|
 It was at a public lecture in the Religious Studies Department at Victoria University, Wellington, in 1997, that I first met Bishop John Shelby Spong. An articulate speaker, strong on rhetoric and full of ingratiating charm, he cuts an imposing figure at the lecture podium bedecked in ministerial attire. Not one to mince words, he has little time for those who seek to uphold the orthodox beliefs of the Christian faith and always generates sufficient controversy to ensure that the secular press effectively market the growing list of books he has authored and his public lectures. According to his New Zealand publicist he is scheduled to visit our country in July 2001.
As he is one who revels in controversy and appears flattered by any form of publicity he receives, whether good or bad, I had assumed that he would have been delighted to engage in dialogue over his theological position. However, this proved not to be the case, at least when it came to the questions I put to him publicly.1
Having called for "dialogue" at the commencement of the lecture he seemed quite affronted that I dared to disagree with his views and question his authority. He made a bee-line for me outside the lecture room and seemed intent on settling the score. With the solemnity of a funeral cortege and his long arm outstretched towards me, he declared "I'm John Spong, who are you?" Having determined my name, he turned disconcertingly hostile, charging me, in front of witnesses, of being "full of evangelical rubbish". His hectoring tone and pugnacious body language sent a clear message - I was not welcome at any more of his public lectures - and he strode off.
Notwithstanding, I followed him and lecture organiser Rev. Dr James Veitch, at a distance, and joined a small tutorial group to listen to his second presentation to students. Sitting within arm's reach of him, I was determined to get the inside running on this ecclesiastical celebrity and discover the secret to his effective communication. "I live and walk in the divine mystery, the essence of holiness, which is beyond all traditions of worship", he declared. "We need to learn to love wastefully" was his constant catchcry.
When asked by an earnest honours student what he understood the death of Jesus to mean or signify in spiritual terms, he was unable to give any guidance. "I'm working on that one" was his enigmatic answer. Beguiled perhaps by his own rhetoric, he seemed genuinely alarmed that a student had exposed the shallowness of his own thinking on such a fundamental aspect of the faith. But quickly he turned from declared ignorance to 'factual certainty' by launching an attack on the evangelical Anglican Minister of All Souls Church, London, the Rev. Dr John Stott.
John Stott, so we were told, was dishonest and so lacking in integrity, that he exemplified all that was wrong in the evangelical wing of the Anglican Church and with conservatives in general. The only evidence he put forward was Dr Stott's performance in a public debate he had with him in Vancouver and the claimed 'doctoring' of the transcript of the debate in the published version of it in the evangelical journal Crux,2 produced by Regent College, Vancouver. Familiar with these charges, which he has made on numerous occasions, and which he even regurgitates in his more recent autobiography, I had taken with me to the lecture a copy of the published transcript, a full rebuttal of the charges by an independent adjudicator at the debate and other background material. Following Spong's vindictive and very personal attack on Rev. Stott, I sought to rectify the injustice by quoting from the transcript and reports3 during the discussion period. The chairman, Rev. Dr Jim Veitch, immediately leapt in to defend Spong and shut down any dialogue on the matter. I had experienced at close range a bishop using his privileged position to personally attack the leadership of his own Communion and a fellow liberal minister rising to close down debate.
"My Struggle for a Christianity of Integrity, Love and Equality", the subtitle of his recent autobiography, has a hollow ring to it when I reflect upon what I witnessed of his personal style. Perhaps it could be argued that these are only minor faults, hardly reflective of his overall ministry. However, the rancour and dissention he has generated in the 70-million strong Anglican Communion and beyond fits the same pattern I observed. Those who disagree with him are labelled "ignorant fundamentalists", "lacking integrity", "dishonest", "homophobic", "bigoted", or "full of evangelical rubbish".
This issue of Apologia (cover page) (contents page) (What's Wrong with Bishop Spong? article) contains a careful analysis of Bishop Spong - the man and his message - from a conservative Christian perspective. In an effort to redress the imbalance - the excessive fawning devotion to the man exhibited by the secular media and liberal wing of the Church - we have at times not minced words. The Bishop no doubt would commend this direct approach, for he and his 'acolytes' appear to applaud their own candidness and see it as evidence of their own integrity. We do not see candidness per se as a paramount virtue when it is delivered at the expense of truth.
While there is sometimes a fine line between argument that is ad hominem and a rigorous critique, we have sought to avoid charges/accusations of dishonesty, stupidity, hypocricy, and the like, even though the subject of our investigation regularly directs such barbs at his critics. Our focus should be the theological/philosophical position promoted by Spong and his impact upon the wider Christian community. In his autobigraphy Here I Stand, he states in his preface: "I have been forced to make judgments about people and events. ... I hope I have not been unfair in doing so...My goal has been to hold up a mirror to friend and foe alike and, when the reflection was visible, to say this is how you looked to me" (p. ix).
Stripped, we hope, of the subjectivity of such an approach, in a sense this is akin to what each contributor has done. But unlike Spong, whose plumb-line does not appear to be the Biblical framework, our focus is an assessment based on the traditional Christian teachings and the revealed and authoritative Word of God. The task of Christian apologetics, while directed at seeking to give a rigorous defence of "the faith once delivered", must combat error as well as holding up the truth in a positive (rather than a solely defensive) manner. We are exhorted to "judge righteously", to "discern the truth", and to "expose unrighteousness and error". While John Spong is entitled to his opinion, he cannot expect to go unchallenged when he knowingly or unknowingly misrepresents and distorts Christian teaching.
This issue of Apologia (cover page) (contents page) (What's Wrong with Bishop Spong? article) brings together a range of analyses of his work, some of it original and some is republished with permission. The editorial committee wishes to express its sincere thanks to all contributors and we encourage readers to contact the editor if they would like to respond to issues raised or would like their written responses considered for publication in our next issue. Finally I wish to thank members and friends of the Society who have provided valuable editorial assistance and references.
David H. Lane
Editor
Endnotes
- For transcript of this interchange see 'Dialogue at the University', in "Redefining God in Man's Image," this volume, p. 19
- See Crux Vol. XXIX, No. 3 (Sept. 1993), 18-31; No. 4 (Dec. 1993), 28-39.
- See 'Who is Intellectually Dishonest?' in "Redefining God...", this volume, p. 23.
|