[Dialogue] Spong on the Liberal Church Movement and on Athesism

[KroegerD at aol.com]

These comments struck me as signs of hope for a very sick institutional  
church.   
Dick Kroeger 
July 19, 2006 
Free to Believe: A Voice from  the United Reformed Church of England  
Recently, while on a lecture tour of England, I was the keynote speaker  at a 
national conference of the United Reformed Church of England. This body,  the 
result of a merger within Protestantism during the last century between  
English Presbyterians and English Congregationalists, serves as leaven in the  
lump of English religious life. It has always been a small church, as the Free  
Churches are in the land of the established Church of England, claiming at its  
highest point, no more than 200,000 members. Today it is probably half that  
size. Yet it has produced great leaders like Donald Hylton, Roberta Rominger 
and  David Grosch-Miller, to say nothing of Fred Kaan, who is probably the 
premier  Christian hymn writer in the 20th century.  
This church has also spawned a vigorous movement within its liberal wing that 
 is a sign of renewed vitality. Four years ago about twenty members of this  
church gathered together to form a group of seekers who were willing to 
explore  the edges of the Christian faith. Today, this group numbers just under 500. 
 They, like their counterparts in every branch of Christianity, are 
identified as  the frontier walkers inside their part of the Christian faith. They are 
eager to  engage their congregations in a study of contemporary biblical 
scholarship and  its impact on traditional faith symbols. They are willing to 
debate the creeds,  the core doctrines of their church and the various movements 
within the  contemporary theological landscape. Yet they are still quite 
self-consciously  Christian, demonstrating that the things they seek to do can be 
done with  integrity inside a living religious system. These people are demanding 
of their  Church the freedom to confront these ideas without fear. They are 
not concerned  when traditional church voices accuse them of being faithless. 
Their commitment  to Christ is so secure, they are willing to roam outside 
traditional boxes, take  on the issues of public debate with the secular society 
and even to learn about  the other faith traditions of the world. Generally 
speaking, these are the very  things that most churches that are more interested 
in security than in truth  have not been willing to do.  
This group, who adopted "Free to Believe" as their title, has now sponsored  
four national conferences. I have been privileged to be the keynote speaker at 
 both the first and the fourth of these gatherings. Meeting this year at the  
large Hayes Conference Centre in Swanick, Derbyshire, near the literal center 
of  England, the "Free to Believe" conference attracted the largest audience 
in its  history. Because progressive Christians always tend to transcend 
denominational  structures, this conference also had registrations from the 
Methodists, the  Anglicans, the Baptists and the Roman Catholics in addition to the 
majority from  the sponsoring United Reform Church. Many of these delegates 
were ordained  clergy, the balance were active laypersons. All of them also 
tended to be  involved in England's Progressive Christian Network, chaired by the 
gifted  Anglican priest, Hugh Dawes, and his equally able wife, Jill Sandham. 
The "Free  to Believe" movement is part of a worldwide grass roots revolt 
against the  narrow theological and political interests that so deeply shape the 
current  religious scene, from the religious right in America through the 
fundamentalists  of Africa to the Vatican itself. At this conference there was 
enormous energy as  well as the sense of hope and encouragement for those who 
sometimes feel  isolated, alone and occasionally even battered by "defenders of the 
faith" who  come in both a Protestant and a Catholic form.  
The content of my lectures was drawn from my forthcoming book, "Jesus for the 
 Non-Religious" scheduled for publication in March of 2007. Among the issues 
we  discussed were: How can one separate the eternal and real God experience 
from  the traditional and warped explanations of that experience that were 
shaped by a  world view vastly different from our own? What is the place of the 
Bible in the  contemporary church once one has been freed from thinking that 
this book is in  any sense the literal, dictated words of God? What has happened 
to Christianity  in our day that it is consumed with issues of human sexuality 
about which the  Christian Church has no track record of either competence or 
expertise? When  Christianity surrenders its claims to be the only doorway 
into God or heaven,  what keeps it from sinking into a sea of total relativity? 
How can one be deeply  committed to his or her own faith path and still be 
open to the insights of the  other great religions of the world? I cannot imagine 
any of those topics taking  up much time among church people just a 
generation ago. It was a packed three  days with the people so deeply engaged that 
every meal around the tables of  eight in the great dining hall turned into a 
seminar, and every tea break (an  inevitable part of an English conference) into a 
time for animated conversation.  Even the daily evening gathering in the 
Conference Center's pub for the  traditional English "pint" proved to be a time 
for continued discussion. The  fact that this very evangelical conference center 
had its own fully stocked bar  made me know that there are differences 
between English evangelicals and  America's neo-fundamentalists.  
There is a sense of urgency about the future of the Christian Church across  
the world, particularly among those who are not evangelicals, fundamentalists 
or  traditionalists. It is created by the fact that these people see the  
conservative tide of religion rising and they know that they can never be part  of 
that. If that is what Christianity is turning into being then they wonder if  
there will be a place for them in the Christianity of tomorrow. They shudder 
at  the pronouncements by well-known evangelical spokespersons as well as by  
Benedict XVI, none of whom appear to inhabit the same world in which they 
live.  They see the rise of what might be called 'secular' biblical scholars and  
theologians who, like so many in the Jesus Seminar, are academicians with 
little  concern for what happens to institutional religion by which they feel both 
 marginalized and/or rejected. They watch as churches become mere enclaves of 
a  previous world that no longer exists in our increasingly secular society. 
Above  all a conference like this one gives those attending a chance to 
embrace the  fact that they are part of a new movement within the church that says 
no to  yesterday's understanding of Christianity but not to Christianity 
itself. Only  time will tell whether we are witnessing in this movement the birth of 
a new  reformation or just the bounce of the dead cat of organized religion.  
At the closing worship service of this conference, The Reverend Martin  
Camroux, current president of "Free to Believe" and a pastor in the United  
Reformed Church of England was the preacher. His words were so insightful and  
penetrating and summed up so well the experience of the conference that I  conclude 
this column by quoting him:  
"The simple fact is that the churches today are falling apart. Harry  Emerson 
Fosdick predicted in the 1920's that we would lose generation after  
generation of the brightest and best young people if we could not preach a  
Christianity that was intellectually credible.  
"Yet religion is not dying out. In the opinion polls 65% of English people  
still say they believe in God; 40% say they have had moments in which this God  
has been real. The large bookstores have spirituality sections that are 
filled  with books on prayer, self-help and healing. Institutional religion might 
well  be in trouble, but the spiritual search is real.  
Second, scholars know a great deal about the debates that raged in the early  
years of Christian history and the time at which they were solved. They also  
know how and when complex ecclesiastical structures were formed. So when a 
book  of the Bible reveals a calmness where once there was a raging debate or 
when  scholars see structures that were not present in early church history, 
these  things become factors in the dating process.  
"It is almost as if there is something about us that yearns for God, as if we 
 are "wired" for religion and as if the empty space inside each of us can 
only be  filled by God. St. Augustine was right, it seems, when he wrote 1,600 
years ago,  "You have made us for yourself alone and our hearts are restless 
until they find  their rest in you."  
Paul's death is also a factor in defining which of the letters attributed to  
Paul, were actually written by him. The genuine letters have to have been  
composed between the years 50-64. I Thessalonians and Galatians are thought to  
be first and second in the Pauline corpus, along with I and II Corinthians 
which  seem to be a compilation of at least four letters to the Corinthian 
church.  Romans, dated in the late 50's, is Paul's most systematic letter, but even 
here  there is a debate about the authenticity of Chapter 16. II 
Thessalonians,  Philemon and Philippians also appear to be Pauline.  
"However, none of this translates into healthy church life. A great many  
people are very suspicious of the Church. They find a significant number of our  
beliefs incredible or immoral. Twenty years ago, it was widely assumed that  
Christianity held the moral high ground. Today this is no longer the case and a 
 significant number of spiritual people find the Christianity they have  
encountered to be wanting. They say: "religion keeps people immature," or "God  is 
a male despot," or "Religion is divisive."  
"Douglas John Hall, Canada's foremost theologian, writes, "What happens to  
the churches when they are abandoned is hardly news. They become collectors of 
a  nebulous fellowship, random activism, undifferentiated spirituality, or 
simply  become a group of "nice people" who don't quite know why they are there 
but  think they ought to be."  
"Christendom is over. Churches are going to be much more marginal to society. 
 My own guess is that there will always be some who yearn for the safeties of 
 fundamentalism, some for whom Tarot cards will seem irresistible, but many 
more  will respond to an open liberal faith.  
"If theologically open churches are going to grow, they need to produce a new 
 kind of 'liberal Christian.' It's not enough for liberalism to be a kind of  
fallback position for evangelicals who have lost their faith. We need a  
liberalism that offers spirituality, worship, a way into the numinous and the  
holy. Too often liberalism is lukewarm, lackluster, laid back, without the  
capacity to stand up and make its voice heard. They live in a liberal comfort  zone 
often failing to say what they really believe. For liberal churches to  
thrive, revitalization and resurrection of genuine progressive religion must  
occur. There must be prophetic voices, prophetic witness and, yes, progressive  
politics. It's time to raise up our voices again."  
Well said, Martin! Well said!  
John Shelby Spong  
Question and Answer
With John  Shelby Spong 
B., via the Internet, writes:  
I first encountered your religious philosophy and/or beliefs watching your  
lecture on University of California Television about one year ago. I have read  
several of your books and find your thoughts to be the best and most sensible 
in  understanding the Christian faith. However, about three to four years ago 
I made  the decision to become an atheist based on reading two books by John 
A.  Henderson, "God.com" and "Fear, Faith, Fact and Fantasy."  
I kept this secret from my wife and even told her that your views made the  
most sense to me and your religious philosophy gave me hope that there might  
even be a Higher Power. However, about three months ago, I read Sam Harris -  
"The End of Faith" and since that time have felt very comfortable with being an 
 atheist. Moreover, I have taken several college level audio CD courses in  
religion and philosophy, read several books by Elaine Pagels, studied the  
findings of the Jesus Seminar, studied several essays and books by Thomas  
Sheehan, Rudolph Bultmann and Robert Funk. None of which has changed my mind.  
The point I am trying to get to is: My wife has always been a Born Again  
Christian and early in our marriage of 25 years, we attended the churches of her  
faith and those of my original faith - Lutheran. Both of my parents are  
Lutheran. The other night after a very pleasant evening out, we got into a  
discussion about going to church again and I told her I was an atheist. She  almost 
made me stop the car and let her get out because she would not be yoked  to a 
non-believer. We are still together and have tried to talk through this but  
she is having great difficulty in accepting my decision. We are scheduled to 
see  a marriage counselor that we both liked when we had some problems in our  
marriage about 10-15 years ago at her suggestion and my total agreement.  
Is there any insight or advice you might provide to help us work through this 
 situation? I do not want to be divorced much less separated. Fortunately, we 
do  not have any children. But I am deeply alarmed that she might consider  
separation because I am not a Christian. I did ask her what if I had chosen  
Islam, Jewish or even a Taoist belief what would she have done. She said, "Well, 
 at least you would believe in something."  
Dear B.,  
You did not sign your name so I have used the first initial of your email  
address to preserve your anonymity. Thank you for sharing your personal story  
with me.  
First let me say that I consider atheism a profound religious point of view  
that ought to be honored. The atheist is not saying there is no God for nobody 
 can finally make that statement. What the atheist is saying is that there is 
no  God like the one I have grown up with - that God is not capable of being 
God for  me. The word atheist means literally "no theist." Theism is the 
overwhelmingly  human definition of God perpetrated largely in the western world by 
the  Judeo-Christian faith tradition. Theism defines God as a being, 
sometimes called  the Supreme Being, supernatural in power, dwelling somewhere 
external to the  world and periodically invading the world to split the Red Sea, to 
impose the  divine will, to bless or to punish or to answer prayers. This 
definition of God  has been largely destroyed by the intellectual revolution that 
began in the 16th  century with Copernicus and continues in our day with 
discoveries of DNA, the  dimensions of space and so many other things. The theistic 
God is now largely  unemployed for everything that we once thought God did, is 
now explained with no  reference to God at all - Tsunamis, hurricanes, 
sickness, death, etc. So if  atheism means, "I do not believe in a theistic God," it 
is a religious statement  and you have much company in the modern world. Some 
in this company are  conscious that is who they are, while others are largely 
unconscious of the fact  that they have made that decision. They simply act 
it out.  
If your claim of atheism means that you know all there is to know about God  
and the world and have decided that there is no room in the universe for God  
understood in any manner, then you are as closed-minded as the most rabid  
fundamentalist.  
In regard to your wife and your marriage, other issues are clearly operating  
and seeing a counselor is a wise thing to do. Be aware of and sensitive to 
the  fact that for many people religion is a major part of their security 
system.  They cannot function without it. To disturb that security system becomes an 
 intolerable threat to the person hiding behind its walls. Only when you  
understand that will you understand how it is possible that your wife might  
leave a 25-year marriage because you can no longer live inside the boundaries of  
what you perceive the belief in God requires. So much of what we human beings  
are is beneath the level of the conscious. Most of our fears are there. When 
you  disturb that level you get surprising and most often irrational 
responses. They  are symptoms not causes. A 25-year marriage is worth working to save. 
I hope you  both will do that. I send you my hopes and best wishes.  
John Shelby Spong  
P.S. I loved Sam Harris' book, "The End of Faith" and thought it an  
appropriate critique of so much of contemporary religion. If we had more Sam  
Harris's, we might get the reformation that Christianity so desperately needs.  Jss  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060719/a3c80f82/attachment-0001.html