Question Faith? Fear Not

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

I know where he ends up too.

Yo, Rafael,

I don't know if you'll bother to track down this response, now that the thread has dropped off the main page, but you've got a good point about the ad hominem, old chum, and about introducing info outside the bounds of the immediate comments John Shelby has written. Good point, well ta'en.

My response is that I find it difficult to separate the comments from the man (or vice versa, however you want to look at it) because of being familiar with his point of view that (ultimately) pervades everything he says and writes.

To me it's like hearing George W. Bush say something like "Fighting terrorism with all possible means is necessary". On the surface one might find nothing to argue about, but if you knew what has gone on over the past 5 years your response could be very strong, given the unmitigated mess in Iraq, laws that trample the Constitution, etc.

You could legitimately say "Whoa! I've heard THAT before and let me tell you what it REALLY means...", and rattle off a list of colossal blunders and misguided thinking that is no where inherent or revealed in the original statement.

Know what I mean? That's where I am with ol' John Shelby. I know where he ends up, every time.

Jake, the ad hominen attacks are all coming from you, not from Spong.

In any case, it sounds like you twist his words to suit your dislike of him. If Cal Thomas were saying that God is infinitely great but unknowable in all his glory to mere mortals, you'd probably agree with him. Spong has a somewhat more philosophical view of that gap, but I don't see how the two positions differ in principle. Spong doesn't appear to be rejecting God, but rather identifying why questioning is not only reasonable but imperative given the limits of our understanding.

Why not respond to what he said here rather than to your perception of what he says elsewhere? It's difficult to have a discussion of points made when you're referring to other pieces of writing.

You are doing well my little disciple. Your reward will be amazing!

Jake,

Do you honestly believe that the Bible captures the real God, and the whole of God, in a way that is fixed for all time? Including the God who told the early Hebrews to take the women and children of cities they had captured as slaves, after being sure they had killed all the men?

Spong is saying that the Bible, or indeed, any holy text, can only capture the way people experience God, filtered through their own cultures, level of knowledge and their own prejudices.

Spong does not deny the reality of God. He only says that attempts to capture that reality in words inevitably fall short, because God is far more than what can be captured by human understanding.

I really don't understand how that's a problem for anybody.

Or to state the truth without doubt.

Spong's way is the way of the coward; the one who wishes to placate the world rather than to stand for God against it.

Hi Rafael,

Thanks for your comment. I think your remark that God is beyond and transcendent to human experience and definition is, of course, true. But I don’t think that’s what Spong is saying at all.

I think he says:

We cannot explain God; we can only explain concepts of God;
All concepts of God are a product of the time in history in which they were created (one of his major themes when discounting Christianity) and should be questioned (or in his case, dismissed) accordingly;
If you do not question (as I have) you are an idolater;
It’s all created by people anyway (not by God), so if you don’t question you are also an idiot;
Anyone who disagrees with me must be afraid what they believe in is inadequate.

He’s aiming his remarks at Christians when he refers to questioning creedal affirmations, and I’m sure the people and institutions he brands as fearful are Christians also. Do I say so because I’m paranoid? No, it’s because this is what John Shelby Spong spends all of his time and energy doing.

The old “you must be fearful and insecure if you disagree with me” is classic Spong. Of course, you could say that to anyone who posts on these forums – all the atheists, pagans, wiccans, muslims, mormons, believers and disbelievers of every stripe: “You must be fearful and insecure in your own faith Mr. or Ms. (fill in the blank here) because you cannot abide my belief in (fill in the blank) and you cannot tolerate my disagreement with your belief in (fill in the blank). Why are you so threatened by that? Why are you so hateful and intolerant?”

Or we could apply that standard to Spong himself: Gosh, John Shelby, you’ve spent years railing at Christianity…you must be really insecure in your belief system, and feel that it is inadequate.

To the main point: God is a being beyond our comprehension, yes. But that does not mean that we therefore can know nothing about God (for instance, from the written words of scripture), or on the flip side that anything anyone thinks about God is true, because God is a human experience, and truth a personal perception.

Where John Shelby Spong would ultimately have us go in our questioning, is ironically, a place where finally nothing can be questioned, because there is no truth. No one is wrong, because it’s all about an individual personal experience, and not about truth or truths that are the same for everyone. It’s a post modern view where the individual (and the individual experience) is paramount. To disagree with that point of view is to be rigid and “legalistic”.

Jake, thank you for a very thoughtful expose on Mr. "Emerging Church" Spong. No one can read every book out there. Therefore, your research is greatly appreciated along with your reasoned and articulate way of giving us the truth.

From Colossians:

"He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." You want to know what God looks like? Look at Christ and you will see God.

Dear Danél Griffin,

There was one philosophical problem that I had with what you wrote. "God transcends all definitions..." The problem I have is that anyone who utters this is thus -defining- God. The definition would be that of transending all definitions. The definition is also, as should be obvious, self-contradictory. Maybe you, and
presumably Spong, do not mean to be defining God, as it were, in making this proclamation, but I must admit that I am at a loss as to what else could be going on. If anyone else has thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.

Cheers,
Dave

Jake,

It appears that your personal and deep dislike of Spong leads you not to read his words carefully. He does not say that God is "just a human experience, a human creation," but rather that the attempt of mere mortals to capture and understand God in words inevitably falls short, leaving room for doubt and questioning about whether we got it right. A fairer and more charitable reading of his statement than you seem likely to give it would suggest that God is beyond and transcendent to these experiences, not a creation of them.

Hi Danel,

Hey, thanks for your comment. As far as an orthodox person being insecure and requiring people to agree...no no no no no. That is not what I am intending to portray at all.

I disagree with the premise that Jack is tolerant, inclusive, etc., etc., Oh, maybe if you are a Bhuddist or a Hindu, or a follower of some vague New Age something or other (which is what the Episcopal church is in the process of becoming, in part thanks to him).

But if you are a Christian who espouses what he has turned his back on, there's no doubt at all that he thinks you are an idiot, and beneath his contempt.

His labeling, his blanket condemnation of all who seek guidance from Christian biblical scripture (and interpret it differently than he) is so completely partisan and downright nasty, it'll knock you over when you hear him speak or read his tomes. He just sneers at anyone stupid enough to have an opinion that is in opposition to his. That includes most of the Christian world, but I suppose that's what makes him so daring and controversial in the eyes of some.

I'm not insecure or threatened by this fellow. I actually feel sorry for him because he has traded the greatest prize, the greatest mystery and most profound relationship in the world for his own intellect. If you want a dose of idolatry, there it is, in spades.

And as far as his personal relationship with God, well of course that is between him and God. But it's clear from his expressions that God for him is a human experience, seemingly on a par with other human feelings and experiences, like one's experience of love or hate or enjoyment of ice cream or whatever.

And he applies that standard to everyone else, because he apparently thinks that's the way it is - God is just a human experience, a human creation. That's what it seems he supposedly respects from folks of various faith journeys.

He doesn't seem to give crediblity to the idea that God and the experience of God could be something totally beyond that, an experience of Someone who is the ultimate Someone, waaaay beyond a human experience. He might give credibility to a person thinking that's what God is, but cannot comprehend the idea that He might in fact, be real.

That's not true at all. Rev. Spong has always maintained a very healthy relationship with people with various faith journeys and experiences. Even a quick rundown of his career reveals this.

It is the legalistic mentality that a person's personal path, orthodox or otherwise, is the ONLY TRUE path that he considers dangerous and patronizing, and rightly so. With that mentality comes tribalistic intolerance, which leads to violence and hysteria.

If he occassionally comes across as arrogant, it is only because he is wise enough to dismiss such legalism as idolatry and attempts to limit God to personal definitions. God transcends all definitions, he argues, which is why he calls it "the God Experience" instead of labeling God as a being for certain. But he freely admits that his pathway is personal, and one of many. In his writings, he also concludes that to be the best person we can be--to be confident in your own individuality, and to respect others individuality in the process--is the single most important act as a human being seeking God. I'm hard pressed to figure out how that's discriminating against a person's personal choice to embrace an Orthodox view, unless a person of Orthodoxy is inscure about their own position to begin with and requires people to agree with them to validate their own position. Which brings us back to Spong's initial objection of legalism.

Jake-

You have hit the nail on the head.

The guy is just a poor excuse for a Christian.

He probably does not know what he believes, other than he does not believe in anything.

The elitist attitude is deafening.

OK, folks, sorry for the triple post. Totally unintended.

David La Dow, you have hit the nail on the head.

Jack Spong does this all the time. He states that "we can't really know anything about Jesus" or "God cannot be captured in human words", then he proceeds to express his opinion doing the very thing he says is impossible.

I believe he does this as an attempt to pre-emptively silence his critics, but it doesn't work at all, because by the very nature of his approach his statements are self defeating.

An equally interesting point is his "God is a human creation" position. If one has read any of his work, it's obvious that Spong does not believe in the Jesus of Christianity, and the last time I heard him speak I came away with the strong feeling that he doesn't really believe in God as a distinct individual entity at all. Rather, he describes "the God experience" and how one cannot evaluate or criticize another's "God experience" because it is different for everyone, and so on. Notice that is how he describes the Bible - a recitation of the "God experience".

So if anyone has reduced God to a human creation, it's Jack Spong, who further reduces Him to a human experience, something that we feel, rather than the Creator of all that exists.

He states that anyone who doesn't question, doubt, and challenge beliefs is an idiot (between ridiculous and absurd), which is of course his way of saying anyone who disagrees with him is his intellectual inferior (another Spong trademark - the arrogance of his perceived superior thought processes).

But of course many, many, many have questioned, doubted and challenged their belief in God and their faith in Him - only to come out of it with a stronger belief and stronger faith. These Spong cannot abide - they too are fools in his book.

You see, it's not a lack of questioning that Spong deplores. It's anyone who doesn't bend the knee to his obviously superior intellect and his (basically) near atheist beliefs.

Anyone who arrives at a completely opposite view from his after questioning, searching, etc., falls into the category of "fearful" institutions, etc., who, according to Spong, are so locked into their old world paradigm they just can't see they are wrong. He has no respect whatsoever for anyone who comes out of a season of doubt as a solid orthodox Christian.

David La Dow, you have hit the nail on the head.

Jack Spong does this all the time. He states that "we can't really know anything about Jesus" or "God cannot be captured in human words", then he proceeds to express his opinion doing the very thing he says is impossible.

I believe he does this as an attempt to pre-emptively silence his critics, but it doesn't work at all, because by the very nature of his approach his statements are self defeating.

An equally interesting point is his "God is a human creation" position. If one has read any of his work, it's obvious that Spong does not believe in the Jesus of Christianity, and the last time I heard him speak I came away with the strong feeling that he doesn't really believe in God as a distinct individual entity at all. Rather, he describes "the God experience" and how one cannot evaluate or criticize another's "God experience" because it is different for everyone, and so on. Notice that is how he describes the Bible - a recitation of the "God experience".

So if anyone has reduced God to a human creation, it's Jack Spong, who further reduces Him to a human experience, something that we feel, rather than the Creator of all that exists.

He states that anyone who doesn't question, doubt, and challenge beliefs is an idiot (between ridiculous and absurd), which is of course his way of saying anyone who disagrees with him is his intellectual inferior (another Spong trademark - the arrogance of his perceived superior thought processes).

But of course many, many, many have questioned, doubted and challenged their belief in God and their faith in Him - only to come out of it with a stronger belief and stronger faith. These Spong cannot abide - they too are fools in his book.

You see, it's not a lack of questioning that Spong deplores. It's anyone who doesn't bend the knee to his obviously superior intellect and his (basically) near atheist beliefs.

Anyone who arrives at a completely opposite view from his after questioning, searching, etc., falls into the category of "fearful" institutions, etc., who, according to Spong, are so locked into their old world paradigm they just can't see they are wrong. He has no respect whatsoever for anyone who comes out of a season of doubt as a solid orthodox Christian.

David La Dow, you have hit the nail on the head.

Jack Spong does this all the time. He states that "we can't really know anything about Jesus" or "God cannot be captured in human words", then he proceeds to express his opinion doing the very thing he says is impossible.

I believe he does this as an attempt to pre-emptively silence his critics, but it doesn't work at all, because by the very nature of his approach his statements are self defeating.

An equally interesting point is his "God is a human creation" position. If one has read any of his work, it's obvious that Spong does not believe in the Jesus of Christianity, and the last time I heard him speak I came away with the strong feeling that he doesn't really believe in God as a distinct individual entity at all. Rather, he describes "the God experience" and how one cannot evaluate or criticize another's "God experience" because it is different for everyone, and so on. Notice that is how he describes the Bible - a recitation of the "God experience".

So if anyone has reduced God to a human creation, it's Jack Spong, who further reduces Him to a human experience, something that we feel, rather than the Creator of all that exists.

He states that anyone who doesn't question, doubt, and challenge beliefs is an idiot (between ridiculous and absurd), which is of course his way of saying anyone who disagrees with him is his intellectual inferior (another Spong trademark - the arrogance of his perceived superior thought processes).

But of course many, many, many have questioned, doubted and challenged their belief in God and their faith in Him - only to come out of it with a stronger belief and stronger faith. These Spong cannot abide - they too are fools in his book.

You see, it's not a lack of questioning that Spong deplores. It's anyone who doesn't bend the knee to his obviously superior intellect and his (basically) near atheist beliefs.

Anyone who arrives at a completely opposite view from his after questioning, searching, etc., falls into the category of "fearful" institutions, etc., who, according to Spong, are so locked into their old world paradigm they just can't see they are wrong. He has no respect whatsoever for anyone who comes out of a season of doubt as a solid orthodox Christian.

Jihadist and Paganplace,

Is there no place you can whisper in peace?

Good to see this conversation. I hope that the folks in Kuala Lumpur will have a great discussion so that the slaughter between the sects can finally end.

Frank, the all-knowing is always around. Gosh Frank who the hell died and made you the watcher?

You really piss me off at times, if not all the time!

Still unable to tell the difference between groups, religions, and people, I see, Frank.

Personally, I think what you see in Islam is just too much of a mirror of your own hatred and fear and xenophobia and desire for control.

This is a monster that you can't fight by *becoming* it.

If you like liberty and freedom of conscience, then try to understand that you can't protect and promote these things by giving them up at home.

Thanks for the info, J. I was going to ask what time frame all this stuff happened in, for historical context, but I suppose I can look it up. :)

Dear Bishop Spong (if that's not the correct way to adress a retired bishop then I apologize),

Quite an interesting post. There was one thing that struck me as a bit philosophically puzzling. I should say from the outset that I do indeed come from what could be considered a quite orthadox background and that I am a philosophical realist with respect to truth. I mention this merely because I do not wish to be accused of any hidden agenda.

You stated that "God cannot be captured in human words..." In making this assertion, however, are you not doing the very thing that you say cannot be done? Are you not predicating a property, uncapurability in human words, of God and capturing this property by the very words used to express it?

Perhaps you would say that this isn't, then, really a property that God has in himself, as it were, but is rather a concept that you used to express your own, and presumably other people's as well, experience of God. If that is so, then can we, based on your own assertions in the post, "question, doubt and challenge" this assertion so as to avoid the idolatry that you speak of? Also, if this description is just a human concept of God, what then is the real force of the rest of what you had to say?

Whether or not you get on here and read the responses that people write is something that I have no idea about. Whether, even if you read them, you ever respond to the responses, I am even more in the dark. Anyhow, it was a very thought provoking post.

Cheers,
Dave

Paganplace

By the way, I'm off On Faith for a few days.

There is a conference in Kuala Lumpur on Islam and the west.

So, please don't take offence if I don't respond to your subsequently posts to me.

The Gate of Ijtihad is being reopened now as bona fide Muslim ulema from Muslim countries agreed to accept and respect all sects and lines of thoughts.

Just well and good, as through the ages, Muslim ulema generally practice the principle to agree to disagree when differences of interpretations and opinions happens, leave it at that, and regard all to be equally valid.

When they don't agree on theological questions
quite strongly, they said the other is mistaken.

Best regards

Hello Paganplace :)

Good to see you!

In gist, the Mutazalis (Mutazilites), in the 8th century, are the first Muslim ulema (religious scholars) who are considered ratiionalists in Islamic theology (kalam). Among other things, they asserted the Qu'ran is "created" as opposed to be the "uncreated" word of God, and of the time when God revealed it. Hence, man has every right to decide, in his own time and age, to do what is best for the community as needed based on the principle of pursuing justice for all - Justice of God here on earth.

They advocated man to be responsible for all his/her acts and don't accept predestination, as God cannot be responsible for the good and evil in the world as it is man, whom, God give free will, that decide so and be answerable for what they did. And no one goes to hell, for God cannot be in error, for having given man free will, surely God knows best on the flaws and faults of man as his creation.

They also advocated learning in all fields to understand the mysteries of God. At the same time, insist that God can never ever be understood in human terms at all, or be given human attributes - such as the face of God, hand of God etc. They said it is idoltary.

However, they went overboard and caused the one and only significant Muslim inquistion (mihnah) on faith in Islam. Once they got the support of Caliph Mamun, they seek to purge their other theological rivals and to impose their theology on the Muslim population. Politics played a part too, and this did not go down well with the Muslims. Not their theology, but the imposition by force of it on the population and the purging of those who disagreed with them or questioned them, especially those called the Traditionists who understood the Al Quran as a speech of God for all time and ascribe metaphors too in understanding and seeking God. They have a more spiritual take on God in this way.

The inquisition and jailing of the Traditionists by Caliph Al Mamun and some Mutazilites, sadly, was among the cause of the closing the Gate of Ijtihad (reasoning) in Islam as the ulema of all theological persuasions were deeply shaken. Some seek to reconcile the theology of the Mutazilites with the Tradionists as a compromise - the spiritual with the rational on God and faith, the most important being Al Ashari.

The theology of the Mutazilites is very familiar to all Muslim scholars and ulema. There's more to the theology of the Mutalizilites, some of which are questionable and contradictory, but I'm leaving it at that and to focus on their key elements.

The theology of Judaism and Christianity on God and belief is closer than many know as Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars in the Middle Ages were influenced by one another. They were then, more honest in acknowledging the influences of the others.

Best regards

Hi, J. :) *whispering.* Have we found a quiet corner? What's this Mutazali ulema you speak of? :)

It'll probably be drowned out by people calling Spong an 'apostate' and screaming about you being of another religion, yourself, but let's try. :)

Very, very interesting. On this question, all the Christian panelists in On Faith sound almost like the Mutazali (Mutazilite) Muslim ulema of yore on God and the Holy Book.