I've just finished reading John Shelby Spong's most recent book. Jesus for the Non-Religious. In part one of the book Jack (apparently that's what his friend's call him) dismisses the birth narratives including virgin birth, the 12 disciples, the miracles and the resurrection, which is probably enough to get most evangelicals to stop reading. It was an interesting exercise reading this book that I believe is pretty much a summary of much of Spong's thoughts. Spong is the liberal theologian that evangelicals to love to hate. Seeing I think of myself as liberal evangelical it was an intersteding read to say the least.
The Book is Divided into 3 parts. Part 1 looks at the supernatural stuff aroun d Juesus and trys to seprate the myth from the reality, part 2 looks at Jesus in his jewish context and part 3 looks at what it means to be Xn with the understanding of part 1 and 2.
Whilst many people reading the openng chapters on virgin birth, the 12 disciples and the miracles might find them confronting, as Spong dismisses all of them, I had this feeling of almost relief that at least he wasn't going after anything that was central to my faith. Although inexorably linked who Jesus was and what he encouraged others to be was always more important than what he did. That is in healing a leper, it was always more important than a social outcast was brought back into the community than a miracle occuring. His arguments around the birth narratives and and the 12 disciples I found particularly persuasive. Whether Jesus was born of a virgin (Luke 1:30-35) or a young woman (Isaiah 7:14) possibly out of wedlock (Mark 6:3 - where he is called son of Mary rather than Joseph), I don't think bothers me all that much. His arguments around miracles was so so and the arguments about the resurrection were least persuasive. I just couldn't see why the disciples would invent something that so quickly became the central part of their faith.
Part of Spong's central thrust around dismissing the supernatural stuff in the gospels is that different gospels have different slants and use different events or different takes on the same event to paint a slightly different theological point. For Example: There is no passover in John's gospel that's because Jesus is the passover. The turning of the tables in the temple is the climatic final event in Mark, Mathew and Luke but the very first event in John. On the cross Jesus three different last words "it is finished", "father in your hands I place my spirit" and "Father forgive them they know not what they do" depending on what Gospel you are reading. The Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew are also good examples of these differences.
A more fundamentalist person would argue that everything in the two birth accounts happened and the gospel writers just picked and chose which events to put in their gospel. The problem is that there a many bits of the gospels that you just can't harmonize without some seriously difficult logical gymnastics. Spong on the other hand says almost everything is a literary device used to illustrate a point. The problem with with this is that almost every event in the gospels becomes a literary device to illustrate a point.
The Book is Divided into 3 parts. Part 1 looks at the supernatural stuff aroun d Juesus and trys to seprate the myth from the reality, part 2 looks at Jesus in his jewish context and part 3 looks at what it means to be Xn with the understanding of part 1 and 2.
Whilst many people reading the openng chapters on virgin birth, the 12 disciples and the miracles might find them confronting, as Spong dismisses all of them, I had this feeling of almost relief that at least he wasn't going after anything that was central to my faith. Although inexorably linked who Jesus was and what he encouraged others to be was always more important than what he did. That is in healing a leper, it was always more important than a social outcast was brought back into the community than a miracle occuring. His arguments around the birth narratives and and the 12 disciples I found particularly persuasive. Whether Jesus was born of a virgin (Luke 1:30-35) or a young woman (Isaiah 7:14) possibly out of wedlock (Mark 6:3 - where he is called son of Mary rather than Joseph), I don't think bothers me all that much. His arguments around miracles was so so and the arguments about the resurrection were least persuasive. I just couldn't see why the disciples would invent something that so quickly became the central part of their faith.
Part of Spong's central thrust around dismissing the supernatural stuff in the gospels is that different gospels have different slants and use different events or different takes on the same event to paint a slightly different theological point. For Example: There is no passover in John's gospel that's because Jesus is the passover. The turning of the tables in the temple is the climatic final event in Mark, Mathew and Luke but the very first event in John. On the cross Jesus three different last words "it is finished", "father in your hands I place my spirit" and "Father forgive them they know not what they do" depending on what Gospel you are reading. The Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew are also good examples of these differences.
A more fundamentalist person would argue that everything in the two birth accounts happened and the gospel writers just picked and chose which events to put in their gospel. The problem is that there a many bits of the gospels that you just can't harmonize without some seriously difficult logical gymnastics. Spong on the other hand says almost everything is a literary device used to illustrate a point. The problem with with this is that almost every event in the gospels becomes a literary device to illustrate a point.
Personally I think each event needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The birth narratives, I can understand the argument that this is a period of Jesus life that the writers may have known little about, Paul for example doesn't talk about it, and it is conceivable that the gospel writers added these narratives. The Resurrection on the other hand was something that was something that from as early on as we know was central to Xn theology. To argue that it was not literal is fine but I, at least, need a better explanation of what was the the resurrection experience was that the disciples had that they could only write about in this way. Spong's explanation doesn't quite cut it for me.
I have a lot of empathy for Jack Spong. He is trying to wrestle his faith into the 21st century. He is a theologian who is a product of his time and place, Growing up in a fundamentalist, racist, sexist and homophobic deep south he has grown to see Jesus and the gospels as something which condemns all of this. He may not be quite as aware as could be helpful how much he is a theologian of his time and his place This is not to say that what he has to say is not valuable any less than to say that Liberation theology should be dismissed, because of the circumstance that it came from in South America.
The Truth, about what is history and myth in the gospels, I think, lies somewhere in between Spong and a more literalistic reading of the text.
The Second part of the book Spong looks Jesus in a Jewish context. No matter what you think of Spong's conclusions in part one I thoroughly recommend this part of the book, to any regular evangelical. If you can set aside the argument over whether the events (like the miracles) were invented to give colour to the theology or whether the theology came to describe the miracles, it is still worth reading. Spong's analysis of the Jewish overtones and illusions throughout the gospels is excellent and I'd challenge any evangelical to find fault with that. It is certainly something that I will re read again with a copy of the Bible, pen and paper in hand.
In part three Spong describes what it means for him to be Xn. I wish that this part of the book had been longer and more in depth. I think almost all of what Spong said about the essence of Xy is I agree with, this part of the book is really about how we live. He describes Jesus as a human portrait of the love of God. When it comes down to it this is really what is most important. I read this book because I when I hear Jack Spong say that the church is dying, it is sexist and and doesn't have a decent grasp of Xys Jewish roots I agree with him. His resolutions I may not agree but no matter what you think the third part of the book has a beautiful resonance to it and his writing style is almost poetic reminding of the writing style of Sister Joan Chitster.
So I recommend that you read the book it won't hurt it's just words on a page. Even if like me you don't agree with everything that Jacks says their is still plenty to learn even for a hard line evangelical.
The Truth, about what is history and myth in the gospels, I think, lies somewhere in between Spong and a more literalistic reading of the text.
The Second part of the book Spong looks Jesus in a Jewish context. No matter what you think of Spong's conclusions in part one I thoroughly recommend this part of the book, to any regular evangelical. If you can set aside the argument over whether the events (like the miracles) were invented to give colour to the theology or whether the theology came to describe the miracles, it is still worth reading. Spong's analysis of the Jewish overtones and illusions throughout the gospels is excellent and I'd challenge any evangelical to find fault with that. It is certainly something that I will re read again with a copy of the Bible, pen and paper in hand.
In part three Spong describes what it means for him to be Xn. I wish that this part of the book had been longer and more in depth. I think almost all of what Spong said about the essence of Xy is I agree with, this part of the book is really about how we live. He describes Jesus as a human portrait of the love of God. When it comes down to it this is really what is most important. I read this book because I when I hear Jack Spong say that the church is dying, it is sexist and and doesn't have a decent grasp of Xys Jewish roots I agree with him. His resolutions I may not agree but no matter what you think the third part of the book has a beautiful resonance to it and his writing style is almost poetic reminding of the writing style of Sister Joan Chitster.
So I recommend that you read the book it won't hurt it's just words on a page. Even if like me you don't agree with everything that Jacks says their is still plenty to learn even for a hard line evangelical.
1 comment:
You've piqued my interest, too, Chris.
Post a Comment