What do you guy's think of former American bishop John Spong view on Christianity and religion? He seem to be in favor of reforming Christianity, adapt it for modern times so it can live on in the 21 century and beyond. For example here are 12 theses from his book A New Christianity for a New World :

And here is a quite interesting interview of him talking about these points among other things.

My opinion:
He certainly raise some interesting points and I agree on a lot of the things he says. I have a level of understanding of why he is so devoted to keep Christianity alive and why he wants to change it. He clearly thinks there are some values and teachings worth preserving, which I can appreciate. However anyone regardless of their belief system can value the teachings of a religion, so why bother calling yourself a Christian at all? What makes the specific teachings of Christ so important that you have to define yourself after it? Why not just simply call yourself a humanist or something similar which arguably have a much larger spectrum of values most of us can appreciate. Maybe I've misunderstood something but that's my take on it.

Sounds like he isn't much of a Christian.

While some of these I think most "average" people won't have a problem with, some of them are really gonna rock some people's worlds.

I would settle for that last one alone though.

What would everyone do in church every Sunday? That's the only issue I see with this.

Also, that sounds rather like agnosticism. Maybe it's a general trend that we'll see more Agnostic Christians, just like there have been quite a few atheist Jews.

Sounds like he's arrived at Diesm, which i don't think can be called Christianity. So it seems he's arguing that Christianity should evolve into this Diesm, but i'm not convinced that you can call the end "evolution" Christian. You need the basic tenant of Jesus being the son of God dying for our sins and being resurrected as proof of his capacity to guarantee eternal life. Otherwise you lose the Christanity part and just have Diesm, which isn't Christianity.

this guy is basically a deistic humanist. cant really call him a christian since he does not believe in christ.

The only thing I agree with in that thesis is that the church shouldn't guilt people into the faith and all people should be respected.

The Christianity this guy is lobbying for, however, just isn't christianity. You shouldn't say "Oh that didn't happen!" just because it's physically impossible through science. God is Omnipotent, God created the universe, if necessary all he has to do is snap his fingers and suddenly we'll start using fish for door knobs and they'd work better than regular door knobs.

I agree the church needs to be more tolerant for the modern century, but most of the ideas this man is lobbying for is, quite simply, not Christianity. At best it looks like Atheism disguised as christianity. This is NOT an Atheistic religion, and hopefully it will never be an Atheistic religion.

Captcha: "Time Will Tell"
That sounds rather ominous.

I don't think I'd like to see the reforms he's talking about put into place...but hey that's just me.

Magichead:
So basically, he's accomplished everything he needs to become an atheist, but can't stomach jettisoning the last millstone and so wallows in vaguely spiritualist deism instead.

I mean seriously, once you take the positions he has, why not take the next logical step and just admit that "god" is as vacuous a concept as all the others you've rejected?

Still, if every religious person were this irreligious, I daresay the world would be a much nicer place to live in.

Or is trying to change the religion so it can better meet the modern era? Religion likely isn't going to vanish because it'll just morph into something else. I'd rather religions of old eras change than just stagnate.

Having read some of Spong's works over the past decade and a bit I have always found it hard to understand why he persists in labelling himself as "Christian".

I am a humanist and my position on all gods is agnostic atheism. We can all agree this is quite different to Christianity - far removed in fact. Spong's views are closer to my own than to mainstream/conservative/liberal Christianity yet he still calls himself a Christian (for that matter a Muslim has more beliefs in common with the average christian than Spong does). It could be, as some have suggested, a comfort thing - and he does like some of the traditions of the church but is that enough for him to keep saying he belongs to a religion of who's tenants he rejects?

He should just come out and say he is proposing a new type of religion but it needs to be called something else - not Christianity.

Yeah... while I'm very lenient with my definitions of what a Christian (or whatever else) is to try and avoid the "No True Scotsman"-fallacy, this guy appears to barely qualify even as a Theist in general anymore at this point. I mean, I'd love it if this were what modern Christianity became all over the world, but still. I can definitely understand the sentiment that this isn't Christianity. I'd call it a type of Deism, really.

ElectroJosh:
- and he does like some of the traditions of the church but is that enough for him to keep saying he belongs to a religion of who's tenants he rejects?

Well, he might call it philosophical Christianity or cultural Christianity or whatever. "Cultural Catholics" are very common, for one thing, people who go to the various rituals and events but don't actually believe a thing. And many people talk about a philosophical view of Buddhism, i.e. rejecting the supernatural elements but keeping the basic tenants. I suppose that might apply here if we take the "be nice to others"-thing as the central tenant of Christianity. Still, I see what you're saying (as should be obvious from the first paragraph of this post). Just playing devil's advocate a little.

There's nothing particularly radical about what he's saying when you compare it to most contemporary theology. I mean he's an Anglican. He's probably quite conservative compared to some English Anglican bishops. They ordain women, they ordain non-practising homosexuals, soon to be ordaining practising homosexuals, and perhaps after that ordaining agnostics and atheists. It's a hobby. Theology is where highly educated (and often super rich) individuals engage in bemusing word play to one another in a way that is utterly non-reflective of the religion they are supposed to be following. No Christian, as in somebody who (roughly speaking) follows the Bible and goes to church every week, has ever taken any notice of a theologian. If a theologian decides that you don't need to hate gay people any more, it doesn't make any difference what the average preacher says in his sermon, and it doesn't change what Christians believe. More non-Christians will buy this book than practising Christians.

Cakes:
Sounds like he isn't much of a Christian.

That's because Christianity has become such a horrific mutation of what it was intended. We being humans fucked it up, multiple times.

Fixing the bible, and fixing Christianity... he could well be called a Christian in 50 years, whereas would we call a Crusading soldier... would we call him a Christian today?

Anyway it's because of this guy I still call myself a Christian as opposed to making up my own version.

You cannot be a Christian and an Atheist at the same time. They are literally contradictory beliefs.

PrinceOfShapeir:
You cannot be a Christian and an Atheist at the same time. They are literally contradictory beliefs.

Seems that it is possible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

A lot of people who are in a religion, do it more because they happen to like the culture and teachings

I predict that this guy is going to get crucified.

...

Do you see? Do you see the point I am making here? Good.

Carry on.

While I don't agree with everything he said, or know enough to be able to comment on all of them, I think he is definitely spot on with 9, 11, and 12. Too bad so many churches nowadays are stuck in this "The Bible IS the be-all, end-all, final and Holy word of God" business to see this. They are completely forgetting (or outright ignoring) what the Bible actually is, and the fundamental reasons the leadership and people of Jesus' time had such a problem with him. The church has changed a lot from its earliest days to now, and I think the major ones have grown into something quite grotesque. Luckily there are some churches coming out now which see these flaws and are working to rectify them and redefine the church, but until they get more time to expand there are still going to be many dark days ahead with these horribly discriminatory churches.

Marik2:

PrinceOfShapeir:
You cannot be a Christian and an Atheist at the same time. They are literally contradictory beliefs.

Seems that it is possible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

A lot of people who are in a religion, do it more because they happen to like the culture and teachings

Interesting, makes you wonder how many people there are out there who identifies or see themselves as christian-atheists. I doubt there are many who publicly address themselves in that manner though, seeing how so many religious institutes still do there best to disgraced and demonize the term atheist :/.

Also if you are one of those who surround yourself with Christians and don't want to risk alienate anyone because of "controversial" religious views, then I guess calling yourself a christian-atheist could perhaps be a bit counterproductive. Although I would find it really hard to respect people who can't accept you for who you are, but then again life isn't always simple and religion can certainly complicate things even more sometimes :).

Anyhow, I wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a lot people active in theistic religions like Christianity who secretly are atheist. Perhaps especially those who studied theology and the bible a great deal, seeing how there are few things that turns you into an atheist faster than reading and trying to make sense of the bible ;).

You cannot accept the teachings of Jesus Christ and be an atheist because part of the teachings of Jesus Christ was that -he was the Son of God-. If you do not accept that Jesus Christ was divinity - at least in some form or another - you can't call yourself a Christian. No 'Christian Atheist' would identify as a Christian, they identify as Atheists who agree with the moral teachings of Christ.

Nibbles:

Magichead:
So basically, he's accomplished everything he needs to become an atheist, but can't stomach jettisoning the last millstone and so wallows in vaguely spiritualist deism instead.

I mean seriously, once you take the positions he has, why not take the next logical step and just admit that "god" is as vacuous a concept as all the others you've rejected?

Still, if every religious person were this irreligious, I daresay the world would be a much nicer place to live in.

Or is trying to change the religion so it can better meet the modern era? Religion likely isn't going to vanish because it'll just morph into something else. I'd rather religions of old eras change than just stagnate.

I'd rather they just stagnate so people abandon them and start thinking about things without as many preconceptions or as much baggage. If something is good, it should be justified by something other than mere tradition.

Seanchaidh:

Nibbles:
Or is trying to change the religion so it can better meet the modern era? Religion likely isn't going to vanish because it'll just morph into something else. I'd rather religions of old eras change than just stagnate.

I'd rather they just stagnate so people abandon them and start thinking about things without as many preconceptions or as much baggage. If something is good, it should be justified by something other than mere tradition.

And the small, but growing growing number of churches who accept gays and perform same-sex services agree with you on that. That's why they've changed.

PrinceOfShapeir:
No 'Christian Atheist' would identify as a Christian, they identify as Atheists who agree with the moral teachings of Christ.

Don't be so absolutist. There certainly are such people. How sensible taking that position is, is a different question entirely.

Wolverine18:

PrinceOfShapeir:
You cannot accept the teachings of Jesus Christ and be an atheist because part of the teachings of Jesus Christ was that -he was the Son of God-. If you do not accept that Jesus Christ was divinity - at least in some form or another - you can't call yourself a Christian. No 'Christian Atheist' would identify as a Christian, they identify as Atheists who agree with the moral teachings of Christ.

Unless you don't believe that was his teaching and that he was god in human form and that part was added centuries later, as the muslims and a number of religious scholars believe. Look at one of the key christian prayers, "Our FATHER or art in heaven...". So if Jesus said he were the son of god and god was his father maybe he meant it just how christians mean it when we say "our father" in prayer. He is "father of us all" and a "father figure".

So you can follow his teachings because you believe in what he said and even that he was a prophet without believing he is divine, and if you follow christ, by definition that makes you christian.

You cannot follow the teachings of Christ if you reject the idea of divinity in general. I'll accept that you can believe that Jesus was merely a prophet and still call yourself a Christian. A little bit. But rejecting the idea of divinity at all and calling yourself a Christian is completely absurd.

PrinceOfShapeir:
You cannot accept the teachings of Jesus Christ and be an atheist because part of the teachings of Jesus Christ was that -he was the Son of God-. If you do not accept that Jesus Christ was divinity - at least in some form or another - you can't call yourself a Christian. No 'Christian Atheist' would identify as a Christian, they identify as Atheists who agree with the moral teachings of Christ.

Well part of the teaching of Jesus Christ was also that you should abandon your family for him and give away all of your possessions. Not exactly something the average christian care about today, or have done for the past two thousand years either for that matter.

This is just the typical question of what makes a "true christian", which is as old as its religion. The first dominate Jesus movement declared itself to be orthodox and every other movement to be heretics. Then it got divided because the church couldn't reach an agreement on the trinity and split up an empire in the process. And since then we had many new movements and heretics pop up throughout history, with the most famous one being Martin Luther of course.

So what exactly is stopping the church to reform yet again? Most Christians today doesn't seem to care much about Yahweh, the old testament, most of the commandments in the bible, sin and so on. We see more and more people ignoring the supernatural parts in favor of some of the Jesus parts they seem to like. So why not just stop this charade and give the cherry pickers what they want, a Christianity for the 21 century :).

Danny Ocean:

CaptainOctopus:
So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

What the hell is up with the word 'Bankrupt' all of a sudden? It's being waaaay overused. A much better word in this case would've been 'irrelevant'.

Well the book in which he wrote this was published over a decade ago.

I think a lot of people - Christians and atheists alike - walk into these debates with fixed subjective views of what religion (generally or a specific religion) is and is not, but I think it's rarely if ever useful. It's nearly always just so many variants on a "No True Scotsman" fallacy: the purpose being to mould a view of religion that suits their personal prejudices.

The personal prejudices are generally framing a debate in a way to make themselves right. Atheists are all too often seemingly intent on little more than trying to show off how intellectually superior they think they are. The religious are all too often intent on proving their holiness and worthiness by denigrating differing views.

My experience of religious friends and family is that religion is not an objectively determined set of rules and criteria, it's a personal exploration of themselves and their place in the universe. I know a few people connected with the "Sea of Faith" (which, being Anglican, John Spong is probably aware of or part of) which is extremely unconventional, but I see no reason not to call it Christianity.

But whatever, no-one's listening: atheists want their knee-jerk contempt, and the religious want their rigid dogma.

CaptainOctopus:
However anyone regardless of their belief system can value the teachings of a religion, so why bother calling yourself a Christian at all?

Atheist reporting in.
I think you are not quite understanding his point here.
He has faith. He believes utterly in God.
His point is that our religious conception of God and Jesus, is flawed and dangerous.

Christianity needs to evolve into a more logical and humanistic form to remain relevant. I don't think it would make it any less Christian, since our definition of Christianity and religion is based on random preconceptions and misconceptions. They could worship a pencil and still call themselves Christians. That's the problem with religion, it's unwillingness to compromise.

Wolverine18:

PrinceOfShapeir:

Wolverine18:

Unless you don't believe that was his teaching and that he was god in human form and that part was added centuries later, as the muslims and a number of religious scholars believe. Look at one of the key christian prayers, "Our FATHER or art in heaven...". So if Jesus said he were the son of god and god was his father maybe he meant it just how christians mean it when we say "our father" in prayer. He is "father of us all" and a "father figure".

So you can follow his teachings because you believe in what he said and even that he was a prophet without believing he is divine, and if you follow christ, by definition that makes you christian.

You cannot follow the teachings of Christ if you reject the idea of divinity in general. I'll accept that you can believe that Jesus was merely a prophet and still call yourself a Christian. A little bit. But rejecting the idea of divinity at all and calling yourself a Christian is completely absurd.

Why would you say that? One can accept Christ without accepting baggage that was falsely added on a century after his death and probably went against everything he stood for.

Because it's intellectually dishonest. You say you're a Christian, you're saying you believe in the Christian faith, not that you're some nebulous 'I think Jesus was a pretty chill bro.' You cannot be a Christian if you don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, because that is what Christ means!

Esotera:
What would everyone do in church every Sunday? That's the only issue I see with this.

Also, that sounds rather like agnosticism. Maybe it's a general trend that we'll see more Agnostic Christians, just like there have been quite a few atheist Jews.

People will just keep doing what they already do every Sunday; compare clothes and gossip about other people's misfortunes.

As for this guy, it seems like he's a religious Christian the same way the Chinese people were religious Confucians, which is not really religious at all. He seems treats it as a philosophical and moral code, which is all well and cool. Just have to make that distinction when they use the word "Christian" so that I know they're talking about it in philosophical and not religious terms.