Responses to the Spong Challenge

• Nicholas Beale 4 July A review of Can a Bishop be Wrong is  here. *** well worth seeing - as is the interview with Spong ***
• Jim 5 July, 1998  I would have to say first of all that you could not be more wrong when... (=> here)
• Nicholas Beale 25 July I think you need to re-examine you concepts of 'proof' and 'faith'. (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 6 July  I only suggest they offer logical refutations.  Spong's views, being illogical, will continue to appeal to a section of society.  If you feel there are logical flaws in the 'refutations' please point one out: I'm always keen to learn and to improve (=> here)
• James McMahon 12 July  It is difficult to defend propositions that are stated ambiguously... (=>here)
• Cal Nordt 13 July ...I am saddened, but not particularly surprised, at his undeserved intellectual arrogance...
• C Fortunato  16 July I can't help but notice that those on this site who defend Bishop Spong almost invariably do so by ...(=>here) .
• John E. Crean  16 July ...As an Episcopal priest .. a university professor, the rector of a small parish, and the Chair of the local deanery ... I feel compelled to lift my voice against the basic error of what John Spong is doing. (=>here)
• Timothy Raisbeck 18 July As the Lambeth conference unfolds... (=>here)
• Tom Jackson 19 Jul Thank you for setting up this website, which I found for the first time today.(=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 19 July Indeed.  Says something about his sincerity ...(=>here)  Have you seen the interview with him?
• Tom Jackson 23 July  You have "dodge the bullet," as a lot of good Country singers would say,  concerning my point... (=>here)
• Tyree Hilkert 19 July I'm one of the "believers in exile" that Bishop Spong is trying to reach out to (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 20 July Ty - Although I don't know much about Buddhism (=>here)
• Tyree Hilkert 20 July ...we are pushing language well beyond its operating limits.. (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 22 July  Doesn't this misunderstand the relation of Creeds to beliefs... (=>here)
• Tyree Hilkert 23 July Look how you've jumped from: - direct experience - to facts - to language that delineates facts ... Facts are subject/object dualistic.  They don't have anything to do with direct experience.  (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 23 July  If you really believe that "facts don't have anything to do with direct experience" you'll swallow any old rubbish.  Holocaust denial, flat earth, Aryan supremacy.  Try that on the 23rd floor ;-)..(=>here).
• Robert Petillo 20 July  Dear "Bishop" Spong: As an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ, I am compelled to join the chorus of those asking you to show some shred of personal integrity (=>here)
• Sharon M Brown 22 July during his consecration as bishop, spong said ... (=>here)
• Kep 22 July Let's not forget that there are those who disagree with much of what Bishop Spong has to say in his 12 theses, but still believe and advocate for the full inclusion of homosexual and bisexual people in the church... (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 22 July Kep .. I don't want to get bogged down in the sexual behaviour issue.  But.. (=>here)
• Kep 23 July, Thanks for the response.  I do agree that the 12th thesis cannot be true as it would open the door for any sort of behavior...(=>here)
• Rose (aged 6) 23 July I think Bishop Spong is mad and his theses are rubbish.  I think we should all try and love God.. (=>here).
• Rev Craig Morrison 24 July {a revealing EMail ...Reminds me of this gem} I find your criticisms ...fankly, childish.  (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 24 July Indeed?  Perhaps you can find some arguments against the refutations. (=>here)
• Rev Craig Morrison 24 July {classics of Spongian irrationality marked thus} I think your postings about +Spong are insulting to say the least. ...Fundamentalists ALWAYS seem to have such a persecution complex  (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 25 July ...This is about his published 'theses'.  If he's expressed himself badly, he should withdraw and amend them ... If you looked at the Star Course you would see that I am an Anglo-Catholic, not a fundamentalist.  ..(=>here)
• Rev Craig Morrison 28 July 1) Fundamentalist:  In 1909... (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 28 July ...Fundamentalists & literalists ...annoy you but ...I am neither...(my views re the Bible are explained here)...(=>here)
• Rev Craig Morrison I actually think the opposite is true:... (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 29 July A true Spongian response! No arguments, just insults.  How revealing... (=>here)
•  Robert N. Deruy 24 July I must agree with you; the theses are such "lightweight" ideas.. (=>here)
• Rev. Victor H. Morgan 26 July Within Christendom today there are two religions. This may sound shocking, but it really is so. ...(=>here)
• Nicholas Beale  25 July I think you need to re-examine your concepts of 'proof' and 'faith'.  (=>here)
• Jim 27 July  It is, to some degree a matter of faith that China exists.  (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 28 July  Jim, this is a well explored territory of confusions.  (=>here)...my view of the Bible is ...that any significant part of the Bible has one or more meanings that God wants us to understand, and that these meanings are true. (more explanation here)  ...
• Jim (ZenJS@aol.com) 29 July I have always found that refering to someone's argument as "over simplistic" is a bit of a "cop out", (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 29 July I think you mean "there can be two profound truths... (=>here)
• There are 2 further exchanges in this which you will find here and here.
• Bruce Shaw 31 July ...John Newark, has gone too far over the top, and finally insulted too many people.  The other point is that his particular heresies are old and worn out and have been refuted some years before, and will probably be refuted again.  I think they are eminently worth ignoring, and should not be given the dignity of a debate.

• Eric MacDonald Tue, 26 May 1998 13:51:01 -0300

Are you really intending to put your rather puerile response up against Spong's theses? Come come.
• Nicholas Beale 26 May: Indeed?  Perhaps you can find some arguments against the refutations. Describing them as "puerile" hardly counts.
{A long and quite interesting discussion ensued, posted here.}
•  John Fooks 28 May 1998 20:38 {I'm not making this up - honestly!}

Subject:  you're silly
Date:      Thu, 28 May 1998 20:38:00 -0700
From:     "Mister Silly Slips Again!" <johnf@sympatico.ca>
Spong is surely one of the great thinkers of the contemporary church. Your mediaeval notions of Christianity diminish its power to change people's lives in the modern world.  Your theology is childish and silly.  More power to Spong and to all who truly worship the Risen Lord.
  John Fooks, London, Ontario
• Nicholas Beale 29 May: Indeed?  Perhaps you can find some arguments against the refutations. Describing them as "silly" hardly counts.

PS Why do Spong supporters always start with an unsubstantiated insult? Such deep thought appears to be a common characteristic.  Have they learned it from their Master?
• James McMahon Thu, 28 May 1998 (next post)

A few thoughts on your views vis a vis MacDonald on Spong... (=>here)
• Timothy Raisbeck Tue, 2 Jun 1998

Spong has presented his "New Reformation" by juxtaposing his ideas against a simplistic, albeit mainstream, perception of God, (=>here)
• Albin Chalk Tues 2 June 1998

{Mr} Pepper Marts of Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, first made me aware of Spong's latest insane ramblings.. (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 4 Jun 98 - EMail to the unofficial mailing list of the Diocese of Newark

You are all in our prayers as you elect your new Bishop Coadjutor. May God bless your deliberations and your Diocese.
 The responses page now has contributions from US, Canada, UK and Australia.  Louie has asked me not to update you all more than once a fortnight, but if anyone wants to be kept in touch more often, do EMail (or look in).
  No-one so far has offered a rational (as opposed to 'post-modern') defence of Spong's Theses against their preliminary refutations.  If anyone can offer such a defense, or a link to one, or links to any discussions that would be helpful, do let me know.
•  Chris Ashton  (ashton_family@one.net.au) Fri, 05 Jun 98 12:12:08 PDT

G'day,  Thanks for your 'Why Spong is Wrong' site. It's great to see some thoughtful refuting of that fool's latest attention-seeking media stunt. It is better than the fundamentalist evangelical winging that goes on in response to Spong in this diocese (Sydney, Australia).
  One criticism, however, is that I can't seem to find YOUR name on the page, and surely, it's a bit cowardly to remain anonomys given the importance of the topics of debate. If your name is there, then I must have overlooked it, and I'm sorry.
  Keep up the good work, and God bless. Cheers,
• Nicholas Beale 4 June 1998 08:40 BST: I thought it was obvious that I am Nicholas Beale.  Sorry.
• Nicholas Beale Fri 5 June 98

1. I've just finished Who was Jesus?, by NT Wright, a masterly debunking by a real scholar of the silly ideas of Spong, Wilson and Thiering.  His final words: "[Spong] lashes out wildly at those who still embrace the fundamentalism from which he himself has escaped, and succeeds in knocking all the china off the shelf in the process.  He claims the status of a persecuted hero, along with John Robinson, David Jenkins and Hans Kung, though he lacks the deep historical sense of the first, the quicksilver mind of the second, and the enormous learing of the third... he sees some things - but sees them through a tiny peephole and in a glaring bright light.  Dazzled, he rushes on, constructing imaginagy historical worlds and inviting us to base our faith and life on them.  If we refuse this invitation he will, no doubt, hurl his favourite abuse-word at us again.  But if everyone who disagrees with Spong ... turns out be a fundamentalist, I suppose all the fundamentalist churches in the world would not be able to contain the new members who would suddenly arrive on their doorsteps."
2. I wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury encouraging him to withrdaw Spong's invitation to the Lambeth Conference, since it would cause puzzlement and dismay that someone who has so publicly repudiated the Christian Faith should be invited.  The response of his office is interesting and reasonable: The Archbishop has seen Bishop Spong's 12 Theses and sees no likelihood whatsoever of ther position being set out in the gaining any credence at the Lambeth Conference.  The Archbishop has invited all bishops in diocesan appointments to the Conference and would not wish to withdraw his invitation on the basis of a disagreement with a particular individual, howver profoundly that disagreement may be. That would be to run the risk of opening the floodgates!  I think you may rest assured that Bishop Spong's doctrinal views will not be shared by the vast majority of Bishops from around the world, and it is therefore quite unlikely that should he wish to pursue this agenda at the Conference, he will find a ready audience.
• Dwight Welch  Fri, 05 Jun 1998 (long interesting comments =>here)
• Nicholas Beale 6 June 1998 14:00

1. So Spong 1 as stated is "terribly wrong ". (rest =>here)
...In other words, although you appear somewhat sympathetic to Spong, you agree that Spong 1,2,3,7,8 and 10 (and 4?) are refuted.
• Kevin Love Monday 8th June 1998

I would like to congratulate Nicholas Beale on his well thought out comprehensive, point-by-point reply to Spong. It is truly refreshing to see logical, intelligent thought. I do not have too much sympathy for those whose argument boils down to "believe this, not because of evidence that it is true, but for some other reason."
  Here is one question that nobody seems to have asked: If I were to go to Newark on a Sunday and attend a church service with Spong as officiant, would he lead the congregation in reciting the Nicene or Apostles' Creed? Does this not make him a total 100% hypocrite?
• Kevin Love Wed, 17 Jun 1998

I wonder what it would be like to attend a confirmation service conducted by a bishop who does not believe in the Holy Spirit?  What does he say when he puts his hands on someone's head?
• Tom Wright Tues 9 June

I'm glad you enjoyed the book. You may like to know that the major work on which it was based has been out for eighteen months or so: Jesus and the
Victory of God.
  I have tried to concentrate on the serious scholars in my discussions. I dealt with Spong in that book because the publishers insisted I should. I have seen Spong's so-called `theses' and they are laughable. Why anyone takes him seriously I really don't know. I fear I haven't the time to engage with him in any detail. He is neither an academic nor a theologian but simply a modernist ranter (not even a post-modernist). I know he makes a lot of waves, but they are very shallow.
• Frank Cook 13 & 15 June

The nature of your response to Bishop Spong's 12 Theses is unnecessarily  personal. To attack Bishop Spong in this way and avoid addressing his points is to add support to his argument for a reformation... {I asked for an example of where I had not addressed his points.  Frank responded} Just to give one example. No 5. You use a straw man, not relevant to Spong's thesis, and fail to engage with Spong. Your requirement to engage only where a thesis is precise enough to be understood logically by you seems to be your convenient out. I am sure most understand thesis 5, and its not about machines.
• Nicholas Beale 15 June

Thanks for your feedback. I've toned things down a bit and changed my wording on 5 to make the point clearer.  'machines' was a shorthand for determinism but it clearly didn't communicate well enough.
• Cyprus Wed, 17 Jun 1998 {A long and thoughtful posting. I don't agree with it, but the full text is posted here.}

This forum is indeed a noble enterprise, but I fear it is also a lost cause.  Spong seems more interested in basking in his smugness than in engaging a serious debate....
• Nicholas Beale, 17 June

Thanks for the posting.  I don't agree about Anglican Ersatianism - we don't see ourselves as subordinating Church to State but as ensuring that we genuinely serve the people of the country and not some selected group or some foreign potentate. (NB: History about Henry VIII is beside the point - rulers have always had mixed motives in dealing with the people of God).
  Nor do we see Christianity as subordinate to Science, but we do see God's Truth as unified, so that the true insights of science and a true understanding of Christianity will by definition be compatible.  Science can illuminate Faith and vice versa. (see eg John Polkinghorne).
• Cyprus Wed, 17 Jun 1998

  Thanks for posting such a lengthy tract of mine.  I must admit that my take on Erastianism comes from Frederick Beiser's interpretation of Hooker
in The Sovereignty of Reason.  That interpretation could be wrong, or I could be wrong in implying that Hooker is the end-all and be-all of
Anglican ecclesiology.   I should also point out that I am not a member of the Anglican communion but think you have guessed that by now.  I am a practicing Roman Catholic.  Paul S. Rhodes
• BB Wed, 17 Jun

Good for you!  "Bishop" Spong brings scandal and shame on the title of Bishop, the Anglican Communion, and Christianity itself.  He is the embodiment of the 1960's pot-smoking New Age silliness that has taken power and is destroying the Anglican Communion.  At least 30 some years ago, when Bishop Pike wandered from the faith, Pike had the honesty and decency to admit it and resign.  Spong and his minions will never stop until they make Christainity a mockery before the world and completely reduce the Anglican Church to the Synagogue of Satan, and they have done quite a job in accomplishing both already.
  The "bishop" will have much to answer for one day.  I would not want to be in his shoes when he has to make his account to the Almighty.  If we were Roman Catholic, we would have someone in real authority who would excommunicate him.  Our "leadership" is to chicken to do that.
  You are free to post this, but keep me anonymous, and do not post my e-mail address, I don't want flames from the ignoramous "liberals" at 815.
  Thank you and God bless you for what you are doing.
• Nicholas Beale Thurs 18 June

Please let's keep this in perspective.  Spong's views are completely unrepresentative of those of the real leaders of Anglicanism.  It's not that our leadership is 'chicken' but that we do not have effective mechanisms for excluding people, and there is a real strength in being an inclusive church.
• JD <jdangler@comm-plus.NET>Thu, 18 Jun 1998 07:04:48 Siskel & Ebert Review Spong's Theses

   Great! Wonderful! I loved it! A wild roller-coaster ride on the never-ending drama that is... real life! These guys from Hollywood amaze me! ~
- Oh, this isn't the script for a movie ?
- He isn't kidding ?
- He actually believes it ?
Wrap him up at the happy hotel...
Every one of these 'theses' is based on the first one.  And, since the first one needs a rather large bucket to contain how much manure it really is, the rest aren't worth much more.
• F. William Abbate Fri, 19 Jun (long contribution =>here)
 Bishop Spong’s "Call for a New Reformation" set out 12 issues on which he calls for debate. What better forum than the Episcopal/Anglican Church?
•  Nicholas Beale 19 June (=>here)

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.  May I respond briefly? ... if there are "well-reasoned, well-supported" ideas to support his theses please send us some.  We've seen nothing on this site so far.
• F. William Abbate 20 June Yes the Anglican Communion is a great place for many things!... (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 21 Jun 1998 sent to Louie Crew's Diocese of Newark Unofficial EMail list

Dear Friends in Christ, We have had 20 more responses ... since I last EMailed...But still no-one...has offered a rational defense of his theses, which are admitted to be significantly flawed.
  The Bishop of Rochester{'s} ..response..is not even mentioned on the Newark web-pages - nor is ours or this discussion.
  Should we conclude that there is no rational support for Spong's Theses even within his own Diocese?
  Should we also conclude that Spong's claims to want to engage in a debate on his 'Theses' are less than whole-hearted?
 Comments please. (=>here)
•  Louie Crew  Sun, 21 Jun 1998
Thank you for alerting me to the material from the Bishop of Rochester [U.K.].  I have added a link on my Anglican Pages.
The Church took over 400 years to shape and then agree to the Nicean Creed. I urge you to be a little more patient with those of us who are reading and inwardly digesting the new theses.
 That is no reason to delay the most important unity we have, however:  Joy to you and to the whole world!
• Elaine Alley Mon 22 June 1998

How can one defend insanity?
• gpisani Mon, 22 Jun 1998

  Bishop Spong clearly has the support of his Diocese...This does not mean that each of us agrees with our Bishop at every point (=>here)
•  James McMahon  23 Jun (previous)

I wanted to check out a few items before writing again.(=> here).
• Nicholas Beale 24 June 98

...you had the impression that "the Bishop had used $s from his Diocese to help the couple keep their parish alive" but now you have confirmed that the parish has cut its $s to the Diocese - somewhat different I think ...(=>here)
•  Jim 5 July, 1998 I would have to say first of all that you could not be more wrong when (=> here)
• Nicholas Beale 6 July, 1998 I only suggest they offer logical refutations.  Spong's views, being illogical, will continue to appeal to a section of society.  If you feel there are logical flaws in the 'refutations' please point one out: I'm always keen to learn and to improve (=> here)
• Jim (ZenJS@aol.com) 8 July, 1998 ...First, I would like to say that my prior statements on your writings as somewhat ineffective as "logical refutations" of Spong's work is not meant as a disparagement of your ideas. (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale Sat 25 July I think you need to re-examine your concepts of 'proof' and 'faith'.  (=>here)
• Jim (ZenJS@aol.com) 27 July, 1998 It is, to some degree a matter of faith that China exists.  (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 28 July  Jim, this is a well explored territory of confusions.  (=>here)...my view of the Bible is ... that any significant part of the Bible has one or more meanings that God wants us to understand, and that these meanings are true. (more explanation here)  ...
• James McMahon Sun, 12 Jul 1998 It is difficult to defend propositions that are stated ambiguously...Fr. Mark Harris recognized the tactic in his responses to the Bp., (=>here)
• Cal Nordt Mon 13 July

Very interesting article, however--it points out to me as I have thought from reading Spong's new book that he quite conclusively falls down due to a willful or careless misreading of the implications of scientific "revolutions", and I am saddened, but not particularly surprised, at his undeserved intellectual arrogance towards third world Christians' thought!  It seems he just can't quite fit all of "political correctness" into just one belief system!
• C Fortunato Thus 16 July

I can't help but notice that those on this site who defend Bishop Spong almost invariably do so by stating that Spong was somewhat unclear in one aspect or
another of his theses. Bishop Spong is a published writer.  Surely he knows that the time to get rid of vague wording in one's writing is BEFORE publication?  (=>here) ... if his defenders can only defend him by stating that the Bishop didn't quite mean what he actually said, maybe that is proof positive that the statement is truly, and completely, indefensible.
• John E. Crean Thurs 16 July

...As an Episcopal priest of the Diocese of Western Michigan, a university professor, the rector of a small parish, and the Chair of the local deanery of the diocese, I feel compelled to lift my voice against the basic error of what John Spong is doing. (=>here) ...May God move his heart to see the unfairness of using his sworn office to teach error instead of truth.
• Timothy Raisbeck 18 July As the Lambeth conference unfolds, and the rhetoric flies around in all directions, I feel it is important to remember that truth is often quite simple. (=>here)
•  Tom Jackson Sun, 19 Jul Thank you for setting up this website, which I found for the first time today.(=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 19 July Indeed.  Says something about his sincerity ...(=>here)  Have you seen the interview with him?
• Tom Jackson 23 July 1998 You have "dodge the bullet," as a lot of good Country singers would say,  concerning my point... (=>here)
• Tyree Hilkert 19 July I'm one of the "believers in exile" that Bishop Spong is trying to reach out to.  I was feeling nostalgic and browsing Anglican sites and came across yours.  (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 20 July Ty - Although I don't know much about Buddhism (=>here) ... Why, if I may ask, did you move away from faith in Jesus?  I can understand leaving 'the Church' but not 'The Lord'.
• Tyree Hilkert 20 July ...we are pushing language well beyond its operating limits.. (=>here) ... Bishop Spong seems to be following Christ's example perfectly, God help him.
• Nicholas Beale 22 July  Doesn't this misunderstand the relation of Creeds to beliefs... (=>here) ...Indeed, Spong does seem to have a Messiah complex.  It would be sad and funny if it were not so damaging.
• Tyree Hilkert 23 July Look how you've jumped from: - direct experience - to facts - to language that delineates facts ... Facts are subject/object dualistic.  They don't have anything to do with direct experience.  (=>here)..."It represents a faith in ferment, simultaneously dying and being resurrected... It also reveals that any god who is threatened by new truth from any source is clearly dead already.  Such a deceased god needs to be snatched away from threatened believers so that the anxiety of "a god vacuum" at the heart of some peoples' lives will drive them into honesty and integrity as either believers or nonbelievers.  There is no hope for the revival of worship so long as an idol lives undisturbed in the place reserved for a living God."  - Why Christianity Must Change or Die, p. xix
• Nicholas Beale 23 July, 1998  If you really believe that "facts don't have anything to do with direct experience" you'll swallow any old rubbish.  Holocaust denial, flat earth, Aryan supremacy.  Try that on the 23rd floor ;-)..(=>here). It is hard to imagine a more breathtaking combination of arrogance, stupidity and confusion that this quote!...The objection to Spong's ideas is not that they are (true but) threatenting, it is that they are rubbish but, because he is abusing his position as a 'bishop' confusing and damaging.  ...As for the suggestion that almost all Christians ...are worshipping an idol... Spong clearly imagines he is the greatest genius who ever lived - compare his attitude with that of Newton, say.
• Tyree Hilkert 24 July  Buddhists try to explain this in terms of the "two truths".. (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 24 July Christian theologians have articulated the truth behind this idea since the 1st Century. ..(=>here)
• Robert Petillo 20 July sent this to Spong with a copy here: Dear "Bishop" Spong: As an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ, I am compelled to join the chorus of those asking you to show some shred of personal integrity (=>here)
•  Sharon M Brown 22 July during his consecration as bishop, spong said - 'In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy  Spirit, I, ....., chosen Bishop of the Church in....., solemnly  declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and  New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to  conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the  Episcopal Church.' if he is now renouncing all of this then he does not deserve to be a bishop, or enjoy the benefits of the episcopate and the financial rewards associated with it. (=>here)
• Kep 22 July, 1998 Let's not forget that there are those who disagree with much of what Bishop Spong has to say in his 12 theses, but still believe and advocate for the full inclusion of homosexual and bisexual people in the church... (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 22 July Kep .. I don't want to get bogged down in the sexual behaviour issue.  But.. (=>here)
• Kep 23 July, 1998, Thanks for the response.  I do agree that the 12th thesis cannot be true as it would open the door for any sort of behavior, healthy or unhealthy.(=>here)
• Rose (aged 6) 23 July I think Bishop Spong is mad and his theses are rubbish.  I think we should all try and love God.. (=>here).
•  Craig Morrison 24 July {a revealing EMail ...Reminds me of this gem} I find your criticisms ...fankly, childish.  (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 24 July Indeed?  Perhaps you can find some arguments against the refutations. (=>here)
• Rev Craig Morrison 24 July {classic Spongian irrationality marked thus} I think your postings about +Spong are insulting to say the least. ...Fundamentalists ALWAYS seem to have such a persecution complex  (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 25 July ...This is about his published 'theses'.  If he's expressed himself badly, he should withdraw and amend them ... If you looked at the Star Course you would see that I am an Anglo-Catholic, not a fundamentalist.  ..(=>here)
• Rev Craig Morrison 28 July 1) Fundamentalist:  In 1909... (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 28 July ...Fundamentalists & literalists ...annoy you but ...I am neither...(my views re the Bible are explained here)...(=>here)
• Rev Craig Morrison I actually think the opposite is true:... (=>here)
• Nicholas Beale 29 July A true Spongian response! No arguments, just insults.  How revealing... (=>here)
•  Robert N. Deruy 24 July I must agree with you; the theses are such "lightweight" ideas.. (=>here)
• Rev. Victor H. Morgan 26 July (column dated 22 July EMailed 26 July) Within Christendom today there are two religions. This may sound shocking, but it really is so. There is the religion of revelation and the religion of accommodation.(=>here)

 

Other Sites

• EpiscoTalk
• Bishop of Rochester's Response.
• Review of Spong's Book in Salon Magazine
• Response by former Dean on Trinity Episcopalean School for Ministry
• Review of Can a Bishop be Wrong?