into this cultural milieu steps the story of Jesus of Nazareth. An itinerant Rabbi who was some-how different from all the other itinerant Rabbi, all the other Messiahs of the time. Bishop Spong sees the notion of a rescuer as being outdated, for he doesn’t see it as necessary. As we have learnt from Darwinism, Creation is not finished, we are still evolving, so the story of Adam and Even must be re-examined, and the fall questioned.

This radical claim, the notion that there is no need for a divine Rescuer, that there is no need for Salvation is likely to set the average Christian into a flat spin. So used are we to such images that we are unlikely to be able to conceive, of Christ as anything other than Saviour, even if we have, in some way, silently forgotten or ignored the notion of Original Sin finding it distasteful, and out of step with our modern ideas of the beauty of love.

What is left, then, of the image of Jesus if we do not need a saviour? Is there anything left of that ancient idea that might rescue Jesus still as the theistic Son of God? Bishop Spong doesn’t think so, and wants to try to craft a new image of Jesus as the Spirit-Man. A man in which the inner Spirit in us has reached a new hight. He explores the fact that he has experienced Christ, and has found time after time that Christ has helped him gain new heights. He also explores the way in which the word spirit is dotted throughout the New Testament writings, and sees in them people struggling with the language of spirit while they search for their new experience in the reality of Christ.

There is much to be said for the new image. The exploration of Spirit, especially as it is experienced in the reality of the lives of the faithful down the ages. However, I feel that he goes too far in wanting to remove the theistic aspect. I see that his image could very well include a notion of Theism when explored in the light of the current line of thought about the divinity of the Spirit itself. I would also not want to break the link, theologically, between Jesus as being Divine, and in some way undefinable, God.

Bishop Spong explores the issues in his book with deftness, and a line of thought that shows many years wrestling with the problems of Christian Dogma. His call for another reformation in Christian thought, despite my disagreements with his conclusions, should be heard loud and clear. The Theological Debate about the nature of the atonement, and the conclusions of Original Sin should be heard and they should resound and unsettle the ancient annals of Theology.

God is not Dead. Humanity has not Killed him. God is still trying to talk to us. The time of the prophets may be over, but prophetic voices still call on us to find our way back to God.

~BX

Posted

in

,

by

BlackXanthus

Tags:

, , , , , , , , ,

Comments

4 responses to “Bishop Spong : Removing the image of the Divine Rescuer”

  1. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    I was just reading a primer on chinese philosophy. There was a debate on whether human nature was good or bad. Why do people commit sin? Is it so much to say that part of our nature leads us into sin? Thats what the original sin story is about :anthrodicy.

    Two points regarding the attempt to blame science for your heresy. One. as a matter of fact, there was an original couple We can trace the whole human race back a single mother.

    and second, you say that god as a creator is superseded by the fact that creation isnt finished. Thats like saying a man isnt a baker because the bread is still baking.

  2. BlackXanthus Avatar
    BlackXanthus

    Welcome to the Blog Jimmy.

    There is no blame of Science. Evolution is a fact, it’s more that Christianity needs to find a new way of dealing with it.

    To answer your two points. First, we can’t trace humans back to a single mother, what you have there is a mis-understanding of Evolution. You end up with a chicken-and-egg situation in finding the single “mother” who would be the mother of the human race. We also cannot trace to that single mother, as we have no records that stretch that far back.

    Second, my statement is that if Creation is not finished, then the fall must be re-examined, which seems to me to be a fairly sensible approach.

    Chinese Philosophy may indeed state that part of our nature leads us into sin, but our current theological understanding of Sin is understood in the way of a curse from God, handed down to us from our parents. That is not the action of a loving God, nor is it the action of a Just God. Why should we be condemned for actions not our own? Why should we stand before God condemned through no fault of our own? Infact, you could say that God there is setting us up to fail. If our very natures lead us into Sin, then we are likely to Sin. We have been designed to Sin. We struggle our entire lives and never be worthy of God, because of the playing field that *he* gave us. That is why I believe, as Bishop Spong does, that this notion needs to be re-examined Theologicall. I would be interested in hearing your theological response.

    ~BX

  3. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    First, I would like to say that typing into a short rectangle makes it harder to compose.

    It’s only philosophers who are troubled by the chicken and egg scenario. Biologists have no trouble tracing the evolution of chickens.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

    The fall is of course a myth, And theodicy is an unanswerable mystery.

    However , we are not innocent, we sin. And these inclinations to sin seem built in. Lust, Gluttony, Envy, et al. They are not metaphysical, or even theological. We can see them in real life. So whatever theology we embrace, we cannot deny that at least part of human nature is our propensity for sin.

    Why we fell isnt as important as the fact that we have fallen. That we find ourselves struggingly with sin. That we eat too much when we should eat less. That we yell at people when we should talk calmly.

    Im not really certain why evolution changes anything. Its a process that in science has no final causes, but in theology easily can. All you have to do is say man evolved because god willed it.

    The last part is troubling. But how do we know that we have displeased God. or that we have failed him. Certainly I see the opposite problem in christianity, that all sins are equal, and automatically forgiven upon asking. That seems to lead to a moral nihilism, where rape is equal to lying to your mother.

  4. BlackXanthus Avatar
    BlackXanthus

    Jimmy,

    I shall look into making the box bigger, but that might take some time.

    Jimmy, I will have to confess I learned something from your link. Though your use of it was not exactly what you implied. We are, DNA wise, decended from a single woman living thousands and thousands of years ago. She was not, however, the First Woman. She had a mother, and sisters, and brothers. She just had a trait that was strong enough to survive down the lines. Now, I agree, that’s pretty profound, and I’ve yet to do anything sensible with that information.

    We may indeed not be innocent, however, that does not mean that we are “stained” by the sins of Adam and Eve. We, each of us, fall all by ourselves. We each of us get seduced at some time by the power of Sin. This is a small change, but vitally important. It allows for God to be in Evolution, it allows for Gods hand to still be shaping creation (as we believe he does), which would make no sense if Creation itself had fallen; why would God still be guiding a fallen creation?

    I would also agree that we have tended to say “all sins are equal”. I think the aim is not to say that the Murder is the same as lying, but rather that lying is the same as Murder; ie. that a Sin is terrible in the sight of God, it removes your humanity, and injures the humanity of whomever you lied too. However, this language doesn’t hold up in Modern Day thought, and your right is in need of being re-visited. It needs to be done, however, in a way that still impresses the importance of avoiding the small sins as well, especially those that deminishes others.

    Thanks,

    ~BX

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.