Spong's Third Thesis

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

In Spong's mind, the idea of a "good" (it was not "perfect" as Spong claims) creation and a literal Fall are not even ideas worthy of discussion because they are either unintelligible (he literal can't understand the meanings of these ideas) or are simply valueless (as in the content of the word "incarnation", "creation" and "fall" are valueless). In a word, they are nonsense for Spong. The crux of Spong's comments here center around his attachment to a Darwinian worldview. While I'll have to put off fully evaluating Spong's take on this worldview, I will make a few short observations.

Spong holds Darwin in high regard, speaking at length about the scientist's accomplishments and impact on our modern world (Why Christianity Must Change or Die, pp. 35-8). Essentially, Spong believes that Darwin conclusively demonstrated that life is evolving and that it was never in a final, finished form. Darwin proved that human beings are simply animals, with the same sorts of inadequacies, foibles, drives and brutish morality. In fact, the great divide between the soulless animals and the specially created, eternally loved human being had been completely smashed. The only difference between humans and "non-human animals" was a greater power of rationalism (which Spong later calls into question).

I will agree with Spong on one point though: Darwin is a serious challenge for traditional Christianity, especially if you already think theology itself is suspect. On the other hand, what Darwin had to say about the development of new species--while it may shape our view of the nature of God and His plan--tells us nothing about the nature and condition of spiritual qualities of mankind. I could, simultaneously hold true Darwin's belief that human beings evolved from a common animal ancestor, and hold that human beings are endowed with divine interest and connection. In other words, I could easily interpret the first couple of chapters of Genesis in a Darwinian light and still hold that God created us. While I find that idea in conflict with my understanding of God and evolution, I can certainly see where such an idea could spark dialogue between the likes of Spong and "Fundamentalists" like me.

Unfortunately, Spong packs his thesis with some extra baggage here. Spong attacks the Fall as improbably in light Darwinian explanations. If human beings are simply animals, he would argue, then we are neither good nor bad at the start; there is no original sin into which we are born. Therefore, we are not guilty of anything worth Godly intervention, especially in the way traditional Christianity sees Christ. In essence, Spong stakes out territory neither Darwin, nor science in general can.