A Controversial Book of John Shelby Spong

I’ve read a few books by John Shelby Sponge over the years despite the controversial nature of his work. I’ve just completed the last and final book entitled ‘Biblical Literalism, A Gentile Heresy’ written in 2016, just before he died in 2017 aged 91. He wrote some 24 books stamping him as a significant contributor to Anglican thought. A controversial writer, maybe because he was associated with the Jesus Seminar movement, as a controversial movement in the Ecumenical stream of the Church.

His work is a reflection of the book of St Matthew through the eyes of the Old Testament. His argument is that the Jewish yearly worship program sets the scene as a set of readings and prayers outlining the story of the major feast days of the Jewish religion. However, it should be noted that the Old Testament was not a successive record of accounts from beginning to end. It was one version or interpretation of one perspective of history consisting of both written record and myth written mainly in the sixth and fifth century.

Prior to the 9^th century BC, the world was explained in legend and myth. The stories of David, Moses and Abraham were therefore not necessarily history but legend myth, with perhaps a sparsely scattered hint of history, so we must take the reading of them cautiously. The whole basis of Jewish worship begins with the mythic accounts of Moses story.  One must move cautiously when paying too much attention to it. In my opinion Spong has chosen the way of treating prophecy with to much respect.

Carefully arranging his article according to the main festivals to the yearly cycle, he lifts the prophecy’s that were announced in the Old Testament and applies them to the life of Jesus. His work reaches the climax when he interprets the resurrection as not a separation of living soul from dead body but as a break through the perceived division of soul and body, God and human, transcendence and immanence. One may assess it as an elevation of life. It is a hard concept to comprehend when we are more inclined to think dualistically than non-dually, the contemporary of way of viewing reality, lest we slip into a world that sees not a continuation beyond the grave, in keeping with the secular world. I am inclined to interpret the resurrection in this way.

Another issue that he addresses it the question of atonement. The Jewish faith was built around the issue of atonement. Central to worship was the one and only temple in Jerusalem where daily sacrifices were made for the sins of the world. The early church eventually interpreted the eucharist as if for the atonement for our sins. Over the last century or so, this has been questioned. It is being replaced by emphasis on the way of compassion. John explains that creation is a work of compassion. This happening as a progressive initiative of evolution. It progressively moves creation forward and never ceases from being the primary initiative of creation, passing through the creation of dinosaurs, homo erectus, neanderthals and homo sapiens-sapiens. Far from the mythic story of Adam and Eve, as if a historical account, this uninformed account of the beginning of time removes the concept of an original sin. Sin is a combination of the second law of dynamics and the discomfort of humans reaching out for the divine being, represented by the self-archetype.  But the initiative of compassion remains primary. Sin as a discomfort of progressive is secondary. For whatever reason Spong uses the argue against atonement he is correct in my view.

A few other concerns of Spong’s work should be noted. He attributes work solely to Matthew. He pushes the date back to a relatively late date in the 80’s. Matthew would be assumed to have been a witness as a disciple aged approximately at the earliest 20 to 30 at the time of Jesus ministry. Writing in the 80’s would make him 70 to 80 when writing. There is no guarantee that he did not have his own gathering of disciples around him. Whereas Spong implies that Matthew wrote independently of any other source he disregards these followers embracing Matthew’s teaching and being familiar with the oral tradition.

He implies that the disciples remaining did not witness Jesus’ time of suffering. He quotes that the disciples scattered following the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:50, Matt 26:56), and then assumed that they scattered indefinitely and witness nothing of the trial and crucifixion. This is an assumption that they did not temporarily scatter and return to continue as onlookers.

One disturbing argument he puts forward is the aggressive attack on fundamentalists at the beginning of the book for their literalist interpretation. That is a pity for he did not need to do it. I am far from literalist, in fact being very progressive in my interpretation.  Spong has a hint of being a literalist in quoting the Old Testament so comprehensively as a reliable presentation of his argument.

Spong’s book, a ‘Biblical Literalism, A gentile Heresy’ is a valuable read for those looking for new ways to understand the faith journey. It is one of numerous ways to interpret the scriptures. However, be aware of the subtle inconsistencies in his argument.  Never the less if one is to be open to the range of theories and acknowledge no one theory can capture the mystery of God then it is particularly valuable