Bishop John Shelby Spong on Atonement Theology

[Sunstone]

“Atonement theology assumes that we were created in some kind of original perfection. We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years. There was no original perfection. If there was no original perfection, then there could never have been a fall from perfection. If there was no fall, then there is no such thing as “original sin” and thus no need for the waters of baptism to wash our sins away. If there was no fall into sin, then there is also no need to be rescued. How can one be rescued from a fall that never happened? How can one be restored to a status of perfection that he or she never possessed? So most of our Christology today is bankrupt. Many popular titles that we have applied to Jesus, such as “savior,” “redeemer,” and “rescuer,” no longer make sense, because they assume”

“I have become convinced that we must put an end to atonement theology or there will be no future for the Christian faith."

“Atonement theology is not the pathway to life. The ability to give ourselves away to others in love is. It is not the winners who achieve life’s meaning; it is the givers."​

― John Shelby Spong, Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel​

What do you think? Is clinging to atonement theology compatible with a future for Christianity? Why or why not? Should Christians abandon it? Why or why not?

 

[sayak83]

“Atonement theology assumes that we were created in some kind of original perfection. We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years. There was no original perfection. If there was no original perfection, then there could never have been a fall from perfection. If there was no fall, then there is no such thing as “original sin” and thus no need for the waters of baptism to wash our sins away. If there was no fall into sin, then there is also no need to be rescued. How can one be rescued from a fall that never happened? How can one be restored to a status of perfection that he or she never possessed? So most of our Christology today is bankrupt. Many popular titles that we have applied to Jesus, such as “savior,” “redeemer,” and “rescuer,” no longer make sense, because they assume”

“I have become convinced that we must put an end to atonement theology or there will be no future for the Christian faith."

“Atonement theology is not the pathway to life. The ability to give ourselves away to others in love is. It is not the winners who achieve life’s meaning; it is the givers."​

― John Shelby Spong, Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel​

What do you think? Is clinging to atonement theology compatible with a future for Christianity? Why or why not? Should Christians abandon it? Why or why not?

I think it's quite clear that it's the theologically conservative versions of Christianity that is growing and attracting adherents rather than the very liberal versions. Once humanism and nones have become an option, people of such inclination will migrate to these rather than very liberal Christianity.

That said theologically conservative Christianity is compatible with socially progressive ideologies. So ecologically responsible, gender sensitive, woman friendly, poor focused Christianity is quite viable but non-trinitarian, non-atonement based and non-messianic Christianity is not. Christianity is the major savior based mystery religion of the world today and such a system always had widespread appeal to a significant section of folks. Any deviation from that, and Christianity loses its niche specialization and hence loses its appeal.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it's quite clear that it's the theologically conservative versions of Christianity that is growing and attracting adherents rather than the very liberal versions. Once humanism and nones have become an option, people of such inclination will migrate to these rather than very liberal Christianity.

That said theologically conservative Christianity is compatible with socially progressive ideologies. So ecologically responsible, gender sensitive, woman friendly, poor focused Christianity is quite viable but non-trinitarian, non-atonement based and non-messianic Christianity is not. Christianity is the major savior based mystery religion of the world today and such a system always had widespread appeal to a significant section of folks. Any deviation from that, and Christianity loses its niche specialization and hence loses its appeal.

Will Christianity become a religion for the scientifically illiterate?

 

[sayak83]

Will Christianity become a religion for the scientifically illiterate?

Mystery religions and practitioners of reason and knowledge based eudaimonic ways of living (classical philosophers like Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius, Stoic etc.) have never got on well together. They are competing systems. And what is science but an extension of the latter? So I expect that number of Christians to be quite low among them. Either Sophia or messiah, rarely both together. Efforts of putting them together gets you pantheistic ideas like that of Philo or Spinoza. That is the mystical niche, in which Vedantists and Buddhists specialize in the modern world (along with weed users ).

 

[Father Heathen]

Will Christianity become a religion for the scientifically illiterate?

Become?

 

[DavidFirth]

“Atonement theology assumes that we were created in some kind of original perfection. We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years. There was no original perfection. If there was no original perfection, then there could never have been a fall from perfection. If there was no fall, then there is no such thing as “original sin” and thus no need for the waters of baptism to wash our sins away. If there was no fall into sin, then there is also no need to be rescued. How can one be rescued from a fall that never happened? How can one be restored to a status of perfection that he or she never possessed? So most of our Christology today is bankrupt. Many popular titles that we have applied to Jesus, such as “savior,” “redeemer,” and “rescuer,” no longer make sense, because they assume”

“I have become convinced that we must put an end to atonement theology or there will be no future for the Christian faith."

“Atonement theology is not the pathway to life. The ability to give ourselves away to others in love is. It is not the winners who achieve life’s meaning; it is the givers."​

― John Shelby Spong, Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel​

What do you think? Is clinging to atonement theology compatible with a future for Christianity? Why or why not? Should Christians abandon it? Why or why not?

No, it isn't. This is what happens when an attempt is made to combine God's word with Man's theoretical reality.
The RCC should have stuck with Genesis because Genesis will prove out to be 100% correct in the end.
Life did not start from a single cell that formed somehow from non-life. It started just like Genesis says it did. End of story.
That's my take on it. I think the RCC is just wrong about this.

 

[Rival]

Become?

You need to view Christianity outside of the States haha. In Europe I feel as though it might as well be a different religion.

 

[Kenny]

“Atonement theology assumes that we were created in some kind of original perfection. We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years. There was no original perfection. If there was no original perfection, then there could never have been a fall from perfection. If there was no fall, then there is no such thing as “original sin” and thus no need for the waters of baptism to wash our sins away. If there was no fall into sin, then there is also no need to be rescued. How can one be rescued from a fall that never happened? How can one be restored to a status of perfection that he or she never possessed? So most of our Christology today is bankrupt. Many popular titles that we have applied to Jesus, such as “savior,” “redeemer,” and “rescuer,” no longer make sense, because they assume”

“I have become convinced that we must put an end to atonement theology or there will be no future for the Christian faith."

“Atonement theology is not the pathway to life. The ability to give ourselves away to others in love is. It is not the winners who achieve life’s meaning; it is the givers."​

― John Shelby Spong, Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel​

What do you think? Is clinging to atonement theology compatible with a future for Christianity? Why or why not? Should Christians abandon it? Why or why not?

In my view, the foundational principle of "We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years." is in and of itself a "faith" position and not based on empirical and verifiable evidence. Thus the end question is based on faulty positions.

 

[DavidFirth]

In my view, the foundational principle of "We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years." is in and of itself a "faith" position and not based on empirical and verifiable evidence. Thus the end question is based on faulty positions.

The belief of no Creator requires faith just like any religion does.

The belief of macro-evolution requires faith also.

 

[metis]

In my view, the foundational principle of "We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years."

Correct as this is only a hypothesis.

 

[metis]

The belief of macro-evolution requires faith also.

False as it is based on overwhelming evidence.

 

[metis]

The RCC should have stuck with Genesis because Genesis will prove out to be 100% correct in the end.
Life did not start from a single cell that formed somehow from non-life. It started just like Genesis says it did. End of story.
That's my take on it. I think the RCC is just wrong about this.

Just to clarify, Bishop Spong is not a Catholic but an Episcopalian/Anglican. Bright guy but very controversial.

 

[DavidFirth]

False as it is based on overwhelming evidence.

But it cannot be proven. So faith is required to believe it is absolute truth.

 

[DavidFirth]

Just to clarify, Bishop Spong is not a Catholic but an Episcopalian/Anglican. Bright guy but very controversial.

Well, I'm not familiar with what they believe. However, I am familiar with what the RCC believes and I believe they're wrong on this subject.

 

[metis]

But it cannot be proven.

In science, you only rarely hear the word "proven". Instead, you're far more apt to hear "the [overwhelming] evidence suggests...".

So faith is required to believe it is absolute truth.

It's not a matter of "faith" any more than one would say "I have faith Earth has a moon". One either accepts that reality or they don't or they say they don't know, but the fact that life forms change over time is very much an observed reality that's not based on "faith".

Since it is only some creationists that say that "micro-" cannot slip into "macro-", the burden of evidence falls on them, and thus far we have not seen a single person here put forth even one shred of evidence to support their claim. Not one.

 

[metis]

However, I am familiar with what the RCC believes and I believe they're wrong on this subject.

Which is why I'm so much more comfortable in my wife's Catholic Church than in a fundamentalist Protestant Church like I grew up in.

 

[DavidFirth]

In science, you only rarely hear the word "proven". Instead, you're far more apt to hear "the [overwhelming] evidence suggests...".

It's not a matter of "faith" any more than one would say "I have faith Earth has a moon". One either accepts that reality or they don't or they say they don't know, but the fact that life forms change over time is very much an observed reality that's not based on "faith".

Since it is only some creationists that say that "micro-" cannot slip into "macro-", the burden of evidence falls on them, and thus far we have not seen a single person here put forth even one shred of evidence to support their claim. Not one.

That's ridiculous. You can read all about the evidence and how it supports Creationism on any Creationist website. Take your pick.

 

[DavidFirth]

Which is why I'm so much more comfortable in my wife's Catholic Church than in a fundamentalist Protestant Church like I grew up in.

I also attend Catholic Church. I in no way have to believe everything they do in order to worship with them. Thank God for that.

 

[metis]

That's ridiculous. You can read all about the evidence and how it supports Creationism on any Creationist website. Take your pick.

Then maybe post it/some with a link. Several of us have been asking you and some others for weeks now and have seen nothing.

 

[metis]

I also attend Catholic Church. I in no way have to believe everything they do in order to worship with them.

They in no way would expect you or anyone else to do as such.

Thank God for that.

Since they are not opposed to intelligence and honesty, I can see why you'd say that.

Your denomination clearly teaches ignorance and dishonesty, which is why I left the church I grew up in decades ago. And the crazy thing is that you're paying for them to teach you such ignorance and dishonesty.

As long as you blindly follow what they are teaching you, you'll never grow in faith because blind faith is really just that-- blind and shallow. As the saying goes, "If two people completely agree, then only one of them is actually doing the thinking". Therefore, it appears that they're doing all the thinking while fleecing you at the same time.