This week we have Brian McLaren, Bishop John Shelby Spong, and Phyllis Tickle talking about Christianity through their lifetime and into the future. It’s an all star cast at an unbelievable price.
We would encourage you all to click in the top left corner where you can buy your copy of, The Hopeful Skeptic: Revisiting Christianity from the Outside. Your purchases help make this podcast possible.
Also check out A Sustainable Faith, for more conference information April 22-24. If you are interested in going, email Nick at nick[at]thehopefulskeptic[dot]com for a discounted ticket. And if your going through Atlanta, let him know, you could carpool.
[Direct link to ep 146 - Bishop John Shelby Spong, Phyllis Tickle, and Brian McLaren.mp3]
Tags: a new kind of christianity, bishop john shelby spong, Brian McLaren, christianity, Emergent, interview, phyllis tickle, podcast, The Nick And Josh Podcast
Nick- enjoyed hearing the interaction between Brian-Phyllis and “Jack”…..Hope you and Leslie are doing well.
We are doing great. I got to see Tyler the other night at the Pete and Co thing, thought of you guys back in bham. Hope to be back that way soon for a visit.
You should have heard the preshow banter between Phyllis and Jack, it was amazing.
[...] I mention the Brian McLaren, Bishop Spong, and Phyllis Tickle Podcast, it’s here [...]
Hey guys I love the podcast! Reading both Bishop Spong and Brian McLaren has done a lot to influence my own so it was great hearing them in the same podcast! In your intro you asked for suggestions… how about Peter Rollins and Bishop Spong? That would be an amazing mix of voices in my opinion
keep up the good work guys!
Anthony
Thanks for the recommendation. I think we’re gonna have Pete slotted for another one soon. We’ll see if that combo will work out.
If you have other thoughts, send them our way!
Josh
I don’t really understand how anything Bishop Spong is advocating differs from standard enlightenment liberal protestantism.
He definitely leans heavily towards that persuasion. I am assuming from the way that you have phrased the statement/question/comment that you don’t like that school of thought?
It’s not that I fundamentally disagree with liberal Protestantism, but I suppose I find it somewhat annoying that this conversation has been framed in such a way as if the ideas being espoused were radical and the future of Christianity. I just don’t understand how any of the ideas being advocated by these three authors are much different from liberal Protestantism. For example, Spong acts as if his view of the atonement is something completely new and radical when in reality it’s been around for over a millenia! I think when so much of the language around this conversation is that a “New Kind of Christianity” is being advanced, it’s upsetting when theologically none of these ideas are all that original.
I’m all for evangelicals becoming more progressive politically and liberal theologically but how this differs from mainline Protestantism is what I find puzzling.
I think I’d be much more excited if emergent Christianity became more focused on liberation theology in all of its different variants (latin american, feminist, queer…etc).
I agree with you that none of this is ‘new under the sun’, nor is liberation theology or queer theory. But I disagree with the statement that this has been framed as if to say that the people on the conversation are presenting new ideas that have never been espoused before.
I don’t think any one of the people in the interview would say that, nor do I think that they try to present their opinions as wholly invented by themselves.
What I hear are three voices talking about where they see Christianity moving and how it has changed in their lifetime.
We all have our niches, and the truth is, though none of the ideas are new, liberation theology included, there are large pockets in the United States that have no idea about what the enlightenment brought to religion, or what liberation theology is. So many of us are still excited about these old ideas that are just now starting to crop up in different places. I think that is the excitement that you hear expressed when we talk about these topics. They aren’t new, but the fact that they are just starting to gain some ground, is very exciting to me.
From an academic mindset though, I could understand why people talking about ideas that are hundreds of years old and expressing the excitement of seeing them for the first time, could be ho-hum.
So I can sympathize that these ideas are interesting for those who have yet to hear of them, but I still don’t think you’re addressing my larger concern. Namely, how is this “A New Kind of Christianity”? In what ways is this strand of the emergent church qualitatively different than liberal theology in mainline Protestant churches in America? Again, it’s OK in my mind if it’s very similar, what I find frustrating is when there’s so much talk of a “third way” beyond conservatism and liberalism (honestly, someone like Lindbeck already made a similar theological move with his post-liberal theology).
Also, while I recognize that Spong wouldn’t take credit for an idea that isn’t his, I think you do have to admit that the book by Tickle entitled the Great Emergence was a bit presumptuous. First off, I think it’s a real (quite self-aggrandizing) stretch to situate the emerging church (and postmodernism, although to be fair I don’t think this has been properly understood) as the new ‘revolution’ in Christianity. While I too find it exciting to see some of the changes taking place, I suppose I’m very skeptical of those sort of claims. Secondly, one of the crucial ideas of postmodernism is a suspicion of all grand narratives, and I think it’s fair to say that Tickle’s thesis can easily be construed as a meta-narrative.
Let me just say this, I’m really excited to see some of these changes, what I’m frustrated with are claims that this type of Christian theology is for the New Christians or a New Kind of Christian.
I get that frustration. Is it really a ‘new’ Christianity? Yeah I get that branding being more sexy than accurate.
But at the same time, having read “A New Kind of Christianity”, I know that the questions that he asks are not new, and we have seen Christians that have wrestled with his questions before, but I don’t think that the Christianity that he has described is the prevailing Christianity in the United States, if these old questions were to raise up in every congregation I think we could start moving on to a new set.
Personally the reason that I have left the church is because it hasn’t even made it to the enlightenment yet in my mind.
Anyway, I am off topic now.
I agree, this is all old conversation, packaged in a new way, but it doesn’t annoy me as much as it seems to get your goat, I would rather have the people that never have heard these thoughts encounter then because of the branding than to stay in the pre-dark ages of religious thought.
But, I take your point.
Thanks for the conversation. I think I was more annoyed because I went from being more involved in the emerging church to reading academic theology. Once I had a better theological framework to understand emergent theology I grew tired of many of the bold claims that were made, which turned out to be recycled theology.
Again, I agree that evangelicals should be exposed to all of these ideas, which can be very stimulating and enlivening.