Sins of Scripture revisited.

As a student at a liberal seminary, the Pacific School of Religion, I read with interest the review in the Humanist of John Shelby Spong's book The Sins of Scripture. Obviously, progressive religious people and Humanists share a common opponent in Christian fundamentalism. Some of the criticisms of Spong seemed fair to me, but others seemed to miss his point. It is true, as reviewer Kenneth Krause states, that to a point Spong carries on an "investigation that begins with the preferred conclusion." However, it is false to state that Spong has a Christianity that merely means "anything any Christian might ever want it to mean. The only standard is that there are no standards."

Spong's alternative to the fundamentalist way of engaging the Bible is simply to assert that the overall shape and sweep of the story-arc or meta-narrative of the Bible is of greater significance than minutiae of the cultural backdrop against which this story takes place, and that traditionalists make far too much of the latter in building up a theological system. Spong contends that in spite of the barbarity of much material in the Bible the broad saga is one of a society whose concept of God evolves from a combative tribal deity into a humane one. The same thesis has been argued by Humanist Erich Fromm in his book Ye Shall Be As Gods. The overall approach to the text is similar to a long-standing school of thought known formally as "narrative criticism"

As such it is misleading for the reviewer to state that Spong "denounces biblical passages that appear to support the interpretations of his conservative foils, then selects and exalts other verses to buttress his own exegesis." Spong is not at all engaging in proof texting in the way that fundamentalists do. Since he clearly states in the opening sections that he doesn't regard the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, it should be clear that he is doing no such thing. Spong's citations are meant more as illustrations of his thesis than as evidence. His approach is one that should seem more sensible than fundamentalism to almost anyone with a background in world literature who has studied other epics such as the Aeneid or the plays of Shakespeare. There is nothing "inexplicable" or arbitrary to his proclamation that this is a proper way to engage the Bible, although it won't be convincing to all readers.

Jonathan Harvey 

Palo Alto, CA