Anne from Pennsylvania writes:

Please comment on Communion. I don't feel like a sinner or that Jesus died for me. I am a church-going Christian. I have read all your books but I am still confused about why I receive "the body and blood" of Jesus. It has got to be more than remembrance.

Dear Anne ,

You need first to identify the source of your understanding of Communion. I suspect it is not the Eucharist itself, but the inadequate and bizarre theology of the Eucharist that is at the center of your problem.

Much of traditional Christianity defines human beings as "fallen, victims of original sin and therefore evil." I reject that definition as both inept and uninformed. The problem with human life in my opinion is not that it has fallen, but that it has not yet evolved into full humanity. I am a post-Darwinian thinker, while the traditional ecclesiastical spokespersons are still thinking in pre-Darwinian terms. That means I do not look to Jesus for either rescue or for saving, as the traditional voices still appear to do, I look to him for empowerment on my road to wholeness.

So I do not view the Communion service as a re-enactment of the story of the cross where Jesus died for us or in place of us to satisfy an angry God, who was intent on punishing someone to satisfy the divine sense of righteousness. I consider this theology to be barbaric at best. It makes God an ogre, Jesus a victim, and you and me guilt laden.

I prefer to look at the Communion service as a time for the community to break bread together in the presence of the Lord. My experience in life is that relationships never grow or deepen until people eat together. That is what Communion is designed to do and be. The problem with the Eucharist is that a simple act has been overlaid with atonement theology and cannibalistic practice. A reformation is badly needed.

- John Shelby Spong

New Book Now Available!
JESUS FOR THE NON RELIGIOUS

"Fasten your seat belts Spong takes us for a wild and daring ride with Jesus, stripping him of all the myths we've grown up with and then offering a more approachable, more believable Jesus as the key to a new life and new humanity. It is the boldest book I've ever read, but also the most hopeful."
Bill Press, former co-host of CNN's "Crossfire with Pat Buchanan"

Order your copy now!

Spong's new release is a great book. I just finished reading it.

is spong a catholic? i have not seen too many christian denominations besides catholics that do the entire eurcharist ritual.

as a former catholic, i believe that the catholic church doesnt hold communion for the reasons spong stated. i believe it is for the reasons the he dismissed.

for example: many catholic churches refuse to give communion to supporters of abortion or pro choice supporters. if communion was truely done to "break bread with the community", then why deny someone that opportunity? instead, the church "punishes" those who dont totally conform to their doctrine and denys these christians to eat a metaphoric jesus wafer.

quote:

Originally posted by ftmyersfisherman:
is spong a catholic? i have not seen too many christian denominations besides catholics that do the entire eurcharist ritual.

Bishop Spong is an Episcopalian retired Bishop of the Diocese of Newark N.J. He is quite progressive and a world reknown highly respected, Biblical Scholar.

quote:

as a former catholic, i believe that the catholic church doesnt hold communion for the reasons spong stated. i believe it is for the reasons the he dismissed.

He knows it doesn't. He describes the original pre-Darwinian concept of the Eucharist as practiced by most churches including the RC vs what he himself believes as a post-Darwian thinker.

quote:

for example: many catholic churches refuse to give communion to supporters of abortion or pro choice supporters. if communion was truely done to "break bread with the community", then why deny someone that opportunity? instead, the church "punishes" those who dont totally conform to their doctrine and denys these christians to eat a metaphoric jesus wafer.

Because pre- Darwinian thinking still attaches the last supper leading up to the crucifixion as the "saving" of mankind. The RC church also consideres the bread as actually being the flesh of Jesus and the wine his blood. Paul created the Eucharist in order to make it more popular amongst the gentiles, because it was part of a number of pagan religions in the area at that time. Considering that the early church was Jewish, the shedding of human blood or flesh in the temple was strictly forbidden, heretical and akin to cannibalism according to the Talmud. Paul was called back to report to James and Peter who headed the Jerusalem church at that time and to account for his heretical teachings. The Book of Acts makes reference to the disagreement between Paul and the Church. Paul was eventually ousted from the Jerusalem Church. We know of course that Paul won out, and it is basically Paulinism rather than the teachings of Jesus that form current Christianity.

Spong would have it differently. Instead he envisions an all inclusive "breaking of bread" by the Community in the presence of the Lord.

quote:

Originally posted by abo-dude:
Spong's new release is a great book. I just finished reading it.

I haven't gotten to it yet. But I have all his other books and receive his weekly newsletters. I had the great pleasure of meeting Jack Spong and his wife Christine when they came to Palm Beach, and had lunch with them

You might want to sign up for his newsletter. There is a small fee that Spong profusely apologizes for, but that is done by the folks that run the website and he has no control over. It's very worthwhile.

Paul's teachings are often taught in a way that makes him more threatening to Christianity than the lions of the Roman arena ever were. The lions are gone. Paul is still here...and still taught in a way that often contradicts Christ.

However, catholics look towards the words of Christ in the Book of John as the institution of the Eucharist, not the teachings Paul. The words of Christ appeared before the explainations of Paul. Paul explained it to those not understanding it, and didn't institute it. The concept of "sin" isn't the primary reason for Communion. It's also a sign of communion with the Christian community (hence communion) and is seen as a union with Christ given as both command and opportunity.

Paul's writings were addressed to specific churches or persons. Church at Ephesus, the church at Corinth, letters to Timothy, etc.

The more recent the founding of a church, the less likely they are to have frequent communion. Some do so only at Easter. Some, never. Anglican,(Episcopalian) and Lutheran are the closest in liturgical ritual to Roman Catholic.

The Orthodox ritual is more attuned to the Eastern Catholic churches than it is to the Roman one. Eastern Catholics share the same liturgical roots with the Orthodox. There there are slight variations among the various eastern churches. One, for example, uses the language of Christ during the consecration.

Liturgical practice of Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox and all Catholics contain the same basic common elements, though they may be expressed very, very differently.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

quote:

But I have all his other books and receive his weekly newsletters.

Thanks for the referrence Gerry, I will check it out.

quote:

Originally posted by polycarp:
Paul's teachings are often taught in a way that makes him more threatening to Christianity than the lions of the Roman arena ever were. The lions are gone. Paul is still here...and still taught in a way that often contradicts Christ.

Most wellknown Biblical Scholars consider current Christianity Paulinism rather than based on the teachings of Jesus.

quote:

However, catholics look towards the words of Christ in the Book of John as the institution of the Eucharist, not the teachings Paul.

Paul's writings were the earliest. Scholars therefore point out that Paul had a certain influence over Mark,(first Gospel) Matthew and Luke whom they have identified as a doctor and a companyion of Paul. Paul was a zealot he remained one after his conversion, only his allegiance changed from persecuting Christians to preaching his very own religion. It was very common in those days to write letters in someone elses name. So it has already been established that a number of letters attributed to Paul were actually written by other people, unknown. The Gospel of John was written the last, aprrox. 100 years after the crucifixtion and not by anyone one who knew Jesus personally. It consists of Jesus telling long drawn out stories, whereas Jesus spoke in parables which were short and required some thinking. Therefore it is generally assumed especially in light of the Gospel of Thomas, which is a "saying" Gospel, and which confirms many of the sayings in the first three Gospels, that the Book of John should be discounted, as a much later creation in an attempt to conform a required theology at that time. If you study all 4 Gospels you will find that John is inconsistent with the earlier ones. The Jesus Seminar considers the Book Unauthentic in its entirety, and would replace it with the Gospel of Thomas which was written much earlier and confirms Jesus manner of speaking.

quote:

The words of Christ appeared before the explainations of Paul. Paul explained it to those not understanding it, and didn't institute it.

Paul never met Jesus, and was not familiar with his teachings, nor did he know the other disciples. And according to most Biblical Scholars was not in the least interested either. He claims to have had a special revelation while struct blind on the road to Damascus to hunt for more Christians, in which Jesus supposedly told him things that he did not tell any of his own disciples. Personally I find that hard to believe. Most reputable Biblical Scholars tend to dismiss it and believe Paul suffered seizures. His message is for 90% opposed to the teachings of Jesus. They also believe (Bishop Spong certainly does) that Paul was a latent homosexual, which might explain his hangup with sex. The words of Jesus did not appear anywhere before Paul's writings. Jesus did not write anything down, and I suspect for very good reason. He did not come to create a new religion but to bring the Love and compassion to a world sorely in need of it. He also understood that life changes and that therefore our understanding of God the father changes. We are not the same people the Jews were 2000 years ago. So to demand that we think or believe in those terms is delusional and suggests that we, over the centuries, have not learned, grown in awareness or consciousness, which we have, which makes the 2000 year old belief system totally irrelevant to our lives today, which is why so many people have turned away from the church. YET we all need God in our lives, so we need to create a more current definition of God so that he become relevant.

quote:

The concept of "sin" isn't the primary reason for Communion. It's also a sign of communion with the Christian community (hence communion) and is seen as a union with Christ given as both command and opportunity.

It is primarily to celebrate the sacrifice Jesus gave by shedding his flesh and blood - litterally - to provide life everlasting. In order to participate one is required to be a RC, have been to confession (sin) and believe that this is truly the flesh and blood of Christ. The whole Eucharist was created so we never forget that Jesus died for our sins. I no longer believe that.

quote:

Paul's writings were addressed to specific churches or persons. Church at Ephesus, the church at Corinth, letters to Timothy, etc.

They were basically addressed to the gentile communities, who knew no better. I'm familiar with them.

quote:

The more recent the founding of a church, the less likely they are to have frequent communion. Some do so only at Easter. Some, never. Anglican,(Episcopalian) and Lutheran are the closest in liturgical ritual to Roman Catholic.

That may be so, I suspect because they , like Spong and many others believe it to not be germane to the teachings of Jesus, around which everything should be centered. Not on Paul's ramblings (which they were) but on the teachings of Jesus. Let's all live according to the Beatitudes. Wouldn't that create a wonderful world?

quote:

The Orthodox ritual is more attuned to the Eastern Catholic churches than it is to the Roman one. Eastern Catholics share the same liturgical roots with the Orthodox. There there are slight variations among the various eastern churches. One, for example, uses the language of Christ during the consecration.

I consider them equally flawed in perpetuating a barbaric death that God requires of one of his children to "save" the rest and provide life everlasting. There is no death. Life has always been eternal. Would it surprise you if I told you that you and I have had this discussion before? There is no coincidence. We don't belong her Poly. We belong from whence we came and to which we will return. This is a short interlude. Something we chose to do in order to learn or to make good from a previous wrong.

quote:

Liturgical practice of Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox and all Catholics contain the same basic common elements, though they may be expressed very, very differently.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"[/QUOTE]

Expressed differently, but a dogma or doctrine, no matter its wording has the same effect. It prevents people from having their own experience of God, it seperates them from God. It teaches dualism.
We, you and I and everyone else are part of the divine Godhead. We need to recognize and accept our own divinity and see it in all others. Like Jesus says love you neighbor like yourself. We need to learn to love our self first before we can love our neighbor. And we need to recognize our own divine nature before we can recognize it in others, whether they're aware of it or not, they still are. We can NEVER be seperated from God. Outside of God there is nothing. We're all part of that Godhead. Each and everyone of us. We are in God and God is in us. Wherever we are God IS! How cool is that?

It's not about believing. It is about EXPERIENCING!!

Richard P Hawkes from the Internet writes:

Your credentials are outstanding, and I thoroughly enjoyed the recent recap of your lecture tour of Norway and Sweden. The poem by Tor Littmark that you included in one column was deeply moving. I wish I could share it with ALL my friends and relatives. You must, however, have encountered more than a little backlash from the complaining conservative evangelical elements in both countries - or did they just roll over and play dead?


Dear Richard P,

The fact is that while I was in both countries I experienced nothing but the warmth of a gracious welcome. I suspect that if there was additional backlash to my visit from conservative, evangelical groups in Norway and Sweden, it occurred after I left. That is frequently the pattern. They can use the "letters to the editor" columns to get their point across without fear of being challenged.

Please do not misunderstand, however, that while I do not enjoy it, I welcome negative responses and have received many of them. That is finally the only way I can cause people, who have long since left the kind of religion these negative people are espousing, to wake up and entertain the possibility that there may be something more to the Christianity than that by which they are repelled.

I grew up in an evangelical fundamentalist world and it gave me a tremendous sense of security as I struggled with the realities of losing my father at the age of 12. I reveled in my heavenly father who would not disappoint me as my earthly father had done. Without that firm anchor, I do not know what would have happened to the fragile lad that I was. It is one thing, however, to need a literal anchor in a particular storm of life but quite another to cling to yesterday's anchor because you can not grow up. Life changes, boundaries expound and spirits soar. That is when one discovers that security is not the end goal of life and that sometimes one has to risk, to let go, to venture and to journey and when you do, you discover that God is more than just a security anchor. God is a future hope, a dream, and a reality beckoning you to live, to love and to be. That is when the religion of evangelical fundamentalism can and will be laid down and abandoned. It comes at different times in people's lives but it always comes. If one rejects or represses that moment of freedom, one becomes an angry fundamentalist whose life is dedicated to protecting one's religious security system. The name of those who act this way today is legion, but that response will not last. It never does.

So I welcome what you call the backlash. I rejoice in what religious fundamentalism did in my life and I celebrate the fact I have no need to cling to that part of my past. Indeed my life requires that I let the quest for security go and I rejoice in that.

- John Shelby Spong

Gerry, it may appear to most, even to many priests, that the church teaches "dualism". In actuality, the teaching is "union". At least, this becomes the monastic understanding of the teachings. Becoming one with the "divine", rather than remaining separate.

Separateness exists as a function of mind/ego. Duality is an illusion of our own creation.

This is the underlying Christian teaching if one chooses to look for it. It has been cloaked by layers and layers of "stuff". I've found that Christ's teachings can more easily be "uncloaked" with a study of Bhuddhism and exposure to additional eastern thought. Then the teachings are seen with more clarity.

Explanations of the Eucharist were meant to show how it came about as church teachings...it isn't Paul who is quoted, it is John. The words of consecration are taken from John, not Paul. Whether John should have been included in Scripture or not is another story entirely...as is whether Paul should have been included! If only the oldest accepted Scripture were given credence, then everything after the Torah should be discarded.

There is no duality. And as human beings, we create the duality from our own beginnings. This is difficult to undo.

Taoism: "What does a fisherman do after he learns the Tao? He fishes".

Bhuddism: What does a man do when he attains enlightenment? He does what he does.

Christianity: What does a man do who experiences "union"? He lives out his life.

Living out one's life doing what one does as a fisherman is all one and the same thing. What is different is the experiental way in which one does it. This can be manifested in a way noticeably different to others or not. Duality exists only as a creation of the mind itself...as does the concept of time.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: polycarp,

quote:

Gerry, it may appear to most, even to many priests, that the church teaches "dualism". In actuality, the teaching is "union". At least, this becomes the monastic understanding of the teachings. Becoming one with the "divine", rather than remaining separate.

Separateness exists as a function of mind/ego. Duality is an illusion of our own creation.

This is the underlying Christian teaching if one chooses to look for it. It has been cloaked by layers and layers of "stuff". I've found that Christ's teachings can more easily be "uncloaked" with a study of Bhuddhism and exposure to additional eastern thought. Then the teachings are seen with more clarity.

Poly. Nicely put brother. I once asked a Tibetan Buddhist monk about the teachings of Christ and he answered that the most important 'commandment' from Christianity (as he saw it) was to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF! Everything else was just trappings.

Brought things into focus for me. Although that is just me.

quote:

Originally posted by polycarp:
Gerry, it may appear to most, even to many priests, that the church teaches "dualism". In actuality, the teaching is "union". At least, this becomes the monastic understanding of the teachings. Becoming one with the "divine", rather than remaining separate.

I want you to know that I just reread my post you are referring to. For the life of me I don't know why I wrote all this to YOU, since, of all people you're familiar with all of this. So I apologize for my long windedness.

As far as the church, not only the Catholic church but the protestant as well teaches a duality from God and each other. All of it is very involved with the physical. That's MY personal experience. Becoming one with the divine implies that we're not. A heavy emphasys on sin doesn't help. And where I grew up, in the Christian Reformed (very Calvinistic) environment, with it's stifeling doctrines and dogmas that was a hurdle that we, as mere sinful beings, were not expected to oversome. You couldn't win for losing.
Since I'm not a Catholic can you explain to me what the original church's intent was.

quote:

Separateness exists as a function of mind/ego. Duality is an illusion of our own creation.

Very true. Its our faulty programming.

quote:

This is the underlying Christian teaching if one chooses to look for it. It has been cloaked by layers and layers of "stuff". I've found that Christ's teachings can more easily be "uncloaked" with a study of Bhuddhism and exposure to additional eastern thought. Then the teachings are seen with more clarity.

I have studied Hinduism and find Krishna's teachings very similar to Jesus. I have often said that I though Jesus was a Buddhist and that he really didn't come to create a new religion. It has helped me to understand what it was Jesus came to teach. Why churches go spastic and consider Eastern studies so threatening is beyond me. I would think that encouragement would create greater understanding. Anything that cannot stand the light of day or is so easily threatened becomes suspect to my thinking.

quote:

Explanations of the Eucharist were meant to show how it came about as church teachings...it isn't Paul who is quoted, it is John.

There I disagree. The very first writings were from Paul and it was HE who introduced the Eucharist which was a pagan custom in the region. Mithra followers celebrated the Eucharist. In Hebrew Law (Talmud) eating human flesh or drinking blood was akin to cannabalism. Paul was called to Jerusalem by James and Peter to account for his heretical teachings. There is a reference to that in Acts that describes disagreement with his teachings. Eventually Paul was thrown out of the Jerusalem church. The Gospels were written AFTER Paul had already died. The Gospel of Mark,which was the first Gospel, heavily influenced by Paul, mentions the destruction of the Temple and that took place in 70CE. Matthew was written approx. 10 years later and Luke 10 years after that. John was the latest, and his writing style is quite different and, like you mention, his gospel should probably not be part of the Bible; at least the Jesus Seminar believes so. In its place they'd put the book of Thomas. If Paul were removed we would do away with lots of dogmas and doctrines which is a good thing in my opinion.

quote:

The words of consecration are taken from John, not Paul. Whether John should have been included in Scripture or not is another story entirely...as is whether Paul should have been included! If only the oldest accepted Scripture were given credence, then everything after the Torah should be discarded.[/quote

I agree with you on the consecration part coming from John, but the Eucharist started with Paul. It was commonly practised amongst the pagan religions of the day. Everything we have today are copies of copies of copies, all of which differ from one another. So what is the reality? Who knows.

[quote]There is no duality. And as human beings, we create the duality from our own beginnings. This is difficult to undo.

Very true...is it because the world exists of opposites? There is no mountain without a valley. No happiness without unhappiness. "Good and bad"...all human concepts. Has that contributed to our seperation from God and seeing ourselves as sinful beings rather than as divine parts of the Godhead? We cannot escape the worlds opposites.....like you said how we experience these events determines how we cope with them and learn from them or not.

quote:

Taoism: "What does a fisherman do after he learns the Tao? He fishes".

Bhuddism: What does a man do when he attains enlightenment? He does what he does.

Christianity: What does a man do who experiences "union"? He lives out his life.

Absolutely. Said the student to the silent teacher "When will you start teaching me?"
Answered the teacher: "I am"

quote:

Living out one's life doing what one does as a fisherman is all one and the same thing. What is different is the experiental way in which one does it. This can be manifested in a way noticeably different to others or not. Duality exists only as a creation of the mind itself...as does the concept of time.

YEP, what we think, we believe, and whatever we believe, we manifest If we could all learn to live according to the Beatitudes the world would be a different place.

Thanks!

Hank Tomarelli from via the Internet writes:

This Week's Essay

The Fourth Fundamental: Miracles and the Resurrection, Part III
Read it now, and join the conversation on the exclusive member message boards, when you START YOUR FREE MONTH


Why is the Friday before Easter called "Good Friday"? Where did the term originate?
Dear Hank,

Words do convey strange meanings, don't they? I can remember asking my rector the same thing when I was a lad. The Friday that observes the crucifixion of Jesus was the most somber day of all to me as a child. To call it "good" seemed strange indeed.

The word good reflects the rescue and atonement theology of the Church. It was an attempt to say that the result of what happened on that Friday was good. The death of Jesus was thought of as good, since it broke the power of evil, rescued us from the original sin of the fall and restored us to the original relationship with God. That is how the word good became part of the title of the day of the Crucifixion.

Today, that theology is badly dated and has been abandoned by all but the fundamentalist elements of the Christian Church — which come, as I always remind people, in both a Catholic and a Protestant form.

As post Darwinians, we no longer believe we were created perfect. We were created as single cells of life and evolved into our present complex, conscious and self-conscious forms. Since we were never perfect, we could not fall into sin. Since we could not fall into sin, we could not be rescued. How can one be rescued from a fall that never happened or be restored to a status we never possessed?

Of all the symbols of the Christian faith, these are the ones most in need of rethinking and reformation since our theology, creeds and liturgies all infected these dated concepts. This change will cause a mighty upheaval in Christian understanding. Indeed it will signal the beginning of a mighty reformation.

Until then, I doubt if Good Friday's name will be the subject of debate. It is too far down the consciousness ladder - so just keep using it.

- John Shelby Spong

New Book Now Available!
JESUS FOR THE NON RELIGIOUS

"Fasten your seat belts Spong takes us for a wild and daring ride with Jesus, stripping him of all the myths we've grown up with and then offering a more approachable, more believable Jesus as the key to a new life and new humanity. It is the boldest book I've ever read, but also the most hopeful."
Bill Press, former co-host of CNN's "Crossfire with Pat Buchanan"

Order your copy now!

Chris from Central Texas writes:

This Week's Essay

I attended your recent lectures in Austin and realize I forgot to ask you a question that has been increasingly on my mind: How does the concept of "worship" figure into your vision of a new Christianity? For a long time I have felt that God doesn't need my worship or praise, and to think that God does need my worship and adoration seems silly. (I think that "worship" and "adoration" are different from feeling a sense of gratitude and connection to God.)
My church has been having some serious discussions regarding worship changes and I've heard some folks say that worship shouldn't be about us — it's simply about praising God. Well, I think that worship is very much about me and about the other worshipers as well — it's about drawing us closer to God, about the community called the church, about inspiring us to care for others, etc. Creeds that I can't say, prayers of confession that beat people up, hymns focused on atonement messages, and an emphasis on liturgy and ritual over spirituality only impede my relationship to God. Am I just spoiled and self-centered to want a more meaningful and more relevant worship experience?

Dear Chris,


Yours is a perennial question. I cannot imagine a God who "needs" worship, or a God who has some innate need to be flattered by the human praise that is so often the content of worship. Listen to the words of such hymns as "How Great Thou Art" and "Almighty, Invisible God Only Wise."

Worship is always a human activity that meets a human need. Whenever one engages in worship, it is not for the purpose of working on God but on the human being who is worshiping. Worship is designed to enhance our humanity: to increase our capacity to live, our ability to love and our courage to be all that God created us to be. If worship makes us "religious" or "righteous" or turns us into being intolerant "true believers," then it has become nothing more than an act of idolatry.

Worship in most of our churches today is a mixed blessing. It is frequently the result not of careful study and critical planning, but of rote and tradition. Much of it is designed to keep us childlike and immature and to make a virtue out of chronic dependency. One of the reasons churches exhort its people to be "born again" is that this will postpone forever the necessity of their growing up.

Worship at its heart is the practice of becoming aware of the presence of God so that we become more deeply and fully human. I judge every worship experience in which I participate by that definition.

- John Shelby Spong