Thanks for this great review, Brent. There's been quite a buzz about this book and many eager readers - hopefully some such will add to the commentary here!

Sounds like an intriguing book and new perspective.

The switching between God and Jesus in the same paragraph, as though they are interchangeable, can be a very difficult ideology to overcome when talking to both Jewish and Muslim friends. Christians DO use these names so frequently and without thinking, that it becomes inherent in their religious conversations. How can we be more considerate in relating to those with other religious beliefs without immediately shutting down further conversation in synomously calling "Jesus" God, often in the same sentence? Are we too, conflicted on this belief?

Elaine,

I do see how that paragraph and the belief shared by the majority of Christians that Jesus was God in human flesh could be a real stumbling block to interacting with other Jewish and Muslim believers. I am also aware that liberal Christians maintain that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was a rather late development in Christianity, arising a century or more after Jesus walked the earth. One way to be more considerate of other religious beliefs would involve asking as Spong does in The Sins of Scripture, not was Jesus divine but what was it about Jesus that his followers felt the need to use divine descriptions? In other words, focus on Jesus message rather than Jesus identity. The problem is that for many of us Jesus' identity and actions are completely integral to that message. Avoiding the distinctive flashpoints of our various religions might allow us to have more cordial discussions but what fun is a relationship based on cordiality?

I think it would be more interesting to find ways that our unique and potentially divisive beliefs make us better people, create better communities, and enhance our appreciation of 'the other'. For example, as I wrote above, the scandalous doctrine of the incarnation in which Christians maintain that God fit in a human frame provides the context for us to find God in other equally unexpected places.

So, could we then share with other believers how our distinctive belief in the incarnation transforms our interactions with others? Probably not, most 'others' would likely be unable to get past the scandal of placing God in a human body. However, at least our own understanding would have the potential to transform our interaction with others by looking for the good rather than the evil. In this way, we could begin to learn from others and open ourselves to the possibility of being blessed by others. If we show interest and respect for other faiths and traditions, our own eccentricities may come to be not just tolerated and not necessarily accepted but perhaps appreciated as well.

Brenton,

"We are facing daunting social, economic, health, and environmental challenges and to meet them will require all of our faith, ingenuity, imagination, and cooperation. The stakes are far too high for us to continue our divisive and too often deadly sibling rivalries. This book is full of potential to inspire us all to appreciate our fundamental relatedness to one another and to God. As more people recognize this and choose along with Selmanovic to learn to love well and with humility embrace the image of God in the other, we will become more prepared to deal with the present global crises, our distinctive religions will flourish, and our journey will more closely approach the soon coming Kingdom of God."--Brenton comment.

I posted this quote by Grenz on another strand but I think it applies quite well here. I suggest some may seek a neo-triumphalism hope through "religious inclusivism" merged with societies "needs" that ultimately makes all society/community "the church."

To me the exclusive domain of "the church" and the "Kingdom of Christ" is entered into by receiving Christ as God as one's personal Savior.

Now if dialogue honestly expressess that thought...fine. If it does not, I suggest Christ is denied so, "the nation/world perishes not."

Grenz in "The millennial Maze", IVP., says it this way, “As the nineteenth century unfolded, church centered optimism was replaced by ay an optimism that focused on society. The dream for the truly reformed church was transformed into a blueprint for a new world order…when theological liberalism exchanged original sin for human perfectibility and replaced Christ as our substitute with Jesus as the model for the new human, the triumph of this-worldliness was complete and the way was open for the church to join the secularized millennial vision. The flowering of the utopian optimism of theological liberalism came with the social gospel movement. The salvation of souls gave way to the salvation of society.”

To each his own but in one’s dialogue, I suggest, "Christian" honesty requires one to be brought back to the parable in Mt.22:1-14. “The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.
13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

Jesus accepted, embraced by the individual is the “wedding garment” that allows a seat at the banquet...and I suggest the "3rd Angels message in verity."

Regards,
pat

Thanks for this review. My review of Samir's book has just been posted at .

www.atoday.com/content/it’s-really-all-about-god

Brenton, I've long been a fan of Spong after being given his book:
"Here I Stand" and many books later, I find he is the epitome, IMO
of how and what a Christian is.

Beyond that, since we are all have the beliefs we inherited, in almost 100% of the time, we feel that it is superior to all other religions, just as native-born Americans feel similarly about our nation.

But why should we not expect all the other religious beliefs to feel just as we do: their religion is perfect for them; they inherited it; there is hundreds, perhaps thousands of years' tradition on their side. What is superior about Christianity? We surely have as much or more violent history than many, especially if our Jewish ancestry is included.

What makes Christianity worth someone changing his religion? If he is comfortable with it, and adapting a new religion could jeopardize his entire familial relationships, should we encourage such a change, or as Gandhi said to a believer of another religion:
"Be the best Muslim or Hindi or Christian you can be."

Yes, Jesus gave the command to preach the Gospel to all the world.
But if it causes such family disruptions--even death threats in another country, should we be so insistent as to encourage someone to face such disruption, even death, simply to switch religions?
Is there only one path to God?

Elaine,
I went to a conference given by Spong awhile ago. It was interesting but one thing that really struck me was when it came time for questions and answers, he announced that there are two microphones. He said he has noticed over the years that the voices of women tended to drowned out, both at conferences and in the church, and so he would alternate between hearing from a man and hearing from a woman. Only if there were no women wanting to talk, would he take questions from two men in a row. It was amazing how many women dove for that microphone - way more than one would normally hear from. And he never resorted to hearing from two men in a row.

Attention Spectrum conference planners!!

I was at a Spectrum forum conference years ago and I remember someone up front commenting about wishing they could hear more from the younger attendees. Might I suggest a similar format? Have two microphones and simply announce that every other comment should be from someone under 35 (or whatever.) My guess is when they don't have to compete directly with those used to holding forth, you would hear quite a bit.

Try the woman thing sometime too - wouldn't that be wonderful.

Beth, I think you've got a great idea. The simple fact that men have deeper and louder voices and are far less reticent to speak out, constrains women and thus they have had little impact within the church administration. This is not so true now in government as there are increasing numbers of women as governors, mayors, congress people and CEOs in business. It is the church that is still working with 19th century practices.

Because Jon Paulson has spoken and written much about more young people being involved, it will not be seen as having meaning until it is really acted on. Change is always feared among the established officers. When we see an equal number of female officers as members, then we will have reached equality and true representation.

I'm closer to Ghandi on this one than Grenz.

As Christians we claim to follow Jesus and Paul gives us a look at where that means we are going in Phil. 2:5-11. Jesus trajectory was from God to earth and back to God. Christians tend to focus on the second half of the arc (How do I get to heaven?) but no so much on the first (How do I love the other?). We must first follow Jesus as he reaches out to the untouchable, reassures those condemned as sexual sinners, parties with the outcasts of respectable society, converses with the theological "other's" of his day, and absorbs the ire of the religious establishment. Only then will we be on the arc that takes a surprising turn toward Heaven.

I think this is the path that God travels and Jesus showed us the way. I also think that there are those on this path from many different faith traditions. Unfortunately, most of the religious roads out there lead nowhere including those that most Christians are following. But thanks be to God that the divine trajectory intersects every road no matter where it is going or has been.

One of the classic texts in support of "receiving Christ as God as one's personal Savior" is John 14:6 which is often (mis)interpreted as saying that Jesus is in the way of the Father and nobody will get to the Father unless they get through him first. Rather, I see this text both in its immediate literary context and in the broader context of Jesus' life as a relational promise that when we realize the way to the kingdom of God is not found through elitism, exclusion, or escapism but through humility, inclusion, embrace, and interdependence we will have found a traveling companion who sticks closer than a brother -- no matter where we started from.

I'm looking forward to reading this book. It sounds to me like it would track with the book I'm reading right now, A Deadly Misunderstanding by Mark Siljander, reviewed in Spectrum by David Pendleton.

Well said, Brenton. Thank you for these thoughts.

The arguments and reasonings all sound fine but are replays of the cross being a stumblingblock and foolishness.

"Religious pluralism and inclusivism" (to be contrasted with the social right of "secular" religious pluralism and inclusivism) simply makes the cross of none effect and diminishes Christ as Messiah.

My God has a Son who is God and who is our substitute and His name is Jesus. Dialogue to explain this is acceptable. Dialogue to "explain it away" is to be an antichrist/in place of means of salvation.

" Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."
1 Jn.2:22-24.

regards,
pat

Pat - your God and my God are the same God - but boy do we envision him differently!!!

I would never explain away Jesus Christ - for me he is much bigger and less limited than your Jesus Christ; the cross is a much larger event and has much more significance; and the Biblical witness to God is more inclusive and more far reaching.

Donna,

Agreed, we see Him differently...but I attempt to see Him as the Bible portrays Him not as I wish Him to be. Otherwise, it seems to me, I eisegete my own God into scripture and perhaps I have become "god" in His place. Possible?

Our God certainly is inclusive. The door is open for any and all types to receive Him and His dear Son.

Our God certainly is longsuffering and gracious not desirous that any should perish but all come to repentance and He causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust.

But..."Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” than Jesus.

We should not "unexplain" that clear thought to hearers!

regards,
pat

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” than Jesus."

Which not only is circular reasoning, but selectively eliminates all the millions who have no recognition of Jesus. Would you draw a bar at salvation or heaven's gate for all those who never heard of Jesus? Isn't this the implication of the text quoted?

I refuse to accept that premise. Like Gandhi, I truly believe there are many paths to God, and if there is only one path, through Jesus, we are, essentially, damning all others to Hell. That eliminates every Jew since they began as a people. I refuse to worship a god who operates in that manner.

Elaine,

We have covered this ground several times before, so perhaps it is appropriate for me to be just as stubborn as you in resistance.

You continue to use "those who have not heard" as the strawman argument for the lack of necessity of acceptance by those "who are hearing" the message of the cross. So we magnify that and now imply it isn't necessary for those that hear of Christ to receive Christ as Savior. In fact, many dialogue Christ away claiming after all "there are many paths."

God indeed can save by Grace those he chooses on the basis of Christ atoning death. All salvation is of grace...not works. However scripture is clear of the "means" of salvation and the responsibility of hearers to respond.

If others are actually led of the "spirit" in other religions as some imply, would it not seem to you they would respond to the True Spirit upon hearing of Christ the Son of God (which we are to believe is supposedly the "same God" in all religions). Or, are there "other spirits" in the world that tell them it is not necessary to receive Christ?

To them, I suggest Paul would say, let them be accursed.

regards,
pat

I'm a late-comer to the discussion, but the exchange here is reminding me of something I discussed with my SS class this past Sabbath.

We're reading through Romans and this week, our reading was from Romans 10 and 11, where Paul talks about his understanding of "salvation" and Israel, (i.e. Jews that do not understand/believe "the gospel".)

The think that confused most/all of us was Paul's seemingly conflicting statements on this in just two chapters.

On the one hand, he's clear in Romans 10, that one is "saved" by believing the gospel in one's heart, and confessing with their mouths that "Jesus is Lord." He wishes his country men would come to faith so they too can be saved.

Then, he says, that "there is a remnant is Israel" that will be saved (by coming to faith?).

Then, further on, he argues that all of Israel will be saved. He argues that God's promise/call/gift to the patriarchs is irrevocable. (11: 28,29)

The whole section ends with a hymn, affirming God's mystery and transcendence:

"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"

All this to say, the diversity of viewpoints expressed so far on "who will be saved" seems to reflect the ambiguity in Paul (Scripture?) himself!

On the one hand, we know how we are saved. We do not know exactly who will be saved.

Paul is a difficult read to exegete: he is at times ambiguous, contradictory, and leaves the reader wondering what his position is, and if he has one.

Pat,

As one who more than implies that "others are actually led of the "spirit" in other religions," I see things as more complex than you suggest. It would seem logical that if the same God who was incarnated in Christ is working through those in other faiths, they would naturally accept Christ as Savior. However, we don't do such a great job of representing Jesus. As Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Along those lines, I think the concept of believing in our heart and accepting Jesus as Lord means actually following Jesus living example rather than the modern notion of giving intellectual assent to the propositional truth that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Jesus is only Lord if we are actually submitting (to borrow a phrase from some "other" believers) to his leading and doing greater things than he did (as he said we would) by expanding on his ministry in which he demonstrated that the Kingdom of God is here in all the 'wrong' places. Regardless of what one says, the proof is found in the deeds.

As Jesus said, "But what do you think about this? A man with two sons told the older boy, 'Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.' The son answered, 'No, I won't go,' but later he changed his mind and went anyway. Then the father told the other son, 'You go,' and he said, 'Yes, sir, I will.' But he didn't go. Which of the two was obeying his father?" They replied, "The first, of course." Then Jesus explained his meaning: "I assure you, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the Kingdom of God before you do. For John the Baptist came and showed you the way to life, and you didn't believe him, while tax collectors and prostitutes did. And even when you saw this happening, you refused to turn from your sins and believe him."

Brenton,

"Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Since Ghandi liked Christ, why didn't he accept Him as Lord and Savior?

While Christians can and hopefully will give a reflection of credibility to Christianity, I suggest our witness is "we preach not ourselves" but HIM.
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake." 2 Cor.4:3-5.

and...
"Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 “You are witnesses of these things. 49 “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” Lk.24:45-49.

Nowhere do I see that one's responsibility to believe in Him is made subject or contingent to my opinion of another professed Christian's deeds. If men crucified Christ, the perfect and holy one, why would they accept our tarnished witness?

“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.(because one saw bad followers such as Judas...supplied) 19 “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. 20 “For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed(just like bad followers...supplied). 21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” Jn.3:18-21.

YOU (everyone) must be born again!

regards,
pat

"Since Ghandi liked Christ, why didn't he accept Him as Lord and Savior?"

"Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

There, I think that is a better ordering of these two sentences.

Glenn,

Thanks for your response.

My point...that's a "copout" by Ghandi and anyone else that uses that as an excuse not to receive Christ as Savior.

Kinda like, I like Mercedes 600 SL's but I wouldn't receive one as a gift because I don't like some people that drive them.

Christianity, I suggest rightly understood, is the only institution that "should require" that one recognize themselves as sinners followed by repentance and acceptance of Christ to join. Christ came not to save the righteous but sinners. There is none righteous...no not one..perhaps but Ghandi?

regards,
pat

And yet, Christianity rightly understood is not an institution at all. It's a body, and there is no coming to the body without also coming to the members of it. If the members reject an incoming organ, there's no point trying blame the organ. One should ask "why would the members reject their own organ"? Perhaps because they don't recognize the organ as a native member of the body.

The same is true of Christian communities where the walls between the in-sinner and the out-sinner are so very thick.

If Samir's contribution to us is to make our walls more transparent so that -- at the least -- we can truly see one another through them, then I value that contribution.

"Christianity, I suggest rightly understood, is the only institution that "should require" that one recognize themselves as sinners followed by repentance and acceptance of Christ to join. Christ came not to save the righteous but sinners. There is none righteous...no not one..perhaps but Ghandi?"

If Ghandi, or anyone else, were to essentially verbally repeat the business about being a sinner and expressing his or her acceptance of Christ, what exactly would that change? I realize there's a segment of Christianity that is very formulaic like this, but I fail to see how or whether this would make Ghandi a better person or not. Clearly he, and many others, did not find Christianity's claims, as lived out by its members and by the societies that claimed to embody its principles, to be especially moral or credible. So why would he or anyone really, want to belong to such a group or validate that group's claims?

As for his eternal destiny, well, who knows? Maybe when someone from the other side comes back to tell us all about it, we'll know for sure. Until then...

As for the Mercedes, well, the person who drives the car and the car are quite different things. Not so with the church. The church is essentially its people. The church is not, or at least I would contend it is not, simply or even primarily a set of abstract doctrines.

KM,

You are correct...it is a body. The "outsiders" are not part of the "body of Christ" until they receive Him.

My point again...the qualification to enter the body of Christ should be to recognize ones condition...a sinner which should cause a growing repentance and appreciation as we mature...and receive the saving grace found in the merits of Christ our Savior. Had Ghandi understood this "properly" he should not be criticizing the sick in the hospital since he was also sick but perhaps to proud to acknowledge it.

Still object because some/possibly you may consider "outsiders" already in the body? But on what scriptural basis...unless you believe in "particular election."

Christ said He had sheep outside of "Israel" but He did not say they entered except by Him in response to the call of the Holy Spirit.

Regards,
pat

What a boring place heaven would be if it were only for Christians.
We need others to show us a different perspective, one that does not focus on sin to the extent that Christianity does; one that is more willing to do what is necessary to help others without prescribing to a set of doctrines. Fences, such as doctrines, fence people in; wide doors work both ways.

Posted September 25th, 2009 by Brenton Reading

As if interfaith dialogue on the minimal points of agreement were not rare and difficult enough, now we are expected to actually experience our neighbor’s faith, share our unique rituals, learn to receive from someone on another theological path, and heal the world while we’re at it? Impossible.

Of course not impossible, as Brenton knows, and more fun than you can shake a stick at, really. I couldn't be more delighted to see this development in Adventism.

The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea.

I Know More Than I Can Tell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h34Ci5aHXv8

"I have yet many things to tell you, but you can't bear them now."
--Jesus

Elaine,

The work of the Spirit is to glorify Christ...

But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. 12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 “He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. 15 “All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He takes of Mine, and will disclose it to you." Jn.16:7-15.

It is counter intuitive but when I acknowlege my sinfulness and continually receive Christ's covering righteousness...for I am yet imperfect..., for me, I have never felt "more free" and the lack of need to prove myself to anyone.

There will be no one in heaven who at that time will not praise Christ for His saving grace and His atoning death for sinners like you and me. That attitude is foreknown of God and none shall be there who is incomfortable in praising Christ or unappreciative of Christ...all will be "Christians."

Regards,
pat

Pat:

Have you ever considered the possibility that when Jesus said "no one comes to the Father except through me" He meant not that every person must claim Him in order to be saved, but that He paved the way to eternal life for us through His life, death and resurrection? Thus He really is the Way, the Truth and the Life rather than, as many have painted Him, a sort of autocratic bouncer at Heaven's gates.

Just a little food for thought.