Evangelical Christian Day of Prayer

Hello Palamas,

Thank you for your post. I am happy enough if you wish to believe whatever you would like to. I am also happily content with the veracity of my own comment that you were replying to. There is no question that in the early centuries of the infant Christian movement that early theocracy was greatly influenced by authorities in power struggles. The 'orthodoxy' of Christianity was being molded for several centuries. The divinity of Jesus was debated for several centuries. The Resurrection and Redemption, foundational to Christianity today, was not universally agreed to from the inception of the Christian faith.

There continues to be great debate on the accuracy, veracity, and divine sourcing of NT Gospels.

One has to agree that the beliefs in both the resurrection and redemptive salvation are faith issues that reside at the core of conventional Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant.

Catholicism is much more elaborate in constructing dogma that ultimately supports these essential doctrines. On the other hand, these conclusions were not arrived at without considerable strife in the early Church - for example, the Gnostics did not subscribe to the divinity of Christ and were persecuted as heretics.

See the Gnostic Gospels for examples....Elaine Pagels has also written extensively on the early Gnostics.

The links below are worth perusing as regards these early doctrines and the idea of salvation to be found elsewhere apart from Christianity. As has been said countless times, Christianity inherited heavily from much earlier Greek and Judaic traditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity_of_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Counter,
Everybody knows I haven’t read the nt and I am not claiming the opposite. I’m trying to learn, though, asking questions and reading what you guys write.
Thanks for your input.

Thanks for you reply, Palamas.

Dobsonites hijacked the National Day of Prayer just like they hijacked Christianity for their sectarian political agenda of hate and exclusion. They are Obama stated enemy.

Why would Obama want to participate in this right-wing evangelical charade?

Justillthen wrote:

"The Resurrection and Redemption were additions that came later as Christianity developed and Church authorities and hierarchy were vying for power and position, and diverse beliefs, (now hundreds of years after Christ lived, like to now to the time of the formation of American independece...), were struggling for supremacy."

You spend a lot of time watching the History Channel and reading Dan Brown novels, don't you?

There is no truth to these claims--none whatsoever. The belief in the resurrection is foundational to Christianity, and found in documents written by Christians within the lifetimes of those who saw the risen Jesus. The idea of redemption--however one interprets it, and there are a variety of interpretations--is found throughout the epistles of Paul (and particularly in the ones that even the most radical of actual scholars acknowledge to be authentically Pauline, namely Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians), all of which were written within thirty years or less of the crucifixion and resurrection. To claim that "Resurrection and Redemption were additions that came later" is simply ignorance on the scale of claiming that the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth.

Bios: Sorry to take so long to respond to your questions. I've been out most of the last two days. Anyway, you ask:

"So if I would ask if you think christianity could evolve into something more flexible, your answer would be that it wouldn’t be christianity per se, we would have to call it differently because it does not fit the definition. Am I right?"

I think that's correct. But it's not just a matter of nomenclature. The different thing would no longer be the same faith. There has indisputably been some degree of evolution in the history of Christian belief and practice, but the core that was there from the beginning--that Jesus was the unique Son of God, that He died to atone for humanity's sin, that He rose from the dead, that salvation comes by faith in Him--this has remained constant, even though each has been communicated to every new generation in a way that fit ever-changing times.

Your other question to me was this:

"But concerning your first paragraph I’m not sure if Palamas’ intention is to discredit Mr. Spong’s christian credentials. Maybe he’s just giving out his opinion. Can you confirm this, Pal?"

I'm not passing judgment on whether Spong is a Christian or not--only God can say one way or the other. My remarks have been directed to what he says he believes and teaches in his books. The content of those bears no resemblance to Christianity.

Hello Counterww,

I am not claiming to be a authority on the NT, but I was raised with it. I currently believe that the road to eternal life is... It IS... We are eternal.

Christianity is in no way practiced or taught and passed down in the form that it was originally given by Jesus. There have been centuries of additions, subtractions, edits, manipulations and evolutions in dogma, practice, teaching, conceptualization...

The Resurrection and Redemption were additions that came later as Christianity developed and Church authorities and hierarchy were vying for power and position, and diverse beliefs, (now hundreds of years after Christ lived, like to now to the time of the formation of American independece...), were struggling for supremacy.

You believe the version of Christian thought that you were taught, as if it is pure and unchanged. It is neither.
The central messages of Jesus are as timely today as when he delivered them. Compassion, peace, loving life and Creator, focusing beyond corporal life to eternal life, forgiveness and the rejection of violence. Love as the path to God.

Much of the rest, added for power consolidation and exclusivity, add nothing to the path to realization of God. Jesus is not the only way to relationship with the Creator. One needs no middleman, no other but itself to be in relationship with it's Source.

If the path of current day Christianity helps you realize that relationship then that is a great thing. However, do not make the arrogant assumption, even if it is based on your religious conditioning, that others must needs to follow the same path as you or they are wayward.

Perhaps they are just further up the road and you just cannot see them up there...

farnaz,
well, if you can say "christianity is not the NT", then you and i obviously mean different things when we say "christianity" and "judaism". we probably mean different things when we say "shoe" or "bird" or "orange".

Walter,

A hasty email as I'm on my way out. Judaism is not the Tanakh aka the Hebrew Scriptures aka the OT anymore than the various Christianities are the NT. And that includes the Fundamentalist varieties.

In Judaism, this goes for the Kairites as well as everyone else although the former would not say so.

E.g., there are no episcopates in the NT, no vatican, no pope, etc.

It is possible, as in Reconstructionist Judaism, to be an atheist.

I don't know about the best job "modernizing." The ORthodox rabbi I mentioned was Progressive, not Tranditional Orthodox. Conservative Jews, Reformed Jews, et al, would have centered on Tikkun Olam.

Again, I'm not observant, by a long shot.
The key here is that all of these religions were interpreted and re-interpreted numerous times and continue to be--long past the originary documents.

The Tanakh, as well, is internally interpretive.

farnaz,
oh, brother... in your effort to be contrary(?), you say some funny things. of course jews are waiting for a messiah. but it's a messiah. it may not be the kind of messiah christians think jesus was. i'm sure you must realize this. you even accidentally acknowledge as much in your cute story about the messiah being bad at math.

my only experience with jewish scripture is being a guest at about 10 bar mitzvahs as a child and whatever jewish texts are in the old testament. now tou can say that means i'm not REALLY familiar with jewish scripture. well ok. but i'm familiar enough to know there's talk of a coming messiah. there's a lot of stuff in isiah and maybe daniel. there is enough messianic talk in the old testament that some jews thought jesus was the messiah - so many that they started a new jewish cult now called christianity.

this all illustrates the absurdity of your decrying the use of the word "abrahamic." christian were jewish before they were christian. most of the bible is jewish scripture. get over it - they're related.

i have to say that jews have done a FANTASTIC job of modernizing themselves and their ancient scripture. to me they seem to be the most accepting of others (maybe a product of their perpetually minority status). most seem to have no problem with science. they seem to have behaved MUCH more morally than muslims in the jewish/muslim holy war going on in israel/palestine.

when was the most recent jewish scripture written?

Walter,

NB: Note Well (Notum Bonum)

"are jews waiting for a messiah?"

No, Walter. They are too busy, what with earning a living, raising children, buying groceries, etc.

The most traditional belief is that when Humans have perfected the earth, fulfilled their "mission" of "tikkun olam" (healing, restoring, redeeming, etc., the world), time, history, in the sense we understand it will end. This healing, perfecting, redeeming, etc., means universal justice, the end of poverty, etc.

I once heard an Orthodox rabbi try to explain to a child that the Messiah, in no sense, was divine. "The Messiah," he said, "forgets to sharpen his pencils, isn't good at math."

For many Jews, the Messiah is better understood as a concept, a principle.

Judaism is not creedal. One doesn't go around "believing" or professing one's "belief." It is best understood as a way of life. Of living, not waiting.

Actually Bios and Juststillthen, you have not read the scriptures in the N.T.

Jesus said the road to destruction is wide, but the road to eternal life is narrow.

Paul also explained how the resurrection works, and how wretched we are if it is not true. There are some precepts as the original Christians believed- that are "must haves" and are mainline precepts of the belief in Christ.

No one owns it all- God says he desires ALL to come to him, and that the way he provided was through the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ and his conquering death and sin through his death AND resurrection.

Paul explains how this power to conquer the two is through Christ and that the Spirit of God can be infused into us to empower us with faith, love, hope, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and all the other "fruits of the Spirit".

You want to know Christianity? You go back to originals that believed and died for those beliefs and actually read what they wrote down. Spong rejected that and wants his own version of something completely different. It does not wash.

farnaz,
what's "NB"?

why do you say i write "as a christian, not from a christian perspective"?

are jews waiting for a messiah?

Walter,

A refusal of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

"judeochrislamics see people as basically bad."

I can see you're thrilled with your one-word amphigouri, but it's been done before (NB) and better.

I have no idea what religious training you may or may not have had, but you are writing as a Christian, not from a Christian perspective, but AS a Christian, quite clueless about either Judaism and Islam.

I shall not bother yet again, to inform you of some of the differences among these radically different religions.

I shall say that although the Christian denominations consider Human born in sin, tending to be sinful, etc., the notion is as foreign to Jews as the Equator is from North Dakota.

Judaism holds that Human is the great creation of Hashem. S/He is basically good, though imperfect, and therefore has a tendency to err from time to time. But, Walter, NB, S/he has been given the tools of Justice and free will. S/He, alone, can redeem the earth.

S/he, alone, Walter. Judaism 101.

I am not an observant anything. I offer no defense of religion here, but I do I suffer militant ignorance gladly. No offense---I just don't know how else to say it.

Farnaz

Just,
Your point is absolutely valid. And valuable is to have someone like Mr. Spong to speak up and denounce this right-wing evangelical move. I also think Spong’s point of view is strong, flexible and all-embracing. It actually does make sense that if there would be a god, he would encompass all and be certainly less absolute, discriminative and snobbish, than what is taught in evangelicalism, calvinism, mormonism, etc.

But concerning your first paragraph I’m not sure if Palamas’ intention is to discredit Mr. Spong’s christian credentials. Maybe he’s just giving out his opinion.
Can you confirm this, Pal?

Palamas, that was funny…but clear.
However, I can’t comment on Mr. Spong’s “christianity”, because I haven’t read or followed Spong enough to accept or deny your opinion. But you seem to have a good idea of what he preaches and you find there’s a long stretch between christian teachings and his own. I understand it’s your opinion and it’s perfectly valid.
You are basically concentrating on a “dictionary” or “root” definition of christianity, in which case Spong does not fit into.
So if I would ask if you think christianity could evolve into something more flexible, your answer would be that it wouldn’t be christianity per se, we would have to call it differently because it does not fit the definition.
Am I right?

justillthen,
seems quite valid, as recent comments illustrate.

The attempt at discrediting Mr. Sprong's Christian credentials is besides the point of the article, even if he is not a Christian by some peoples definitions. I am sure that he is not, as Christians, (and most other elitist clubs!), have long history of negation of difference as opposed to inclusiveness as children of God.

The point he is making is that the National Day of Prayer and assorted related events have been imbalanced to the extreme toward the Evangelical viewpoint. It has become a celebration of evangelical exclusivity, not an inclusiveness of the many rich religious traditions alive in America.

This seems valid, no?

Bios: Sorry if I'm not clear. Here's the problem (and you're right, no analogy is perfect, but let's try to narrow it down a bit): the baseball and football players are both athletes. In the same way, I'm happy to recognize that Spong is, in some sense, "religious." He and are both would fit under that category. But just because both athletes are doing something athletic doesn't mean they are playing the same game. The game is defined by some kind of rules. In the same way, Spong is "religious" just as Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Muslims, Jews, and Christians are "religious." But that doesn't make him a Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Muslim, Jew, or Christian until he agrees to abide by the rules (even rules interpreted in as broad a fashion as one chooses). For these terms to have meaning, there must be some definable difference between them, and so there is. Jains do not recognize Jesus as Messiah. Buddhists do not worship a personal God as Muslims do. Sikhs do not live by the Old Testament. The point is that Spong seeks to create a new set of rules that doesn't correspond to even the broadest definition of Christianity. In his religion, there is no personal God, there is no resurrection or incarnation, there is no atonement of any kind, there is nothing that goes by the name of Christianity. That's not to say he isn't "religious" (I think he would perhaps fit best in something like Ethical Culture, if that's still around), but that he isn't Christian--not because I've read him out, but because there's no correspondence at all between what he believes and teaches and what Christianity believes and teaches.

I just realized that that was Walter's point, but does that help make what I'm saying any clearer?

bios,
you asked earlier about the "pedophile priests". that, of course, is (illogically and immorally) the product of adam's (eve's?) original sin 6000 years ago. because of that doctrine, judeochrislamics see people as basically bad. kind of unfair, don't you think, to punish all future generations for adam's sin? oh, yes, but don't forget that jesus' crucifixion absolves us of our sins... weird kind of blame game, huh?

Palamas, I think understand what you mean now, and I agree with your last sentence: “He can call himself a Christian if he wants, but that doesn't mean that any other Christian has any obligation to recognize him as such”.

I find your style somewhat unusual though, I’m trying to make sure I understand what you mean.

Hi Farny, how are you? ...you are trying to comfort a caveman, hey, you can be sweet sometimes...I’ve read your comments in so many threads ...I wish I had more time to discuss & blog...going back to the point of exclusivism & definitional maladies, you’re right, I’m sure most religions suffer from this...and you’re hilarious..”you are really an agnostic”...that’s bad...

Palamas,
ok, let's go with your sports analogy, imperfect as it is (if you're clever, you can see how my point applies to all your analogies).

for a protestant to call a catholic "not a christian" would be like a baseball player calling a football player "not an athlete". only the baseball player's obsession with baseball could cause him to dismiss the football player.

analogies are always misleading, but let's try another one - and i think this one is better than the baseball/football one. your saying catholics, spong, baptists, [fill in the name of a christin sect that is not your sect] are not christians is like the redskins saying the cowboys are not football players.

Hey Bios,

What's up? I don't know if this is comforting or not, but there are those of both the Jewish and Muslim faiths who suffer from the same exclusivist, definitional maladies.

With atheists, it's more a matter of "You're really an agnostic."

Am not.

Are, too.

Spong's okay in some ways, this, from a secular Jewish perspective. Problem is doesn't bother to look at social issues closely enough, insufficiently doubtful, both of which lead to trendy liberalism, which feeds the status quo.

Looking forward to seeing him in June. Better catch on Shelby. This issue, as I've predicted for months, and hoped of years, is soon to become "very hot":

First World Conference on Untouchability, London, June 6-10, 2009

http://www.iheu.org/world-conference-on-untouchability

Will you know whom to patronize?

Bios: I'm not at all sure why you think I'm "ruling out that christian churches may be anything more than a club." All I'm suggesting is that there are boundaries that any group will have to determine whether one is a part of it or not. What you and Walter seem to be saying is that Christian churches, alone among all the multitude of human institutions and organizations, should have no control whatsoever over who associates himself with them. Let me ask you this: if David Dukes were to present himself to your church for membership, and asserted that he had a right to membership despite the fact that he wouldn't forswear his racist views, would you be fine with waving him in? I, for one, wouldn't.

Spong has rejected every single belief that characterizes Christianity. He can call himself a Christian if he wants, but that doesn't mean that any other Christian has any obligation to recognize him as such.

Palamas,
You said: “Christian churches have the right to set their standards of membership”.

Absolutely, when churches act as a club. You are either a member or you are not. Which is a great recipe to create divisiveness, antagonism, conflict, social instability, battle, war, etc, depending on the scale of the problem.
Counter’s comments, for example, I read them as saying “Spong is not in my club and neither is Justillthen”.

Concerning your exercise, you are ruling out that christian churches may be anything more than a club. Is this what you are saying?

I think Walter and I are just amazed at how christians dismiss each other with no attempt whatsoever at understanding their own different points of view.

Walter,
You’re absolutely right, some christians are so fearfully blind and intolerant of homosexuality, they pretty much treat it as a sickness, therefore it can be “caught” and “cured”.
I don’t know how they cure their own armies of pedophile priests, though. It would be interesting to hear what they have to say concerning this.

Walter-in-Fallschurch: Let's try a little thought experiment.

A baseball team holds tryouts. A person shows up in shoulder pads and a helmet, and asks where the pointed ball is. The coach says he's playing the wrong sport. The person says, "you're being exclusive, insisting that people can only play baseball with a bat and round ball." Who's right?

A person shows up at a meeting of AA, and introduces himself by saying he's an alcoholic. In the course of the meeting, he reveals that he's never had a drink of alcohol, has never thought about it, and in fact doesn't even really know what alcoholic beverages are. Yet he continues to maintain that he's an alcoholic. The others at the meeting disagree. Who's right? And are the others at the meeting being exclusive when they say the man isn't an alcoholic?

A woman shows up at a local NAACP office, and asks to join. Upon being questioned, it turns out that she thinks blacks are inferior to whites, shouldn't have the same civil rights, and actually would like to see African slavery re-instituted. The president of the local chapter turns her down for membership. She claims she's being discriminated against based on her beliefs. Is she right?

Get it? Christian churches are no different from any other organization--they have the right to set their standards of membership, in this case standards of belief. John Spong may be a fine Episcopalian, given that that denomination has no discernible standards of belief that it requires of anyone associated with it. But for those who take the beliefs of Christianity seriously, there is a real question whether Spong could even be admitted to membership, much less leadership, precisely because of his refusal to accept the beliefs that help define the Faith. Is that "exclusive"? Sure. But no more so than any other organization that takes its own existence and purposes seriously.

consider these opinions:

"spong is no christian" (by Counterww)

"I do not consider Roman Catholicism as being Christian" (by nikosd99 from another thread)
__________________________________

this illustrates how exclusive religion can be. these are (presumably) christians saying other christian are not christian...sheesh....

Hello Counterww,

"Spong is no Christian."

Christians are those that profess belief in Jesus Christ.

"He does not believe in the resurrection, and by definition you can't be a Christian and not believe in that."

I do not know him and his personal beliefs, but there is not universal accord on the Resurrection. You can believe in Jesus and the Teachings of Jesus and not believe in the Resurrection, or the Redemption. One does not need to believe the idea that Jesus died to undo Original Sin to believe deeply in Jesus.

"As for Juststillthen, - you can't have a personal relationship with God unless you have jesus in your heart."

You do have some rules about this and some very large assumptions. What an arrogant and elitist belief you hold. And with what reason, but perhaps the egos need to be special.

Anyone can and does have a personal relationship with God just as everyone has their personal relationship with their own parents. Some are open, some see it through filters and illusion, some turn their backs on it... It remains though. It does not require a particular face or image, or a form. God is not limited to Jesus. Indeed God, if anything, is limitless. The idea that access to God is available only through Jesus is ludicrous, immature and naive. And arrogant.

God is not a commodity to be monopolized, counterww, though your beliefs may center on the assumption that He is. God is available to all, without restriction, without creed, without judgment.

Spong is no Christian.

He does not believe in the resurrection, and by definition you can't be a Christian and not believe in that.

As for Juststillthen, - you can't have a personal relationship with God unless you have jesus in your heart.

Bios, you said,
"I’m still surprised by the negative comments you receive from your christian brothers, so fearful about the notion of seeing their churches blend into one and sharing the eucharist with shameless homosexuals."
__________________________

i think those are the kind of christians who think they might "catch" homosexuality - and maybe that it can be "cured" by proper contemplation of leviticus and romans (and joining the right church...).

I am in agreement with Mr. Spong's post as well. It is only obvious. I support a Day of Prayer that insures inclusiveness of all religious paths that would participate. I am against it if it is used as a tool to forward any one religious path, or combination of similar paths, to the exclusion of others.

Hi Rob,

I really don’t know Mr. Spong’s history so I cannot make any comments on it. But I do agree with what he says in this post. You are obviously against the man and you must have your own reasons but what do you have to say about this post or his ideas?

The use of the word "intolerance" by the lefty loonies has to be one of the major examples of projection in the history of that notion. The hatred spewed out by Mr "Hilton" against Miss California makes it clearly manifest. The homosexual community did not condemn Mr "Hilton". They weren't silent. Rather, they defended the abhorrent little man.

Mr. Spong represents the height of intolerance. All representing orthodox Christianity were hounded out of the diocese. In fact, there were basically no heterosexual males ordained during his black years as bishop of Newark. Spong and tolerance are antonyms.

Mr. Spong,

Well said. The National Day Prayer is definitely a right-wing evangelical celebration related to the worst religious intolerance. Although I would just say evangelical (without the right-wing) as I haven’t seen or heard any other type. Intolerance also comes to mind inmediately when someone refers to evangelicals. They will soon become synonyms.

I’m still surprised by the negative comments you receive from your christian brothers, so fearful about the notion of seeing their churches blend into one and sharing the eucharist with shameless homosexuals.

It never ceases to amaze me the way people on this site jump to conclusions about other commenters when they get their sacred cows criticized.

Justillthen: I am not a fundamentalist-I not only emphatically reject that label, I would not be welcome in fundamentalist Christian circles. As for my "definition," I should have been clear that I was snarking on Spong, who does not, in fact, believe in a personal God, and thinks that those who hang on to such "pre-modern" notions are holding back the inevitable transformation of the church into something modern humanity will accept.

Paganplace: What makes you think I wouldn't come to your defense if you wanted to pray on Capitol Hill? I think, for example, that the use of Wiccan headstones in military cemeteries (which has gotten some fundamentalists upset) is perfectly OK. But something I said made you assume that I must be channeling James Dobson, so it's immediately over to attack mode. That's mighty inclusive of you.

What a phony Spong is. He writes a book on how the church must change of die, but the diocese of Newark lost nearly 50% of membership during Spong's disastrous reign (three times the rate of the national church). By the time he was done, one third of the clergy were active homosexuals. I thought we weren't suppose be biased on the basis of sexual orientation? Oh, I guess one can be biased towards homosexuality. The diocese is still a disaster with revenues about half of the budget.

Spong's god is too impotent and uncaring to intervene with humans. No resurrection. No miracles of Jesus. No repentance. No forgiveness. It is easy to see why people flee from the lonely, pathetic man.

"Bishop Spong won't really be happy until there's a National Day to Bash Fundamentalists (defined as anyone who believes in a personal God)."

I guess, Palamas, if previous National Days Of Free Press Corps Exposure For Fundies left you with the idea *that's* what it's about, well,

I suggest that as many times and as loudly as they've been *done already,* well, somehow they ain't exactly united the nation either in 'faith' or as a plurallistic society.

I have that impression.

Maybe that's cause it's not the best idea after all.

I've got personal relationships with at *least* one God. Somehow I don't expect the likes of you to come to my defense if I said a prayer anywhere upwind of Capitol hill.

Palamas,

The definition of fundamentalist is NOT "anyone who believes in a personal God". That would be far too inclusive for the term 'fundamentalist'. Fundamentalists are not, if anything, inclusive. Most of all faiths can believe in a personal god. That is the realm of the individuals relationship to their God.

The idea of a personal relationship with God is, if anything, more liberal than orthodox. oe like Jesus was, before his teachings were hijacked by those seeking to control the experiences of others process of deity worship.

You fundamentalists want to believe that you own it all. How appropriate. Is arrogance born into you, or is it just something that needs to be born again in you? I buy the second, from personal experience.

Bishop Spong won't really be happy until there's a National Day to Bash Fundamentalists (defined as anyone who believes in a personal God).