Bishop Spong and James White Debate: The Missing Truth

I listened to a debate between Bishop Spong and James White recently. As the two presented very different views of God, a realization began to emerge from their discourse.

Bishop Spong insists that we humanize God by portraying him as vengeful and dispensing wrath and judgment on humanity. After all, God is Love. Therefore, he says, we need to move beyond our narrow view of God, stop portraying him as angry and mean, and accept everyone in love as God does. His first points are true. His conclusion falls terribly short.

James White counters by saying Spong is making man too much of the focus and obviously has no understanding of sin. He argues that this position detracts from God's work on the cross. Therefore we must recognize the depth of our depravity and understand that God must pour his wrath out on sinners. His first point is true. His conclusion is close, but also misses the mark in that White also focuses too much on man.

Hear me out.

What were they both missing in their debate? God's Holiness.

I think this may be the reason so many Calvinists are concerned about Arminians, and why some "Arminians" slide down the slippery slope into liberalism and universalism.

First of all, Romans 1 tells us that "...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...". The sin in us is the object of his wrath. So many times Calvinists make people the object of His wrath instead. This is White's mistake in my view, and Spong seizes on this with objections that are somewhat justified.

Where Spong misses the boat is failing to recognize that God is Holy. It is His primary, and most often overlooked attribute. Possibly because we cannot truly fathom what it means.

Isaiah, in chapter 6, declares that he is undone for being in the presence of a wrathful - no, wait - HOLY, God when he himself is unclean. God's holiness prevents him from being the feel-good, everbody-gets-a-pass old granddad that Bishop Spong argues for. But it's also why we need the cross.

When we only see our sin, we fail to see his Holiness, and the focus becomes us and what terrible worms we are under the wrath of a righteous judge. We have to move beyond seeing only his wrath, but not so that we can negate the need for a savior. We need to always remember He is a Holy God that we cannot know until we are in Christ.

The Spong's of the modern era belittle the T in TULIP and try to persuade us that God is bigger than we are sinful, therefore he welcomes all who earnestly seek him, regardless of their creed. "All roads lead to God" as long as the path is sincere. But the Calvinist focus on the T is ironically humanistic in that it puts the emphasis on man in the first place. It would be so much better to just make the T stand for "Total Holiness" and put the emphasis on God and his purifying fire of Holiness, recognizing that as our starting point. Then we can reasonably argue that no matter what we do, we cannot come into his presence in our imperfect state unless he provides a way himself. It's the same conclusion - that we are spiritually dead and separated from God without Christ - but the path to the conclusion is much different.

When we see our sin in the context of God's pure and unfathomable Holiness, we realize our need for an advocate, sanctification, and a covering that will allow us to be in the presence of a truly loving God without being utterly destroyed by His primary attribute. "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts."