Jesus for the Non-Religious

by John Shelby Spong

Writing from his prison cell in Nazi Germany in 1945 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a young German theologian, sketched a vision of what he called "religionless Christianity." In this book, John Shelby Spong puts flesh onto the bare bones of Bonhoeffer's radical thought. The result is a strikingly new and different portrait of Jesus of Nazareth—a Jesus for the non-religious.

Spong challenges much of the traditional understanding that has for so long surrounded the Jesus of history, from the tale of his miraculous birth to a virgin, to the account of his cosmic ascension into the sky at the end of his life. Spong questions the historicity of the ideas that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, that he had twelve disciples, and that the miracle stories were meant to be descriptions of supernatural events. He also speaks directly to those contemporary critics of Christianity who call God a "delusion" and who write letters to a "Christian nation" and describe how Christianity has become evil and destructive.

Spong invites his readers to look at Jesus through the lens of both the Jewish scriptures and the liturgical life of the first-century synagogue. Dismissing the dispute about Jesus' nature that consumed the church's leadership for the first 500 years of Christian history as irrelevant, Spong proposes a new way of understanding the divinity of Christ: as the ultimate dimension of a fulfilled humanity. Traditional Christians who still cling to dated concepts of the past will not be comfortable with this book; however, skeptics of the twenty-first century will not be quite so certain that dismissing Jesus is the correct pathway to walk. Jesus for the Non-Religious may be the book that finally brings the pious and the secular into a meaningful dialogue, opening the door to a living Christianity in the post-Christian world.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Spirituality, Christianity, Theology, History, Audiobook

316 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

John Shelby Spong was the Episcopal bishop of Newark before his retirement in 2000. As a leading spokesperson for an open, scholarly, and progressive Christianity, Bishop Spong has taught at Harvard and at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. He has also lectured at universities, conference centers, and churches in North America, Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific. His books include: A New Christianity for a New World, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? Why Christianity Must Change or Die, and his autobiography, Here I Stand.

Reviews

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found Spong's book fascinating... His Bible scholarship seems impressive. I say 'seems' because I am no-one to judge. I have never really studied the Bible, even in a 'keen church-goer' fashion.

Even so, I was very impressed by his arguments that Jesus's miracles, and miraculous experiences (like the resurrection), were based on the efforts of his followers to make him fit the description of the Jewish messiah. His followers were I think all Jewish.... They deeply admired the goodness of Jesus and they wanted him to be the divine son of God. In the 70 or so years following his death, and before the New Testament was written, they pushed and pulled the story of Jesus to fit in with contemporary Jewish ideas about what being the messiah involved.

Spong pulls away at the miracles and miraculous, and the trappings that early Christianity ascribed to Jesus. In the end he just leaves us with the goodness of the man - more than anything with his wonderful embracing of difference, and his message of love and inclusivity. During the course of the book Spong touched upon many issues with Christianity that have bothered me too. I was surprised how much I felt a sense of loss. He is very critical of the basic Christian myth - and I know it bothers a lot of people (the idea of a God who sacrifices his son in order that we shall be forgiven our sins), but for some reason it's a myth I find deeply moving. I think this is in part because I was so deeply smitten with CS Lewis books - both his Narnia series and some of his books for adults that I have read. There is also the fact that various people I have loved and respected - like my grandparents - were committed Christians. It's a culture that has woven into my life on so many different levels.

Having said that - nearly all of Spong's dismantling in this book made sense to me. Unlike him though I was not left with an overwhelming love for the person we call Jesus. I can look round me and see all sorts of people who I feel exemplify outstanding goodness. To me, Jesus is one among many...and in fact in my life I am more familiar with the stories of other heroes.

I'm glad I read this book - I feel that it has made a constructive segment in my journey....but Spong's reinterpretation of Christianity is not the way forward for me.

[Dáithí's · Rating 5 out of 5]

I could fill pages with a proper review of this book, but I shall refrain and let you the educated reader make your own conclusions. This book transported me back to my seminary days, when we studied critical bible analysis and the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and the proverbial light bulb came on..it not only came on, but it flashed, flickered, transformed into neon and then a spotlight!!!

For a very, very long time, scholars, pastors, seminarians, and professors have known the truth regarding the origin of the bible and it's books. The New Testament is essentially an expansion of the Old Testament in the form of Jewish Liturgy. Stories, characters, places, and names, were created, redacted, manipulated to make the puzzle pieces fit and produce a beautiful liturgical work for its day. If one will put down their glass of Kool Aide and open their mind and their eyes a wee bit, one will see ow it all fits into place. Heresy!!!??? No. Atheism? Well, yes, if you apply the word properly meaning away from "theist" thought, rather than the denial of a God or supreme being.

Bishop Spong is a wonderful writer and scholar. He knows what many of us know and learned in seminary and advanced educational training, but is one of the few brave enough to share it publicly. I, as an interfaith pastor, now am brave enough to share it as well. Back in my Methodist days, I was shunned for even thinking or talking about what I learned in grad school. It is so refreshing to see life with the blinders off. And God....remember him?...he / she/ it is pretty damn awesome once all of the creative works of man (read lies, errors, purposeful omissions, etc) are stripped away.

Is your mind spinning yet? Pick up and digest this book, or most any by Spong and prepare to have your faith elevated to a clear spot free from confusion and hypocrisy.

Meet Jesus where he has always been; not buried under some sexist dogmatic pack of deceptions to appease and control the masses, but rather right there filled with radiant love and wisdom that we could all use in our relations with one another as well as ourselves.

[Darlene · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a burned out, lapsed Catholic girl, I wasn't sure what to expect when I started reading this book, Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Shelby Spong. One I got past the fear and trepidation I had that perhaps I would be struck dead because I had put my immortal soul in jeopardy by reading something which might be considered blasphemous, I actually felt amazed by this book!

Bishop Spong has written an eye opening, thoughtful, radical and (dare I say it?) heretical book about Jesus of Nazareth and what he perceives as the mythology surrounding Jesus and Christianity. I am embarrassed to admit that my knowledge of the Bible... New AND Old Testaments is very slim so at times I felt very inadequate when Bishop Spong was referring to particular Bible references. What I ultimately ended up feeling was that Bishop Spong seemed to be talking to me.. personally. He addressed so many of the 'truths' I had always dared to question but was quickly dismissed as not having enough 'faith'.... whatever that means.

I need some time to think about and digest what I read in this book. I will revisit this review after I have done so. This is definitely a book which inspires me to think about everything I was taught was true.. that in itself was very unsettling. I intend to seek out more of John Shelby Spong's writings in the future.

[Lee Harmon · Rating 5 out of 5]

The phrase "spiritual but not religious" has become such a common description that an acronym has developed: SBNR. Are you an SBNR?

I'm not. As much as I want to belong, it doesn't really describe me. I'm more of a JBNR guy (Jesus but not religious). Jesus' dream of a kingdom of heaven on earth, and his humanitarian solution for inaugurating that kingdom, is my inspiration. I love church buildings, I love music, and I especially love church music, but when it comes to the real Jesus, he's hardly limited to four stone walls, no matter how pretty the stained glass.

When Spong's book hit the shelves five years ago, I snapped it up. Yes, he repeats a lot of his Jesus scholarship from earlier books, but reading Spong has become for me a comfort as much as a learning experience. It's like coming home, digging down to the real Jesus, and lifting the weight off my shoulders of having to "believe" stuff. I'm not real good at believing, and religion seems to promote acceptance of the incredulous as some sort of Godly virtue, leaving me out in the cold.

Spong's Jesus wasn't born under a star, didn't walk on water, and never literally raised the dead. He points out that the first followers of Jesus were not called Christians, as if knowing Christ was their goal; rather, they called themselves "the followers of the way," as if Jesus was himself but part of the journey. Yet Spong's admiration for Jesus shines, and he embraces the "original images" of Jesus with their symbolism and honor. He just doesn't get hung up on literalism. Two hundred pages into the book, after discarding our unnecessary beliefs, Spong is ready to reintroduce Jesus for the non-religious, and he does so systematically:

Jesus really lived, and Jesus loved God. Jesus' dream of a God-controlled world turned him into a breaker of tribal boundaries, prejudices, stereotypes, even religious boundaries. Jesus embraced God's desire to heal the world. The cross became a human portrait of the love of God.

God, says Spong at the close of his book, is encountered in the "profoundly human Jesus."

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

At first glance, "Jesus for the non-religious" sounds like a non sequitur, but what John Spong presents is an interpretation of the New Testament which really does follow; it just follows a different narrative. It's very far from traditional Christian theology, but Spong argues that Jesus in his time also broke from traditional theology, and he changed the world in so doing.

First, Spong argues against a literal interpretation of Scripture, and does so very convincingly. Next, he relies on a picture of the "historical Jesus" which is at times questionable, but more or less consistent. It quickly becomes apparent that the life of Jesus is really difficult to understand outside the context of first century Judaism. These things lead up to Spong's ultimate goal: to show how the life and example of Jesus can be meaningful for "modern" people who do not readily accept the supernatural or traditional articles of faith. Spong is convinced that this is possible, and it has inspired me to continue the search for that meaning.

[Justin Tapp · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you're a Christian considering this book, then know that if you're a deist who believes that God intervenes in human history either in the miraculous or in the form of sending a Messiah named Jesus to save us from our sins then Spong says you are, knowingly or not, engaged in "heresy" (his word). Jesus performed nothing miraculous, fulfilled no prophecies, and there was no crucifixion for the atonement of sins nor a resurrection or eternal life. To believe otherwise means you are at best "ignorant," at worst "irrational," and definitely have a God concept that is "primitive" due to your "insecure" (his words) standing as a result of your theism. The last 2,000 years of Christian thought has created a system which makes us dependent on a God who supposedly has to rescue us from our sinful selves-- this "dehumanizes" mankind, fuels tribalism and parochialism, and keeps us from a proper "God experience," which only Spong understands as he admits he does not have the proper words "in human language" to define or explain it. You only need to believe the parts of Scripture that Spong believes, even though he contradicts himself often on which parts he believes to be true and why. He says the point of writing this book is to show that Christians must no longer be theists, as that keeps them from "living life to the fullest" and "experiencing God."

If you're an atheist, you'll find various atheists' reviews of this book are spot on-- Spong is himself creating his own mythology. If a theistic God does not exist and does not intervene in human history, then how can Spong claim that the disciples "had a God experience" through Jesus that Spong also claims to seek? This contradiction runs throughout the whole book; you have to suspend logic to read it. Another reviewer nailed it: "In his attempt to move Christianity away from childish notions into a more adult and responsible conception of God, he has simply replaced a childish need for an all-powerful parent with an immature need to be in control by explaining away troubling mysteries." He denounces beliefs in the literal, historical Jesus as "irrational" yet proudly pretends he's rational in believing in his own selected aspects about Jesus himself. In the final chapters he lauds certain characteristics of Jesus that he spent the first half of the book saying weren't literally true in the first place. So, shouldn't he be worshiping Mark and Matthew who invented the entire Jesus narrative? He claims to be pushing Christianity to a higher level in the "Jesus experience" which transcends human thought and the ability for humans to communicate the God they are "experiencing."

Warning: If you've ever taken a course on logic, you will have a hard time finishing this book.

Spong actually begins this book with a prayer to Jesus, which would imply he believes Jesus is divine or that there is something miraculous in prayer-- he is an Episcopal bishop, after all. But this is hypocritical because he later criticizes belief in prayer as a "primitive" act done by "insecure creatures," and denounces belief in the miraculous or divine intervention of any kind-- "God doesn't answer prayer," he says flatly. The contradictions in Spong's tortured reasoning throughout the book are numerous. For example, he writes that he remains "deeply committed" to Jesus, is a "committed Christian" and "searches the Scriptures" for the truth of who Jesus is because the ancients believe they had encountered God through Jesus; and Jesus was an important part of his own childhood. Yet he doesn't believe much of anything written anywhere about Jesus-- there were no Josephs, perhaps no Mary (his mother), no miracles, perhaps no crucifixion, no crowds, Last Supper, Barabbus, and no physical resurrection. It's not apparent why he should maintain his belief that Jesus existed at all or why we should seek a "Jesus experience." At best, he makes the authors of Scripture liars telling myths that no "rational" person should ever believe in. The logical conclusion is that they intentionally set out to delude society-- and therefore Spong maintains part of this delusion by being a career clergy member.


Spong is also very disingenuous in his textual criticism. One short example, at the end of the book he lauds Jesus' handling of the adulterous woman in John 8. The problem is, there are almost no biblical scholars--evangelical or liberal--who believe this event actually happens or belongs in text. Of all the other events that Spong strips away from the Gospels, he quotes this as authoritative? That's very problematic.

He denounces theism for creating "religious anger" but, as many commenters have pointed out, the tone of this book is quite angry and condemning of millions of Christians through the ages. Spong does not want to tear down walls separating us from fellowship, he wants us to leave our "primitive delusions" behind and join him in his own definition of "the Jesus experience." It's like he never bothered to bounce his ideas off others before, read anyone else's research, or attended any churches outside of Virginia.

Spong's belief system requires enormous faith in him on the reader's part-- for example, that Spong interprets the "code" (his word) correctly in every name recorded in the Gospels, every action of Jesus recorded, and every historical landmark recorded along the way. That Spong alone holds the correct interpretations of Scripture--everyone else for the last 2,000 years has been mistaken (or thousands of years before that if you include the all the Jews who falsely believe in a God who intervenes in human life and recorded a "mythical" history of it).

If you follow his logic about the historicity of scripture, then its logical conclusion is that the Christian movement never happened, nor the centuries of Jewish faith before it-- because God never intervenes in human history, and the miraculous events around Jesus' life never happened. Therefore, Jesus could have never drawn the crowds recorded to him nor was his death of any consequence; and he was never resurrected. There was never anything remarkable about Jesus-- except the fact that some of his associates felt there was something so remarkable that they changed their whole lives and faith traditions after his death. "Something happened," says Spong, but it's "heresy" to take anything the Gospel authors wrote about about Jesus as historical, and leaves it to the reader to figure out how the early disciples convinced so many others that Jesus was someone remarkable-- because he was not the Messiah and fulfilled no prophecies.

One can imagine Spong in the first couple centuries arguing with Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John, and Josephus the Jewish historian-- or any of the disciples in Jerusalem for that matter--that there were no remarkable events surrounding Jesus' life, that there was no crowd of witnesses to Jesus' crucifixion or a claim of an empty tomb, and that everything being said about Jesus was purely symbolic code for a Jewish audience-- none of the historical events ever happened. I imagine they would have laughed at him-- arguments about Jesus in that time were quite diverse but none argued that the basic facts agreed upon about his life were fictional. Spong's account has a much lower probability than just taking the various authors at their word even on the basics. He ignores anyone's work over the last 2,000 years that might correct him errors.

Spong argues that the fictional miracles are also all "code" to be understood by the audience (just like all the names recorded in the Gospels... unless you named your child something truly original, it is suspect to Spong, and that person probably didn't exist.). None of the 37 miracles recorded by the Gospel authors are to be taken literally, and none of the Gospel authors intended his work to be historical-- not even Luke who states in Luke 1:1-4 that's exactly his intent. (Spong quotes from Acts, written together with Luke's Gospel, authoritatively but very selectively. The history recorded in Acts and Paul's conversion pose obvious problems for Spong's argument and he simply ignores them. He quotes from 1 Corinthians as authoritative, but ignores that Paul believed Jesus was betrayed and that there was a Last Supper-- which Spong contends never happened). He contends that somehow Jesus' life influenced a few fishermen and tax collectors enough that they believed they had a real-life God experience through him, they wrote metaphoric accounts of his life to state their beliefs about it, and somehow this started a world revolution that Spong continues to be part of today. Why would anyone want to be martyred on the basis of a few commoners' delusions about a man? Why would anyone want to "experience" a Jesus that the author spends most of the book saying didn't really do much of interest.


I've read a good number of works on early church history recently and checked this book out to gain some further insights into modern research. The foreword to the book makes it sound like evidence will be given for a "Jewish Jesus," but that is clearly not his aim. Part II of the book includes an argument that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written to be preached as part of the Jewish liturgical calendar, which is plausible (though not original to Spong, as he disingenuously makes it seem). However, if none of the events recorded actually happened why would the Jewish audience pay attention to them, much less change their lives and faith traditions as Spong acknowledges they clearly did in the name of Jesus.

Many of Spong's "facts" and conclusions have been argued and refuted time and again since the earliest days of Christianity. Spong makes some basic errors both in his dealing with Hebrew thought and early Christian history, particularly Yom Kippur. He goes well beyond any New Perspective theologians. Spong seems either unaware of this, unaware of any scholars or even archaeologists who give strong evidence against his theories, or he simply refuses to address their work-- probably because they are theists, which Spong argues Christians must no longer be. In the end, he alone holds the "truth" that he hopes to convey to the reader through this book.


Spong never considers that all of the witnesses to Jesus' life-- including his own family-- had plenty of opportunity to refute the spread of the teachings about Jesus and did not-- they believed and embraced them. In the Gospels, it is repeated that crowds believed Jesus was the messiah because they saw his miracles. The Pharisees argued that his miracles were demonic, not that they didn't happen. There were, after all, hundreds of witnesses that someone who had been blind or lame since birth could now see and walk. Without any of Jesus' acts being commonly attributed to him at the time, how would he have even gained any sort of following in his life? Spong doesn't say. He would have been just another commoner.

Spong argues against the Gospel accounts, in part, because of what items Paul did not write in his letters to the early churches. Paul doesn't write a Gospel narrative of Jesus' life and death, and Spong argues that as evidence that the Gospels that were written were somehow false. This does the reader a disservice in not explaining what Paul's letters were-- mostly addresses to specific churches dealing with specific questions and problems. Paul mentions "the cross of Christ" in several of his letters, but Spong ignores them and contends that Paul either doesn't know about a crucifixion or doesn't believe it, when the letters clearly show otherwise. Spong quotes from these selectively and doesn't explain why.

He acknowledges that Paul met with Peter and other eyewitnesses early on, but doesn't seem to consider that Paul--an acclaimed expert in Jewish law and tradition--would have used those opportunities to learn about Jesus' life and lineage (as the Temple was still intact in Paul's day). Let's also remember that Paul originally killed Christians for their heresy that Jesus was a risen messiah. He gave up the power and prestige of his Pharisaic life for a life of continual hardship and death in the name of this Jesus--becoming a mortal enemy of the Pharisees who raised him. Why would Paul do that if he didn't believe Jesus was the risen messiah that everyone claimed? Spong claims Paul did not believe in Jesus' physical resurrection. But Paul wrote that "if we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied" (1 Cor. 15). Paul clearly believed in both a physical resurrection and an afterlife-- included in the earliest Christian creed we have, repeated by Paul. He also believed he had encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. Jesus appeared to him on multiple occasions. If Paul does not believe in the miraculous, then why does he tell about these experiences? Why doesn't he refute others' accounts of miracles taken place during Jesus' life and after his resurrection as the Church began to grow? Everything in Christianity hinges on a literal resurrection; if Christ was not divine and not physically resurrected, then what's the point? Does that also not make Paul complicit in some kind of willful cover-up? Spong doesn't say, while taking Paul at his word, which seems quite the contradiction.

While some of Paul's letters were authored before the Gospels, Paul would have been well acquainted with the early creeds and what was being taught about Jesus and later written down. Peter, who died a year after Paul, would also have had ample opportunity to refute any falsehoods being spread about Jesus' divinity, miracles, virgin birth, etc. since he's included in such stories. Peter did not, and the early church affirmed these teachings very early on. The logical conclusion is that the Apostles who spread Christianity spread one of the greatest delusions in history, and were willing to maintain their deception even to martyrdom. Spong somehow does not draw that conclusion, which I find quite irrational given his logic. Why does he search scriptures he does not believe and pray to someone he believes doesn't hear him? Makes no sense to me.


Spong does the lay reader a great disservice by ignoring texts on church history prior to the 1800s-- it's as if real church history was done by Germans in the 1800s or by himself alone. He dismisses the various theologians, historians, Greek and Hebrew scholars, and archaeologists who actually do have rational arguments for Jesus being born in Bethlehem and John being the actual author of his Gospel (for example). No Protestant believes that Mary was "perpetually a virgin" or "born divine," yet Spong seems to ascribe these false beliefs to all Christians.


How can one believe that God does not intervene in human events, and that this world all came about by randomness, yet still be able to worship a historical Jesus? This is Spong's claim. He explains his "evolution" to a-theism in Part III. He steps out of his realm of expertise into biology and cultural anthropology, again stating as fact certain things that are debated among anthropologists. He argues that theism creates "religious anger" that fuels tribalism, racism, and violence. He has apparently never visited a church in the world that is diverse and works for social justice, as his hypothesis is that can only happen if we reject theism. Surely he must have at least heard of evangelical churches who have women pastors, but he writes as though they cannot exist because of the theistic shackles evangelicals place on themselves. I'd like to introduce him both to diverse churches worshipping a risen Christ and working for social justice. I'd also like to introduce him to some people who have seen the miraculous with their own eyes, and demon-possessed people in the dark heart of Africa who could speak to him in fluent English despite never having learned it. Has he ever even traveled outside the U.S.? Has anyone giving this book 5 stars ever done so?

C. S. Lewis made the argument that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. Spong seems really unable to figure out which one he believes-- so he tries to reject all three. You can only do that if you suspend logic, which Spong is quite good at. I prefer using logic, so I'll stick to it.

0 stars out of 5.

[Bob · Rating 1 out of 5]

Spong begins his book with the end in mind. He has already decided that anything beyond the realm of science is to be rejected as purely fiction. If he cannot see it, touch it, understand it, and scientifically verify it, he rejects it. Given that the Bible is written in a time period with a pre-scientific worldview, Spong asks questions of the text that the text cannot answer. When the text does not answer, Spong rejects it.

After a few chapters, I began checking facts on him from the Old Testament. His understanding of the Old Testament text is weak, and often wrong. Though he footnotes many passages, his scholarship is simply spurious.

This is not a book for a serious student of the Bible. Since Spong's conclusion would earn him a quick rebuff from anyone with a serious (or even half-serious) knowledge of the Hebrew Bible, I think it is dangerous to assume that any of the information presented here by Spong is valid.

The most serious problem I have with Spong is that while he assures the reader that has found a Jesus that many can believe in, that Jesus never seems to appear in the text of the book. His soteriology appears to be "moral influence" in nature. That is, he believes that Jesus sets an example that we are somehow morally impelled to follow. He never gets around to showing us this attractive side of Jesus. Put simply, Spong is all deconstruction and no reconstruction.

Finally, the post-modern (and post-Christian) view of texts today in light of textual interpretation (see J. Derrida) has already moved the conversation well beyond where Spong begins.

The bishop can do better. Until he does, I shall avoid him.

[Stephanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Seek the truth; come whence it may, cost what it will.”

It has taken me a long time to warm up to Spong. This is probably because, among progressive Christian academics, he seems to me the most bruised, the least hopeful. But his audience, here, is not his adversaries—it’s the post-Christian or Christian-in-exile who can no longer tolerate the pre-modern worldview of the church and yet cannot let go of Christ. Spong asks, "Can a full understanding of Jesus be developed by looking at him as a fully human one through whom what God means can be experienced?" What’s different, in this current work, is the how and the why of that.

So here’s what he does: he takes the first 2/3 of the book to peel back the layers of myth, metaphor, and Jewish overlay from the gospels. He then takes a look at the historical, fully human, man who is left and asks, what must he have been like for people to describe him in this way? Or to call him “My Lord and my God”? A good Jew does not say that so easily. Spong also notes that, after the cross, deserters returned and rituals changed—and all of this is evidence that, clearly, the disciples had an ecstatic experience. Long held traditions are not laid down so easily. Except they were. So what happened?

It works like this… Christ died in about 30CE, but the first gospel was not written until about 70CE, so there was this intervening oral period, and we might think of it as people talking over their fences, but it was more than that. Because it was a bunch of Jews, continuing to attend synagogue, and hearing the scriptures read, and listening to sermons, all the while trying to make sense of this extraordinary person who was executed.

So, here’s the new thing Spong does—he takes the gospel of Mark and actually maps the material, story by story to the Jewish calendar year, Sabbath by Sabbath, from Rosh Hashanah to Passover. And the amazing thing is that it fits, thematically. It’s actually pretty amazing, but there’s about 6.5 months worth of perfect liturgical material there. He then takes Luke and Matthew (written later and based partly on Mark) and shows how they are extended versions of the story in an effort to fill out the calendar year. The implications are huge—that every time we see in the gospels “and X was done in order to fulfill the scriptures” what we are actually seeing is a Jewish narrative wrapped around the story of Christ. Jesus is the paschal lamb who conquers death (Passover), he’s the perfect lamb of God and the one who takes away the sins of the world (Yom Kippur). He’s the suffering servant, the good shepherd, and on and on. The idea here is that it’s liturgy, not history. Which doesn’t mean it’s not true, but in a more-than-literal way.

So that’s the big thing, but along the way, Spong deconstructs theism, totally. Theism being that belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, supernatural being who lives above the sky and must be appeased in order for human beings to avoid wrath and receive favor. This is the god of divine rescue and intervention. Spong notes that this belief made a lot of sense in a world where even common phenomena (e.g. earthquakes, illness, and drought) were thought to be directly caused by God. In post-Enlightenment times, we think differently, but resist letting go of the old paradigm. Probably because we are still anxious in our self-consciousness, and there is solace in the idea of a God who has it all under control. Post Holocaust this is harder to stomach—a God in control? He could intervene but chooses not to? And this sounds a lot like atheism, and it is, except Spong keeps the idea of God, while letting go of theism. He says that theism “is not who God is, it’s a human definition of who god is. It is not a search for truth but for security” (222). And later “There is no salvation in divine rescue. Rather, salvation means being called to wholeness, celebrating oneness with who you are and who God is. Rescue might produce gratitude, but not wholeness” (262). And is this message not enough? I would argue that if human wholeness and peace could be achieved it would be fair to call it “salvation”.

So what’s left of divinity? Spong says “divinity lies not in a God who, in Jesus, enters the human arena from the realm of heaven as a divine visitor.” Certainly God was present in Christ, but how did anyone recognize this? Through his life and death, except “It was the full humanity of Jesus that enabled his followers to perceive divinity in him” because “divinity is met when humanity becomes so whole and so deep that one sees a defenseless, powerless one who is capable of giving himself away fully” (xii, 262).

And so the old-time religion has lost its power for Spong because he can no longer believe in a God-man who, for instance, ascended into the stratosphere and entered orbit. As for the rest of the cannon? He says, “For the life of me I cannot understand why it is not today universally recognized that propositional statements can never capture eternal truth” (9). Spong’s thesis, in a nutshell, is this: The missionary imperative in Christianity is not to convert, to make others conform their thoughts to ours, it’s a call to a new humanity beyond tribal limits, to share with all the life giving love of god!”

And what is left of Christ? The historical Christ is a man who broke all tribal barriers, who felt that, actually, there was not a big difference between a Jew and a gentile. Which is huge, and we forget that. And it helps us see anew that star above Bethlehem which, in Luke’s narrative, shines not just for the province of Israel, but is visible to the entire planet. This is something new.

The portrait that remains is of a man, with nothing defensive about him, giving himself, receiving the outcasts, reversing the stereotypes, riding an ass, unarmed, forgiving his executioners. “Being a Christian,” says Spong “is not to be a religious human being; it is to be a whole human being. Jesus is a portrait of that wholeness; and that is why he is for me, in his complete humanity, the ultimate expression of God.” Is this idea really so small? Wellness and abundant life, living in the peace of God? I share Spong’s frustration with Christians who meet this image of Christ and declare him small potatoes. Say what you want about the miraculous bits of the story, but the least we can say is “God was in Christ,” and the wholeness he lived—that is a message which could not be exhausted.

[Brian Griffith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spong reads the gospels, not looking for facts, but for signs of how the story tellers were changed. What defensive walls, fears, hypocrisies or self-centered views of life were blown down by encounters with Jesus?

In pursuing this kind of encounter, Spong traces almost every phrase or image in the gospels back to the Old Testament scriptures, from which they were composed, often word for word. I've never seen such a detailed exposure of how the Jesus stories were literally written "according to the [Hebrew] scriptures."

Where does all this lead? Strangely enough, the exposure of Jewish roots recovers Jesus' challenge to the people of his times. It exposes the impact of his life to ordinary people of that culture, and shows what that impact might be for our utterly different global civilization.

[Rob the Obscure · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is in 3 parts. In the first two parts Spong uses the discoveries of decades of biblical scholarship, including textual criticism, historical criticism, etc. to call into question many of the traditionally held beliefs concerning the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. He takes a number of core theological positions on who we understand Jesus to be and central events of his life, and systematically dismantles these beliefs, at least from a rational point of view...i.e. based on reason and in light of our 21st century understanding of the world. The biblical scholarship is used to support these positions by pointing out that these stories, primarily from the gospels, cannot be understood as history and, in fact, were never intended to be.

These two parts of the book are strong. I believe that Spong does a good job here, and based on my graduate degree in religious studies and a lifetime of interest, most of what he writes, and all of the central points are, in my mind, difficult to refute on the basis of reason.

In the third part of the book he essentially asks this question: "given that we have now disabused ourselves of these erroneous and harmful understandings of Jesus, his life, and his nature, how are we to understand who Jesus is for us today?" In other words, and in line with the title of the book, having deconstructed traditional theological views of Jesus he now seeks to reconstruct the meaning of Jesus for today, i.e. construct a "Jesus for the Non-Religious." For support he draws on some of the greatest theological minds of modern times...people like Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

It is my opinion that this third part of the book is weak, and does not accomplish its purpose. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that he doesn't follow his positions in the early parts of the book through in a consistent manner.

What we are left with is Spong's own personal picture of Jesus as a finite, human being who is now dead, just like any other human being, but who was such a great human being that Spong finds his own personal understanding of the ground of all that exists (God to him)reflected in Jesus' exemplary life. Well...fine. That's how he sees it - very interesting.

However, after systematically dismantling any objective reality to who Jesus was, and certainly any belief that he was God incarnate in an objective way, as part of space-time-history, what does that mean for everyone else? We can only say that it means whatever it means to any given individual person, which can range on a continuum from "nothing whatsoever" to "the central, defining commitment of one's life." If one of those people finds no meaning at all in the life of Jesus the man, but finds deep, personal significance in jazz music as a language that can draw us all together...then Spong can really say nothing to that other than, "sounds great!"

In other words, given what Spong accomplishes in the first two parts of the book, a consistent logic would give just as much credibility to 1) the person who finds absolutely no significance in Jesus, Buddha, or anything else connected remotely to religion...feels that life is simply a product of evolution...that the concept of "right and wrong" has no objective meaning and must be interpreted on completely pragmatic terms, and that when you die you are dead...nothing more. 2) The wild-eyed fundamentalist Christian who believes that every word of the Bible is literally true and bases his entire life upon it (as long as he does no harm to others, of course.) 3) The new-age crystal gazer who goes to Sedona, Arizona and stands in the middle of a vortex in order to call on the powers of the cosmos and its vibrations to heel her arthritis and let her know what to do about this new job offer... All of these find meaning, or lack thereof, where they find it (or don't find it). And all of those journeys are equally valid given Spong's premise.

This reader does not find him to be completely open and honest about this fact. In the end, he acts like he has left us with something very important when, in reality, there isn't anything there other than what his own personal psychology produces. Any given reader may find that interesting and useful, or not.

[Nancy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Long ago (I think because of Oprah) I learned about John Shelby Spong, an episcopalian priest who wrote about Christianity in ways that interested me. Most importantly, ee seemed not to be about a literal interpretation of the Bible. I sought out his work, reading (I think) "The Easter Moment," a piece in which he argues that something powerful must have happened during Easter, something so powerful that it changed the way some Jewish people at the time lived.

Recently, I read more Spong, his work about immortality, "Eternal Life: A New Vision: Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell." I found it to be a tedious, boring polemical piece in which Spong argues that we must think about mortality beyond what we know already.

So, I came to "Jesus for the Non-Religious" with some conflict: Spong is interesting but not so much lately. Reading "Jesus for the Non-Religious" reaffirms my interest and respect for Spong, a man willing to reconsider the prevailing sentiments about Jesus....that he was able to work miracles, that he was God incarnate, that he physically rose during the resurrection.


Spong posits Jesus as a product of Hebrew scripture that would have been a part of the world in which he lived. The Jesus we often learn about as the child of a virgin, as a man who parted the Red Sea, as the "Lamb of God" was all those things because those who wrote about him used existing Hebrew scripture---the God language they had---to try to capture the essence of a man who embodied humanity by the way he lived. Spong's thesis, which he supports with detailed Biblical references, is engaging, provocative and maybe even revolutionary, something I remember thinking when I first read his work. I highly recommend "Jesus for the Non-Religious."

[Kayte · Rating 3 out of 5]

Spong's theme is that since the Gospel stories of the man called Jesus are meant as literature rather than fact, one needs to strip away the fiction from the portrait of Jesus to find the man who so excited and energized his friends that they were willing to die in his name.

Some new interpretations of scriptural material; sort of libertarian in his mindset. Alas, sometimes sloppy editing and even sloppier research. I had expected better from him. I've followed up on some his references and I'm now rereading the book with the printed out references before me.

[Glesnertod · Rating 1 out of 5]

Repetitive. When you start with the presupposition that there is no God, and naturalism is all there is, that any mystery in the universe can be explained by powerful energy, then I'm not sure what the point of the book is when he states that he desires to model his life after Jesus. Spong effectively tells us that we can be Christians that have nothing to do with Christianity as understood for the last 1900 years. He argues that the early Christians didn't believe in the resurrection, divinity or a religious nature of Christ. He erases almost all the stories of the Gospels as stories made-up to provide liturgical practices and so effectively pushing religion back onto the person who supposedly gave these very men a non-religious way of being. If these proposals are true, which I don't buy, but if they are, then what are we left with? If all that the writers were doing was reshaping Judaism around a truly failed and false Messiah, there would be no way that any Jew in this historical context would actually believe it themselves. There had to be some real event that could be explained by them in real to life language. Otherwise, the disciple themselves would not have known what they experience. Who would embrace a worldview that failed to explain or give grounded meaning within its worldview? The point Spong makes about Jesus is that Jesus lived in such away as to invoke a completely natural, and therefore, 'more' real worldview on humanity. That is, that the human doesn't need religion or divine language to experience perfection, so his disciples used religion and divine language to tell us that Jesus was eradicating the world of religion and divine language. Hmmm.?! Spong fails to answer some fundamental historical questions that demand answers either in the negative or the positive, but must be adequate to the reality that a new religion, Christianity arose. He fails to do this on may levels, Historical and Literarily. There is no way for me to substantiate my statements in this review, my intent is not to write a response satisfying my claims, and yet, I can't let it go unsaid on the general level that the direction that John Shelby Spong has taken has thrown out all the meanings of the words he uses to describe his worldview with Christian terms. To state that humans use humans words to describe their divine experience and then to discredit this language as incapable of describing what one experienced trembles and crumbles on contradiction and at best leaves Spong in an agnostic camp, declaring that one cannot know if one knows a Divine Being as described by the accepted language as used by people from within and without the said experiences. Of course, it is fully acceptable for John to write his own experience and interpretation concerning God and Scripture and Nature, but then, he is subject to his own inconsistencies and must admit that his theories fail to explain the fact(s) that Christianity came into being when and how it did. To state that the writers of the NT were using language to describe a subjective human experience with no reality in the Divine and then to state that Jesus touched on the deepest and purist of human reality fails to qualify how he can know this through writings that are made-up to convince fellow Jews and Gentiles that the cosmos have been understood in Jesus. How can He know Jesus any more than one can know Paul David Bennett (me) outside of things like actual time spent with him, or to make the parallel, written texts that are exaggerated, made up and biased with the agenda of an oppressed people of another time and culture so different as to baffle the best and brightest minds of those who have tried to understand him for the last 1900 years, including those who were his disciples, until John Shelby Spong?!

[Melani · Rating 1 out of 5]

I would have given this book more stars had Spong limited himself to simply demonstrating the likelihood that much of the NT was constructed (using the OT as its guide) to make a messiah out of Jesus. Instead of this more humble undertaking, Spong makes grandiose conclusions about theism and science, which are outside the scope of his knowledge, not to mention logic. He seems to be quite fond of the fallacy - appeal to ignorance - if there is a lack of evidence for the hypothesis, then it must be false. This lack of evidence may be self-imposed in his narrative, but we will never know because he doesn't use historians to anchor his liberal use of the word "history."

Here is one example of his poor logic: "...in all visions reported by Westerners, Jesus and Mary are always seen as if they had just stepped out of a medieval portrait with the features and color of northern Europeans. Does that fact not suggest that we are the authors of our own visions and that these supernatural phenomena are not objectively real?" Uh, no; it doesn't. This disdain for theism leads him to a Monday-morning-quarterbacking hubris that is stunning; he doesn't seem to understand that he, too, is playing in a game, bound by the "truths" of his own time and culture. Thus, he smugly debunks the supernatural by asserting that "When we examine these miraculous claims, the first thing that is obvious is that there are high levels of acculturated content present in what people assert they have experienced." All the while, his firm embrace of science has blinded him to the levels of acculturated content at play in scientific observation and explanation, as well as his own explanations. He mocks those who believe in a theistic God as a means of "coping with the anxieties of what it means to be human," but is in denial about the possibility that he has constructed a deistic God in order to solve his discomfort with problem of evil in the theistic paradigm. In his attempt to move Christianity away from childish notions into a more adult and responsible conception of God, he has simply replaced a childish need for an all-powerful parent with an immature need to be in control by explaining away troubling mysteries.

Since Spong seems to enjoy the sport of psychoanalyzing people he hasn't met to discover the roots of their religious beliefs, let me offer my dime-store analysis of his current phase of belief. His dad was an alcoholic who died when Spong was twelve. Spong never got any help in dealing with the child-of-alcoholic syndrome (panicked feelings of no control over one's fate, because the same actions from child result in vastly different reactions from parent with no apparent reason, etc.). He is embarrassed by the magical thinking he engaged in as a young fundamentalist Christian, would like his new daddy to be more virile, and so he has chosen Science, the father who (in his estimation) is reliable, never emotional, and always acts respectably in public.

I'm disappointed. I was hoping that Spong could offer a more insightful inquiry, but his reactionary thinking reminds me of Bill Maher.

[Jared Naidoo · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Shelby Spong’s Jesus for the non-religious is gasoline for liberals and a wet blanket for religious conservatives. Of course these terms are subjective, and vague, presuming a simplicity to these dichotomous ideologies. Yet, this is the state of opposing views when it comes to Christianity. Spong therefore seeks to liberate Jesus from political agenda, so humans can live the Jesus ‘experience’.

Now, a retired Anglican Bishop, Spong abandons orthodoxy, in rejecting the virgin birth, a literal interpretation of the resurrection and miracles, to name a few. Can one still call themselves a Christian and hold to these beliefs? That, is Spong’s hook to the line he casts. These Gospel accounts, act as liturgies for Spong, and were never meant to be taken literally.

Furthermore, he suggests a new Christianity, one that is free from tradition and institutionalised modes of faith. What Bonhoeffer would call, ‘religionless Christianity’.

In Culture and the Death of God, Terry Eagleton comments on nationalism’s unholy matrimony with religion, citing the union as each being corrupted by the other. Where religion was a pursuit of faith and connection with the divine, nationalism drew on its Constantinian roots. Similarly, Jesus must be divorced from the matrimonial institution that keeps his followers devoted but not connected. While Spong’s views are quite liberal, his goal is a more open view of faith. He redefines theistic terms to infer his own meaning, and while the beginning of his book loosely dives into the historical Jesus, the second half is a passionate plea towards an inclusive gospel. Where the first half of the book seeks to re-define, re-imagine and re-construct Jesus, the second is a plea to Christians to believe in this re-definition.

I do not recommend this book for everyone, but I would recommend it for some. I personally enjoyed Spong’s desire for something deeper than historical Jesus studies, but I am not convinced by him.

[Ymfoo1 · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book. I urge all Christians and even non Christians to read this with an OPEN mind. Some Christians may be offended since the author is questioning the Word of God (Bible); hence the reader should approach this with an unbiased frame of mind and view this author’s viewpoint. I won’t say I agree with all what he wrote, but the gist of the author’s interpretation of Jesus can be sum up in the simple poem found at the end of the book:
Christpower
Look at him!
Look not at his divinity,
But look, rather, at his freedom.
Look not at the exaggerated tales of his power,
But look, rather, at his infinite capacity to give himself away.
Look not at the first-century mythology that surrounds him,
But look, rather, at his courage to be,
His ability to live, and the contagious quality of his love.
Stop your frantic search!
Be still and know that this is God:
this love, this freedom, this life, this being.
And
When you are accepted, accept yourself;
When you are forgiven, forgive yourself;
When you are loved, loved yourself.
Grasp that Christpower
And dare to be yourself!

[Angela · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Shelby Spong is an amazing book.

To quote the author: "Being a Christian...in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's words, is not to be a religious human being; it is to be a whole human being. Jesus is a portrait of that wholeness; and that is why he is, for me, in his complete humanity, the ultimate expression of God".

In his book, Bishop Spong looks closely at the traditional understanding that has surrounded the Jesus of history and challenges his readers to look at Jesus "through the lens of both the Jewish scriptures and the liturgical life of the first century synagogue." He peels back layers in an attempt to reveal the ultimate humanity of Jesus, seeing this Jesus as the true face of God.

I expect that this book will worry those who prefer to think of Jesus in the traditional way, but I found it to be a thoughtful exploration of what it is to follow Jesus in the 21st century.

[Steve Goble · Rating 4 out of 5]

Certainly offers a lot to think about ...

Spong spends a great deal of time first demolishing mythology around Jesus, then explaining how it might have arisen out of Jewish theology, then attempting to explain what it may have been about Jesus that made people want to worship and mythologize him in the first place.

I imagine many readers will be upset about the de-mythologizing, while others will be upset about the assertion that Jesus was, in fact, an historical figure. Still others will scratch heads at Spong’s belief that something indeed mighty and miraculous at the heart of the crucifixion account may have inspired great life-changing attitudes in his followers.

Much of what Spong covers here is similar to his other books. Indeed, I skimmed over some sections because the arguments were familiar to me. I did, however, appreciate a look at all this through the eyes of someone who has clearly thought hard about it — and I stand by my own belief that all theology is amateur theology. I don’t think we are ever destined to really KNOW.

[Ron · Rating 4 out of 5]

About 2/3 into listening to the audio book. Interesting. Informative treatment of contrasting liturgy with focus on historicity of the early formation of the Judeo-Christian movement.

Update: Just finished audio book. Found several books by him at the local library, but am choosing to take the easy(?) way of listening before chosing what to read. Have enjoyed his distinction between knowing Jesus as an exclusivistic experience and as a liberating all-inclusive portal to the I Am. His style seems to be a bit preachy and pedantic, but maybe that's because I've collectively listened to 12 hrs of narration from his book and feel like intellectual alphabet soup is overflowing from my brain and spilling out of my ears. Anyway, I enjoyed his wide-open hell (pardon the expression) bent for leather, shoot from the hip approach. I found his last 2-3 chapters to be his strongest and to be his clearest statement of what he is advocating.

[Jonathan Minnick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible book. I would give it 0 stars but that might look like I was too lazy to rate it, so it gets a fake 1 star rating. The author professes himself to be wise, but he is quite the fool. He somehow things that in this age (farther removed than any other point in history from the actual events of Jesus' time) that we somehow have such a great newfound understanding of Jesus' life than any other people before us. He proceeds throughout the book to tear apart every aspect of Jesus' divinity to make him no more than a common man that left a powerful message. He strips away every miracle and every divinity claim to make himself feel better about his worldview, and to try and make it palatable to others.

This is a very useless book that portrays a weak Jesus that, were it true, would leave me no reason to follow Jesus. I really wonder how he can reconcile his worldview with the Bible. Don't read this book, quite a waste of time.

[Lyn Elliott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spong has been an important part of my reading in the last 10 years. I was brought up in a strongly Protestant family and school, but stopped believing in the literal truth of the Christian doctrine since I was about 16 and had come to think of myself as non-religious.
In this book on Jesus, he takes us to the heart of what Jesus taught and what his teachings meant, both for his first, fellow-Jewish followers, and for us now. It clears away the dogmatic clutter imposed by the church ( or churches, really) over the centuries so you can think about the essential messages of Jesus.
Spong is a wise and humane voice for tolerance.

[Izzie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enlightening! John Shelby Spong, through this book, introduced an inspiring way of viewing Jesus in this modern world we live in today. It has me thrilled and excited about the future of the Christian church, which I believe is craving just such a spiritual breakthrough during this age. Excellent reading.

[Adele · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting. Life changing for my husband who had a Christian upbringing. It made me realise that the truly spiritual in the world (and maybe everyone at some level) are all looking for the same thing and that the Christian God is just the same as "universal consciousness" or whatever else you want to call it.

[Becci · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very challenging book--I read dit slowly to try to absorb and ponder his ideas. Spong strips away old "beliefs" about the Biblical message before he attempts to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus.

[Jennifer Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was fantastic. I’m learning through experience that Spong really pushes the needle, even amongst progressive Christians. His perspective really challenges the institution, but something about it feels honest, smart and resonate in a way that gives me hope for remaining a Christ follower.

[Lily · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this as an ex-christian. Really quite excellent, I wish I had read it years ago.

[Mitchell Finnesgard · Rating 4 out of 5]

This author is unabashed in letting us know what he thinks of literal interpretation and teachings of the Gospels of Jesus. He brings us through a journey of laying out why it is silly to view the gospels as a historical, documented fact. Instead he leads us into a view of Jesus’s life through the view of liturgy and brings it into a much more bearable idea as to how the gospels should be read. He explains in an easy way to understand why the gospel authors might have written it the way they did. He explains from the myth of the birth of Jesus, the miracles he was described to have performed, and the passion through the resurrection of Jesus from the lens of an oral tradition that was passed through multiple generations by means of their liturgy.

Jesus is to be viewed as someone who made such an impression of a local group of people that he was a transformative force that spans throughout the years. His life broke barriers in gender, class, and religion systems. Jesus did not fall in line with what was to be acceptable in his time period but rather pushed the limits. He redefines the boundaries of religion and society.

This book redefined for me the word “divine”. Instead of viewing it like I did when I grew up and was taught by many, as something supernatural and above humans. Divine is an extension of humanity. It is to fully embrace what it means to be human and experience a more in-depth, passionate view of the world and lives that are interconnected around us. Along with that is the idea of God has evolved. God is not a supernatural entity separate from us with sadistic tendencies but rather the experience of life through the process of becoming more fully human -through our love, life, and being.

The part that this book lacks for me is the application of Jesus for the non-religious. He does make valid points of Jesus being a barrier breaker but those points can be made for a lot of different people throughout history. He does not make enough of an argument to have Jesus as a central figure for change. This book gave me more of an understanding as what Jesus meant for cultural change during his time period and why he made an impression, but it does not give me enough for the continual use of him now or in the future. It seems like the last grasps of holding on to an idea that could just be let go. All in all the book was good and informative and would recommend it, especially for those who are near, at , or after a shift from a literal view of scripture.

[Magdelanye · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can the heart be warmed if the mind is violated? p13

In this radical reviewing of the biblical foundations of Christianity, JSS makes the case for not ditching it altogether, despite the fundamental flaws he has uncovered in his decades of study.

It was ...not to record the details of the life of Jesus that the gospels were written, but to interpret the Jesus experience. p150

Scrape away from traditional Christian teaching the piety, the stained glass attitudes, one finds cesspools of anger, boiling cauldrons that have ignited religious violence in every generation....That anger is far too real to be accidental or coincidence. p234

This anger is rooted, according to JSS, in the primitive theistic images of a vengeful God as an external and supernatural being that requires appeasement and punishes those who deviate into what has been condemned as sin. These stern, judgmental attitudes overshadow the image of a loving and compassionate God that enlivens all creation. It incubates fear over delight.

Does not the constant message of guilt and degradation guarantee...anger projected onto someone else? p235
Tribal propaganda always dehumanizes our enemies to make it easier to hate or kill without qualms of conscience. p240

Theism is nothing more than a human definition of God and ...atheism is simply the denial of that definition....God is NOT served by a defensive clinging to the time warped explanations of the past.p133

The Jesus story is an invitation to journey beyond human limits, into that realm of experience we call God, who is not in the sky, but rather found in the depths of human life. p127

Anything that puts limits on humanity, anything that teaches one to hate, reject, or violate another, cannot be of God. p266

This book is a call to explore beyond the constrictions of the traditions established around Jesus, to receive his powerful message of love that cuts across all boundaries.

It is high time we proclaim the theistic God to be immoral....Moving beyond theism...is not only a moral imperative, it is the only pathway into the future of a loving Christianity. We need to move on to new possibilities. p247

[James Hallmark · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting but not very good book. Spong is a retired Episcopal Bishop and is well known (perhaps respected?) in liberal Christian thought. He is a humanist (that’s a description, not a pejorative), and as such views the Bible through a very different lens than might the typical Baptist or Catholic (or Episcopalian, for that matter). To wit, there were no miracles, Jesus was not the son of God—at least not the way deist Christianity defines it, the Bible is not history, etc. It was actually quite interesting how he laid out the book, explaining that the “Gospels” are solely literary interpretations of Jewish Biblical prophecy. So, basically, the gospel writers took a guy’s life (Jesus) and interpreted real events in this life —exaggerated a bit to fit the text—as a fulfillment of prophecy. A statement near the end of the book (page 286) captures his thesis pretty well: “...the gospels appear to be liturgically crafted documents based not on eyewitness accounts but on ancient Hebrew sources.” Still, Spong finds Jesus “astounding,” and though not “supernatural” (the word he uses), still worthy of emulating. I said it wasn’t a very good book and here is why: he is dismissive of other thoughts and conclusionary in his arguments. It is filled with statements like “anyone who is paying attention could tell...” and “only the most ignorant could still think...” and “obviously.” He may be a great thinker, but this book is not well documented. It is a whole lot of assertions. That being said, I found it to be challenging reading and I always like to be challenged. I like reading stuff that is not what I believe, and this qualifies as “not what I believe.”

[Rob Melich · Rating 4 out of 5]

I learned a lot given my limited understanding of the Bible. I listened on Audible and found the reading was both a detriment and a positive. At times the reader was to pedantic and a bit overwhelming when talking about the finer Biblical points. At the other times, he calls out points like the sections on miracles mapped to the historic record. These references helped me get clarity on Biblical content I never understood.
I recommend the book to folks like myself who are trying to understand those who know the Bible and its teachings well and use the book as their guide through life. By having a reference like this one, helps me gain more understanding of the devoted.
The book positively provoked many ideas and new thoughts, for me that makes it a success.