My blogging time has been pretty limited lately, but I’ve had a bunch of things rolling around in my head for a while now. I finished reading Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by John Shelby Spong a few weeks ago and I was left with quite a few different impressions of the book.
I was pretty excited when I started reading it.
The title itself gives me a sort-of “yes, great!” impression and Spong’s writing style was rather engaging. I had heard that Spong was a little farther from Emergent Christianity than lots of people were comfortable with, but I was really curious what he had to say. He started off with the whole “the Bible is a narrative and not a rule book” style which I totally agree with.
He went through the various sections of the Old Testament including lots of details of what biblical scholars think of the various books (time period, purpose, etc.) and while I hadn’t heard many of the details before (did things really happen or were they written as allegory and/or political/ethnic protest) nothing was truly earth shattering for me. In the last several years I’ve gotten away from thinking that everything written in the Bible had to have truly happened in order for the Bible to be true.
Then he got to the New Testament. Hmm… A couple things really stood out to me.
First, he believes that the Apostle Paul was probably a homosexual male. On the one hand, not earth shattering to me – some of the passages that he points out do make sense if you read them with that hypothesis. Maybe that was something Paul struggled with. Spong goes on to psychoanalyze Paul a little more than I’m comfortable hypothesizing for a man that lived so long ago, but again it’s all just conjecture at this point and doesn’t really effect my faith. Here’s where it gets sort-of juvenile to me though… part of Spong’s reason for believing Paul was a homosexual is the verse in Romans: “But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” Spong goes on to say that “members” is specifically translated as an arm or other limb and we all know that there’s only one male limb that is not always controlled by the mind. Umm…ok. Even in the ultra-literal camps that I’ve been a part of I’ve always understood that even they believe Paul was referring to a general sense of “not always doing what we’re supposed to do” and not specifically “a limb” like an arm or something. It just seems like at this point in the book, Spong takes up the literal cause just because it advances his agenda. Now for the juvenile part… After going through his hypothesis and discussing the whole “limb” theory, every time Spong refers to a Pauline verse later he italicizes the word “member”. I couldn’t help giggling every time I read a section where he did this because it was just so obvious that he was trying to make sure you thought about the verses in that way.
Now like I said, while I find some of his reasons lacking, Spong’s hypothesis might be true and it’s not faith-shattering to me. But the rest of the book was a bit disturbing to me. Namely, he doesn’t believe there was a bodily resurrection. It seemed like he generally believes in a spiritual resurrection and that the Apostles and others had a “Christ experience”, but it wasn’t actually a bodily resurrection.
The second disturbing things for me was the feeling that he totally discounts any supernatural occurrences in the Bible. The sense I got was that he believes it was only because people were living in a pre-technological time that they actually believed Jesus did miracles. Even the general sense of the work of the Holy Spirit seems totally discounted by Spong.
Basically, it felt like most of Spong’s beliefs fall a lot more along the lines of Gnosticism or pantheism than Christianity and it’s only because people don’t really know about Gnosticism that his beliefs are called Christian. I’m surprised that he is/was an Episcopal minister with the sway of his beliefs. Overall, it was an interesting book to read (although I skipped over some parts that started getting repetitive), but in terms of opening your eyes to how the Bible is much richer than just a rule book and/or true stories that really happened I think there are a lot of other authors that do a better job and who don’t take away some of the mystery and supernatural-ness of the Bible. I can agree that we don’t have to take the Bible literally for it to mean something and I don’t know where I stand on the continuem of how involved God was in the creation of the Bible, but I can’t let go of the feeling that all of this is much bigger than just us and this earthly life with a disembodied soul later. There has to be something bigger than us and I like how N.T. Wright says that even if each of the gospel writers was not accurate and/or each thing did not truly happen, the events left such an impression that we know SOMETHING happened – something awesome and beyond anyone’s understanding – something that effected people then and continues to transform people now.