[Dialogue] {Spam?} spong 10-3-07

[KroegerD at aol.com]

October 3, 2007 
Unexpected Serendipities from  Australia  

My lecture tour of Australia apparently tapped into a spiritual hunger that  
seems to be omni-present in that land. Book store lecture events in Sydney,  
Melbourne, Malvern, Frankston and Adelaide drew standing room only crowds that  
were limited only by the size of the bookstore. Some of them, in Sydney,  
Frankston and Adelaide, seeing the level of interest, booked public halls or  
public libraries as the venue for the signing events. There the crowds, who were  
required to buy tickets to gain admission to these events, ranged between 350 
 and 400 people. Non book store public lectures held either in churches or 
civic  halls drew over 1,000 people in Sydney, over 700 in Melbourne and 
Adelaide, over  500 in Canberra over 400 in Newcastle and 176 in little Rockhampton.. 
Copies of  Jesus for the Non-Religious actually sold out at three of the 
public lectures as  Harper Collins, Australia, rushed to additional printings.  
Much of the stimulation for these crowds and for the media attention that I  
received from television, radio, newspapers and magazines was precipitated by  
the response of local "Christian" leaders. The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, 
a  well known ultra-fundamentalist, evangelical man, who still will not 
ordain  women and appears to loathe homosexual people, issued a ban on my speaking 
at  any Anglican church in this Archdiocese. It was an empty gesture since I 
had no  plans to speak there anyway. I have never spoken at a venue to which I 
was not  invited. It was also not surprising since this Sydney Diocese has 
treated me in  a similar manner every time I have come to Australia. Given his 
reputation for  such things as calling Roman Catholics "not part of the 
Christian Church," all  his negativity did was to awaken the secular society of 
Australia to the fact  that something new might be happening in Christianity that 
was different from  that closed-minded attitude which they had rejected years 
ago. Another Anglican  Archbishop, this time in Adelaide, wrote a letter to all 
his clergy urging them  to boycott my public events and castigating those in 
non-Anglican churches who  had invited me to lecture there. That received less 
attention, but was publicly  noted none the less. The Bishop of Tasmania, a 
Sydney acolyte, rather  pathetically entered the protest by saying his meek "me 
too." Several Uniting  pastors from that church's evangelical wing also joined 
in the fray. The effect  of all this was that Christianity began to be 
debated publicly throughout the  Australian nation. Secular magazines, including a 
"Men's Magazine," that have  never covered me before did stories. The National 
Jesuit Magazine interviewed me  for two hours in what might have been the most 
astute and engaging interview I  have ever had. The evangelical church press 
turned to its theologians to dismiss  my message as "old hat," which "has been 
dealt with years ago" by evangelical  propagandists. If that were so, I 
wondered, why they were so upset. It was  amusing to read their arguments. Biblical 
literalists regularly quote the Bible  to prove that the Bible is true and 
now in these articles evangelical writers  were quoting evangelical authors to 
prove that the evangelical point of view was  correct. They seem not to 
recognize the circularity of their arguments,  revealing a rather threatened 
mentality, but little more.  
Negativity, however, was not the universal response even from religious  
leaders. The primate of the Anglican Church in Australia, who is also the  
Archbishop of Brisbane, hosted a dinner party in our honor with a group of his  
diocesan leaders, and invited me to preach at his Cathedral's two Sunday  services, 
both of which drew congregations double the norm. The recently retired  
Archbishop of Adelaide and his wife had us to dinner with two of their friends  in 
their home where we engaged in table discussions of such depth and  
significance about God, Christ and the meaning of life after death that these  
conversations will forever stand out in my memory. I received cordial greetings  from 
the Bishops of Canberra and Newcastle and from numerous clergy across the  
nation. The irrational fear from frightened traditionalists served well to  
advertise that mine was a different message and helped to lift the portrait that  I 
call "Jesus for the Non-Religious" into public consciousness. Since I think of 
 myself as a missionary for this new Christianity, in which I deeply believe, 
I  welcomed these responses because they wakened in the members of the church 
 alumni association a new and potentially compelling vision. Three deeply  
touching Australian experiences served to illustrate this point powerfully.  
The first one happened on our last day in Sydney when an e-mail followed by a 
 telephone call requested our presence, if possible, at a private dinner. We 
do  not get many invitations for private dinners while on a book tour and this 
one  was intriguing. Our potential host, someone I had never met, was a 
person whose  name was immediately recognizable in Australia's political, social 
and business  circles. With no idea why this man was eager to meet us, we 
accepted for a late  dinner following a final scheduled bookstore event. Our host 
sent a car to pick  us up at the bookstore and to take us to his home where he, 
his wife and two  friends were gathered for this dinner party. Soon this man 
told us his reason  for seeking us out. He had not been inside a church for 
years, having long ago  dismissed as irrelevant and filled with nonsensical 
appeals to magic, the  Christianity to which he had been introduced early in his 
life. Then he read the  newspaper stories about the angry and threatened 
evangelicals. It was that kind  of closed-minded, anti-intellectual religion that my 
host had decided had no  further value for him. This attack, however, opened 
up the possibility that  there might be another way to view Christianity to 
which he had never been  introduced. He purchased my book, read it and, as he 
said to me, "You have  destabilized my atheism." We talked that night for a 
couple of hours. It was a  rich and meaningful conversation. In an e-mail to me 
several days later he  wrote: "What I hoped for in our meeting was to learn as a 
non-believer about  Jesus, liberated from the mummifying encrustations of the 
centuries. That is  what I see you doing and no one else is doing it in the 
same way." He went on to  express amazement at those who want to exercise 
thought control "lest the  faithful be contaminated by ideas that might force them 
to think." Next, he  suggested, they will ban books and then perhaps even 
sponsor an event in which  "your books might be publicly burned" A conversation has 
begun in this man's  life. I have no idea where it will lead, but his 
response is exactly what I hope  my writing creates.  
The second adventure occurred in the Australian Broadcasting Company studio  
in Melbourne, to which I went so often that I became friends with the  
receptionist. On one of these trips I was coming down the stairs from an  interview 
when I came face to face with a man, about 40, who was on his way up  the 
stairs. He looked up and stopped. "I know you," he said, "You're Bishop  Spong." I s
aid yes and extended my hand to shake his. He gave me his name and  then 
proceeded to tell me his story. "I was raised in the church in Sydney, but  after 
I got to be a teenager none of the things they said made much sense to me.  
Their talk was about sin, sacrifice and blood and things like 'Jesus died for my 
 sins.' I found it so strange that I just gave it all up. You have brought me 
 back into Christianity and I want to thank you for that." I was touched by 
this  man's words and even more by his gentle spirit. I shudder at the number 
of  people who feel repelled by the public face of religion, who think that  
Christianity is identified with religious anger, prejudice and a narrow,  
anti-intellectual imperialism.  
The third vignette occurred in Canberra following a lecture at Albert Hall.  
While I was signing books I noticed a young man meandering for some time near  
the end of the line. When the last book was signed and the crowd gone, that 
man  came to my table, knelt on one knee and began to talk with me. It had the  
quality of formal confession. He was indeed at the point of tears. "I want 
you  to know," he began, "you and your books have saved my life." Recognizing 
the  depth of feelings carried by these words, I invited him to tell me his 
story.  
Out poured the account of a young gay man who had been told by his  
evangelical church that homosexuality was a sin that God condemned and that he  must 
make a Herculean effort to overcome this moral depravity by turning to God  and 
praying fervently to change. When "cure" did not come, he was told it was  his 
fault. His faith was inadequate or his prayers were not fervent enough. He  
was in despair and depression. He said that he had begun to understand why the  
suicide rate among young gay men was three times as high as among 
heterosexual  men. At some point in his dark night of the soul, he came upon my books, 
which  told him that homosexuality is not abnormal, but minority, that one 
cannot be  "cured" if one is not sick, that self-acceptance was the beginning of 
wholeness  and that neither God nor the scriptures condemn sexuality that is 
whole, normal  and self-giving. The fact that these books were written by a 
Christian bishop  was terribly important to him, for it presented him with a 
Christianity about  which he had never heard. He had learned that one cannot repent 
for what one is.   
This gay man was finally hearing the gospel of acceptance and it was as if  
scales fell from his eyes when he began to see a Christianity that he had never 
 seen before. I introduced him to the minister of a local church where gay 
and  lesbian people are welcomed openly and where he will be safe and loved.  
People ask why I am so impatient with religious structures and why I confront 
 so relentlessly Christian prejudices. The answer is present in these three  
stories of lives diminished by traditional religion. These people are the ones 
 for whom I write, and they reflect the reality for which I live.  
John Shelby Spong  
_Note  from the Editor: Bishop Spong's new book is available now at 
bookstores  everywhere and by clicking here!_ 
(http://astore.amazon.com/bishopspong-20/detail/0060762071/104-6221748-5882304)   
Question and Answer
With John  Shelby Spong 
Edward R. Dick from Houston wrote:  
I have been reading your books and weekly Internet essays for a long time. I  
even had the chance to meet you when you lectured in Houston, and I attended  
other lectures you gave here, all of which have enriched me. Here is what 
lies  heavy on my heart now: It occurs to me that the Episcopal Church has not  
heretofore established a rule (I do not know if “rule” is the correct term) 
that  gays and lesbians can’t marry one another, or a rule that would prevent a 
gay or  lesbian person from becoming a priest or bishop. Otherwise, why are 
certain  bishops trying to get these rules carved in stone in an either/or way? 
It also  occurs to me that those who favor these rules are the ones who are 
breaking away  from those who do not favor them and/or who have blessed the 
marriages and  appointed the bishop. What comes to mind is the cause of the first 
schism in the  Church, between Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. That 
came about when  one side, the Romans, acted without following established 
practice, which was  that all decisions must be made by unanimous consent of the 
bishops. The debate  at that time was about whether the Holy Spirit came from 
the Father or from the  Father and the Son (the filioque clause). Rome, not 
Constantinople, caused this  schism, at least according to what my Orthodox 
friends told me when my wife and  I took the pilgrimage to Russia in 1988 to 
celebrate the millennium of  Christianity in Russia. It’s ironic that the ones who 
do not wish to break away  from the others are the ones being blamed (and 
cursed, I assume) for creating  the threat of schism in out time. I guess they 
are doing this so they can claim  the properties owned by the Church and be in 
the position to force the departure  of the “dissenters.” In view of this, I 
urge the ones who do not favor the new  rules not to take a defensive attitude 
in this affair, but, instead, continue to  open their doors, minds, and hearts 
to those who do, with the hope that all will  realize that it is Christ’s 
Church. Before I end this message, I want to ask a  question about the deadline. 
Who gave any bishop the authority to set a deadline  on another bishop for the 
settlement of any issue that confronts the Church? To  me, this is another 
example of the anarchy mindset that has befallen our  government and now our 
Church. Thank you for your efforts in support of those  who others want to 
marginalize.  
Dear Edward,  
Thank you for your letter. You have analyzed the situation in the Episcopal  
Church and the Anglican Communion exactly right. The facts are that there has  
never been a canonical prohibition against gay marriages or gay ordination 
made  by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in its entire history. 
There  is no other authority in this Church that can do so according to our 
Canons or  laws.  
The idea that an unelected advisory body called “the Primates” who represent 
 no one other than themselves has any authority over any part of this Church  
borders on absurdity. The Anglican Church is hierarchical, but only up to the 
 national level. It is in fact a communion of national churches. The 
authority in  every national body is the Synod or National gathering of the 
representatives of  that national body.  
The Archbishop of Canterbury, who is not elected by anyone but is rather an  
appointee of the British Prime Minister and the Queen, has authority only in 
the  Church of England. He is the symbolic leader of the Anglican Communion, 
but not  a figure within any part of that Communion outside of England, and that 
includes  Wales and Scotland!  
There is much positioning in the Anglican Church today. I regard it as much  
ado about nothing. I believe my church will weather this storm by doing 
nothing  other than continuing to bear witness to the fact that God’s love is not  
limited.  
John Shelby Spong 



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20071005/cfc8909c/attachment-0001.html