Bishop John's Letter to the Diocese of Tasmania - 21 October 2003

A Response to John Shelby Spong

The Bishop of Tasmania, John Harrower, has responded to the upcoming visit of retired US Episcopal Church (Anglican) Bishop, John Shelby Spong with the following statement.

Spong's echoless solitude

As a Bishop who has been acting to transform a Church institution, I agree with John Spong's assertion that we need to change and adapt to 21st Century life just as the church has needed to adapt to different times and cultures across the ages. However, I am deeply offended by John Spong's parody of orthodox Christians, and the recklessness of his teachings.

Unlike Spong, I believe that orthodox Christian beliefs are still highly relevant, indeed essential.

John Spong's position may be summarised in his '12 Theses' from the late 1990s, where he systematically denies most of the major tenets of Christianity such as theism, creation, the divinity of Christ, the cross as Christ's reconciling death, the resurrection, the ascension, the Holy Spirit, prayer, eternal life and biblical revelation.

As can be seen, Spong's claims are mainly negative (in other words, what he does not believe). This 'knocking' of traditional beliefs, especially when done by a bishop, has a certain appeal to the Australian style - and, yes, indeed, some people may have difficulty with Christian belief. Rather than giving these beliefs a fair go, John Spong downgrades its beliefs. Spong does Christianity no service.

Spong's approach is like a member of the Melbourne Football Club Committee who decides that playing soccer is more satisfying than playing Australian Rules Football and he decides to change the Club. This member, with his agenda for 'reform', begins to argue that the rules of Aussie football should be changed to those of soccer: the number of players should be reduced, the playing field should be rectangular not oval shaped, a round ball should be used, the goal posts reduced to two, a goal to count as one point and no marking or handball is allowed! After all, we must 'move with the times' and most of the world agrees that soccer is 'the accepted code'!

Traditional Melbourne Football Club supporters are not impressed, but they are accused of being 'fundamentalists'. A heated exchange erupts on the Footy Show. When asked why, if he finds the rules of soccer more satisfying than Aussie football does he not join a soccer club, the reform-minded member replies that he is committed to playing Aussie football and that his views are neither pro-soccer nor anti-Aussie rules, but a new Australian Rules Football for a new age!

Can you imagine that the supporters of the Melbourne Football Club, the true singers of 'the red and the blue', the ones who have been dubbed 'traditionalist' and 'fundamentalist' will remain cool, calm and collected? Not likely, mate! Confusion, consternation and questions of integrity would reign.

Similarly, confusion, consternation and questions of integrity surround John Spong's insistence on his commitment to Christianity while denying its very essence.

Spong's is a 'designer theology': if you don't like that which has been handed down faithfully, then fashion theology after your own image. His theology is primarily therapeutic and idolatrous in putting human thoughts and opinions before God's revelation.

Christian theology is based on God's initiative, God's revealing of Godself to humankind. Therefore, before we continue with our questions, we are to answer the anguished question of God, 'Adam, where are you?' We are to humbly acknowledge that we are lost and need to answer God's call. This is a mystery of love. It is not the mystery of a mute 'source of being'. It is the mystery of the incarnation and the cross, of the love that suffers. Of the call of love and life that comes from the God through whom all things were made: 'Come, follow me.'

Moreover, Spong's self-appointed role as an open-minded research officer places himself above what theology calls providence and revelation. As Archbishop William Temple pointed out education may raise the platform on which I stand, and permit me to see further, but it still places me at the centre of the world I see, and this is its failing. This is part of Spong's failing; in thinking we can discover God by our own efforts. As Newbigin so eloquently states, 'We are not honest and open-minded explorers of reality; we are alienated from reality because we have made ourselves the centre of the universe.'

The Spong tragedy is further compounded by the fact that the beliefs Spong now denies were the ones he vowed to uphold when he became a bishop during his ordination service. This is particularly questionable on the grounds of honesty, as it is his title and status as a bishop that he uses to give him the high profile from which to expound his views that rip at the heart of the people and their beliefs that bestowed on him the authority of bishop.

In religious dialogue it is important that we respect the beliefs of others and not parody or weaken their presentation in any way. The so-called 'fundamentalist' Christianity that John Spong criticises is not the Christianity that many of us know and uphold. Spong's 'fundamentalist' Christianity is but a pale shadow of true Christianity, a parody of its beliefs and practice. I find this very offensive. Spong then has the intellectual dishonesty to knock down this diluted Christianity, this 'straw man', as though gaining a victory over a formidable opponent! Spong's is an empty cry of triumph for he has triumphed over his own frail creation.

The call of a bishop is to unify in the truth. Spong's parody of Christian truth is a negation of integrity. Rather than leading to a new consciousness it demonstrates a failure of conscience. When the only element of orthodox Christian belief Bishop Spong seems able to accept is that a man called Jesus once lived, then perhaps it is time for him to 'hand in his ticket'.

I agree with the view of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who said in 1998 of Spong's 12 Theses,

while I believe Bishop Spong has, in these and other matters, done an indispensable task in focusing our attention on questions under-examined and poorly thought through, I believe that these (Spong's) theses represent a level of confusion and misinterpretation that I find astonishing.

The full text of Archbishop Williams' article can be found here. See also the excellent review of Spong's latest book by Tasmanian, William Briggs.

As Bishop of Tasmania I believe orthodox Christian faith truly does come to terms with difficult issues of belief and the way that religious beliefs affect the moral choices that people face.

Orthodox Christianity is capable of responding to the full range of our hopes and fears, joys and sorrows, and I believe its approach is satisfying, life-giving and freeing. God is love, freedom, life and light. God is not just a first cause or an answer to our questions. God is our Creator who gives to humankind His own being along with the power to decide whether or not to journey with God and find our destiny as God's child.

John Spong's attempts to feel his way towards an unknowable and disinterested transcendental reality give no personal warmth. Can Spong's 'transcendental reality' have love and understanding? Can Spong's mute 'source of being' speak? Can something impersonal have a heart, and therefore compassion, mercy and justice? How can Spong answer our questions about the real world - questions that deal with justice, and love, and meaning? What criteria would he use to explain his own nation's unjust wealth distribution? - and, moreover, if I find divinity in my humanity, as Spong demands, must I pretend that my own sinful tendency to injustice does not exist? What makes sense of my love for my children? Why would I bother? Why would I bother whether they bother with me? Why would we even ask: 'What's the point, who cares?'? Spong's claimed new consciousness is rather the deadness of an echoless solitude.

I believe the great issues of identity, purpose and destiny are answered in the revelation of God in Christ:

• Identity: Who am I? I am a child of God.
• Location: Where am I? I am in God's world.
• Purpose: What am I here for? I am here to love God and love my neighbour as myself.
• Destiny: Where am I going? I am God's child in Christ and will enjoy his presence forever.

This gives me hope, purpose and love.

Thanks be to God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

John Harrower
Bishop of Tasmania
21 October 2003