God-Awful ArgumentsA review of Reverend John Shelby Spong\'s lecture at Brown.

Recently, the Reverend John Shelby Spong, a retired Episcopal bishop, spoke at Brown on a variety of subjects, including Christianity, the current election, and many social issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, and the “-isms,” particularly racism and sexism. While Spong brought a new and interesting set of ideas to campus with his lecture, his opinions in general were self-contradicting, and he often omitted important facts to make his points.

Spong began the lecture by analyzing the current election. He stated that it is different than any election in the past because, for the first time, both a woman and a member of a racial minority group are “viable candidates.” He also stated that while this is a wonderful thing, this election has been marred by racist and sexist attitudes. He asked the audience, “Which prejudice will we exorcise first?” Much of this section of his speech was dedicated to instances of “sexism” in the case of Hillary Clinton. He mentioned how many members of the media have commented on Hillary’s appearance, from the thickness of her ankles to the size of her posterior. He referenced Tucker Carlson, who stated “Every time I get near Hillary Clinton, I feel like I’m being castrated.” He also made a reference to the John McCain rally during which an audience member stood up and asked McCain, “How do we beat the bitch?” and noted that McCain did little to stop it.

I personally was not aware that taking note of a person’s appearance constituted sexism. Talking about a woman’s ankles is not sexism. If appearances are off-limits, can George W. Bush claim sexism for every woman who’s ever said he looks like a monkey? A man commenting on the appearance of a woman is not sexism, and perhaps the reason why no one comments on the ankles of the other candidates is because they wear pants that cover them. Additionally, I’m not sure how saying, “I feel like I’m being castrated” by being near Hillary Clinton, is a sexist comment. If anything, Clinton should probably be proud: it means she’s intimidating, if nothing else.

If nothing else, the “How do we beat the bitch?” comment was certainly not sexism. Of course everyone knew who the audience member was referring to: there’s only one woman in the race, and the word “bitch” refers exclusively to females (whether dogs or people). And to say that McCain did little to stop it is simply untrue: he handled it the best he could, considering he was in a room filled with his supporters (all of whom were laughing and cheering at the comment). He did not laugh and offered a “translation” of the words. The most important fact of the situation (that Spong completely failed to mention) is that a woman asked the question. Can women be sexist against other women? Does the word “bitch” become like the “N-word” when it is used by an African-American to describe another African-American? Disliking Hillary Clinton enough to call her a “bitch” is not sexism: it’s politics.

After Spong discussed the election, he moved onto Christianity. Clearly, this is his area of expertise: the man is a retired Episcopal bishop. He used his knowledge of the Bible to show how it can be used to support slavery, sexism, and homophobia, and how it has been used. He used both quotations from the Old Testament and the New Testament to illustrate his ideas, including passages from the many letters of Saint Paul. He said that much of the Bible makes women and foreigners “sub-human,” and how if the Bible is indeed the Word of God, it’s remarkably de-humanizing. Spong is clearly correct about the parts of the Bible he mentioned, but he managed to leave out huge, important sections as well (the Gospels, for example).

Based on the Bible he presented during his lecture, there is no reason for anyone except white men to be Christians. Spong mentioned plenty of examples: women are presented as inferior to men in the book of Genesis; slavery is acceptable in Paul’s letter to the Romans; homosexuality is punishable by death in the book of Leviticus. So why are women, minorities and homosexuals still Christians? Because of Jesus Christ. He tells us to love our enemies, to treat others how we would like to be treated, and that class and race and gender do not exist before God. Reverend Spong didn’t emphasize those parts of the Bible.

For some reason, Spong did not quote the Gospels during his speech, and spent much more time on Genesis and particularly on the letters of Saint Paul. I’m no theologian, but I thought if one discusses Christianity, he needs to mention Jesus; after all, it’s not Paul Christ. It is truly unclear to me why Spong needs Jesus. He seems to treat him like he would treat Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr: a good guy with some pretty smart ideas on how to make the world better, not the Son of God who sacrificed Himself for our sins. Maybe it simply wasn’t part of his speech, but seeing as he’s a retired bishop and the lecture was on religion, I had guessed it would come up, but it didn’t.

His views on abortion presented in the lecture are at best contradictory. He stated (when asked) that he considered a woman’s “right to choose” a “serious decision” because all decisions are serious when they are “dealing with something that’s alive.” He echoed Bill Clinton’s desire that abortions be “safe, legal, and rare.” He said he could think of many instances where abortion would be an option, such as the rape of a 12-year-old girl by her father, and asked the audience, “What is the lesser of two evils?” And he also mentioned that those who do not support abortion, and also do not support artificial contraception (instead favoring abstinence), are naïve.

First of all, Spong spent most of the first half of his lecture saying that religion should be used to “humanize” the world. If he considers the fetus alive, no matter how you look at it, aborting it is murder, or the exact opposite of what he wants to do. You can’t let people “be all they can be” (as Spong said) if you’re murdering them. His desire that abortions be “safe, legal and rare” is a fairytale. Making abortions safe and legal certainly doesn’t make them rare, and calling them “safe” is pushing the term: the baby doesn’t make it out alive. Spong’s argument would make more sense if he didn’t believe the fetus is alive, but since he does, his desires constitute legal murder.

His examples of when abortion could be conceivable, such as the rape of a 12-year-old girl by her father, while horrible, make up a tiny percentage of all abortions. Additionally, to say that carrying the child to term would value the life of the fetus above the girl is simply untrue, and Spong fails to realize that aborting the fetus clearly ranks the girl’s life above that of the fetus. To answer his question, “what is the lesser of two evils?”, I would say err on the side of life and don’t murder the fetus. Finally, his accusations that those who oppose widespread contraception use are “naïve” misrepresent those opinions. Most people who oppose widespread contraception use oppose the “widespread” aspect of it, and are unwilling to support handing it out to 6th-graders. They also would prefer an emphasis on abstinence, since it is the only foolproof way to avoid becoming pregnant. They are not universally “naïve.”

Spong’s lecture did indeed give an interesting and often unseen view of many aspects of the election and religion’s influence on current society, but most of his points can only be made through leaving out important information.