Sounds like he's given this a lot of thought

[Pixilated]

Bishop John Shelby Spong has quite an intriguing view of religion, humanity and God.

I have to say that I'm very impressed.

Thoughts?

[BlaqueKatt]

Bishop John Shelby Spong has quite an intriguing view of religion, humanity and God.

I have to say that I'm very impressed.

Thoughts?

not that intrigued, it's quite similar to secular humanism, with a vague and unnecessary concept of god shoehorned in.

[Rageaholic]

I've always liked him. Unlike a lot of theologians, he doesn't excuse the oppressive nature of Christian teachings. (something a lot of apologists do).

[Andara Bledin]

not that intrigued, it's quite similar to secular humanism, with a vague and unnecessary concept of god shoehorned in.

Unnecessary to you, perhaps.

[BlaqueKatt]

Unnecessary to you, perhaps.

It's unnecessary to the concept, aka "god of the gaps", and he actually states "not a god watching over us from above" which eliminates the necessity of a god, or a savior, but still attempts to shoehorn one in.

[Andara Bledin]

That still doesn't mean that it's unnecessary. Even crutches have their place in the grand scheme of things.

I'm speaking generally, here, because I haven't and won't be watching the video (would be nice if it had been labeled as such). I may look for a transcript sometime in the future, though.

[Gravekeeper]

Can't find a transcript, but is list of reformations for Christianity might give some insight into the position he's putting forward.

He is not "shoehorning" in God. He's actually very much speaking along the lines of Deism with an undercurrent of Humanism and/or Buddhism. His entire argument is that the way organized religion tries to portray and understand whatever God is, is pointless and ultimately damaging. That its no longer sustainable in a modern society with the advance of science and human understanding.

Its refreshingly reasonable, really.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'd describe Spong's theology as less "Secular Humanist" and more "Pantheist."

He definitely believes in a god, but not a god that's impossible to understand by a single person. God of the gaps, however, would not at all be theologically consistent with what Spong preaches.

God of the gaps, at least as I've understood it from a theological perspective, would that god exists, and explains things we don't understand.

I don't pretend to speak for the guy on the matter, though, because I may have read some of his works, and I don't always quite follow him. But as best as I can tell, Spong's teachings wouldn't say that God explains things we don't understand, but that God is a force, a sort of purpose and direction to the universe.

A view, as best I can tell (and he confuses me sometimes) of God not as a source of morality, but as morality itself.

I'd really need to be able to personally talk to him to sort out what, exactly, Spong's thoughts are, though. Because I don't think either of us have what he thinks exactly right, and all I can say is that my description of his beliefs is based on a couple books he wrote.

His best work, though, that I think could be a more in-depth description of his views, is "Re-Claiming The Bible for a Non-Religious World."

It's been almost a year and a half since I read it (I got it for Christmas in 2011, it came out November) and my memories may be getting mixed up, between that, and maybe some other authors I read since I started it.

He may reach many of the conclusions of secular humanism, but not on the same basis. Similarly to how Giordano Bruno reached many similar conclusions to actual scientific facts, (Heliocentrism, the sun is one of many stars, ) but reached them for theological reasons, not based on scientific observation. (He believed that there was an infinite amount of stars and planets, because God is infinite, and, therefore, must have created an infinite number of worlds, not just one.)

To describe Spong's beliefs as Secular Humanism + God seems, to me, like describing Giordano Bruno as a 'great scientist' simply because he came to the same conclusions. He may have reached a point that agrees with many secular humanists, but he couldn't have reached it WITHOUT using God.

"not a god watching over us from above" which eliminates the necessity of a god, or a savior, but still attempts to shoehorn one in.

That's a very peculiar view of what 'the purpose of god' is, and it's limited basically to the more traditional Christian traditions, as well as possibly other abrahamic ones (I'm not entirely sure on Muslim and Jewish theology on the matter. Some groups might agree, some might disagree.)

Spong is not a typical Christian bishop, that much is for sure, but I don't think that his theology is one that would have God as unnecessary.

Edit: GK may be right, Deism may be more appropriate than Pantheism, but I'm not sure.

[Gravekeeper]

Edit: GK may be right, Deism may be more appropriate than Pantheism, but I'm not sure.

It doesn't quite sound like pantheism, because he still seems to still imply to a anthropomorphic God figure. I'm a pandeist myself and I suppose you could argue he's a little pandeist. But he does sounds more like a deist, really. As his chief concern seems to be a critical approach to religion and God using reason from what I can gather from his works and website.

You're right though, its a bit hard to untangle as he doesn't seem to ever clearly straight up state what he believes about what.