John Shelby Spong, perhaps apoplectic that a single orthodox Christian received a tiny bit of positive media coverage, takes it upon himself to help set the record straight by attacking this genial figure:

Who is John Stott? He is probably England's best known and most published evangelical Christian.

Do I detect a whiff of jealousy? Perhaps:

John Stott struggled all his life to make his dated version of Christianity relevant to the modern world.

Poor guy, struggled and struggled. And only ended up as... his country's best known and most published author on the topic. What a loser!

Well, we could see why it's been such an uphill battle, given that, although Christianity has been fantastically successful for the last 2,000 or so years, basic human nature was completedly changed (I think Bill Gates installed the upgrade) during the 1980s, neccessitating an entirely new approach -- one entirely in line with Spong's current cultural prejudices, of course.

Shouldn't all truths change with the fall fashions? Why not! That could put some nice human being -- Spong, for example -- in charge of telling you which ones to believe today, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, who were taught new and contradictory truths whenever it was politically expedient for the barnyard authoritarians.

For John Stott, the proper method for settling questions for Christians is to search the Bible's pages for answers.

Christians? Get their beliefs from the bible? How foolish! Everybody knows the proper answer is -- uh -- to believe whatever Jack Spong tells you to believe!

Revealed truth for [Stott] is timeless, and thus Holy Scripture provides eternal solutions for all contemporary issues--an argument made by fundamentalist Christians.

In contrast, truth apparently changes for Spong. Did two plus two equal four last year? Ah, we'll make it 4.1 this year. Or perhaps five, if we're in a good mood.

If God, in whatever form, is eternal then why on earth should we think any truths about Him might survive just as long? "God exists", for example. Perhaps we could alter the value of that truth each year. Odd numbers, he exists. Even numbers, he doesn't. That would avoid the stupid belief in "eternal truths" which Spong abhors.

Gosh, I wish I could be all smart and rational like Spong.

Hubert Humphrey once called Ronald Reagan "George Wallace with perfume."

And we all know what a black-hating racist Ronald Reagan really was! So, given the accuracy of this starting insult, Spong moves on to another insult of similar quality...

In a similar fashion, John Stott might be called "Jerry Falwell with perfume..."

True, Stott might be called that by someone intent on calling names, instead of having a serious discussion. What was that they said about name-calling? Oh yes, the last refuge for someone who has no better argument.

In Spong's version of reality, Falwell is the real deal, and Stott -- even though he was born before Falwell -- is some kind of cleaned-up imitation. He's mad at David Brooks for implying the reverse is true: that Stott is the original, respected, and listened-to guy who really shapes contemporary Christian thought, and Falwell is a blow-hard, representative of a tiny minority, chosen by the media to avoid dealing with more authentic Christian representatives.

Of course, the facts are on Brooks' side -- you aren't "best selling" because nobody listens to you. But Spong was never a stickler for facts.

Stott is sophisticated enough to know the literal Bible...

... but not nearly as sophisticated as Spong, of course, as we'll learn ...

(The "literal bible"? Where can I pick up a copy of this version?)

... is filled with land mines, so he steps delicately around those places in Scripture where women are defined as the property of men, where polygamy is affirmed, where menstruation is regarded as a source of uncleanness, where slavery is viewed as an acceptable social institution, and where capital punishment is prescribed for such offences as being disobedient to one's parents, worshiping a false god, or being a homosexual.

I'll bet John Stott uses this sneaky dodge: saying Christ died to fulfill ancient Jewish law -- from which Spong has selected the examples above -- and we are thus no longer bound to it. That's a really tricky position to for a Christian to support theologically since it's explicitly stated in the bible.

Boy, was that hard to "step around"!

It's clear Spong writes these insults for the 'benefit' of non-Christians, who are unaware of what genuine orthodox Christian belief has to say on these topics.

Yet...

... and now we learn of Stott's clear inferiority...

... all of these things are present in the Bible Stott calls "the revealed truth of God." One wonders what he means by the use of both of those words "revealed" and "truth."

And yet again Spong deliberately misrepresents the orthodox Christian understanding of Jewish law. To Christians, Jewish law is not all considered to be an eternal standard for behavior, nor God's best desire for human behavior. For example, Jesus plainly stated that some parts of law -- divorce, for example -- were intended as temporary concessions to human evil and weakness.

But it's so much easier to knock down straw men that real opponents. His readers won't know the difference.

When challenged, Stott’s pious smile disappears and his soft voice becomes edgy and rejecting.

When challenged, Spong’s purportedly accepting and "tolerant" stance crumbles, and he launches into negative personal characterizations of people who have never insulted him. His writing is edgy and rejecting...

He suggests that anyone who disagrees with him disagrees with the revealed will of God.

He places arguments into his opponent's mouths, and avoids answering their actual arguments, which are harder to answer. He implies anyone who disagrees with him must be grossly ignorant of even the basics:

He seems never to have heard of Bible 101...

... which Spong defines -- hilariously, hypocritically, and ironically -- to exclude all other interpretations of the bible than his own:

The Bible was written between 1000 B.C.E. and 135 C.E. It makes assumptions that modern men and women cannot make unless we turn off our minds to the expansion of knowledge over the last 400 years...

Spong's view of the bible, arrogantly entitled "Bible 101", is for him both the beginning and the end of all scholarship. The arguments he makes have been answered many times by Christian scholars, but instead of accepting or critiquing the well-known answers, he stubbornly ignores them, showing himself either ignorant or unwilling to engage modern scholarship.

After all, it is easier to simply pretend that there is no possible answer to one's objections than to engage in a dialog in which you are willing to listen for answers and learn.

Thus, Spong's complaint about others not recognizing the possibility of multiple intepretations of the bible, or not having yet heard of his theories about the bible's origins and validity, is shown to be sheer projection. It is Spong, actually, who refuses to recognize other arguments and engage in dialog. Instead, he writes these pathetic missives to mislead truth-seekers who won't know any better, and won't know how to spot the flaws in his arguments.

Like the next one...

This God strikes the Egyptians with a series of devastating plagues, which include murdering the firstborn son of every family of that nation. Is that moral behavior?

Gee, Spong, God kills everyone once. Is that moral behavior? What's more unethical about killing Egyptians than killing anyone else who dies in a time or manner appointed by God?

This is an emotional yet illogical argument: God can create life but it would be immoral for Him to take it away. Only if we all lived for ever -- and were thus up to our noses in living bodies -- could God be judged moral.

As I said, that doesn't make a lot of sense, but if you don't think about it too much, it has a certain knee-jerk emotional appeal. And many of his readers won't think about it much, since he assures them he is the rational one and all who disagree with him are unlearned irrational ignoramuses. Like any good authoritarian, he keeps them questioning others so that he himself will not have to be subjected to scrutiny.

Also note that Spong has very few arguments to choose from -- a very limited vocabulary -- and thus he makes these same arguments over and over again. It's so much easier to cut and paste, no?

Evangelicals like John Stott oppose divorce based on what they call "clear biblical teaching." Yet that clear teaching is predicated on the inferiority of the woman. It was not until the 20th century that women won the legal right to leave abusive marriages.

My, what a deceptive man.

Opposite to what Spong implies here, it was the ability to divorce a wife which was based on her inferiority. In Jewish culture at the time, a woman was property, and if her husband was displeased with her because she became less useful, quarrelled, lost her looks, or otherwise or no longer pleased him, he could "put her away" -- a man only need say "I divorce three" three times in a row and out the door she went.

In condemning divorce for reasons other than marital infidelity, Jesus reset the marital bond from being master/slave or owner/property to two complementary parts joined in union. In marked contrast to Jewish tradition, he applied the exact same rule to both man and woman, putting the two on an identical spiritual footing.

This was obviously a huge inconvenience for the men in his audience, who exclaimed, in shock: "If this is so, it is better not to marry!" They understood this was a huge blow to their male-based cultural perogative. A husband now had to continually provide for and even love his wife, rather than ditch her for a younger model after she had served her purpose.

The right course of action -- separation or divorce? -- in an abusive marriage is the object of some debate in the Christian community. But Spong misleads his reader into thinking that women are treated by different rules and are inferior. That is plainly false: whatever is to be done in reaction to the abusive husband is to be done in reaction to the abusive wife as well. (And yes, husband abuse happens and is more prevalent than most people think.)

John Stott and his evangelical friends are vehemently opposed to any acceptance of homosexuals because they are condemned, or at least their behavior is, in the revealed truth of Holy Scripture.

John Shelby Spong is in favor of the public torture, eviceration, and burning of any and all people who disagree with him and his views, or he is at least in favor of using sneaky sematic tricks against them, like this one.

Christians are not opposed to "any acceptance" of homosexuals. Spong knows full well that the Christian ideal is to love and accept gays and lesbians as people, but disagree that homosexual behavior is right -- no more than adultery, sleeping around, etc. So Spong pulls the trick of joining a false statement with a true one -- as I have above, for effect -- but in his case, to deceive the reader.

One wonders how incredibly weak his case must be if it can only be sold using semantic deceptions like these.

... That is nothing but a claim of uninformed ignorance. There is almost no scientist today who thinks sexual orientation is either chosen or changeable behavior.

To the contrary, scientific evidence is stacking up that sexual abnormalities in adulthood correlate strongly with childhood events. In this sense, orientation does seem to be changeable during certain stages of life. (Not that Strong cares too much about keeping up on the latest research -- another case of projection, perhaps.)

But even if Spong's argument were wholly correct, it is still yet another straw man: His opponent does not claim sexual orientation is chosen, nor does he claim people can easily change it. Instead, the Christian position is that we should control our behavior, regardless of what type of sexual desires we experience.

But, ah, that's just too difficult for Spong to address here, isn't it?

... evolution teaches us that life has emerged and evolved over billions of years...

True: Evolution does indeed say this.

Human beings are incomplete creatures who need to be empowered.

False: Evolution does not have anything definitive to say about whether we "need to be empowered." Nor can does evolution have anything to say about what a "complete" human "creature" should look like.

As Nobel-prize winning quantum physicist Richard Feyman liked to point out, you cannot derive moral values from scientific observations. But, again, it's not like Spong actually knows much about science or has much respect for it. It's just a set-piece for his own personal theological pronouncements, meant to bedazzle the ignorant and resonate with those who have adopted a similar prejudice.

(Never mind the unintentional humor of Spong's choice of the word "creature" -- meaning "created being" -- here: "Evolution tell us... we are [created beings]...")

We are not fallen creatures, lost in sin, who need the bloodshed of a human sacrifice of the son of God in order to have the price of our sins paid to a judging deity. What a grotesque idea this "revealed truth" is. I am repelled by those images.

... but not intellectually honest enough to admit you're simply not a Christian.

Instead, you are attempting to usurp that name, with all the religious "brand equity" is has accreted in several thousand years, and claim it instead for your own very different belief system, which, as we can plainly see, is deeply hostile to authentic Christian values.

I do not begrudge you your feelings -- which seem to be based merely in aesthetics. But your dishonesty is appalling.

According to Spong, the bible cannot be taken "literally" -- i.e. we cannot assume it leads to one definite conclusion where the structure of the words might clearly seem to indicate otherwise. If something is not literal, then it is metaphor, and is thus open to multiple interpretations.

Except in Spong's world, where the bible must not be read literally, but there is only one intepretation allowed, ...

The Bible tells us that in the life of Jesus, who is perceived as a God presence, every life is loved, even those who reject, betray, deny, and kill the God-bearer. Finally, the Bible suggests that every life is called into the fullness of his or her humanity by the life of the Spirit. That is our destiny--to be our deepest, fullest, most complete selves in all of our wondrous diversity.

... the bible is ultimately about human-centered "fulfillment" and "diversity".

Wow! Talk about looking at God through a political filter.

Observe another slippery deception: I know from his writings that Spong does not believe in a "personal" God, i.e. a God who has thoughts, will, etc. Yet an impersonal God can no more "love" "every life" than a rock or puddle can.

So Spong uses deeply deceptive phrasing to sound Christian: "The bible tells us in the life of Jesus ... every life is loved." And Jesus, in Spong's admitted belief, is just a man, and the bible is but an outdated (and often abhorrent) story. So is a misleading way of saying: "The bible tells a tale about a man who allegedly loved every life."

It sounds like Spong is saying he believes every life is loved by God -- that human beings have a transcendent value and worth. But Spong rejects any such God, and thus every life is not loved or valued in such a manner.

I'm not saying this belief can't be argued -- atheists do it all the time, and it's an extremely important question to consider. But Spong is passing himself off here as something quite different than an atheist or secular humanist; his readers are being encourged to adopt his theology while he hides it's true implications from them, for now at least.

Surely most his readers will be deceived by such language.

That is the truth that keeps breaking through the barriers of Scripture...

The above is not just Spong's own interpretation -- oh, no -- it is "the truth". And scripture itself? It is a "barrier" to truth. (Don't read it, or you'll be misled!)

Finally, no Spong piece would be complete without a parting slam:

So John Stott has decided to retire. What he needs to recognize is that all of his major ideas have also retired long before him. Perhaps they will now be happy together.

... which explains why Spong's episcopal church is shrinking and dying, while churches which embrace Stott's evangelicalism are doing quite fine.

As I said, Spong is not one to let fact intrude upon his worldview.