(30 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...I was very sorry to learn last month that John Shelby Spong died (Sept. 12, 2021; age 90). Many of you know who he was; for those who don’t: he was one of the most important spokespersons of our generation for a critical understanding of the Bible for the general public, in particular for Christians. He himself was a Christian. In fact, for many years he was a bishop in the Episcopal church (bishop of Newark NJ from 1979-2000).
Even though Spong never left the Christian faith, he certainly had a rigorously historical understanding of the faith and he spent many years writing influential books and lecturing around the world to proclaim it. He was not well-loved among traditional Christians, and was openly declared a heretic by other church leaders. That was because his historical studies led him to realize that the Bible cannot be interpreted as the literal, historical truth.
Some other Christian bishops found his views dangerous and many people today, both Christian and non-Christian, do not understand how a real Christian can have a seriously critical view of the Bible and (as he did) deny the literal virgin birth of Jesus, his pre-existence, and his physical resurrection. But Spong did deny these views and insisted that other Christians needed to do so as well if they wanted to live and think as modern, educated, rational people and yet still be followers of Jesus. He explained why in his many books and myriad lectures.
It really does seem weird to some people that you can be a Christian without believing the literal truth of the Bible and without accepting the traditional doctrines of the faith. But that is because the fundamentalists of the world have succeeded spectacularly in their mission of defining what Christianity is.
Christian fundamentalists have convinced everyone – not just fellow fundamentalists, but nearly everyone, including atheists, even highly outspoken atheists who write books about religion – that Christianity IS fundamentalism, and that there is no way to be a Christian if you realize there are contradictions in the Bible, historical errors, and radically different views from one New Testament author to another. Or if you recognize that the Bible came into a single canon of Scripture through historical circumstances, not divine intervention, or that the doctrines of the church were long much debated and uncertain, and that different beliefs could just as easily have emerged as “orthodox.”
Spong would have none of it. You don’t have to employ critical thinking in every *other* area of your life — accepting what science knows when you go the dentist or look up at the stars – and then lock away your brain when it comes to what you *believe*. You should not be rational except when it comes to what, ultimately, is most important to you – your understanding of yourself in relation to the world. Accepting religious views formulated 2000 years ago is like accepting ancient understandings of astronomy and anatomy.
But doesn’t being a Christian MEAN accepting views formulated 2000 years ago? Well, does being an astronomer mean accepting that the universe revolves around the earth?
If you’re interested in seeing how Spong thinks about the Bible, and traditional doctrines, and what it actually does mean to be a follower of Jesus in our day and age, check out some of his important books on the topic from the past thirty years
- Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, 1991.
- Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus, 1992.
- Resurrection: Myth or Reality? A Bishop’s Search for the Origins of Christianity, 1994.
- Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile, 1999
- Here I Stand: My Struggle for a Christianity of Integrity, Love and Equality, 2001
- God in Us: A Case for Christian Humanism (with Anthony Freeman), 2002
- The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible’s Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love 2005
- Jesus for the Non-Religious, 2007
- Eternal Life: A New Vision: Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell, 2009
- Re-claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World, 2011.
- Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy, 2016
- Unbelievable: Why Neither Ancient Creeds Nor the Reformation Can Produce a Living Faith Today, 2018.
Spong was not a professionally trained biblical scholar, and biblical scholars never read his material to acquire knowledge. But the scholars who are sniffy about that (most of them, I guess) have completely lost the plot. His work was not about advancing scholarship for scholars; it was about reaching people who were not scholars – especially people in the churches – to urge them to find a better way, a way to retain the best of the Christian faith without sacrificing their brains, without having to believe what most other people think is fairly ridiculous.
I did not know Jack (the name he went by) well. We met once and had a nice chat when we were both speaking at the same event. Now that he’s gone, I regret not making an effort to get to know him better. We had a lot in common. He grew up in North Carolina, graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill, received his Masters of Divinity the year I was born, had his first clerical job as a rector at the Episcopal church next door to the Whole Foods I frequent, and was bishop of New Jersey for the ten years I lived there.
He and I had similar backgrounds, raised in literalist Christian circles, going into ministerial training, becoming enamored with serious biblical scholarship, recognizing its challenge for the traditional understanding of the Christian faith, and then moving to declare this “good news” to broader audiences instead of letting it hide out only among critical scholars.
In a sense, we had similar “missions.” But unlike me, he stayed within the Christian community as a church leader who took scholarship and modernity seriously, whereas I left the church to pursue scholarship.
We need more people like him. People with the courage to recognize the truth about the Bible and traditional Christian doctrine, and the courage to remain within the Christian community as a prophet declaring the truth — even while being pilloried by traditionalists who refuse to move beyond the early centuries of the church into the modern world. Staying within the community as a prophetic voice takes far more courage than leaving it to start a new life.
And so, In Memoriam! John Shelby Spong (June 16, 1931 – September 12, 2021).
Hi Bart
“It really does seem weird to some people that you can be a Christian without believing the literal truth of the Bible and without accepting the traditional doctrines of the faith. ”
Isn’t this the position taken by your friend Dale Martin?
Any chance of getting him to write a blog post or two about how he grounds his Christianity?
I”ve asked him many times, but he prefers not. Jeff Siker has done so a number of times on the blog though.
Thankyou Prof Ehrman. A moving tribute.
I agree. Thank you Bart. Jack would appreciate the respect you accord him.
May Jack rest in peace.
As a Christian centrist, I had some sympathy with some of Spong’s views, especially his argument that the bible shouldn’t be read literally in places. However, I felt he went too far, especially on his view that denied miracles and theism. He threw the baby out with the bathwater, and I couldn’t understand how he could still call himself a Christian having shed pretty much every sacred Christian doctrine.
The humanist version of Christianity he promoted, stripped of its divinity and power, was accompanied by a sharply anti-Christian or anti-God polemic. I think that rubbed a lot of Christians like myself the wrong way, and we felt very uncomfortable with him circulating in Christian circles. I can easily imagine why those on the more fundamentalist side of things would have had even stronger objections!
Great tribute, Bart, thank you.
Back in the 1990s I attended a General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA).
A UU minister recommended that I attend John Spong’s workshop.
I was impressed by his presentation, which was partly on rescuing Christianity from the fundamentalists. Quite an interesting man.
I’d been raised by parents who sent their kids to church every Sunday. Travis Ave. Baptist Church, Ft. Worth, Tx. was our weekly destination.
I asked questions in church school classes. I was told to not ask ‘those’ questions, they made God angry. That was in 1956; I was 8 years old. I thought, that can’t be right.
My family moved to a rural community NW of Ft. Worth, where we attended a rural Southern Baptist Church, which was worse. I remember thinking, I don’t know what I am, but I’m not Baptist. So, I flew under everyone’s radar.
John Spong’s presentations confirmed for me that, I’d done the right thing by finding something much more open and welcoming of questions. I wish I’d heard of him sooner.
He’ll be missed, but the wisdom he spread will continue to bear fruit.
Thank you so much for this tribute, Bart. I just purchased Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy and look forward to reading it.
Beautiful. Thank you.
Bart, re Galatians 1.8: “if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” My question is – In terms of Paul’s letters and what we know about the content of the message Paul preached: do you think he would have regarded Bishop Spong’s gospel as “another gospel than the one (he) preached ?
Definitely. But not for the same reason he is addressing in Galatians (Spong had no truble at all thinking gentiles could be followers of Jesus without keeping the Law)
Is the expression “God hates the sin but loves the sinner” in the Bible? If not, do you know where it came from? Would you say it’s consistent with at least some important strains of NT thinking?
No, it’s not. I don’t know where it originated.
Augustine, I believe. Via google:
“The closest phrases to this in Christian history — as pastor and Bible scholar Adam Hamilton writes in Half Truths: God Helps Those Who Help Themselves and Other Things the Bible Doesn’t Say — are a letter from St. Augustine to a group of nuns (encouraging them to have “love for mankind and hatred of sins”).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/04/kim-burrell-hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner/96158416/
Thx! <3
Is there any indication in the Bible that God himself, not just humanity, was at least somewhat corrupted by original and/or other human sin? God seems to be nothing but loving prior to original sin. The corruption I’m thinking about is “not” that sin makes God angry and that he punishes sin. Rather it’s that it’s not uncommon for God to overreact to sin and become excessively wrathful and punitive and tyrannical. Though I suppose one person’s overreaction could be another’s uncompromising justice.
With regard to my question about the possibility of God himself being somewhat corrupted by human sin, here’s a related aspect. At times God does seem to relent from the full measure of his initial impulse, eg, sparing Noah. And humans themselves are sometimes able to soften that initial impulse, eg, Abraham and how many just people need to live in Sodom and Gomorrah for God to not destroy those cities. I can’t recall any specific incidents but it does seems like on a few occasions God might have somewhat regretted how wrathful and punitive he had been-at least enough to move him to forgiveness and mercy.
These things may not be the same as God being somewhat corrupted by human but there are some similarities.
No, I don’t think so. They don’t see anything God does as slightly overreactive, let alone wrong.
“it was about reaching people who were not scholars – especially people in the churches – to urge them to find a better way, a way to retain the best of the Christian faith without sacrificing their brains, without having to believe what most other people think is fairly ridiculous.”
The late John Shelby Spong would probably have been a better person if he had known that there are two great religions of the world with billions of believers that recognize Jesus — Christianity and Islam.
Islam do not have serious Christian problems as mentioned:
“no way to be a Christian if you realize there are contradictions in the Bible, historical errors, and radically different views from one New Testament author to another. Or if you recognize that the Bible came into a single canon of Scripture through historical circumstances, not divine intervention.”
Billions firmly believe Jesus was adopting the Islamic faith “Submitting our will to God”, a Muslim prophet, taken up, ascension, certainly not crucified, and in his second coming. Muslims has all the details on his second coming, including minor details, time of day, location, responsibilities, and all that he will do. He will definitely be with the Muslims.
There lots of other great religions in the world that Christains and Muslims deeply concerned about religion should also know about!
I once called myself a Spong Christian. Jack Spong and Bart Ehrman are separated by a millimeter.
Thank you Bart. I was lucky enough to take a class with Jack about 5 years ago on the Gospel of Matthew as, theoretically, an ordered midrash on the Jewish yearly liturgical calendar (!). Such an honor. And, selfishly, proud to claim him as a fellow Episcopalian.
I also recommend, if you can find them, his lectures given at Chautauqua.
Specifically, on the passages in John about turning water into wine and then the one with Mary the mother of Jesus standing with the Beloved Disciple at the foot of the cross: Spong suggests an alternative meaning. Specifically, he puts forward water—and Mary—as symbols of Judaism; wine—and the Beloved Disciple—as symbols of the new Christ movement. Then, from the cross, Spong suggests an ecumenical respect inherent in Jesus’s words: “‘Woman, here is your son,’ and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’”
In Spong’s beautifully worded sermon, Jesus is imploring Mary (Judaism) to recognize Christians (Beloved Disciple) as its offspring, and the Beloved Disciple (Christians) to recognize Mary (Judaism) as their mother.
Which of the books you mention do you think gives an unbeliever the best introduction to his thinking, not to convince me to become religious, but to understand his outlook?
I think you should just pick one of the titles that sounds most intriguing and go with it.
I enjoyed Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, 1991. It grew out of a nationally televised debate he had with fundamentalist John Ankerberg. Jerry Fawell had earlier declined Spong’s invitation. The debate was broadcast nationally in 6 segments. The book gives a good summary of his views.
I also read What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality (1994), which came out during the debate about gay rights.
I suggest reading Here I Stand his autobiography, which is brilliant and will help you to understand the how and why of his life.
Is there an identifiable point in the evolution of the orthodox church that can be identified as when it went off the rails with respect to requiring believers to accept magical thinking? In other words, among the the myriad early versions of Christianity, was there ever one that, had it won out, a modern educated person would find much less of a stretch to be a believer?
Every form of early Christianity was pre-Enlightenment, so anyone with Enlightenment sensibilities will find all of them “magical” in teh way you’re suggesting.
Oh Dear! Sad to hear.
Bishop Spong will be sorely missed.He was often a breath of fresh air. I got to catch him speaking in Chattanooga a few times. I was encouraged at how big his audiences were in this conservative christian part of the bible belt.
I was not familiar with John Shelby Spong until I read your post this morning. After reading your post, I went on youtube and listened to a couple of his sermons. I particularly enjoyed his talk on Judas Iscariot. Dr. Spong brought so many new ideas and thoughts. What a great speaker. Thank you for bringing him to my attention.
Prof Ehrman,
What is your view on the tradition of Mary’s Immaculate conception – Do you think it was a response to the question of the possibility of ‘original sin’ being passed on from Mary to Jesus if Mary herself stood the chance of being a carrier of ‘original sin’?
Yup, that is the best explanation, I think.
Doesn’t this become an infinite regress problem? If Mary had to be free of original sin so that Jesus could be, why didn’t Mary’s mother (and father?) also have to be free of it so Mary could be too. Going all the way back to Eve–which would reduce it to absurdity?
Or if God specially intervened on Mary’s behalf why couldn’t he have done the same on Jesus’s behalf without involving Mary?
Or maybe there was never any possibility of Jesus getting original sin from his mother in the first place. He was by definition free of original sin. So making Mary free of original sin simply gave Jesus a more hospitable intrauterine environment
Well, quantum physics doesn’t make sense eityer. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong. (!)
My argument here is scientific–sort of. Jesus was a functioning human being. He breathed, his heart beat, he moved about and was, to say the least, quite intelligent. The basic requirements start with 46 HUMAN chromosomes. If Mary contributed 23 of them, where do the other 23 chromosomes come from? Nobody has been able to explain this within the argument of a Virgin birth. It is impossible that an embryo would be implanted in the endometrium if it was haploid. Jesus would have been a miscarriage before he was missed. That is where those of us who look at this now are grateful to Spong. He demystified the entire story and made it possible to bring reason to the table. Would Jesus have been any less valuable as a human being with only one “nature” but uncommon wisdom?
If you had to choose 2 or 3 of the books you cited that summarize Spong’s views, which ones would you recommend? Hopefully one could find them in a local library or order on Amazon.
I think you should just pick two or three of the titles that sounds most intriguing and go with them. They should be readily available.
Read several of his books, heard him speak in Dallas. He boned up on science late in his life from scientists. Another minister that stayed to this day with beliefs like Spong is one I follow in Austin, jim Rigby.
Thank you Bart. I have read some of Bishop Spong’s books along with some of yours. I struggle to be able to remain a Christian because of what many say is necessary to believe in order to be a Christian. I am grateful to both of you for putting into words what makes sense and feels right to me…liken it to an affirmation. I still remain in church as I can’t quite seem to leave yet even knowing that I don’t really fit there any more. The church is slowly dying (with exception the fundamentalists). It seems to stay alive they may have to move their thinking ahead 2000 years.
My view is that you shouldn’t let the “many” determine your own view of what it means to be a Christian!
Thank you for this insightful and moving post. I signed up for a talk to be given by John Shelby Spong in Birmingham (England) a few years ago but his health was failing then and the talk was regrettably cancelled.
Fascinating man and background so thanks for recognizing him. It’s been a while but it seems as if a book of yours he did the forward ?
No, I’m afraid not. Too bad!
Bart: “Spong was not a professionally trained biblical scholar, and biblical scholars never read his material to acquire knowledge. But the scholars who are sniffy about that (most of them, I guess) have completely lost the plot. His work was not about advancing scholarship for scholars; it was about reaching people who were not scholars – especially people in the churches – to urge them to find a better way, a way to retain the best of the Christian faith without sacrificing their brains, without having to believe what most other people think is fairly ridiculous.”
Excellent assessment of Spong’s intent and importance for a general audience. So many pastors (and even conservative scholars) have received pretty good exposure to critical scholarship but are afraid to share it with their faithful. This is why your commitment to sharing critical scholarship with a general audience is so important.
I never met Jack Spong but he changed my life for the good. Why would I say that? Because he was absolutely critical in helping me to change my thinking about the Christian religion. I can say the same thing about Bart Ehrman, and often do! Bart has changed my life for the good, and I am forever grateful.
Agree.
Spong was a rare jewel. Some of his speeches (or sermons) are on the internet and I listen to them frequently.
I especially remember: “I recently baptized a baby, a beautiful baby, named Chatham. The liturgy recited the hope that he would be ‘cleansed from sin’. I was thinking, What did this baby do? He was eleven weeks old. Had he lied? Had he killed someone? Had he robbed a bank? Babies are the most innocent, sin-free thing in the world. The most that could be said about this baby is, He had a siren at one end, and no sense of responsibility at the other end. But that is not sin!”
Accepting religious views formulated 2000 years ago is like accepting ancient understandings of astronomy and anatomy.
Speaking of: Why would someone who knew he was Savior of humanity past, present and future say, “AS LONG AS I am in the world, I am the light of the world”? Seriously. What the heck? Would you want to throw that out there knowing how much it would sow confusion among the faithful? It surely confused me. I thought Jesus was light forever. I guess not. We must ‘work’ while alive, because when dead, ‘NO ONE’ can work? No problem. I’ll confuse a little further. I guess he was a nobody, not the living human Christ. (John 9:4 and 5, last I looked) You don’t need to be a Jack Spong to see the problems with this religion.
Wonderful post Bart. I agree with all that. A very fair snapshot of his work in my opinion. I’m a big fan of John Shelby Spong.
Thanks for that piece.
I became aware of mr. Spong thruogh my almost life long interest in Meister Eckhard’s, Hildegard Von BIngen’s kind of visionary theology whch divert much from literalists. This is the only theology which speaks to me and have as a premiss an acknowledgement that there’s no human mind that can encompass the totality and the mystery of God, way beyond any doctrinical frames. Its thelogical concepts of an inherent capasity of unity with God, and further that unity was our devine origin and our devine destiny resonate with my inner core, my inner understanding of truth.
I am and we should appreciate his efforts!
The two of his book titles that attract me the most:
Here I Stand: My Struggle for a Christianity of Integrity, Love and Equality;
God in Us: A Case for Christian Humanism;
also explain to me why fundamentalists would hate him.
Sad to hear about Spong.
Hate to use the occasion to ask a semi-related question (i.e., breeze over someone’s death because I’m curios), but as you mentioned how the canon was created, do you know any good books on the Church of the East (e.g., Syria, India, etc.)
The history of those churches? No, I’m afraid I don’t.
I wonder often about modern-day believers like Bishop Sponge—How he can put one foot out of the church door with his disbelief in the fantasies surrounding Jesus’ origin and death and then not stride completely through that door and leave behind all the other Christian fantasies (the invisible, immaterial, immortal human soul; the afterlife of rewards and punishments in some fantastic supernatural realm, cheesy miracles, etc.) as well.
Dr. Ehrman,
Your post aroused my curiosity and I
did a quick search on John Shelby
Spong’s life and work. I came across
his ”twelve points for reform” of
christianity. It all sounded progressive
but it left me wondering in what sense
was he a christian? I swear I don’t mean
in anyway to be condescending or
disrespectful but I find it somewhat
analogous to that of a child abducted
from biological parents and raised by
the abductor. Once the jig is up, the
child now being an adolescent still
takes side with the abductor and
expresses desire to go back because
of fear of the unknown and also joined
by a strong bond formed under false
pretences. Nevertheless,his efforts
against fundamentalism are admirable.
His (Spong’s) book: “Eternal Life: A New Vision: Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell”, would give you a clearer picture on how he still considered himself to be a ‘Christian’. Spong was extremely critical of much of what the churches had done in interpreting and acting upon the works attributed to Jesus. He was not a believer in the permanent atonement viewpoints of the ‘orthodox’ churches.
Excellent summary of who John Shelby Spong was. I had never heard of him, or you Bart, then I happened to hear you speak in person at a Denver church, and Spong speak at a separate unrelated event 3 weeks later. That prompted me to read both of your books. Totally changed my view of Christianity and the Bible.
Spong was a leader in opening up scholarly knowledge to the masses.
His first book opened my mind to possibilities that I had never even considered before.
He allowed me to consider that there were other ways of reading the bible. That you could apply intelligence and thought and evaluate evidence.
He was a great man.
Jack was the person who made me realize that people can have a faith in Jesus and still question much of what is in the Bible. He was on a radio show in Arizona about five years ago to push his book “Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy, 2016” (I sent Bart a copy a few weeks ago) and stated on the show that he did not believe that any part of the birth narrative was true and started explaining why. The host of the radio show (Pat McMahon) was caught a bit off guard on where the discussion was going (he thought the show was just going to be discussing parables versus factual events) and the show ended fairly abruptly. The fact that a bishop could not be afraid to ask questions of early Christian literature and openly speak out against the literal beliefs revered Bible stories gave me a push to refresh my faith.
I agree that he was not in the ‘high-scholarship’ category, but he came close through his dedicated efforts to piece together his theory on how many of the stories (especially in Matthew) came into being. RIP Jack! You did well.
“There lots of other great religions in the world that Christians and Muslims deeply concerned about religion should also know about!” You are right.
After being disappointed with Christianity, I suppose you too, who uphold the belief of evaluating world religions, must have also studied “other great religions,” before making a change.
Intelligent people are fully aware that everything that moves, whether car, bicycle, drone, earth, or moon must have somebody controlling it. It will remain motionless and will only moves when someone moves it.
Religions need not teach such a simple understanding which everyone can accept. Yet the religion that literally proves their God control the movements of earth and moon should be the true religion. True religion must convince God’s existence. No two ways about it. In the age of science, digital, and advanced technology, God must literally explains He created and is in Control of the entire universe scientifically.
Only ONE religion can literally confirm this. God owns Heaven and Hell. Mankind who reject this easy understanding by declining this true religion will most certainly end up permanently in HELL where the fuel is mankind and stones.
Jack was my rebound after deconvertion. I read all of his books, but in the end couldn’t reconsile the faith I’d had with the one he suggested. *Eternal Life* was groundbreaking for me, and I continue to admire his courage in standing up to his congregation.
I have a question regarding your Atheism (or lack thereoff):
You said in a recent Q&A that although you might never return to Christian Fundamentalism, you were open to returning to a religious faith in a diety.
Are you serious?
If there was incontrovertible proof that an extra dimensional being was influencing your life, your response, now, knowing what *you* know, would be to begin daily worship of said creature?
I didn’t say anything about daily worship! I meant that I could imagine myself coming to think there is a superior being in the universe. For all I know, if there is such a being, worship from others might be the very last thing he wants! I couldn’t imagine becoming a fundamentalist though.
Near the end of my fundamentalism, I often wondered why God would care if humans stood in a box and shouted at him a lot.
If there’s a ‘superior’ being, sign me up for the Rebel Alliance!
I read Sprong’s book, Liberating The Gospels. I’ve read it several times. I highly recommend it. We lost an intellectual and moral giant.
What a beautiful tribute to Bishop Spong. Thank you Dr. Ehrman.
I read Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism probably 15 years ago. it was one of the first books i’d read that took a scholarly approach to the Xian scriptures. Having been raised fundamentalist baptist, and then leaving it behind, it was fascinating and encouraging that rational scholarship and criticism could (and should) be applied to ancient documents of all kinds, but specifically to the Xian bible. The book was scandalous in the church we attended at the time (PC-USA leaning toward evangelical, in NC) but, looking back, it was an eye and mind opening start on my journey to where i am now. Since then i’ve read Ehrman and Borg, and others. It is tragic that the relatively recent (1900s+) perversion of Xian scripture has been wholly embraced by the mainstream evangelicals. It has done more damage than we may ever know. It may end up destroying life as we know it on this planet. not intended as hyperbole.
Prof Ehrman,
Please how does Marcion deal with areas in the Gospel of Luke that were pointers to the God of the Jews or the OT?
Prof Ehrman,
Please how does Marcion deal with areas in the Gospel of Luke that were pointers to the God of the Jews or the OT?
He edited them out, claiming that they were false interpolations by previous editors/scribes.
I admire strong minds like Spong who realize that the true importance of Christianity isn’t what a select few men around the Mediterranean said and did 2000 years ago, or what church councils decided as the faith moved forward, or what we need to do to get to heaven, but rather about how we as a society and culture strive to collectively develop ways of finding purpose across generations, to make our lives fuller and more meaningful. I’m the only non-Christian among my closest circle, but my peeps would all give thumbs up to Spong’s school of thought (otherwise they wouldn’t be close friends). Even though my personal spiritual needs haven’t led me to be a Christian, my friends, like Spong, exemplify to heathens like me a way of life I respect and remain continually open to. If all i had for Christian examples were the literalists and fundamentalists, I’d have to laugh to keep from crying. With church leaders like Spong, light comes into the darkness from many directions. Odds are that I’ll never become a Christian, but rational Christianity is something to be admired. So who knows? Maybe one day I’ll change my mind.
Thanks for making me aware of this person. I picked up and read “ Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism”
Very good and interesting read.
Dr. Ehrman,
This post sent me down a rabbit hole to different forums, and I was surprised at the vitriolic comments leveled against him. One user posted a section from an article that summarized his legacy: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/sep/12/john-shelby-spong-liberal-episcopal-bishop-dies-ag/
“He claimed that he was making it relevant for a new generation who could not believe in the supernatural, often citing his daughters,” Mr. Tooley said of Bishop Spong. “But the irony was that as he was making his case, modernity was ending and postmodernity starting, and his rationalist perspective became passé. There was new openness to the supernatural.”
Do you agree with this analysis? I find it hard to believe that a move towards a postmodern condition would somehow bring on a new wave of Christian believers.
No. Im afraid it’s wishful thinking by someone who hopes things will turn his way…
Spong was one of the few religious people whose understanding of the Bible I would defend. I respected his mission even though I am not a christian.
Prof Ehrman,
I understand that Sprong was not an academic. However, he attempted to adopt the views of at least certain academics. For example, in his book Liberating the Gospels (“LTG”) he credits Michael Goulder for the underlying ideas. I am wondering how you differ (academically) from Sprong. As a specific point of reference, I understand that you believe that Judas Iscariot is an historic figure. Sprong states ” …Judas narrative screams that this was a late-developing legend created out of the midrashic method…”LTG, page 275. Are your conclusions different because your methodologies are different? Help me understand.
Thank you
Jerry
Yes, we had lots of differences. I do think Judas was historical; I do not think the Gospels are based on Jewish liturgical calendars; and … and lots of other things.
Dr Bart Ehrman,
Thank you for recognising John Shelby Spong. I teach Theology in a Catholic setting and believe that Jack Spong helped me to maintain my Christian sanity over the years. Freeing the stories in the Bible from fundamentalism is an ongoing work.
Jesus for the Non-Religious opened up the possibility that the gospels have a strong connection to the liturgical practices of the early Jewish followers of Jesus. I had the chance to discuss this with Amy Jill Levine once and she was not so convinced, but the fact that I was able to have that conversation shows how far the influence of Jack Spong reached. This discussion happened in Brisbane, Australia over lunch. I continue to listen to Spong’s lectures on YouTube when I am driving. Our lives and our studies are put into perspective when he expresses his love for his wife, Christine.
Thank you again.
Best wishes from Australia.
Thank you so much for this word of appreciation for John Shelby Spong. He was one of just a few writers whose writings led me towards understanding a rational view of the historical Jesus and of the religion that evolved from the teachings of his earliest followers. And it was your writings that finally brought it all into focus. So, I thank you for that as well.
I thank Bishop Spong and his books for getting me interested in the Bible. I grew up in the Episcopal Church and was quite disinterested – even though though the amazing Barbara Brown (who married Ed Taylor, my favorite Sunday school teacher) preached in our church. I was indifferent to our liberal Christianity and despised the hard-right fundamentalism prevalent around me in Georgia.
That all made me vaguely hostile to the Bible (in addition to being snooty about NT Greek since I had been a classics major in college).
Spong made it possible for me to enjoy looking at the texts critically and to take the historical Jesus seriously.
As you note, he wasn’t a scholar, so I have gravitated to folks like you. I am grateful to him for getting me interested and to you for keeping me going. Thank you.