Spong-John No-Pants

John Spong is a former Episcopalian bishop who writes about everything he thinks is wrong with Christianity. He has a new book out called “The Sins of Scripture.” I’m not going to read it, but I’ve read the blurbs and so here’s my review, because I know Spong well enough through other writings to know what this book says.

I read one of his earlier books, but I don’t recall the title. I do recall that the entire first chapter consisted of Spong, sounding very modern, “liberal” [in the modern sense of the term], and politically correct, denying the truth of every single tenet of the Christian Creed. I think the title of the book was something a like “Why Christianity Must Change or Die” or the like. Anyway, my reaction to it was simple: Christianity doesn’t need to change; Spong needs to find a new faith.

It’s not that I have anything against Spong. A lot of people think my response is somehow “bigoted” or “anti-intellectual” or shows that I hate Spong. Not so. He can have any faith he wants and I promise not to bother him about it. He’s also a smart guy, and that’s great, too. But Christianity without its Creed is not Christianity anymore. Taking the historical Creeds out of Christianity doesn’t “change” Christianity; it completely erases it.

Okay, so after the first chapter Spong then says we all need to be nice and work for justice. Great. Something ground-shakingly new. Oh yeah, and the Church apparently doesn’t do that. [Spong could not have been a history major, but who is?]

The new book? the full title is The Sins of Scripture : Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love. Spong is never really happy unless he’s “exposing” things.

Here’s what one of the blurbs says:

“Spong (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism), a retired Episcopal bishop and prominent spokesperson for liberal Christianity, focuses this book on "terrible texts" which have been used to justify such "sins" as overbreeding, degradation of the environment, sexism, child abuse and anti-Semitism. These biblical texts, according to Spong, are not the incontrovertible Word of God, but flawed human responses to perceived threats. An incendiary example of this is Spong's assertion that Paul was a closeted gay man whose anti-gay statements were motivated by little more than his own self-loathing. Spong does not stop there; in the course of the book he suggests that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married; that none of the supernatural events described in the Bible took place (including the resurrection); and that theism itself is a misunderstanding of God. Interestingly, readers who do not endorse Spong's radical reinterpretation of Christianity will still find much in this book they can affirm. His explanation of the roots of Christian anti-Semitism is fascinating and much less challenging to orthodoxy than many of his other claims. Unfortunately, Spong leads with his weakest section, which features a variety of poorly constructed arguments claiming, but giving inadequate evidence for, a strong causal relationship between biblical injunctions and both overpopulation and environmental problems. Nonetheless, this absorbing book has much to offer readers of all persuasions.”

Okay, this is easy.

In his new book Spong “boldly” says that everything in the Bible he doesn’t agree with is in there by mistake because of flawed human responses to God’s message. I happen to agree with him that the Bible contains errors due to human error in understanding the revelation of God, but I don’t pretend to know what they all are. Spong, of course, does. And so much so that he is actually able to psychoanalyze the Apostle Paul almost 2,000 years after the man’s death. Spong’s genius is undeniable, I’m sure he believes. Anyway, there is nothing “bold” about attacking Christianity these days. It’s actually quite fashionable. Oh, and there's nothing astounding about saying Jesus married Mary Magdalene. See The Da Vinci Code. Maybe Spong was hoping to ride that tidal wave.

So, in the end, you have historical Creedal Christianity on one side, and on the other side some sort of amorphous “Wasn’tjesusniceianity” with no Creed, no supernatural events, and no Scripture except those parts of the Christian Bible that Spong approves of.

I’ll stick with the prior, thanks.

Below is a recent photo of Rev. No-Pants