[Oe List ...] 3/11/2021, Progressing Spirit: The Rev. Roger Wolsey: The Soul of Progressive Christianity; Spong revisited

[RICHARD HOWIE]

Thanks one and all.  Hospitality seems the key to me.
Love, Ellen 

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 11, 2021, at 9:38 AM, John C via OE <oe at lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Super work of your “Progressing Spirit,” Ellie!
> John & Lynda
>  
> From: OE <oe-bounces at lists.wedgeblade.net> on behalf of OE <oe at lists.wedgeblade.net>
> Reply-To: "Elliestock at aol.com" <elliestock at aol.com>, OE <oe at lists.wedgeblade.net>
> Date: Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 8:50 AM
> To: ICA Dialogue List <dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net>, OE <oe at lists.wedgeblade.net>
> Cc: "Elliestock at aol.com" <elliestock at aol.com>
> Subject: [Oe List ...] 3/11/2021, Progressing Spirit: The Rev. Roger Wolsey: The Soul of Progressive Christianity; Spong revisited
>  
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> The Soul of Progressive Christianity
>  
> 
> Essay by Rev. Roger Wolsey
> February 21, 2019
> Lent is a time where we’re invited to engage in deepened soul-searching. I’ve been feeling called to search the soul of progressive Christianity.
> 
> Progressive Christianity is the post-modern influenced evolution of historic mainline liberal Christianity and is an heir to the Social Gospel movement. It takes the Bible too seriously to interpret much of it literally. It’s a focus on the religion of Jesus more than the religion about him. It embraces the insights of contemporary science; is committed to social justice including good stewardship of the Earth; celebrates the diversity of humanity including various sexes, genders, and sexualities; and doesn’t require belief in various historic doctrines of the Church. Progressive Christianity is in many ways an example of the late Dr. Phyllis Tickle’s observation that Christianity has had a major reform movement every 500 years to help it evolve and be relevant to new times and contexts. And, …progressive Christianity is very white. 
> 
> Before we get to the race issue, let’s remind ourselves of some backstory. Liberal Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity are two sides of the same modern era coin – both essentially arising in response to the relatively simultaneous rise of the historical-critical approach to scripture and to Darwin’s theory of the evolution of the species. In some ways liberal Christianity shared much in common with the so-called “Thomas Jefferson Bible” – his version of the New Testament with the miracles cut out, as well as portions that he felt were redundant, absurd and/or incredulous. Liberal Christianity’s concern with honoring science led it to try to explain the miracles in the Bible with appeals to science; e.g., “well the Red Sea is known to have a weather pattern that shows up occasionally where strong winds can push hard across the surface of the water, so that you could walk across it”, “Jesus could’ve used a special bag of known healing herbs and plant medicines to cure people,” etc. While progressive Christianity fully embraces the insights of science, it is less overly enamored with it and less willing to cede everything to it. Progressive Christianity is more willing to simply accept the Bible as received stories and as spiritual poetry that evokes new ways of understanding things – and not miss the forest for the trees.
> 
> Moreover, progressive Christianity is less colonial and patriarchal than liberal Christianity was.   Progressive Christianity is less modern and more post-modern – willing to accept that God’s fully at work in all other world religions. Progressive Christianity has more consensus that homosexuality isn’t a sin and it’s more willing to embrace paradox and mystery than liberal Christianity. Finally, it’s more eclectic and willing to draw insights, prayers, and practices from the entirety of the Christian – and even non-Christian – traditions.
> 
> The term progressive Christianity was first coined by Rev. Jim Adams in 1994  upon the creation of The Center for Progressive Christianity (now ProgressiveChristianity.Org) and became more popularly used in the year 2000 upon its use in one of the late Dr. Marcus Borg’s books.
> 
> Bishop John Shelby Spong was of course part of the rise and evolution of this movement. His 1991 book Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism   threw a gauntlet down much in the way that the late Walter Rauschenbush’s “Christianity and the Social Crisis”  did in 1907. Bishop Spong was a liberal Christian for most of his career and morphed toward and fully into progressive Christianity in the latter portion.
> 
> Back to the racial matters. I’ve been engaged in shaping and advocating progressive Christianity overtly since 2007. I’ve attended and spoken at several of the Wild Goose Festivals; as well as the Embrace Festival; the Lion and the Lamb Festival; and Christianity21 conferences. I’ve blogged for Elephant Journal, Huffington Post, and Patheos and am aware of my colleagues and associates in this field – and … most all of them are white.
> 
> One might be surprised that a movement that is concerned about social justice and expanding rights and liberties to more people isn’t more compelling and attractive to people of color. I’ve come to realize that such surprise and dismay on my part – comes from my place of privilege as a white person. It’s the same “dismay” that many mostly straight, white congregations have when they wonder “We don’t know why more gays, blacks, Hispanics, and young people don’t come here, …our doors are open to everyone!” Passive “openness” isn’t the same thing as intentional outreach, welcome, hospitality, inclusion, and celebration.
> 
> From my experience, I’d reckon that the vast majority of congregations that identify as embracing progressive Christianity are comprised of mostly straight, white people over 60 years of age. The same is likely true of the email list of those who subscribe to this Progressing Spirit newsletter. I’ve met many of the people who are part of such churches [and Spong’s so-called “Church Alumni Association”] and they are mostly warm, caring, intelligent, and well-read people.
> 
> There’s clearly some sort of disconnect. It could be the term “progressive Christianity” is off-putting. It could also be that we’re seen as rejecting too many parts of the faith that many people are truly endeared to. Perhaps, but I suspect it primarily has to do with where many progressive Christian authors and churchgoers put the majority of our time, energy, dollars, presence, and attention. We tend to not reach out to people of color or historically black congregations when we send out our invitations to upcoming guest speaker events that our churches may host. It’s “not on our radars.” We tend to not invite people of color to be the guest speakers at our events. And we tend to not invite people to join us for worship - people of color, or really anyone for that matter. And, when it comes to worship, we tend to have great theology from our pulpits, but rather dry experiences in worship. And there’s a powerful resistance to incorporating contemporary music in many progressive Christian congregations. In fact, I’d hazard to suggest that it’s this lack of inviting and worshipful passion that we tend to convey that is what is most off-putting. We tend to be overly cerebral and less open to vigorous, palpable experiences of the Spirit in our lives or in the lives of others. As a mainline Protestant from Minnesota I can say that we’re fairly aptly considered “God’s frozen chosen.” (Yes, there are certain passionate, vivacious exceptions within our ranks, but I’m trying to make a point here ; )
> 
> Moreover, we seem to forget that some of the great innovators in shaping progressive Christianity – were black. I’d submit that the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was in many ways the first progressive Christian (I’ve said that about John Wesley, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Thomas Merton too ; ). If he hadn’t been assassinated in 1968, Dr. King would be 92 today. Our beloved Bishop Spong turns 90 this June. They were contemporaries.
> 
> These essays in Progressing Spirit aren’t long enough to be academic papers, so I won’t put forth a formal argument to prove anything. Instead, I’m inviting us to engage in some soul-searching. I would like to offer some documents and resources for our consideration - and toward our collective education about how progressive Christianity came to be. As we peruse them, let’s consider how Dr. King’s ideas and writings align with three sets of progressive Christian guidelines and principles:
> 
> 1. The 8 Points of Progressive Christianity  (put forth by ProgressiveChristianity.Org)
> 2. The Phoenix Affirmations  
> 3. The Working Definition in Kissing Fish: 
> 
> Progressive Christianity is an approach to the Christian faith that is influenced by post-liberalism and postmodernism and:
> proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, Savior, & Lord; [interpreted differently than mainstream Xty]
> emphasizes the Way and teachings of Jesus, not merely His person;
> emphasizes God's immanence not merely God's transcendence;
> leans toward panentheism rather than supernatural theism;
> emphasizes salvation here and now instead of primarily in heaven, later;
> emphasizes being saved for robust, abundant/eternal life over being saved from hell;
> emphasizes the social/communal aspects of salvation instead of merely the personal;
> stresses social justice as integral to Christian discipleship;
> takes the Bible seriously but not necessarily literally, embracing a more interpretive, metaphorical understanding; emphasizes orthopraxy more than orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas; does not consider homosexuality to be sinful;
> and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God (is non-exclusive)
> 
> Documents re: MLK’s Progressive Views, Ideas, & Values:
> 
> A.  880 Inspiring quotes by MLK 
> B.  Tillich’s influence on MLK 
> C.  MLK’s Progressive Christian Faith 
> D.  MLK’s PhD Thesis re: Tillich & Weiman 
> E.  Love & Justice in MLK 
> F.  MLK’s Theology of Social Action 
> G.  MLK drawing from Hinduism 
>       
> And these short pieces written by conservative Christians who don’t care for MLK: 
> H.  Was MLK a Christian? 
> I.  King was a Liberal Christian 
> 
> Finally, Rev. Dr. King was one of the founding members of the Progressive National Baptist Convention.   See also that denomination’s website. 
> 
> I think you may well agree with me that Dr. King was either way ahead of his time, or that he was a person of his time who was already living out an expression of the Christian faith that takes the Bible seriously but not literally – inviting people to read themselves into the great stories of liberation; embraces the prophetic call to social justice, recognizes the inter-sectionality of various issues and dynamics; offers a generous and universalizing orthodoxy that honors how the Divine is at work in many religious and spiritual traditions in order to amass a collaborative coalition of kindred spirits; and inspires masses of people to envision a better world, a beloved community, and live it into being. Sounds like progressive Christianity.
> 
> It could be that if we progressive Christians were to take the writings of brother Martin (as well as Frederick Douglass, Howard Thurman, James Baldwin, Fred Shuttlesworth, Bayard Rustin, Ralph Abernathy, Joseph Lowery, and Vincent Harding) more seriously, and to center them as obvious stepping stones – and cornerstones - in our formation, it’d both do us, mostly white, progressive Christians some (a lot) of good - and help our black peers realize we’re doing our work and finally recognizing and celebrating black contributions in our movement. This is part of the reparations work that white folk need to be doing – and in this case, similar to the work of admitting how so many white blues and rock singers appropriated (stole) the songs  from the creative genius of the black musicians who wrote them.
> 
> Progressive Christians who are white would also do well to notice where we live, and why we live there. My hunch is that a sizeable preponderance (perhaps even the majority) of white people who identify as progressive Christians a) are over 50 years of age; b) have a higher than average income; c) live in predominantly white communities (or at least neighborhoods); d) attend largely white congregations; e) if they’re part of a congregation, it’s one that doesn’t significantly embrace contemporary music; f) have fewer black friends (someone who we call or visit with more than four times a year) than the fingers on one hand (if that many); and g) haven’t invited anyone to experience a worship service with them in years (including online).
> 
> In the midst of the trial for the officer who killed George Floyd, and in the midst of the Black Lives Matter movement that necessarily continues – may we take to heart (not just to head) what faith in action really means and what orthopraxy really involves. May we engage in some needed soul-searching and experience ongoing metanoia - repentance and transformation - as we seek to help the cause of progressive Christianity be a blessing to the world. Not to survive as a movement known by that name that somehow works to ensure its own institutional longevity. But, rather, as a helpful ministry that seeks to truly help all of God’s people meaningfully,  transformatively, and passionately embrace who and Whose they really are.
> 
> ~ Rev. Roger Wolsey
> 
> p.s. We would also do well to become aware of Rev. Carlton Pearson – a black mega-church preacher who expressed his doubts about the existence of hell, and came to embrace universal salvation (in 1994 & 2002 respectively). And also learning about the fine work of Rev. Irene Monroe; Rev. Dr. Velda Love; Rev. Dr. Jaqueline Lewis and Toni Reynolds.
> 
> Read online here
> 
> About the Author
> Rev. Roger Wolsey is a United Methodist pastor who resides in Grand Junction, CO. Roger is author of Kissing Fish: Christianity for people who don’t like Christianity and blogs for Patheos as The Holy Kiss and serves on the Board of Directors of ProgressiveChristianity.Org. Roger became “a Christian on purpose” during his college years and he experienced a call to ordained ministry two years after college. He values the Wesleyan approach to the faith and, as a certified spiritual director, he seeks to help others grow and mature. Roger enjoys yoga; playing trumpet; motorcycling; and camping with his son. He served as the Director of the Wesley Foundation campus ministry at the University of Colorado in Boulder for 14 years, and has served as pastor of churches in Minnesota, Iowa, and currently serves as the pastor of Fruita UMC in Colorado, and also serves as the "CRM" (Congregational Resource Minister/Church Consultant) for the Utah/Western Colorado District of the Mountain Sky Conference.
>  
>  
> Question & Answer
>  
> Q: By Judy
> 
> * In general, what is the Progressive Christian understanding of the word "grace"?
> 
> * Specifically, what is the grace referred to in the 5th point of Progressive Christianity, which says that Progressive Christians "Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning with an open mind and open heart, than in absolutes or dogma."
> 
> A: By Rev. Mark Sandlin
>  
> Dear Judy,
>  
> When it comes to religion, “grace” is a bit of a loaded term. That is to say, it tends to come with a lot of baggage. Because of that, it is frequently difficult to tell precisely what any given person means by it when they use it. Are they speaking theologically, biblically, colloquially, or from some other point of view? Even then, each one comes with multiple, differing understandings.
>  
> I actually became a minister, in part, because of how I heard a Presbyterian minister define “grace.” He said (to the best of my memory), “Grace is that thing that pulls you through the darkness to the other side.” To me, that sounded like a warm and fuzzy bit of hocus-pocus. I mean, it didn't really say much and it certainly didn't get me any closer to an understanding of grace.
>  
> I liked the fact that it moved away from the roots of the word which are tied back to the concept of receiving a gift that is unearned and undeserved. In some ways, his new-to-me definition was kind of saying that grace is not that, but knowing what something is and what it isn't are far from the same thing.
>  
> At that point in time I was the IT Director for a medium size retail company and, as luck would have it I had to travel alone for six hours that day to fix a networking issue at one of our stores. I spent the entire six hours thinking about what my definition of grace would be. I ended up with something like this: Grace is a gift from God not because of our deserving of it or right to it, but rather, in spite of either.
>  
> Not perfect, but it got me hooked on thinking more theologically.
>  
> The reality is, “grace” means a lot of things to a lot of people and there simply is no definitive Progressive Christian Dictionary for looking up what the general Progressive Christian understanding of it is. I can, though, tell you how I currently understand it.
>  
> Grace is a gift. It is a gift that opens you up toward love and fulfillment. There is no deserving or not deserving it. It just happens. It just is.
>  
> For me that's what it means in our 5th point of Progressive Christianity. Learning to live in the questions rather than clinging on to the dogma, is a gift that opens us up toward love and fulfillment. There is no deserving or not deserving it. It just happens. It just is.
> ~ Rev. Mark Sandlin
> 
> Read and share online here
> 
> About the Author
> Rev. Mark Sandlin is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) from the South. He currently serves at Presbyterian Church of the Covenant. Mark also serves as the President and Co-executive Director of ProgressiveChristianity.org. He is a co-founder of The Christian Left. His blog, has been named as one of the “Top Ten Christian Blogs.”  Mark received The Associated Church Press’ Award of Excellence in 2012. Follow Mark on Facebook and Twitter @marksandlin.
>  
>  
> Please continue to send us your feedback… we are listening. We aim to give voice to many different perspectives that are relevant and inspiring along this spiritually progressing path. We are not here to tell you what to believe or how to act. We are here to support your journey, to share and learn together.
> Thank you for being a part of this community - join us on Facebook!
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Have you ever noticed how often we, as progressive Christians, have to define ourselves in negative terms; in terms of what we don’t believe rather than what we do?  We don’t believe that you have to check your brains at the door of the church. We don’t take the Bible literally.  We don’t tell people they are going to hell. We don’t exclude LGBTQ+ people.  We have unfortunately had to respond in this way to counter what many people assume to be true about Christianity.
>  
> One of the things that I appreciate the most about ProgressiveChristianity.org is that it helps progressive Christians to define our faith in positive terms, particularly through the 8 Points of Progressive Christianity.  As the pastor of a progressive congregation that strives to be truly inclusive and intellectually honest, I am constantly amazed at how many people have never experienced this type of Christianity.  There are so many people who have left Christianity behind, simply because the loudest voices have defined the faith in a harmful way.  
>  
> ProgressiveChristianity.org enables congregations and progressive people of faith to articulate their faith boldly and to counter the dominant narrative of an exclusive and often hateful faith. When you support ProgressiveChristianity.org, you help to amplify our voice so that we can transform the way that people see Christianity, the Church, and faith. Thank you so much for your generosity.
>  
> Rev. Dr. Caleb J. Lines, Co-Executive Director
> Progressing Spirit and ProgressiveChristianity.org
>  
> Help keep ProgressiveChristianity.org/Progressing Spirit online and going strong - click here to donate today!
> 
> * Another way to support us is to leave a bequest in your Will and/or Trust designating us a beneficiary. 
>  
>  
> Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited
> 
> The Origins of the New Testament, Part XXXII:
> Introducing the Johannine Material
> 
> Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong
> August 5, 2010
> The last series of books that I will consider to complete our study of the Bible’s origins is referred to as “The Johannine Literature.” It consists of five books: the Gospel of John, the three epistles, I, II and III John, and the Revelation of John. There was a time when people generally assumed that these five books were the products of the same author. That point of view has long been abandoned in academic circles. There are connections that bind the Johannine material together to be sure. I John and the Gospel of John are quite similar in content, style and word usage, sufficient to cause some scholars to assume common authorship. Others suggest that the author of the first epistle of John was writing a treatise on the gospel from which he quoted liberally and that this accounts for the similarities. There are more questions about II and III John, the texts of which claim as their author one who was known as “The Elder.” Almost no one today believes that the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John are products of the same person.
> 
> There appears to have been a school of Christian thought near the end of the first century organized around a man known as John the Elder, who himself may have been a disciple of John Zebedee, which opens us to the possibility that these five books are the products of different members of that Johannine School. If that is so, it would account for the similarity found in these works as well as for the obvious differences. Although one can only be speculative about first century authors, this proposition makes more sense to me than anything else and I have adopted it until further study offers a better possibility.
> 
> Without doubt the crown jewel of the Johannine literature in the Bible is the Gospel of John, frequently called the “Fourth Gospel” in academic circles. It is clearly the last of the gospels to be written. It is dramatically different from the first three, Mark, Matthew and Luke, which are known as the “synoptic gospels” and are deeply interdependent and bound together. John’s gospel, however, has exercised a disproportionate influence on the development of the Christian creeds and the doctrines that define “orthodoxy” in the western Christian Church. It is probably the favorite of most people who sit in the pews of our churches if they had to choose a favorite. It contains many passages with which church people are familiar. The Prologue, a hymn of praise to the “Logos,” translated as “word” in most English Bibles, has been the most frequently used part of the New Testament in Christian liturgies. Passages from John are the assigned reading in almost every Christian funeral — “In my Father’s house are many mansions” being the most familiar funeral line.
> 
> The Fourth Gospel has created unforgettable characters that dot the landscape of the Christian imagination. One thinks of doubting Thomas, the Samaritan woman by the well, Lazarus who was raised from the dead, Mary Magdalene, alone and weeping at the tomb on Easter Day, Nicodemus who comes to Jesus by night, and the man born blind who is the hero of a long and detailed narrative. All of these figures are made vivid in our imaginations through the literary genius of the author of the Fourth Gospel. With the exception of Mary Magdalene, they are not mentioned in any other gospel, and she stands out in John in a way quite different from the synoptic accounts.
> 
> Was the author of the Fourth Gospel familiar with the earlier gospels? Certainly there was a common body of tradition from which each of the gospel writers drew. We know that both Matthew and Luke incorporated great portions of Mark into their work. John certainly reveals a familiarity with the story line followed by the synoptics. All four gospels begin with the story of the adult Jesus in the presence of the figure of John the Baptist. In Mark, Matthew and Luke, John actually baptizes Jesus. John introduces John the Baptist in the proper place, but then only has him point to Jesus as the one who must increase as he decreases, but John never baptizes Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. All of the gospels conclude their narratives with a triumphal entry that we associate today with the Palm Sunday procession. The passion story of each has the account of a betrayal, arrest, crucifixion and resurrection. In Mark, Matthew and Luke, however, the only time Jesus journeyed from Galilee to Jerusalem was at the time of the crucifixion, while in John Jesus goes back and forth between Galilee and Jerusalem on several occasions. Mark, Matthew and Luke treat the public ministry of Jesus as something that is told over a one-year period. John suggests that the public ministry of Jesus was up to three years in duration. We can find references that appear to point to a rather specific connection between Mark and Luke and the Fourth Gospel that suggests a possible dependence on these two as sources for John’s writing, but that is harder to do with Matthew.
> 
> Yet despite all these similarities and connections, there are some very real differences between John and the other three gospels. There is no story in John of Jesus’ miraculous or “virgin birth.” On two occasions, in chapters 1 and 5, John’s gospel refers to Jesus as “the son of Joseph.” Jesus delivers no parables in John. The teaching of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel comes in long, somewhat convoluted theological discourses. John records no agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, but rather has Jesus walk resolutely toward his crucifixion, which he expects to be his moment of glorification. The “High Priestly prayer” in John, chapter 17, appears to be John’s version of Jesus’ prayer “Let this cup pass from me” found in the synoptics. There is no account of the Last Supper in John; instead we read the story of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples. John denies that the Last Supper was the Passover, while the earlier three gospels claimed that it was. John is the only gospel writer who places the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross to watch the crucifixion. She is simply not present in the other gospels, a fact that renders most of Mel Gibson’s motion picture, “The Passion of Christ,” to be almost biblically illiterate and that also calls into question the accuracy of most of the piety of the ages that revolve around the Virgin Mary. Miracles present in the three synoptic gospels are turned into “signs” in John. The resurrection of Jesus in John is quite physical, sufficient to have Thomas be invited to touch the print of the nails in Jesus’ hands and feet and to thrust his hand into the wound in Jesus’ side, a wound that only John describes. In these details John is closer to Luke, whose resurrected Jesus asked the disciples to handle him because ghosts do not have flesh. This put John, however, into opposition with Paul, Mark and possibly Matthew, all of whom suggest that the risen Christ represents a new dimension of life and even of consciousness that transcends the realm of the physical. Indeed, the differences between the Fourth Gospel and the earlier three are so significant that a harmonization of the gospel tradition into a single theology of Jesus is almost impossible. In common language, Mark presents us with a fully human Jesus upon whom God’s Spirit was poured at his baptism, making him a God-infused, but still human life, while John suggests that Jesus was the pre-existent word of God, enfleshed in the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Mark can cry from the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” The Jesus of John ends his life with the pronouncement, “It is finished,” which replicates the original creation story and portrays Jesus as the author of the New Creation. For John, Jesus is never separated from God: “The Father and I are one,” John’s Jesus says.
> 
> When the Fellows at the Jesus Seminar were doing their work aimed at determining the authenticity of the words of Jesus recorded in the four gospels, they came to and published their conclusion, that only 16% of the words attributed to Jesus in the entire gospel tradition were actually spoken by him, which of course means that 84% were not. It is of interest to note that none of the words attributed to Jesus by John were deemed to be in the 16% that they claimed represented the authentic words of the Jesus of history. Yet, even if that judgment is correct (and as one fellow in the Jesus Seminar, I find no reason to argue with that conclusion) I still concur in the opinion that John’s gospel captures the essence of the Jesus experience more profoundly than any other part of the New Testament. That experience, however, simply cannot be contained within the boundaries of literalized human words. So I think of John as the least literal, but the most profoundly true of the four canonical gospel writers. I will return to this claim in subsequent columns to put more flesh on its bare bones.
> 
> I doubt if there is any biblical book about which we could say that we have in the present, surviving text of that book the exact words the original author actually wrote. Things hand copied over a number of centuries lend themselves to the probability of having words edited, added and even deleted. The Gospel of John is no different. There are three textual conclusions about John that have gained wide, almost universal support. One is that chapters five and six need to be reversed. In their present order, they make no contextual sense. The second is that the beautiful story in chapter eight of Jesus standing between the woman taken in the act of adultery and her accusers is not and never was part of the original text of John’s gospel. The third is that chapter 21 is an appendix, an epilogue that was added later to the gospel and was not part of the original. I assume the truth of these three textual insights.
> 
> With this introduction, I will turn now to look at John’s gospel then I will move on to John’s epistles and finally I will close this study with a look at the book the Revelation of John So stay tuned.
> 
> ~  John Shelby Spong
>  
>  
> Announcements
>  
> Humanity 360: Environmental Concerns That Affect Us All – and What we can do with it.
> 
> Start Date: March 15, 2021 - Cost: $30 - 4 weeks
> Our ultimate goal is to awaken each participant to a sense of agency and self-determination. An understanding of how each issue can be addressed through action and engagement and how this in turn leads to a greater inner sense of fulfillment and purpose.  READ ON ...
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OE mailing list
> OE at lists.wedgeblade.net
> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20210312/565d9988/attachment.html>