An Example of Why Spong Just Doesn’t Get It

From an email I received, which ostensibly is Bishop Spong answering a question about why Good Friday is called good. I’m not exactly sure where this came from, but, based on what else I have read, this would be pretty consistent with Spong’s anti-Theology. Spong is allegedly writing a book about life after death, which, according to him, will be the ultimate test of his “theology.” However, I think the ultimate test that would be to ask Bishop Spong this, and it is similar to what Archbishop Rowan Williams stated when he found Spong’s writings to be theologically uninteresting.

Why, Bishop Spong, should I get up on Sunday, put on nice clothes, sit there in church, listen to you speak while you wear funny clothes, eat a small piece of bread and take a sip of yucky port wine, and have a cup of coffee afterward, for which I am to pay 10% of my income to your employer?

<chirp….chirp….chirp….chirp>

Anyway, here is the piece on Good Friday:

Why is the Friday before Easter called “Good
Friday”? Where did the term originate?
Dear Hank,

Words do convey strange meanings, don’t they? I
can remember asking my rector the same thing when
I was a lad. The Friday that observes the
crucifixion of Jesus was the most somber day of
all to me as a child. To call it “good” seemed strange indeed.

The word good reflects the rescue and atonement
theology of the Church. It was an attempt to say
that the result of what happened on that Friday
was good. The death of Jesus was thought of as
good, since it broke the power of evil, rescued
us from the original sin of the fall and restored
us to the original relationship with God. That is
how the word good became part of the title of the day of the Crucifixion.

Today, that theology is badly dated and has been
abandoned by all but the fundamentalist elements
of the Christian Church – which come, as I always
remind people, in both a Catholic and a Protestant form.

As post Darwinians, we no longer believe we were
created perfect. We were created as single cells
of life and evolved into our present complex,
conscious and self-conscious forms. Since we were
never perfect, we could not fall into sin. Since
we could not fall into sin, we could not be
rescued. How can one be rescued from a fall that
never happened or be restored to a status we never possessed?

Of all the symbols of the Christian faith, these
are the ones most in need of rethinking and
reformation since our theology, creeds and
liturgies all infected these dated concepts. This
change will cause a mighty upheaval in Christian
understanding. Indeed it will signal the beginning of a mighty reformation.

Until then, I doubt if Good Friday’s name will be
the subject of debate. It is too far down the
consciousness ladder – so just keep using it.

– John Shelby Spong

8 Responses to “An Example of Why Spong Just Doesn’t Get It”


  1. 1 retropalian August 16, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    I truly do loathe this individual calling himself a Bishop in Christ’s church. It’s not proper, I am told, but I cannot help it. My disgust for this person runs deep.

  2. 2 Greg Griffith August 16, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    “Since we were never perfect, we could not fall into sin. Since we could not fall into sin, we could not be rescued.”

    The depth and number of fallacies revealed by these two syllogisms boggles the mind. If ever there was proof that Spong is a man of sub-average intelligence masquerading as an intellectual, this is it.

  3. 3 Timothy Matkin + August 16, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Although he holds highly contrary doctrinal views, Spong’s WAY of thinking is very much the same as a Protestant fundamentalist.

  4. 4 Kevin August 16, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    The depth of the tragedy is how well Spong does articulate the proper answer in the second paragraph before immediately pronouncing his unbelieve.

  5. 5 padraic August 16, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    I will give Bishop Spong this much,he has the ‘presentation of error as truth'(Eph.4:14 Norlie NT)down,although he’s not much on the ‘crafty’ part.

  6. 6 tired August 17, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    Spong’s regular misuse of science reveals a shallow understanding of the subject matter, an understanding crowned by the immense and shining accomplishment of a minor in zoology from UNC, many, many years ago.

  7. 7 jackfate August 19, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    I like Spong. Read all his books. So much about traditional Christianity makes no sense to me anymore. I want a new vision. Voices like Spong’s (among many others) cut through the fog of religious blindness, superstition and ignorance and challenge us to look deeper into why we believe what we do. Keep in mind that simply believing something to be true doesn’t make it so.

  8. 8 InNewark August 22, 2007 at 8:24 pm

    It has long been my opinion that “Bishop” Spong worships Charles Darwin. Every time I heard him preach, he reminded us that people who had been born before Darwin were too ignorant to be relevant. If you are looking for religious blindness, jackfate, I think you will find it in Spong’s unceasing adoration of a 19th century Englishman.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: