Bishop John Shelby Spong: his views

[DeWitz]

So, if you were not a part of the original audience, how can you be so sure? There are so many different ways to interpret different passages from the bible. Those that insist theirs are correct should respect the interpretations of other IMHO.

Paul's struggle with consistently doing the right thing, his ambivalence about heterosexual marriage and his reference to a "thorn" he bore which kept him both questioning and humble, are all used as Rorshach inkblots upon which Christians and non-Christians will impose their views and values. The same can be said of any other personality, image, situation or spiritual concept in the Good Book. Example: "The Kingdom of God is within (or, "among") you." [Luke 17:21]. Does this mean I have no need to affiliate with a specific group, sect, church, gathering or tradition, because all the answers are already within me? Or does it mean that God's reign is found in, with and under the fellowship of like-hearted adepts who will assist me in grasping it? Arguments over 'proper' interpretation of scripture have killed a myriad of people and destroyed countless lives.

[Bluefinger]

So why are you using the bible then as your source? That book has many different versions and has been tinkered with and tweaked so much over time that I am rather hesitant to state unequivocally that it presents "cold, hard facts".

That's a mute argument. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think you are reading my statement correctly and in the right context.

If Paul never said that he struggled with homosexuality, in the Epistle to the Romans or any of his other writings, then we can't say that he did. It's not our place because we don't personally know him nor do we have solid evidence. His writings don't give a strong enough conclusion.

The most likely cause for concluding that Paul struggled with homosexual desire, then, is that the culture of today is overstepping its literary bounds and projecting its culture and values into a writing that is far removed from that culture.

So, its not like I'm trying to prove that homosexuality is a sin by using the Bible. I haven't tried to. All I'm saying is that the writings themselves do not provide the evidence to support the claim that Paul was a homosexual.

For all we know maybe he had bragging rights for his influence among the Gentiles but knew it was wrong to like it. We don't know and can't say for sure.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Bluefinger

[jugoso]

That's a mute argument. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think you are reading my statement correctly and in the right context.

Not really sure how this thread is ending up debating Paul´s sexuality. If I´m not mistaken, there is a whole thread that deals with that. I haven´t participated in it because for one, I couldn´t care less and two, it is pure speculation.

Your quote:

I appreciate cold hard facts.

Then you go on to say

If Paul never said that he struggled with homosexuality, in the Epistle to the Romans or any of his other writings, then we can't say that he did. It's not our place because we don't personally know him nor do we have solid evidence. His writings don't give a strong enough conclusion.

So in other words, it is open to an individuals interpretation and is merely speculation. You can´t have it both ways Bluefinger.

You see that because its relevant to you not because it is what Paul was talking about.

We don't know and can't say for sure.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say it wasn´t what he was talking about then you admit we can´t be sure while previously stating that you like to deal with cold-hard facts. I must admit to being a bit confused.

Going back to my original point, I don´t think you can use the bible if you want to deal with 100% factual information.

[Bluefinger]

Not really sure how this thread is ending up debating Paul´s sexuality. If I´m not mistaken, there is a whole thread that deals with that. I haven´t participated in it because for one, I couldn´t care less and two, it is pure speculation.

Your quote:

Then you go on to say

So in other words, it is open to an individuals interpretation and is merely speculation. You can´t have it both ways Bluefinger.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say it wasn´t what he was talking about then you admit we can´t be sure while previously stating that you like to deal with cold-hard facts. I must admit to being a bit confused.

Going back to my original point, I don´t think you can use the bible if you want to deal with 100% factual information.

I think you are stretching here.

What I'm saying is that the book doesn't need to be fact. What I am saying is that the text itself does not provide enough informatoin to come that kind of conclusion. I don't know how to put it much more plainly about that.

I'm not making an argument for or against homosexuality, especially with the Bible. What I'm saying is that a critical analysis of the text does not provide evidence to support the argument that Paul struggled with homosexuality. It's that simple.

[jugoso]

I'm not making an argument for or against homosexuality, especially with the Bible. What I'm saying is that a critical analysis of the text does not provide evidence to support the argument that Paul struggled with homosexuality. It's that simple.

Agreed. That has always been my position. I think the bigger question I have is, "what difference does it make"? We will never really know. How does Paul´s sexuality affect one´s spirituality? Does it really matter in the overall scheme of things?

[Bluefinger]

Agreed. That has always been my position. I think the bigger question I have is, "what difference does it make"? We will never really know. How does Paul´s sexuality affect one´s spirituality? Does it really matter in the overall scheme of things?

It does in context to what the Bible says about holiness. Holiness means that one (or a group) are set apart for God's purposes.

My best way to relate this is using the military. There are certain things that the civilians can do that military personnel can't legally do. They can't grow beards, the hair has to be a certain length, and they are held to two different laws in the same state. If a soldier messes up, it is far more inflated to the public than if a civilian messes up. One could say that the military is held to a higher standard than the rest of the population. And as a soldier, military standards must penetrate every aspect of the soldier's life.

In the same way, God's people are set apart, held to a higher standard than the non-believers. Our dedication to honor God must penetrate every aspect of our lives, including our sexuality. To withhold sexuality from God's standards would be to refuse Him honor in that aspect of our lives.

So, its moreso about holiness than it is about righteousness. Its not whether or not one has a choice in their sexual preference. Its whether or not one is willing to submit the most important thing they have to God. This is always the hardest thing to give up. That is why Jesus told His disciples to count the cost before following Him. Abraham was willing to give his one and only son for God. Because of that, God chose Abraham to be the father of many nations, set apart for God's righteousness.

And that's not quite all. God chose Abraham to be set apart so that Abraham would be intentionally devoted to doing righteous deeds. Not just so Abraham could live happily and peacefully in his own land, minding his own business. He was devoted to a mission. He was set apart for righteousness. So holiness and righteousness are two different things. That's why I don't take an active part in telling people they are wrong for being homosexual. If they don't care about what's important to God, then it does very little good to go on and on about holiness.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Bluefinger

[jugoso]

It does in context to what the Bible says about holiness. Holiness means that one (or a group) are set apart for God's purposes.

My best way to relate this is using the military. There are certain things that the civilians can do that military personnel can't legally do. They can't grow beards, the hair has to be a certain length, and they are held to two different laws in the same state. If a soldier messes up, it is far more inflated to the public than if a civilian messes up. One could say that the military is held to a higher standard than the rest of the population. And as a soldier, military standards must penetrate every aspect of the soldier's life.

In the same way, God's people are set apart, held to a higher standard than the non-believers. Our dedication to honor God must penetrate every aspect of our lives, including our sexuality. To withhold sexuality from God's standards would be to refuse Him honor in that aspect of our lives.

So, its moreso about holiness than it is about righteousness. Its not whether or not one has a choice in their sexual preference. Its whether or not one is willing to submit the most important thing they have to God. This is always the hardest thing to give up. That is why Jesus told His disciples to count the cost before following Him. Abraham was willing to give his one and only son for God. Because of that, God chose Abraham to be the father of many nations, set apart for God's righteousness.

And that's not quite all. God chose Abraham to be set apart so that Abraham would be intentionally devoted to doing righteous deeds. Not just so Abraham could live happily and peacefully in his own land, minding his own business. He was devoted to a mission. He was set apart for righteousness. So holiness and righteousness are two different things. That's why I don't take an active part in telling people they are wrong for being homosexual. If they don't care about what's important to God, then it does very little good to go on and on about holiness.

Thanks for your explanation Bluefinger. I´d forgotten just how Orthodox you are. Our understanding of God and what s important to him are very different.

[Space Commander Travis]

Is there a variation on Godwin's law that all discussions about the subject of Christianity have to come back to a discussion about Homosexuality? No wonder people get the impression that Religious folk are completely obssessed with the subject.

[jugoso]

Thanks for your explanation Bluefinger. I´d forgotten just how Orthodox you are. Our understanding of God and what s important to him are very different.

Just read my last post and noticed that I had used "him". I´d just like to clarify that my belief isn´t that God is neither masculine or feminine. I consider personalizing the nature of God as being either male or female to be kind of "silly" for lack of a better term.

[Bluefinger]

Just read my last post and noticed that I had used "him". I´d just like to clarify that my belief isn´t that God is neither masculine or feminine. I consider personalizing the nature of God as being either male or female to be kind of "silly" for lack of a better term.

I get you and I respect that.

I think that knowing the nature of God clearly identifies my relationship with 'Him.'

[Beany]

I love the part where he says life is a "startling and wondrous experience." Imagine if this were the foundation of all of our lives and we explored that how different things might be.

[Beany]

Take a look at Romans 7:13-25 and tell me if it is not about Paul's struggle against homosexual feelings.

Darn that Spong, welcoming people into the church willy-nilly, as if they were children of God and thus beloved, as if they would be forgiven their sins and welcomed into His arms. And for believing in compassion and community and friendship for all. What the heck is he thinking and where are his standards? If he keeps it up he might bring people into the fold who would never have found it and would never have been introduced to God's word and the lessons found in the life of Jesus. Ah, a slippery slope, indeed.

[Space Commander Travis]

Darn that Spong, welcoming people into the church willy-nilly, as if they were children of God and thus beloved, as if they would be forgiven their sins and welcomed into His arms. And for believing in compassion and community and friendship for all. What the heck is he thinking and where are his standards? If he keeps it up he might bring people into the fold who would never have found it and would never have been introduced to God's word and the lessons found in the life of Jesus. Ah, a slippery slope, indeed.

Isn't it funny how the exact things that Jesus protested about- the insistence that the only way to righteousness was by following very strict rules & regulations, ostentatious displays of piety, the smug attitude that 'only we know the Right way', all the things he argued with the Pharisees about, are now just what people insist that one has to do if one wants to follow Jesus. I do think he'd laugh. And perhaps turn a few tables over.

[Ben Masada]

It is not about a struggle against homosexual feelings.

Okay, so what was it that he could not get rid of and ended up with the compromise that he could serve both God in his mind and sin in his flesh? Was he an alcoholic? Was he a pedophile? What in your opinion was his thorn in the flesh?

[Ben Masada]

Its not a struggle against homosexual desire. Thats a projection from our current culture. You see that because its relevant to you not because it is what Paul was talking about.

Likely the only ones who know exactly what Paul was talking about is the original audience.

Don't simply tell me that I am wrong if you don't have the right version about what was going on with him. You are simply conveying that you are trying to defend him without knowing why.

[+ouija ouija]

Okay, so what was it that he could not get rid of and ended up with the compromise that he could serve both God in his mind and sin in his flesh? Was he an alcoholic? Was he a pedophile? What in your opinion was his thorn in the flesh?

Heaven only knows! But I read the entire chapter very carefully and strained to put your interpretation on it, without success.

[Bluefinger]

Don't simply tell me that I am wrong if you don't have the right version about what was going on with him. You are simply conveying that you are trying to defend him without knowing why.

Which is more wise? To lead a group of readers astray by trying to convince them that Paul was a repressed homosexual or that he simply struggled with something that he wished he had power over?

I probably jumped too quick, but its out of concern that such a speculation evokes more of an emotional response from your audience that it does a logical one. Homosexuality is a politically charged issue, something that may not draw objective criticism from some readers.

[Beany]

OK, I'll bite. I don't care whether Paul was a homosexual, repressed or otherwise. Sexual orientation has never a criteria I apply when evaluating a person. I've never understood why for some it overshadows almost everything else a person has accomplished.

[Ben Masada]

Heaven only knows! But I read the entire chapter very carefully and strained to put your interpretation on it, without success.

Allow me to help you in your lack of success. Paul says in II Cor.12:7 that a thorn in the flesh was given to him as a messenger of Satan to buffet him. Something caused by Satan to keep him under spiritual stress is akin to a sinful condition. Therefore, it could not be a physical illness. Now, let's go to Romans 7. Paul was a Hellenistic Jew. The idea of Hellenistic Jews at that time was that they were amoral and not subject to the Law as the common Jew. He implies that the way he lived was not sinful but when he became aware of the Law he understood how sinful it was. That's when he started struggling with his desires as a thorn in the flesh. It was as if the Law had brought death to him. Sin started working in him. He hated to break the Law but there was nothing he could do for he would end up doing what he didn't want to do because sin was dwelling in him. His thorn in the flesh was like a war between his mind and his flesh. He came to the conclusion that he was a wretched man. As his struggle was about to make him go crazy he arrived to the conclusion that the only solution was to allow coexistence of two personalities in himself: To serve God's Law in his mind but with the flesh the law of sin since he could not get rid of his desires. (Rom.7:8-25) Clear now?

Edited July 6, 2013 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

Which is more wise? To lead a group of readers astray by trying to convince them that Paul was a repressed homosexual or that he simply struggled with something that he wished he had power over?

I probably jumped too quick, but its out of concern that such a speculation evokes more of an emotional response from your audience that it does a logical one. Homosexuality is a politically charged issue, something that may not draw objective criticism from some readers.

IMHO, it is more wise not to embellish the truth in order to hide its effects.

[Ben Masada]

OK, I'll bite. I don't care whether Paul was a homosexual, repressed or otherwise. Sexual orientation has never a criteria I apply when evaluating a person. I've never understood why for some it overshadows almost everything else a person has accomplished.

Perhaps if you look back at the issue from 2000 years in the future, you are right, sexual orientation ought not to be the criteria but if you set yourself at the time Paul was in action the picture takes a different connotation especially as Judaism was concerned. As a Hellenistic Jew Paul was not aware of the seriousness.

[+ouija ouija]

Allow me to help you in your lack of success. Paul says in II Cor.12:7 that a thorn in the flesh was given to him as a messenger of Satan to buffet him. Something caused by Satan to keep him under spiritual stress is akin to a sinful condition. Therefore, it could not be a physical illness. Now, let's go to Romans 7. Paul was a Hellenistic Jew. The idea of Hellenistic Jews at that time was that they were amoral and not subject to the Law as the common Jew. He implies that the way he lived was not sinful but when he became aware of the Law he understood how sinful it was. That's when he started struggling with his desires as a thorn in the flesh. It was as if the Law had brought death to him. Sin started working in him. He hated to break the Law but there was nothing he could do for he would end up doing what he didn't want to do because sin was dwelling in him. His thorn in the flesh was like a war between his mind and his flesh. He came to the conclusion that he was a wretched man. As his struggle was about to make him go crazy he arrived to the conclusion that the only solution was to allow coexistence of two personalities in himself: To serve God's Law in his mind but with the flesh the law of sin since he could not get rid of his desires. (Rom.7:8-25) Clear now?

No it is NOT clear that what he is talking about is homosexuality. He could be talking about anything that was considered a sin at that time ...... he could even be talking about something that he thought was a sin but others didn't!

[Ben Masada]

No it is NOT clear that what he is talking about is homosexuality. He could be talking about anything that was considered a sin at that time ...... he could even be talking about something that he thought was a sin but others didn't!

You are struggling for a hypothetical excuse for Paul and I don't think it is helping because the evidences are shouting. He was living together with another Hellenistic bachelor Barnabas and teaching the young guys not to marry if they were single and to remain as he was free of wife. Just not to go out in search of wives. (I Cor.7:8,27) Now, imagine preaching such a message in the synagogues! They were looking for trouble as the women were concerned. Yes, imagine the women dreaming every moment to find a marriage partner and these guys telling them not to go looking for a wife! In fact, when they were preaching these ideas in the synagogue of Antioch, the women ganged up against them and expelled them from their territory. (Acts 13:50) Amazing! If Paul was fighting against homosexual cravings why would he advise the young guys not to look for wives? He was lucky that he escaped with his life.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Ben Masada

[Bluefinger]

IMHO, it is more wise not to embellish the truth in order to hide its effects.

I agree.

[Bluefinger]

You are struggling for a hypothetical excuse for Paul and I don't think it is helping because the evidences are shouting. He was living together with another Hellenistic bachelor Barnabas and teaching the young guys not to marry if they were single and to remain as he was free of wife. Just not to go out in search of wives. (I Cor.7:8,27) Now, imagine preaching such a message in the synagogues! They were looking for trouble as the women were concerned. Yes, imagine the women dreaming every moment to find a marriage partner and these guys telling them not to go looking for a wife! In fact, when they were preaching these ideas in the synagogue of Antioch, the women ganged up against them and expelled them from their territory. (Acts 13:50) Amazing! If Paul was fighting against homosexual cravings why would he advise the young guys not to look for wives? He was lucky that he escaped with his life.

I dunno. Even Jesus advised not to marry if one could help it. (Matthew 19:10-12)

I think Paul was of the opinion that it is better to marry than to struggle with sexual sin. So, if he was advising people not to marry, it likely has nothing to do with sexual sin. Likely, its because he felt such an urgency about the kingdom of God that he considered marrying a loss to the mission field for such an imperative cause. That may have been what inspired him to say that somebody that isn't married can devote more time to God while a married person is devoted to his or her spouse.