Jesus for the Non-Religious

If anything useful can ever be salvages from christianity, it will be philosophers like Spong who do it. His works are always thought provoking, well worth the effort.

I am writing this having been an atheist for about forty years. I picked this up to learn about the ideas of progressive Christianity. It certainly didn't convert me, but large parts of it were quite interesting, which is more than I can say for Spong's previous book Christianity Must Change or

Show More

Die. I am trying not to judge it on the basis of my views, but on its quality as a book of argument.

Part one and two were interesting: he argues that the gospels were intended as liturgical documents to be read to the congregation over the course of a year, with the stories organized to be appropriate to the events in the calendar. The miraculous events were intended to be understood symbolically, and the gospel writers didn't believe in them. He creates an attractive Jesus and an appealing account of the gospels. I enjoyed this section, and it was impressive, if you aren't too familiar with the New Testament.

He argues at times that parts of the gospel cannot be true, because Paul doesn't mention, for example, the Virgin Birth, and his letters precede the gospels. Therefore, he reasons, the Virgin Birth is a late addition. Paul also doesn't seem to have heard of female disciples and equality between men and women (see 1 Cor. 14:34-36 {for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate} and 1 Tim 2:9-15 {I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man}); this despite the eloquent passage in Galatians 3:28 (there is no longer male and female. Despite this, Spong believes the gospels when they speak of female disciples and argues for equality between men and women in Christ.

Spong also ignores any gospel passages that don't support his argument, including those that have lead other scholars to argue that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet (Mat 14:15-44) or a zealot (Mat 10:34; Lk 22:35).

Part three starts off strong, but eventually becomes a bit dull as Spong repeats himself. A rap of the knuckles to Spong for misusing the word "literally", in chapter 21, note 6 in which he says that Martin Luther and John Calvin "wrote about the Jews in words that literally drip with anger." No, they metaphorically drip with anger. If they literally dripped, their words would have to be kept in tubs to contain the liquid.

Spong is a famous and apparently popular speaker for a certain type of progressive Christianity, so if you are looking for his point of view, this is a pretty good book. If you share his point of view, I suppose that you will love it. I will just consider myself better informed about opinions that I don't share.

Show Less

On a rereading in 2021. He attacks fundamental literal approaches to the Bible. Concludes that there were no miracles, virgin birth, resurrection etc. All of that was invention decades later, to fit Jesus into Old Testament themes and forecasts. Why then follow Jesus? Because of his humanity. He

Show More

was a great humanist, rejecting prejudice against others, whether of religion, tribe or gender. This then is a straight atheist line, so where is God I ask? Somehow, Spong concludes that Jesus' humanism is all we need to know that God was in him. Something open and humanist is God. Humanism becomes God by changing the meaning of God. Is this the atheist Anglican bishop then? God, he says, does not sit above in judgement responding to some prayers and not others. A good person is proof of God's existence. (Eh? Really?)
He says at p 285 that we can't define God, we can only experience it. And that might be an illusion(!) says Spong. He just assumes that his most profound feelings, such as love, come from what he calls God.

Show Less