Book review on the book "Living in Sin?" by John Shelby Spong
Spong, S. J. (1990). Living in sin? A bishop rethinks human sexuality. New York City: HarperCollins
Book Review
Introduction
Noted for his liberal stand on sexuality, Newark Episcopal Bishop, by John Shelby Spong argues with “passion and provocation” that the traditional Christian views on sexes patriarchal prejudice rather than the will of God. He invites readers to “enter the uncertainty of not knowing” and to free the bible form “literalistic imprisonment” as they entertain possibilities like “brothel” ceremonies, services blessing divorce, and rituals specifying lesbian and gay partnerships. In his view, Spong sees that all this is supplementing traditional marriage, which he also celebrates. The Bishop proposes changes in the traditional position of the church on sexual morality. Spong has challenged traditional teaching about Jesus as a Messiah, and his resurrection from the dead.
Spong is deeply concerned with ethical issues. In Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Sexuality, he disagrees with the Christian church teaching on sexual morality. He is expressing total displeasure of what views as historic church’s oppression of women, homosexuals, lesbians, and those do not adhere to its moral principles. Spong advocates for fundamental changes in the teachings and practices of the church about sexual diversity, because he believes that this is the fundamental ethical issues for the church to handle in the twentieth century.
Spong advocates for several issues in his book. For young adults who are not yet ready for marriage but desires sexual intimacy, he proposes a rite of “betrothal,” where partners are able to vow fidelity to each other for a defined period while not engaging in a permanent relationship. He also proposes that the church should develop a ceremony for blessing of dive, while insisting that the church must support the marriage between a man and a woman with every means. His last proposal is that the church should bless post marital unions in which, after death or divorce of a previous marriage partner, a woman and a man could be sexually intimate to each other, yet not marriage because of several reasons including financial, emotional, occupational, just to mention a few.
In his defense on why the Christian churches should deviate traditionally held, biblically based practices and teachings in sexual ethics, Spong says, “new data are abroad in our world, demanding to be taken into account” (Spong, 1990, p.192). He argues that these new data evokes thoughts about the way the church has morally and psychologically defined sexuality. The world is witnessing the results of sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, with the freedoms and the dangers that lie in its wake. Spong suggests that the church should not continue with its old ways, but consider the changes taking place in the society. People are increasingly losing interest in the church’s teachings and some are not even listening. This requires the church to take a deferent perspective in handling sexuality.
Authority
However, it is possible to retort, it is clear for the Scripture that people have not listened to the Word of God before, yet the Word has stood the test of time. Nevertheless, the Scripture is clear about sexual ethics. Spong disagrees with this and this forms the center of his argument. Spong says that the bible is lace with prejudice, inconsistencies, and limited human vision (Spong, 1990). This gives him basis to dismiss those who support traditional church’s believes and practices based on the literal view of the Scripture as fundamentalists or ignorant. He even attacks moderates for trying to support a human document out rightly superimposed with patriarchal presuppositions.
Spong gives a different opinion on the authority of the Scripture concerning ethical decision-making. He insists that the Scripture is authoritative as much as the community gives it authority and if that is the case, then “the right to change, revise, and render various parts of the Scripture inoperative must also be vested in the community” (Spong, 1990, p.89). Conventionally, authority does not lie in an author, and God is certainly not the author. If so, where is the Word of the God, then? Spong says that it is in Jesus Christ. He says, “We see God and God’s Word in Jesus because God is the source of life, and Jesus revealed this in his every aliveness” (Spong, 1990, p. 90). Christ tolerates all conditions of humanity without measure and without judgment. Spong stresses that people can only know Jesus they are not in the confines of the written word, but only in those moments in life when they escape the narrow, rigid confines of stereotypes and come to the openness of Christ.
The ethical source of Spong is the wide brush strokes of God’s love. Spong advocates for an ethic of “appropriate vulnerability,” in which people are mutually open to one another to give and receive love, to share inward nakedness, and not feel ashamed. Spong says that the argument for vulnerability does not suggest that marriage is the only context in which sex is considered proper. He argues that premarital or lesbian and gay unions might as well fall within the confines of appropriate vulnerability. Meanwhile, even the sexual activities with the confines of marriage might not be an ‘appropriate expression of vulnerability (Spong, 1990). The author poses an issue that is important to consider. The issue involves how the church can teach sexual ethics in the wake of sexual revolution. Spong attest that churches should not ignore this issue, for any minister can attest to the variety of pastoral problems that originated from sexual license.
Failure of sexual freedom
Many veterans of sexual revolution are today begging to settle in marriages and establish families. They are aware of the promise failure of sexual freedom. They seek leadership positions in the church to make sense to their muddled lives to find holiness and healing. They might not find this book useful, nor the church at large, or the secular culture with which he tries to make peace (Barlow, 2005). The first reason is epistemological problems. The author attempts to ground his ethics in human experience, while utterly rejects revelation. He appeals to his God to discredit the God’s self-disclosure in the Script, or rather, even as he would insist, in the person of Jesus. Nevertheless, if the Scripture is puzzled with inconsistencies, then where is the source of truth? The community? In contemporary experience? In an individual’s personal opinions? The most fascinating fact about this book is how uncritical and unaware the author is of his own lack of consistency, his own intellectual fashion and bondage to current ideology, and his remarkable trust in science to produce moral direction.
Second, Spong fails to notice the intensity of all human sinfulness (Zahl, 1999). According to him, the problem is not sin but ignorance. He thinks that people need consciousness in raising their experience, not openness to the living God. What people need is therapy not repentance. His point of view is not new, as it has appeared from time to time in Christian theology, then found inconsistent and discarded repeatedly. Despite getting a great opportunity before him to help the church think and pray about sexual ethics, he rarely mentions a word in the book. His aim is to help the church relate to its cultured followers. But, he misuses the trust people have in him to write a book that is so polemical, angry, destructive, and above all, untrue to the bible, history, church, and the scientific community.
References:
Barlow, R. (2005, Jun 14). In `Sins,' a Christian denounces conservative beliefs. Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/404966878?accountid=35812
Spong, S. J. (1990). Living in sin? A bishop rethinks human sexuality. New York City: HarperCollins.
Zahl, P. F. M. (1999). Can a bishop be wrong? ten scholars challenge John Shelby Spong. Anglican Theological Review, 81(2), 326-328. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215271177?accountid=35812
