In All Fairness, Media Distorts

wsuce kgjexwru stio skzrahfc izcvrwfe tbpa penxofrqu

wsuce kgjexwru stio skzrahfc izcvrwfe tbpa penxofrqu

wsuce kgjexwru stio skzrahfc izcvrwfe tbpa penxofrqu

wsuce kgjexwru stio skzrahfc izcvrwfe tbpa penxofrqu

Tonio,

Amazing! How in the world Scalia was able to scrape up that interpretation of the Establishment Clause is mind-boggling. Why don't people like him realize what a disservice they are doing to mainstream religious people of this country?

It's about time that someone had the courage to stand up to the religious and tell them that we are no longer going to let their 'faith' (denial of reality!) dominate the public life of the American people or humanity in general, are are going to ACTIVELY try to destroy religions hold on the minds of the masses.

Religion is a sockpuppet for those who are too stupid or scared of the unknown after death (I believe that after death we simply move on into a new body in this or another universe).

It is also a sock puppet for those who HATE sex and sexuality, because they think it is a violation of their bodies or want to control their children's sexual expression, out of fear of losing money or prestige.

Anonymous, thanks for your definitions. From my standpoint, I see attempts by different Christians to get government institutions to favor Christianity over other religions. Examples include the Air Force Academy, the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, and the public schools in Kansas. The media usually categorizes the proponents as "evangelicals" or "conservative Christians" or (less often) "fundamentalists." Those categorizations seem inaccurate to me, but the articles don't give me enough information about the specific doctrines. If I didn't know that Justice Scalia is Catholic, I might have mistakenly assumed he was a fundamentalist - he has claimed that the Establishment Clause permits the federal government to disregard polytheists and atheists and "believers in unconcerned deities," whatever the hell that means.

Mr. Spong, what dribble! I pity little men such as yourself who are embarassed of the faith they held in their youth!

E Favorite,

Regarding your question, I must concede that I don't know the answer either.

E Favorite,

I see, so your observation that "I think we also need to understand that "accredited" doesn't mean everything they teach is true or accurate," is only true when it is applied to those who disagree with your position. Talk about not being open to reason...

And so it continues. Norrie, E Favorite, I hope you see this.

April 3, 2007, 5:25PM
Bill would require Bible classes in Texas schools

By MATT CURRY
Associated Press

DALLAS — A Texas legislator wants to require the state's nearly 1,700 public school districts to teach the Bible as a textbook, "not a worship document."

The House Public Education Committee was set late today to consider a bill by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, mandating high schools to offer history and literacy courses on the Old and New Testaments. The courses would be elective.

The idea of teaching the Bible in school seems to be undergoing a revival nationally. Two literature classes on the Bible are included on a list of state-approved courses that Georgia public schools could choose to offer beginning next year. Some critics say it would be the first state to take an explicit stance endorsing and funding biblical teachings.

The Texas measure goes a step farther — requiring school districts to make such courses available, advocates on both sides agreed.

"We're not going to preach the Bible, we're going to teach the Bible and how it affects all of our writings, documents and the formation of our government," said Chisum. "We're taking it as a document that has historical value. It's the most widely distributed book in the world."

Sorry, Observer - not at all what I meant to say. Speak for yourself.

I say that any school that enforces inerrancy, accredited or not, is not open to increasing knowledge; it is against advancing knowledge, whatever new evidence or scholarly thinking may emerge.

Back to my question: "I wonder if there's any other field of study besides religion where two accredited schools can teach completely opposing points of view and still both be accredited."

I don't know the answer. Maybe you do.

E. Favorite,

You said, "I think we also need to understand that "accredited" doesn't mean everything they teach is true or accurate."

My point exactly. Spong attempted in his argument to assert that (1) only biblical scholars from accredited institutions were intelligient and "informed" and that those who were not affiliated with an accredited institution were therefore ignorant and incorrect. (2) His second premise was that all those biblical scholars from accredited institutions denied the inerrancy of the Scripture.

As I proved yesterday, Premise #2 fails. Your 8:06AM post reveals that Premise #1 fails. Therefore, Spong's argument is revealed for what it truly is: another feable attempt to criticize the fundamentalists!

Back to your wise observation, "I think we also need to understand that "accredited" doesn't mean everything they teach is true or accurate." Very true. We must remind ourselves that this applies to both sides of the argument.

Yeah, well, like I said, I have never met anyone who says that the Christian church stands for the things that the Bishop listed. Maybe the Bishop has.

Or maybe he is just watching too much television.

Or maybe he is just worn out from trying to talk sense to people who watch too much television.

Maybe I'll go post on Starhawk's thread. I know she watches too much television.

Viejita del oeste:
It was I who complimented your post earlier, and do again on your latest.

Many people, esp. my Mormon friends and enemies,
use locutions like
I KNOW the Church is True (it is the only true church)
I KNOW that Jesus was resurrected.
I KNOW that all of Joseph Smith's prophecies came from God.

I interpret you to be saying
One can NOT know such things
though one can Certainly have Faith that they are true.

What is our collective opinion of saying one KNOWS in matters of Faith?

As an active member of Spong's former diocese I can say with certainty that "Bishop" Spong is not a person of faith. He is an atheist and an egomaniac. If people want to squabble over what an atheist says about religion I'm sure you can find far more eloquent and logical arguments in the writings of Bertrand Russell or other philosophers.

Tonio,

Here's the way I have come to understand the differences.

Fundamentalism - following of fundamental principles, by strict adherence to those principles, and intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Literalism - Following the literal portrayal of a given text or doctrine.

Inerrantism - Belief in the inerrancy or truth of a particular writing or document.

Re: Scholars accredited or not?
There are two different kinds of research: the kind that conducts inquiry and gathers information to see where it might go, and the kind that mandates a result and looks for a good way to get there.
Institutions whose members sign a pledge to accept the bible as fact are doing the second kind of research -- it used to be called apologetics -- and so are those who set out expressly to prove that G-d or Jesus (or whoever) did not exist or could not have been divine. I'm not sure that divinity of any kind is amenable to scientific proof.
I haven't noticed that the Jesus Project was specifically looking to disprove religious beliefs; it seems to me that they were trying to challenge Christians to understand what our faith is based on. I believe that Abraham Lincoln was once president of the United States, that's not based on faith but on historical study. I believe Christ acts in the world today, that's based on faith and does not require historical or literary underpinnings.

Anonymous, I made the point in another thread that the media often confuses "fundamentalist" with "evangelical." I think I understand the difference. But can you explain the distinctions between fundamentalism, literalism, and inerrantism?

Fundamentalists and evanglicals are NOT the same! People throw these terms around - fundamentalists, evangelicals, religionists, literalists, inerrantists, creationists; they don't mean the same thing. Do not use them inter-changeably.

Spong of course USED to be a bishop. Now he is a member of the Jesus Seminar, that group of sort-of scholars and used-to-be clergy who have decided to rewrite the bible and re-invent God.

Bobster - my last post was directed to your comments, not Ralph's

Ralph - I know you were speaking just from your experience. I'm suggesting that you should consider that a Bishop, while fully able to distort facts about religion, is not likely to do it based what he hears in the media - he has other, more reliable sources.

That would be like a doctor distorting medical info based on what he hears on Oprah -- possible, I guess, but it would be malpractice.

Ralph - I think you'll find that many biblical scholars (or any kind of scholar, really) avoid sound bite opportunities. They're concerned about being misinterpreted. Preachers, on the other hand, are always looking for an opportunity to spread the word.

Unlike preachers, Scholars are into research and education, not proselytizing.

I was just stating a fact based on my experience. I have never met anyone who said that Christianity stands for the things the Bishop listed, but I admit they are popular gripes.

Mr. Spong,

Your article posed some excellent questions about religion and religious leaders.

In my opinion, I think its called Freedom of Religion. Which means freedom of one to believe and worshop a God as one believes. The media and I would venture as well that most people view religion different from say the medical and science fields.
I think that same perception applies to Bible Scholars as well. From my own personal experience I have know at least three bible scholars. Two of the three did not even believe in God. The media wants news that will inflame and incite its readers and viewers from both sides of the religious debate. The media is more likely to get juicy news items from a religious fundamentalist preacher, than from a bible scholar. Unless the scholar has some news that might just cause a good stir amongst both camps.

Also I believe that a religion and its leaders do have the right to interrupt thier own religion as they see fit. And what you refer to as "uninformed ignorance" on the part of some religious leaders is their own religious beliefs in their own conception of God, and the bible. Right or wrong in your scholarly opinion.

And you are absolutely right, many religious beliefs would not and do not hold water when "psychological testing" is applied. But is that not the case with many other beliefs in other areas as well?

Psychology is and has been my profession for many years now. If there is one thing I have learned about psychology is that there is one issue in psychology that we all agree on. We all agree to disagree. Everything else is open to debate, and personal opinion. But with my own conflicting beliefs about God, it always boils down to faith, or lack of faith. Not book learning in the practical sense. Psychology and religion have many similarities, and yet are so different in so many ways.

I would much rather have a good debate about a particular religion and that religions beliefs, than to demand that the religion in question change to meet my belifefs.

Viejita del oeste:

Good points, interesting amplification on Spong.

i think reporters face a professional version of what we all face: how to get enough context in a limited time to make our own sense of competing truth claims out there in the world,
whether it is
which stock to buy,
whether Jesus was divine,
whether Mitt Romney will take orders from Salt Lake.

Reporters' generalist background is Good because it gives them wider context, and Bad because they know fewer things (like religion) in detail.

Really Ralph, the author is a Bishop of the Episcopal church - he doesn't get his info about religion just from TV like a lot of people do.

Certainly Paul of the Bible and the Catholic church covered the issues mentioned.

Maybe you should do a little reading before making such assumptions.

The author asks,

"Was the church not the institution that said that celibacy is the path to holiness, that marriage is a compromise with sin, that women are inherently unequal and that homosexuality is a choice rather than an awakening?"

I don't know. I have never anyone say those things specifically, so I can't say whether the author is distorting what was said or is accurately describing it. But he seems to believe that it was the church that said all those things. That belief is probably founded in what he has seen, read, or heard through the media.

It's sort of funny that knowledge about the faith that many people look to at times of peril and death is presented to them by television.

Ba'al, I agree: "I think that we have to acknowledge that Observer is correct when he notes there are fundamentalist theologians from accredited seminaries"

I think we also need to understand that "accredited" doesn't mean everything they teach is true or accurate.

Obviously that could not be the case when other accedited schools are teaching something very different.

I wonder if there's any other field of study besides religion where two accredited schools can teach completely opposing points of view and still both be accredited.

I don't always agree with Dr. Spong's religious views -- I'm a little more conservative -- but he has a sharp and accurate take on the media. Reporters and editors are generalists, trained not to be an authority in any one area but to ask the right questions and make the answers understandable. Part of the problem with religion is that (1) Reporters think they know more than they do because they fall back on their own religious background instead of asking key questions, as they would in a piece about heuristics or string theory (2)In their quest for balance, they tend to repeat poorly supported claims just to get the other side to an argument.

I think that we have to acknowledge that Observer is correct when he notes there are fundamentalist theologians from accredited seminaries, and the SBTS is not the only one.

This demonstrates the power of Faith to completely eliminate one's ability to rationally evaluate texts. Childhood indoctrination is a powerful tool.

"Fundamentalist" is indeed, a pejorative.

There is a group is England who produce eloquent papers on why the earth is still, and always has been, flat.

fundamentalists are the theistic world's flat earth society. Make that a 10,000 year old flat earth.

But, like any closed (minded) system, they will eventually run down naturally.

Confessions of an Anti-Supernaturalist

I, too, am mired in 19th Century Anti-Supernaturalist. I can't help myself. I am ashamed, I am mortified, but I persist.

What is Anti-Supernaturalist, you might ask.

Here is an evangelical definition:
It is a belief that God does not exist or it is a belief that if God does exist he is not actively
involved in his creation.

How old-fashioned of Spong and me!!

Evangelicals would say (do say)
These Darwinian Fundamentalists (evolutionists) are gripped by their presupposition that there is no God.

Someone release me from the Grip of Evolution!! Let me be like those 73% of evangelicals who believe God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years.

"They tend to parrot popular Christianity which reveals no awareness of the last 200 years of biblical and theological scholarship. It is hard, therefore, to blame the media for this, since many clergy appear to be equally uninformed."

Actually evangelical scholars have done much of the best of the last 200 years of theological scholarship. The canon was not closed with the death of Bultmann. Textual criticism, Biblical language studies, hermeneutics, epistemology are all of intense interest to scholars who take Scripture seriously. Gordon Fee, A. Thistleton, D. A. Carson, Donald Bloesch, N. T. Wright and Bart Ehrman's mentor Bruce Metzger are all respected scholars from credentialed schools who can run intellectual rings around insipid and unimaginative dullards like Spong who seems still mired in a nineteenth century antisupernaturalist worldview.

In fact if there is a bias in the mass media it is the one that uses "fundamentalist" as a pejorative and treats poseurs like Spong as if they represented anything more than an effete and dessicated evolutionary dead end in theological understanding.

Betty,

Thanks for the comments. I actually have that book on my list to read in the near future (hopefully sometime this summer). However, as I would suspect, that's one side of the argument. (See my earlier post about examining the objective evidence with an open mind.) May I recommend a book by another biblical scholar from another accredited school who holds to the inerrancy of the Bible? (Sorry, Henry, I had to throw that in there! =) ) The name of the book is "Scripture: Its Power, Authority, and Relevance" written by Dr. Robert Saucy, who is a professor at the Talbot School of Theology (part of Biola University) and is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and by the Association of Theological Schools.

Let's examine both biased sides of the argument and then draw our conclusions.

Thanks again for the comments.

Observor
Based on Henry's recommendation, i looked up reviews at Amazon of "Misquoting Jesus."

Here is one sentence I thought germane from one reader response:
"Ehrman makes it quite clear that when one asserts, "The Bible says...," the next logical question might well be, "Which Bible?" That observation illuminates in stark relief any claim of so-called "Bible inerrancy."

I suppose we might maintain that God inspired ALL the different versions, contradictions and all.

Observor

Yep, you shure got me an ole Bishop Spong there with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

We will have to withdraw our "EVERY biblical scholar " claim.

That SBTS is another good objective source that evaluates the evidence thoroughly.

I guess we will just have to let the public read a range of biblical scholars and come to their own conclusions.

Henry James--

"Both Spong and I are making our statements based on surveys of Biblical Scholars
who DO NOT have degrees from unaccredited Evangelical Schools."

Thank you for your quick reply. However, I'm afraid that your unscientific "survey" unfortunately is biased and does not reflect the views of all "biblical scholars who DO NOT have degrees from unaccredited Evangelical Schools." In fact, this appears to be a subjective statement with no statistical support, but is meant to convey your biased viewpoint on this matter. If I am able to give an example that contradicts your assertion, then the assertion becomes invalid. Example: The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY is accredited by both the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada. (source: http://www.sbts.edu/academics/Accreditation.aspx)

Every professor must adhere to the Seminary's Abstract of Principles which include that "The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience." They must also agree with the Baptist Faith and Message that the "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation." (excerpt from the Baptist Faith and Message)

Therefore, this is sufficient evidence to disprove both yours and Mr. Spong's unscientific assertion that "all biblical scholars from accredited institutions do NOT believe in the inerrancy of the Bible." I have shown that there are biblical scholars from ACCREDITED institutions that do hold to the inerrancy of the Bible. Unlike your subjective assertions, this is based upon an objective fact. For more info, visit www.sbts.edu.

Thanks again for your comments.

Biblical Scholars

Observor: both Spong and I are making our statements based on surveys of Biblical Scholars
who DO NOT have degrees from unaccredited Evangelical Schools.

You are encouraged to do your own survey.

Two tidbits:
Harold Bloom of Yale, in "Jesus and Yahweh" notes on the first page of his book that there is not one uncontested "fact" about the life of Jesus. Bloom is a brilliant scholar who has been writing for 50 years.

The current best seller, "Misquoting Jesus", gives you a good example of how the biblical texts came to be in their present form.

No one who reads that book (and verifies its accuracy from other sources) would believe in the literal truth and inerrancy of the Bible.

Spong is citing a consensual view, which he knows better than I, but which is verifiable if you want to spend a little time.

If you want some other names of unbiased Biblical Scholars, let us know and we can suggest more (Pagels is a good one: Armstrong is another).

Fundamentalists and Evolution

New poll out says that 73% of Evengelicals (fundamentalists)
believe that Man was created
in his present form
by God
within the last 10,000 years
(even 40%_of catholics believe this)

Perhaps we can see why Bishop S says
no Biblical Scholar is a fundamentalist.

Henry James--

"Any Biblical Scholar is aware that all of the original texts are of dubious historical validity, very often contradictory, and written in general to "sell a product" rather than to tell truth."

May I respectfully ask "dubious to whom?" This appears to be a subjective statement as is the assertion that the original texts were "very often contracdictory and written in general to "sell a product" rather than to tell truth." Your post implies that "any Biblical scholar" will come to these conclusions, or else they are not a true Biblical scholar. This immediately places a negative connotation on "fundamentalists/literalists" who disagree with the assertions cited by your post as well as Mr. Spong's post. Of course, I'm aware that's the goal. However, just because you disagree with those biblical scholars who arrive at different conclusions as you, it does not give you the right or authority to suggest that they are unintelligent. Again, this is as much of an example of prideful arrogance as many claim that the fundamentalists exhibit in defense of the inerrancy of the Bible.

Let's not hide behind our prideful fascades, but instead may we all examine the objective evidence with an open mind, willing to follow the conclusions wherever they may take us. Just so that you know where I stand, I am one that holds to the inerrancy of the Scriptures, but I am willing to discuss its validity openly and honestly with those who are also willing to try to lay aside their own pre-conceived biases as much as possible. (It's naive to think that we can completely rid ourselves of all of our biases.) Only then can we discover "the truth" that you mention in your post.

Thanks for your comments.

Although Mr. Spong has served as bishop in the Episcopal church, he is also a major leader in the Jesus Seminar. While the historicity of the Bible is a valid and much needed question, it is difficult for me, as someone who believes the Bible is true, to have a man with the beliefs of Mr. Spong representing me in this article. It's one thing to question, but another thing entirely to conclude the probability of something actually occuring or being said 2000 years ago. I personally struggle with the idea of worshipping a "god" that hasn't done or said anything outside the realm of what I think. Anything that I can master and fully understand is not worthy of worship given that would make me greater than "god"...it's the equivalent of asking a 5 year-old for advice about my marriage.

"The reputable media struggles to be fair. Generally, however, the media distortion comes from the fact that media people are not scholars in the field and consciously and unconsciously make assumptions that are quite obviously uninformed."

I am a fan of Mr. Spong's work and agree with most of his views. However, I disagree somewhat with his assessment of the role of the media. A reporter’s first loyalty is to the truth. But matters of faith are, for millions of people around the world, not subject to the same standards of proof as are scientific or historical assertions. Nonetheless, they are still widely influential and, therefore, extremely newsworthy. But it is not within the scope of the journalist’s mandate to comment on the validity of their religious views. That is the purview of people like Mr. Spong.

To avoid the sin of advocacy, the best a reporter can do, often, is to report as accurately as possible the beliefs and actions of those who are making news or are reflective of larger trends, and let the readers or viewer draw his or her own conclusions. If religious scholars such as the former Bishop disagree with what they hear on the airwaves, they are the ones who must speak up.

Bishop Spong: Very sensible post. Thank you.

Observor: The Bishop says that No Biblical Scholar is a Fundamentalist (literalist)
because any Biblical Scholar is aware that all of the original texts are of dubious historical validity, very often contradictory, and written in general to "sell a product" rather than to tell truth.

So, not an exageration at all.

He could have said, "no intelligent person who is moderately good at dealing with information is a fundamentalist."

Dear FORMER Bishop Sponge Bob,

Get a life; you hate Catholic traditions/policy because you have none of your own.

Dear Mr. Spong,

Thanks for the comments, but I have just a few observations:

Comment #1 : "No biblical scholar is a fundamentalist. Yet fundamentalists, sporting degrees from a variety of unaccredited Bible Institutions, are given vast media exposure where no one challenges their distortions or the absolute ignorance that they reveal."

Pardon me for saying so, but this appears to be a bit arrogant.

Comment #2: "I do not know why the media treats the prejudices of religious leaders as worthy of having their uninformed ignorance disseminated to the wider public."

I understand that you are a FORMER bishop, but isn't that what you are doing right now with your post? Aren't you still considered a "religous leader" who is now disseminating your prejudices to the wider public via this site and your "delivering more than 200 public lectures each year to standing-room only crowds"? (quote from you bio)

Comment #3: "No one should be allowed to pretend that quoting the Bible is an appropriate way to deal with any issue."

This is a very intriguing comment. Your bio claims that you are "A committed Christian who has spent a lifetime studying the Bible and whose life has been deeply shaped by it." With all due respect, may I ask to what you are committed to? It certainly cannot be the Jesus Christ of the Bible because he regularly quoted the Bible as an appropriate way to deal with any issue. It may be time to update your bio because it is misleading.

"Literalist certainly indicates the creationist mindset, but it does not reflect the tendency to only focus on part of the message -- usually by denouncing sex and sin -- while ignoring things like charity and poverty and suffering and all that stuff."

Ba'al, I've always assumed that "fundamentalist" and "literalist" were synonymous. Is that not the case? Many Christians of all denominations have rightly criticized the media for often treating fundamentalists and evangelicals as synonymous.

Have you been reading about the split among prominent evangelical Christians over the issue of global warming? I don't know enough about the nuances of the various Christian doctrines to know what the differences are between the two sides. I do know that the evangelical leaders who dismiss Al Gore as a Chicken Little seem to be the same ones who want American government to favor Christianity over other religions.

Garyd

I'm not sure, but it seems to me that the "Purpose Driven Life" guy is quite the toast of the media town these days, but he may disguise his fundamentalism. Of course, Billy Graham is not quite dead yet, and still seems to get a free pass. Back in the day, he would have TV events reminiscent of the Super Bowl.

I still prefer the term fundamentalist. Literalist certainly indicates the creationist mindset, but it does not reflect the tendency to only focus on part of the message -- usually by denouncing sex and sin -- while ignoring things like charity and poverty and suffering and all that stuff. Also, it is hard to see America as some sort of new Chosen People from a truly literalist mindset. You have to be bonkers like Pat Robertson to make that leap.

Christian history is one of my hobbies. At the very beginning there were many different ideas about Jesus and his nature, some of which would be appealing to a lot of people now, but they went extinct along the way. Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson seem like a new phenomenon to me. Fortunately, the press is actually reporting the things these buffoons are saying without any filters so that decent people -- including I would hope the vast majority of Christians -- can recoil in a combination of disgust and derision.

Bishop Spong:

This line: "No one should be allowed to pretend that quoting the Bible is an appropriate way to deal with any issue." should become a disclaimer affixed to every post on this site that violates it.

Bravo.

Some one pleae tell me the last time a fundamentalist preacher was shown in a favorable light in the Mainstream media? Do any of you here railing against the literalists realize that there is another far older approach to Christianity?

What Good press the fundamentalists - a more correct word would be literalists - get they usually buy.

They do have there own TV channels and frankly I find the message most of them deliver apalling.

"I wish to challenge the Bishop's empirical claim that the media are biased in favor of fundamentalist Christians"

I think "bias" is the wrong word, because that would mean that the media consciously favors fundamentalism and seeks to promote it. As I read Sprong's article, he was saying that journalists are ignorant of biblical scholarship and thus are unprepared to challenge the claims by made fundamentalist spokespersons. It certainly has the effect of giving those claims uncritical exposure, but that's not the media's intent.

MR Mark - I think Bishop Spong is on the right track too. You should know, however, that in his most recent book, "Jesus for the non-religious," he asserts quite emphatically that Jesus existed based on a "consensus of scholars" and the fact that Nazareth is consistently mentioned in the Bible as Jesus' hometown.

He has a right to his opinions, but I wish he had stated them as opinions and not assertions -- we have too much of that in religion as it is..

Might I modestly propose that the media are not ignorant to feature Christians whose viewpoints differ from Bishop Spong's, even fundamentalists?

First, since fundamentalist leaders represent numerically significant segments of the American population, their statements may represent the opinions of these segments. I would argue that an opinion can validly be news just because it is popular even if it is not correct.

Also, the mainstream media aren't telling us the opinions are correct, any more than they claim new scientific discoveries are fact. (They typically couch such news in language that "scientists have discovered" that X may be true. We are just more prone to accept it as fact.)

Perhaps Bishop Spong's point is that the media is ignorant if does not report only what is true. Here, his arguments are espeically shaky because he appeals to two kinds of authority that simply lack an absolute claim to truth when it comes to issues of faith.

The first authority is "the last 200 years of biblical and theological scholarship," done by scholars, of which none are fundamentalists from unaccredited institutions.

One argument in favor of this authority is that these scholars have studied extensively. This argument may be unambiguously correct for purely worldly matters, but for faith matters it is not necessarily or even primarily on the strength of the intellect that one comes closer to the truth, according to the proponents of certain types of faith.

This counteragument doesn't prove they are right. However, it does make even a neutral media observer correct in featuring both sides. Incidentally, based on the coverage that Jesus Seminar and other scholarship depicting a merely human Christ has received, I wish to challenge the Bishop's empirical claim that the media are biased in favor of fundamentalist Christians and invite future commenters to present empirical evidence on either side.

The second argument in favor of the scholars Bishop Spong espouses is their accreditation. However, if faith issues involve something greater than man, and people are accredited by other people, then a neutral media observer is quite reasonable to suppose that one's correctness about issues of faith does not depend on accreditation.

The second source of authority is science. He asks "What qualifies church leaders to pose as experts on sexual issues?" It is implised that all sexual issues are ultimately scientific ones. If so, then of course Bishop Spong's quesiton is quite reasonable. However, church leaders consider sexual issues matters of faith, correctness about which is not obviously determined by scholarship or accreditation.

This circumstance doesn't prove that faith is better than "psychlogical testing processes" in dealing with sexual issues. However, it makes a neutral media observer quite justified in presenting sexual issues as matters of both science and faith because it is equally unproven that such issues are exclusively matters of science.

Again, based on the studies I recall from the media about the scientific side of sexual issues (e.g., about the occurrence of homosexuality in other species), I wish to challenge the Bishop's empirical claim that the media is biased in its treatment of sexual issues and invite future commenters to present empirical evidence for either side.

Overall, even if Bishop Spong's views are correct, they are not so obviously correct that the media shouldn't cover those who disagree with him. The media does not suffer from "distorted view of fairness" of the type that he describes.

Bishop Spong always makes good points. The only thing I would add is that the media does pretty much the same thing with every subject and sometimes it is not so much a consequence of an agenda as it reflects the fact that we do a horrible job of educating journalists.

Of course, sometimes it is an agenda, and in those cases it is always good to ask who owns the media in question.

It's always good to read the Bishop's thoughts. He is one of the very few voices of enlightenment and reason around who still counts himself among the faithful.

Bishop Spong's writes that, "popular Christianity...reveals no awareness of the last 200 years of biblical and theological scholarship."

I have no doubt that 200 years from now, biblical and theological scholarship will be extinct, because within the next 50 years, biblical scholars will look on Bishop's Spong's present-day positions as equally unaware. Scholarship by that date will have confirmed unequivocally that God was, indeed, a delusion, that Jesus never existed...and that the supernatural always was nothing more than a figment of society's collective fear-driven imagination.

In the meanwhile, I'll continue to enjoy the good Bishop's columns. At least he's on the right track.

They, the media controllers have made assumptions about religion in general that summ total to, "it's good and never bad, only a few bad operators" Jimmy Bakker for example. Imagine what the opposite would look like. We don't have to imagine, there's the 20th century communists for example. It was them that prompted putting "under God" in the pledge.

"Fundamentalists are given vast media exposure where no one challenges their distortions for the absolute ignorance that they reveal."

They get that exposure because their distortions generate controversy, which makes for exciting copy.