Spong rejects an "inerrant" and "divinely inspired" understanding of the Bible and therefore is free to pick and choose and reject whatever he finds objectionable. You are right, Graham, to point out that Spong's intention, like Michael's, appears to be an effort to align some resemblance to Christian teaching to something that is acceptable within the current culture. I think, as you know, this is miguided. Spong's revisionist treatment of the gospels and early Christian writing is developed in support of his cultural adapation agenda. It is not supported by a large range of other biblical scholars that maintain what I am calling traditional or orthodox Christian belief. Much of it does come down to the auithoriity of the Bible, whjch I will post on soon. I will note that rejecting the "inerrancy" of scripture in terms of it being scientifically and historically accurate on all accounts or containing contradictions and inconsistencies need not mean that it carries no significance as the inspired Word of God. It can have authority without being a science textbook.