Gurdur

Yeah, well, I think Polycarp knows nothing about the actual state of royalties, and as for Polycarp's grasp of logic, his whinging personal attacks display little evidence.....

lpetrich

I wonder if Photocrat considers Earl Doherty's say-so a strong argument for the view that Jesus Christ is a myth. However, ED offers arguments: <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.com" target="_blank">http://www.jesuspuzzle.com</a>

Changing the rules in the middle of the game. It's easy to demonstrate some hypothesis by claiming that the usual rules of hypothesis-testing do not apply.

Metacrockianity. Sheesh.

Check what I'd written in other threads on that subject for my response, such as some threads in "Existence of God(s)". In summary, Metacrockianity depends on a very shallow understanding of comparative religion and religion in general, and it ignores neurological hypothesis for mystical experiences.

However, the same skepticism can be directed to Photocrat's favorite miracles, though their nature does make understanding them much more difficult. Recovery from various diseases is much less well-understood than porous pottery.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur: So we've got your personal opinion, but no facts.

Gurdur,

Someone who has published as many high-selling books as Spong has over an extended period of time will make decent royalties. This is assuming he has an arrangement similar to most writers. Yes, I do know a few people in the business, but I wouldn’t claim to be an expert. His books sell very well, and I don’t know why you’re disputing this.

I will retract anything I’ve said that implies Spong is greedy. I was outta line if my statement gave such an implication. My apologies for doing that are sincere. I stand by my other criticisms: his seeming hypocrisy over church hierarchy, and his unrealistic expectations of an entire change of beliefs for a religion.

Let me add something in this regard of which I should probably spell out clearly because I don’t think you understood the full implications of what I said previously about his hypocrisy. When bishops are sworn in, they promise to defend historic Christianity (bodily resurrection, deity of Christ, miracles of Christ, etc). Spong now denies almost every single one of these doctrines he pledged to defend when he was sworn into the office he claims to now loath. He retired last year, so the point is now moot. However he spent at least 10-20 years promoting views directly contrary to the ones he promised to defend as a bishop.

In addition to proudly wearing a label he claims is wrong-headed, he broke his promises and failed to step down from his position. It would be comparable to the President of the United States trying to persuade all of the members of Congress that nearly every aspect of the Constitution is wrong and should be changed. You don’t swear to uphold the Constitution and then try to change every article in it after you’re sworn into office. Why would a person do such a thing? If a president did that he’d either be accused of deliberately misrepresenting his views to gain office, or as hypocritical for failing to step down from the office he swore to uphold. Spong is guilty of the same thing.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Toto

In defense of Spong, yes, he has redefined Christianity. But, like most leaders, he has figured out which way the crowd is moving and is jumping in front of it. Most intelligent people in this society just don't believe in miracles or fairy tales or Santa, and they only say they believe in god because they have redefined god to be some vague concept of goodness.

So Spong and other liberals can resign from the church and leave all of its assets and historical continuity to rabid fundamentalists who are out of step with most Christians, or they can try to make Christianity a living institution. Spong chose the latter route. I wish him well.

Bill Snedden

I don't believe that the case is as simple as you make it appear. The statement to which candidates for the episcopate in the U.S. Episcopal church must agree is as follows:

As you can see, there's no mention here of "historic Christianity." Nothing that Spong has said or preached is in outright contradiction with the Old or New Testament. His interpretation of its meaning is certainly not orthodox, but it's not completely outside of the range of possibilities for liberal Christianity.

Moreover, as was demonstrated during the heresy trial of Bishop Righter, there is simply no one official "doctrine and discipline" of the Episcopal church. While the constitution and canons contain many references to "doctrine and discipline", there is nowhere it is to be found officially defined. I find it especially interesting to find that the canons concerned with "Ecclesiastical discipline" contain no instructions on how alleged contradictory teachings are to be evaluated. How then can Bishop Spong be guilty of failing to conform to something that doesn't actually exist?

The fact is that the Episcopal church, while nominally traditional, has very few official "doctrines", most, if not all, dealing with procedural matters (matrimony, holy orders, etc).

The best argument you could make would be that some of his statements could be interpreted as violating the letter of the Creed. However, as Spong himself has said on several occasions that he still subscribes to the Creed, albeit in a non-orthodox sense, I don't think even that argument really gets very far.

I suppose in some sense that this is true. However, I think it depends upon which one believes to be more important: the letter or the spirit of the law.

Proponents of a constitutional amendment making it a crime to burn an American flag would probably make the same type of argument as you have, above. However, the fact remains that such an amendment is the antithesis of all for which the Constitution stands.

Institutions, be they religious or secular, are founded upon ideals, not words. The meaning of words often changes over time. Are we required to swear allegiance to words over values?

Bishops and presidents are, above all, leaders. But people don't need leaders to show them places they've already been; they need leaders to help them find those places they couldn't have found by themselves.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Pantera

A shame the Bible didn't come with a similar disclaimer. It could have saved a lot of people a lot of bother.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden: I suppose in some sense that this is true. However, I think it depends upon which one believes to be more important: the letter or the spirit of the law.

First, do you seriously believe Spong could, in good conscience, affirm the statement you cited? Maybe if he were to completely twist the intent of it’s writers. For example, this is a quote from the inside flap (supposedly from the book itself) of Spong’s latest book entitled “A New Christianity for a New World”:

“The Church of tomorrow must be able to ‘incorporate all of our reality. It must be able to allow God and Satan to come together in each of us… It must unite Christ with Antichrist, Jesus with Judas, male with female, heterosexual with homosexual.”

To say that such a statement is in conformity with the doctrine of the Episcopal Church is preposterous. Uniting Christ with Antichrist in each of us ?!?! Come on…


Second, you failed to mention all of the other reasons for which a bishop can be held accountable. The clear implication of the items below is that bishops are expected to adhere to the teachings of the Book of Common Prayer, among other things. Do you seriously think Spong adheres to those teachings? Here are the listings under Title IV, Canon 1 which state:

Sec. 1. A Bishop, Priest, or Deacon of this Church shall be liable to Presentment and Trial for the following offenses, viz.:.
a. Crime.
b. Immorality
c. Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church.
d. Violation of the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer
e. Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the General Convention
f. Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the Diocese in which the person is canonically resident.
g. Violation of the Constitution or Canons of a Diocese of this Church wherein the person may have been located temporarily.
h. Any act which involves a violation of Ordination vows

Bill Snedden

Once again: official Episcopal "doctrine" is somewhat problematic. Exactly what constitues it has been a matter of no little argument. There is no broad agreement on what it is. Therefore, there can be no statements that either conform or fail to conform to something that doesn't really exist. That's my point.

Further, if "Christ" and "Antichrist" are understood to be merely words that reflect an imperfect understanding of the ideals upon which Christianity is based, I see no necessary problem with Spong's statement.

I didn't "fail" to mention them, they're simply not relevant.

There are no "doctrinal" teachings, as such, in the BCP. It is a collection of forms of worship, the lectionary, and prayers as well as certain historical documents of the church. The only major "doctrinal teaching" therein would be the Creeds, and I've already dealt with that.

The only other possible teaching/doctrinal document in the BCP would be the Bishop's statement from the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (1886). That statement is essentially the same as the Bishop's oath:

In fact, it is this statement, and no other, that was identified by the court in the Righter trial to constitute Episcopal "core doctrine".

As for the "other" reasons:

a) Spong has not been charged with comitting, nor has any evidence been presented that committed, any crime.
b) Spong has neither been charged with committing, nor has any evidence been presented that he committed, any immorality.
c) There is no "doctrine" of the Episcopal church (in terms of orthodox beliefs) to which any of Spong's "teachings" might be found contrary.
d) Spong has neither been charged with violating, nor has any evidence been presented that he violated, any rubrics of the BCP (rubrics are rules of procedure, NOT doctrine. There is nothing labeled as doctrine in the BCP.)
e,f,g,h) Similarly to a, b, & d.

The problem with c), and your entire "case" against Spong, is that, unlike the RC church, or many other protestant churches, the Episcopal church has no official articles of faith. There is no official "creed" to which one must subscribe in order to be Episcopalian other than the Constitution and Canons and they don't spell out any such thing. Make of that what you will, but it doesn't change the fact that there just isn't any official doctrine and it's a huge flaw in the Canon to refer to "doctrinal contradictions" when it's nearly impossible by definition for any such things to exist.

As the presenters found to their ultimate dismay in the Righter trial, proving what is and is not Episcopal "doctrine" simply isn't an open and shut case. The very foundations of the Anglican denomination rest in the rejection of authority. It would seem that "articles of faith" (other than the creeds) simply fell by that wayside.

Besides, I really think that you are confusing the letter of the law with the spirit of it. Spong clearly loves the Christian church. He loves his vision of Christianity and the "God of non-theism". You can argue left and right that he's wrong and you'll probably be able to make a lot of very good points. However, I just don't think it's a clear-cut issue of hypocrisy.

Finally, two things. One, I do have to say that were I in Spong's place I would have resigned my position. Having read a couple of his books (esp. Why Christianity Must Change or Die), I would have been (was) unable to reconcile the beliefs he espouses with the Christian faith as expressed in the creed. But that's my interpretation of the creed; obviously not his.

And Two, my whole point in posting a response was merely to point out that to many (including myself), the issues do not appear as clear-cut as you (Polycarp) seem to feel they are. I don't want to debate the issue (read: this is my last posting on this topic), and of course, you're free to disagree. I just wanted to provide other readers with what I felt was "the bigger picture."

I hope I didn't offend; that wasn't my purpose.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden: Finally, two things. One, I do have to say that were I in Spong's place I would have resigned my position. Having read a couple of his books (esp. Why Christianity Must Change or Die), I would have been (was) unable to reconcile the beliefs he espouses with the Christian faith as expressed in the creed. But that's my interpretation of the creed; obviously not his.

Exactly my point. We agree on this, and I think most who think through the issue would reach the same conclusion we did. This is why I cannot see how Spong could claim to have reconciled these two things in good conscience.

Quote:

And Two, my whole point in posting a response was merely to point out that to many (including myself), the issues do not appear as clear-cut as you (Polycarp) seem to feel they are. I don't want to debate the issue (read: this is my last posting on this topic), and of course, you're free to disagree. I just wanted to provide other readers with what I felt was "the bigger picture." I hope I didn't offend; that wasn't my purpose.

No, you haven’t offended me at all. I guess I’m just a little confused when you say that you agree with me regarding the view that Spong should have resigned. Oh well, thanks for the friendly discussion.

Defiant Heretic

Extraordinary Claim:
The purple space cows are going to take over the world and force us to listen to disco records if we don't start eating more pork products.

Not So Extraordinary Evidence:
I had a dream in which this was prophesized.
Also, it bears a striking resemblance to several Far Side comics.

Is this a convincing argument?
Judge for yourself.

Then make the following changes to the argument:

• Change "The purple space cows" to "Jesus"
• Change "force us to listen to disco records" to "send us to Hell"
• Change "eating more pork products" to "praying more (or thinking less)"
• Change "Far Side comics" to "Bible verses"

Do these changes make the argument more convincing?
If so, then how?