It was written by Philip Matthews from New Zealand Listener Magazine.
If they complain - I'll take it down immediately.
Its just an interesting article - if not somewhat controversial.
Article starts here;
The Interview: John Shelby Spong
This week, John Shelby Spong arrives in New Zealand to promote his new book, Jesus for the Non-Religious, and to give talks on "progressive Christianity". Why does the retired Episcopalian bishop and "moral activist" continue to attract so much controversy - even death threats?
By Philip Matthews
Ahead of New Zealand you toured Australia, where Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen banned you from every church in his diocese.
He does that everytime I come. It's actually wonderful publicity. The people that I want to reach are the people that he repels. The Sydney Anglicans are unusual - they're almost biblical fundamentalists to a fault. It's one of my favourite cities in the world,
and the church is almost irrelevant. You're promoting "religionless Christianity", but don't some people need the miracles, the supernatural element? And
can you blame them? No, but religion can't be based on what people need. If
Christianity is not based on truth, then I don't think it's got much of a future.
You've got the Roman Church claiming that they have the infallible Pope
and you've got the Protestant churches claiming that they have an inerrant
Bible. Both of them are looking for security systems, and I think Christianity
calls us to venture into the unknown. Far from giving me security, it gives me
courage to embrace the insecurity of life and not fall apart.
In the new book, you say that "the Christianity that is now emerging in America and the Third World is some- thing with which I do not choose to be identified". How does your version differ?
It differs in almost every way. I don't believe that anybody can tell another
person who God is. I don't think a horse can tell you what it means to be human.
I don't think a human being can tell you what it means to be God. The kind of
religion that I see emerging is hysterical.
In the US, if you're in the right-wing religion, you support George W Bush
and I find him the worst President I've ever lived under. You're in favour of the
war in Iraq, which I regard as totally immoral, a disaster. I have a daughter
who has done three tours in that war. She's a Marine. That's existential for me.
That's not abstract.
Hasn't every US President since Jimmy Carter been closely identified with
Christianity?
He was a born-again Christian, but he was also a person who didn't use
his religion to hurt other people. He was a magnificent human being. He was a
Southerner who was in favour of full equality for people of colour, full equality for women.
His religion is one I'm very comfortable with.
Where does Hillary Clinton fit?
If you know her personally, you know that she comes out of the Methodist social gospel
part of her religious background. She's deeply committed. It's not something
she wears on her shoulder and it's not something she will run on the basis of,
but you scratch her and she's a John Wesley-type Christian.
I think that the religious mentality has severely gone down in American politics.
Bush tried to rev up the religious vote by keeping Terri Schiavo alive after she was
brain-dead. There was great disgustabout that and people said, "If that's
what religion means, I don't want any part of it."
When you visited Christchurch in 2003, 29 local Anglican vicars signed a protest statement against you.
That doesn't concern me at all. I was welcomed by the Dean of the Cathedral and the bishop
- the bishop happens to be a close friend of mine. There are going to be people
who object to anybody. When George Bush comes to Australia, there are going
to be wild protests. I might even join 'em!
I've had 16 death threats in my life and none of them have come from an
atheist or a Buddhist. They've come from Bible-quoting true believers.
Religion is sometimes a very negative force in people's lives. It covers up a
lot of hostility.
No comments:
Post a Comment