Today, I read a book that was written by a liberal Bishop, John Shelby Spong. He is known for his controversies in the Christian world. His book, Why Christianity must change or die, that I read has sort of “forced” Christian fundamentalists to reconstruct their understanding of their religion. As most people know that the tenet teaching of Christianity is Trinity which refers to Jesus consisted of three elements: God, Son of God, and Holy Spirit.
However, Spong proposed that there are many things that should be reconstructed with respect to the teachings of Christianity. One of them is related to the conception of Trinity. According to him, the creed teaching of Christianity was historically formulated by Church in second century, and adopted to be a core teaching of Christianity in third century.
The liberalist Bishop mentioned that one should focus on EXPERIENCE that shaped Christianity. Such experience that occurred to be a reference for shaping Christian belief needs to be reviewed in order to be incorporated with the current situation and condition. The experience that served to be a reference at that time may not be relevant to our current society. Therefore, such experience is subject to new interpretation. Renewing the understanding of Christianity, which may be considered to be against fundamentalist, is meant to make Christian teachings more adaptable to the progressing world.
For example, Spong mentioned his controversial claim that Jesus is not God. Yet, he does not denied the existence of God. He rather acclaimed that Jesus is an example of spiritual person. God presence is called to be spiritual. Having an experience of revelation presence or God presence has a significant impact on individual who is called to be spiritualist. Jesus is considered to be spiritual person because he was able to have a sense of God presence in his life. Jesus is neither God nor Son of God. Therefore, according to Spong, Christians need to follow Jesus as spiritual person rather than God.
He also attempted to differentiate between Christian fundamentalist and liberalist. He defended that those who have a new understanding of religion that is in line with current condition are still considered to be Christian. But, they are more flexible and open minded.
Fundamentalists usually understand literally what has been written in the bible without taking into account the importance of the development of current situation. Liberalists are more likely to take into account outside factors (e.g., the development of biology and technology) in interpreting and applying Christian teachings. For liberalists, they try to make more Christian teachings fit into the progressing world. They perceive that they are more likely to implement their religious teachings for a wide range of humanity without compromising their belief. Also, getting rid of a discrimination on others (e.g., women and homosexual people) who are not in line with Christian fundamentalist’ understanding is one of liberalists’ objectives. In other words, liberal Christians attempt to accommodate different elements of society by reconstructing their interpretations of biblical text.
In summary, the Bishop wrote his Why Christianity must change or die is to ask other Christians who understand literally their biblical text to reconstruct their new interpretations on Christian teachings. Thus, such teachings can be in harmony with the development of science and technology while keeping their Christian faith intact.
* This is just my summary of reading Why Christianity must change or die