[Oe List ...] 4/27/2023, Progressing Spirit: Rev. Dr. Mark Sandlin: The Divine Within; Spong revisited
Ellie Stock
elliestock at aol.com
Thu Apr 27 06:21:13 PDT 2023
By Rev. Dr. Mark Sandlin
|
|
|
| View this email in your browser |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Divine Within
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Essay by Rev. Dr. Mark Sandlin
April 27, 2023
It turns out that Carl Sagan's poetic and well-known statement from his book “The Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective” (1973) that we are all made of “star-stuff” was actually predated by Albert Durrant Watson in 1918.
Not only that, Watson's use of it was a bit more spiritually suggestive. At the time, he was the President of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, and while delivering a speech, he said, “It is true that a first thoughtful glimpse of the immeasurable universe is liable rather to discourage us with a sense of our own insignificance. But astronomy is wholesome even in this and helps to clear the way to a realization that as our bodies are an integral part of the great physical universe, so through them are manifested laws and forces that take rank with the highest manifestation of Cosmic Being. Thus we come to see that if our bodies are made of star-stuff, and there is nothing else, says the spectroscope, to make them of the loftier qualities of our being are just as necessarily constituents of that universal substance out of which are made 'Whatever gods there be.' We are made of universal and divine ingredients, and the study of the stars will not let us escape a wholesome and final knowledge of the fact."
It's kind of beautiful for a speech being given at an Astronomical Society's annual convention, isn't it?
It actually reminds me of a reality that the concept of namasté also reminds me of. Namasté: “The Divine in me honors the Divine in you.” In my way of seeing it, namasté includes the understanding that we all are one. It highlights the reality that beneath the outward appearances that make us different from others, inwardly we are made of the same stuff and that “stuff” is of the divine.
Think of humanity as the ocean and each person as a wave. Each wave is different but equally wet, equally made of the ocean. Wetness is to the ocean as God is to humanity. We each are a unique part of a whole, yet decidedly part of that whole. We are made of the same stuff. And, in each of us resides the divine. Not separate and different parts of the divine – instead, we are all part of the same Oneness. We are all part of the ocean that is God. We are all dripping wet.
A conversation between a young man and his guru was once overheard, the student proudly stated, “The purpose of religion is to find God.” His teacher responded, “Not quite, the purpose of religion is to find ourselves, within which we shall find God.” Or, as Rumi once said, “I looked in temples, churches & mosques. But I found the Divine within my Heart.”
Look into every great religious, spiritual, and wisdom tradition, and we find the same precept — that life’s ultimate truth, its ultimate treasure, lies within us.
Jesus was once asked when the kingdom of God would come. The kingdom of God, Jesus replied, is not something people will be able to see and point to. The answers in Luke 17:21 are saying, “For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” Jesus' teaching here is universal and timeless.
Recognizing this reality, it seems to me that we'd be smart to consider what does it mean to claim that the divine is within me? How can I recognize it in myself so that I might better acknowledge it in others?
Hindus, folks who practice New Age Spirituality, and others sometimes call this indwelling of God “The Divine Self.” For them, the Divine Self is the Self that exists at an even higher level than even the soul; it is in every person ever born. It is the essence of the Universe that dwells in your being, the source of all light and life within you. I believe it reflects the reality of what Watson was trying to get at when he referenced the star-stuff in us all to remind us that “We are made of universal and divine ingredients.”
Those who follow this belief system say that if you open yourself up to your Divine Self, to discovering the ocean within, to connect with the Oneness of the Universe, the practice promises guidance, peace, harmony, and illuminating light through its higher knowledge. They believe that discovering the Divine Within helps you to more easily turn away from the distractions of the physical world, and restore yourself in the light, love, and power of this eternal Self. You are also said to gain a greater ability to recognize limiting, disharmonious, and restricting energies in this world.
I have to say, I agree. The trick is (particularly for those who grew up in conservative or mainline churches) letting go of some of the things we've been taught about God. Particularly ideologies which suggest that God is separate from us and, thus, must be sought after and searched for. When we let go of that way of understanding God, instead of always looking for God, we end up feeling God and enjoy walking in the joy of this ineffable Presence. The good news is that it produces real transformation in how you think, live, treat others and the world.
We, each of us, must awaken from the dream of believing we are separate isolated beings. Then the dream itself takes on the qualities of openness, light, joy, and peace. We see not only the divine within ourselves but within others. We experience the world as a place full of the Divine – heaven on earth, if you will. As Rumi says, we recognize that we are not a drop in the ocean, but that we are the entire ocean in a drop... or a wave... we are made of the same star-stuff.
So, namasté, my friends. Not only do I see the divine in me, but I see the same divine in you. Or, at least, I'm trying.
~ Rev.Dr. Mark Sandlin
Read online here
About the Author
Rev. Dr. 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. His Podcast The Moonshine Jesus Show is on Mondays at 4:30pm ET. Follow Mark on Facebook and Twitter @marksandlin.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Question & Answer
Q: By Danielle
[NOTE: To celebrate our 10th anniversary as a welcoming and affirming congregation, The Fountains recently hosted Bishop Karen Oliveto (the first openly LGBTQIA+ Bishop in the United Methodist tradition). So, I wasn’t surprised by this email. I get them all the time. One thing for sure: the authors of these emails don’t really want a response. They just want to let us know of their disapproval (and prove to their homophobic god what good little doobies they are). Predictably, I never heard back from Danielle.]
Hello, I've been reading some of your posts in The Fountain Hills Times. I've been wondering why you talk about Jesus and then don't follow all the principles of the bible. I understand loving everyone but what about the principle of marriage being only between a man and a woman? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just want to know how the Methodist Church, yours in particular, decides to take or leave from the bible?
A: By Rev. David Felten
Dear Danielle,
Thanks for your questions. But to begin, I have one for you. What exactly are these “Biblical Principles” you speak of? Is there a definitive list somewhere?
Clearly, you have somehow been convinced that one of these “Biblical Principles” is the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman. While that may be a “principle” promoted by whatever religious tradition you’re a part of, it’s certainly not “Biblical.” This kind of narrow interpretation of scripture completely ignores the complex and diverse history of marriage in the Bible. Yes, there are examples of monogamous relationships in the Bible. But don’t overlook the numerous examples of polygamous and non-monogamous relationships in the Bible that are not only NOT condemned or explicitly prohibited, but celebrated.
The idea that marriage is a fixed, unchanging concept based solely on examples in the Bible ignores the ways marriage has evolved over time (and continues to do so today). Throughout history, very selective readings of the Bible have been leveraged to defend whatever norms and values the dominant culture has deemed appropriate. As such, the claim that marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman is NOT a clear biblical mandate, but a modern cultural construct imposed onto the Bible by those seeking to defend their particular status quo.
See what I did there? I used the Methodist principle called the “Quadrilateral.” That means, whenever we Methodists consider theological issues or moral questions we do so intentionally considering four elements: Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason. It’s the Methodist position that anyone who thinks they can make decisions about life and values using scripture alone is not being honest. Everyone brings their understanding of History (tradition), Experience (their personal understanding), and Reason (critical thinking) to bear when considering the meaning of scripture. It is impossible NOT to do so. If you think you are, you’re in denial about how human beings work (and again, not being honest).
Using the Quadrilateral as a means of decision making has also convinced me that there are plenty of other so-called "biblical principles" that are harmful and should be opposed at every turn. The Bible clearly condones slavery, but I trust you’d agree with me that, without exception, slavery is an abhorrent and unjust practice. Likewise, there are some passages of the Bible that prohibit women from exercising leadership over a man and another that directs parents to stone their children for disobedience.
If you agree with me that these “Biblical principles” should no longer be accepted or tolerated in modern society, then (not to be confrontational) how did YOU decide what “to take or leave from the Bible”?
It is important to remember what many Christians are conditioned to forget — that the Bible was written in specific historical and cultural contexts spanning thousands of years and reflect many values and norms that are demonstrably obsolete and should be rejected. The Bible’s teachings have been and must continue to be interpreted and evaluated in ways that reflect our contemporary understandings of morality and justice.
I, of course, have neglected to bring up the one issue that your question is ACTUALLY about – that of the affirmation of LGBTQIA+ people and their right to be included in every aspect of church and society (including marriage). Don’t worry, I’m used to people trying to disguise their prejudice against LGBTQIA+ people as a defense of “traditional” marriage. It’s an old ploy and doesn’t obscure what is, at it’s core, a deeply troubling bigotry and discrimination against more people than you know.
It gives me hope that you claim to “understand loving everyone”, but why must you add the “but”? What is it about your particular understanding of Christianity that would put conditions on Jesus’ prime directive of loving everyone? Do you just know more than Jesus? Did he just not “get it”? I’d be curious to know what your criteria is for denying God’s free and unmerited grace to one and all.
May you continue asking the tough questions and be led by the Spirit into genuinely “loving everyone” (y’know, like Jesus!).
~ Rev. David Felten
Read and share online here
About the Author
Rev. David M. Felten is a full-time pastor at The Fountains, a United Methodist Church in Fountain Hills, Arizona. David and fellow United Methodist Pastor, Jeff Procter-Murphy, are the creators of the DVD-based discussion series for Progressive Christians, “Living the Questions” and authors of Living the Questions: The Wisdom of Progressive Christianity. A co-founder of Catalyst Arizona and also a founding member of No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice, David is an outspoken voice for LGBTQ rights both in the church and in the community at large. David is active in the Desert Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church and tries to stay connected to his roots as a musician. You’ll find him playing saxophones in a variety of settings, including appearances with the Fountain Hills Saxophone Quartet. David is the proud father of three reliably remarkable human beings. Visit his website here.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| 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! |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Two years ago, a consultant told us to close the figurative doors of ProgressiveChristianity.org. We responded with a resounding, “No!”
We knew that it would be financially challenging to keep our doors open, but we recognized that the work that we’re doing is far too important to simply give up. The Religious Right has organized for decades to influence the theological and political conversation in our society and along the way and became the loudest Christian voice in our land. We’ve seen the results: attacks on people’s rights, exclusionary theology, a turn away from science, and a post-truth society.
We need a cultural shift, and our organization is now poised to become a significant voice for Christianity in the United States and beyond. But we need your help. We are nowhere near as well funded as the Religious Right. We are expanding programs on a shoestring budget, and if we’re going to change the cultural narrative, we need funds!
Could you help? Even a small gift makes an enormous difference for our small organization. If you can make a recurring donation, it helps to ensure that our work can continue into the future. Thank you for your generosity!
The Rev. Dr. Caleb J. Lines
Co-Executive Director
ProgressiveChristianity.org |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
| Don't miss the next Episode of PC.org's Executive Directors Mark and Caleb on:
The Moonshine Jesus Show
- every Monday at 4:30pm Eastern Time – watch live on Facebook,, YouTube, Twitter, Podbean |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited
Part XIII Matthew: "A Prophet like unto Moses"
Introducing the Sermon on the Mount
Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong
February 6, 2014
It should not be surprising that a Jewish scribe in the first century, which is what the author of the gospel we call Matthew was, would make constant references to Moses, the founder of the Jewish faith tradition. Moses dominated official Judaism and was in every way its creator and guide. The Torah by which Judaism lived was attributed to Moses. Moses was viewed as the liberator of the Jews and thus as the founder of the nation. The radical sense of God’s oneness, which set Judaism apart from the other religious systems of the Middle East, seemed to stem directly from Moses, who appears to have stamped his own monotheism on the nation. The heart of the Torah, which was called the Law of Moses, was the Shema: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.” The Shema then went on to exhort the people of Israel to live into that “Oneness.” The Torah also quoted Moses as saying that in the fullness of time “God would raise up another prophet like unto Moses.” Matthew would then move to develop his portrait of Jesus in such a way as to claim that “new Moses” identification for Jesus. We have already met these themes in Matthew’s birth narrative, in which he drew material from the Moses cycle of stories in the book of Exodus and proceeded to wrap it around his narrative of Jesus’ infancy. This was a traditional practice among Jewish writers. They called it Midrash. It was the process whereby material from the life story of a Jewish hero of the past would be used to illumine the life of a Jewish hero of the present, binding the two lives together in a dramatic fashion. Both Moses and Jesus were thought of as promised deliverers of their people. Both were said to have had their lives threatened at the moment of their births by an evil ruler: in the story of Moses it was the Pharaoh, ordering all the Jewish male babies born in Egypt to be put to death; in the story of Jesus it was King Herod sending his soldiers to Bethlehem to kill all the Jewish boy babies up to two years of age. The Jewish readers of Matthew’s gospel would know that this was not to be understood as literal history. It was Midrash at work, allowing Jewish story tellers to lift a story from their Jewish past in order to interpret an experience in their Jewish present. Matthew’s readers would have recognized this. They would never have confused Midrash with history. Matthew was interpreting the Jesus experience in a typical Jewish way. Jesus was not just the expected messiah, he also fulfilled the Jewish Scriptures as the prophet about whom Moses had spoken. That was the way Matthew set the stage that now allowed him to proceed into a series of Moses stories, which he had adapted to the life of Jesus. For those with eyes to see it, it is a powerful and profound narrative.
First came the account of Jesus’ baptism. Though this gospel story is clearly not history, I suspect there is in it a germ of truth associated with the fact that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist in the River Jordan. By the time that Matthew wrote, however, the suggestion that Jesus had been baptized by John had become somewhat embarrassing since it seemed to elevate John over Jesus. So Matthew treated it in such a manner as to minimize that embarrassment and still enable it to remind his readers of the story of Moses at the Red Sea. According to the Exodus account, Moses split the waters of the Red Sea so that the Hebrew slaves, escaping from Egypt, could make their way to the “Promised Land.” Jesus, the “new Moses,” as Matthew interpreted him, would proceed to split the heavenly waters. Matthew’s Jewish readers would know from the creation story that the sky was “the firmament” that separated “the waters above from the waters below.” Jesus’ purpose in splitting the heavenly waters was, therefore, to pattern him after Moses. Moses split the waters of the Red Sea in order to lead the chosen people from the “bondage of slavery.” For Jesus it was to deliver the New Israel from the “bondage of sin.” Moses’ purpose was to bring about the new life of freedom. Jesus’ purpose was to bring about the new life of salvation. Matthew’s story of Jesus’ baptism was deliberately framed to be a Moses story, heightened and magnified, and then retold about Jesus. If one were tempted to think of this baptism narrative as history, Matthew moved swiftly to counter that suggestion by continuing to follow his Moses story line.
After the Red Sea experience (whatever it actually was) the book of Exodus tells us that Moses wandered in the wilderness for “forty years.” During that time the Hebrew people, now seen as the people of the Covenant, wrestled with what it meant to be “The Chosen People.” Now watch as Matthew develops his parallel story of Jesus. Following Jesus’ baptism by John, Matthew had Jesus follow Moses’ path by also being forced to wander in the wilderness. Moses was said to have spent forty years in the wilderness trying to discern what it meant to be the “Chosen People;” Jesus would spend forty days in the wilderness seeking to discern what it meant to be the promised messiah. The two stories are clearly and deliberately told to enable the similarities to be riveted into the minds of his readers.
While Moses was on his forty-year wilderness sojourn, he had three specific trials through which he defined his understanding of the Covenant, The first came with the shortage of food, which Moses met by praying to God to send “heavenly bread.“ In answer to those prayers, we are told, God sent “manna” raining upon the people from the sky. God would be to this chosen nation, the source of their “daily bread.”
The second trial in Moses’ wilderness years came when he “put God to the test.” This episode centered on a shortage of water and occurred near a place called Meribah. As a response to the crisis, Moses struck a rock and demanded that God bring water out of the rock. According to the Torah, God complied, but Moses was judged to have committed a grave sin. He had presumed to tell God what God must do. He had dared to place his will above God’s will. For this breach of behavior in the divine-human relationship, Moses would be punished by being denied entrance into the “Promised Land.” As a consolation prize, he would only get to gaze into the “Promised Land” from a mountain top prior to his death.
Moses’ third trial came when the people turned away from the worship of God to worship a golden calf, an idol of their own creation. This additional breach in the divine-human relationship was punished by purging the people. That is the way the story was told in the Torah.
Now look at how Matthew developed the forty days in the wilderness, which he had assigned to Jesus in his magnified Moses narrative. Jesus also had three crises, which we call the “temptations.” Matthew was the first writer to describe and give content to these temptations. All Mark, the first gospel writer had done was to inform the readers that Jesus had spent forty days in the wilderness being tempted by the devil. He gave no hint as to what the temptations were. Matthew filled in these blanks. He made the temptations three in number and then he quite obviously fleshed them out with content from the Moses story. When one discovers the Jewish key to reading the gospels, suddenly it all seems very obvious.
Jesus’ first temptation was just like Moses’. It arose in the context of a shortage of food. “Turn these stones into bread, Jesus.” Jesus, however, responded to the tempter by saying that human beings do “not live by bread alone.” Full stomachs do not create human wholeness. Jesus’ second temptation was to put God to the test: “Cast yourself off the pinnacle of the Temple, Jesus,” God will protect you. Jesus, however, responded “You shall not tempt the Lord your God.” The third temptation, clearly borrowed from the golden calf episode in the story of Moses, was: “Bow down and worship me, Jesus, and I will give you all the kingdoms of the world.” To this test Jesus responded, “The Lord your God is one and God only is to be worshiped.” Matthew was saying in this episode that Jesus’ call to people to enter the kingdom of God was not spatial, but internal. It was a call to wholeness and to human oneness. The Covenant people of Israel had now, in Matthew’s mind, become the community of the followers of Jesus, the company of believers.
Now, with the identity of Jesus as the new Moses firmly set in the minds of Matthew’s readers, he turned to create one of the most dramatic Moses portrayals in the entire New Testament. We call it “The Sermon on the Mount.” It appears no where else in the Bible except in Matthew. It forms the first of Matthew’s five long segments of Jesus’ teaching. It stretches over three chapters, Matthew 5, 6 and 7. It opens with a series of sayings called the Beatitudes, which were eight in number, with each beginning with the Greek word makarios, which means “blessed” or “happy.”
In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew was pointing his readers to a portrait of Jesus as the New Moses. Like Moses Matthew had Jesus go up on a new mountain to give the world a new interpretation of the Torah. Over and over in this sermon, Matthew contrasted Moses: “You have heard it said of old,” with Jesus: “But I say unto you.” This sermon was divided into eight parts designed to carry the worshiper through the eight three-hour segments of a twenty-four hour vigil. It reflected the Jewish liturgical tradition in which Matthew and his congregation lived. This is not a literal account of a literal sermon, actually preached by Jesus of Nazareth at a specific time and place in history. This analysis presents us with a very different way to understand not only the Sermon on the Mount, but also the entire gospel tradition. A literal approach to scripture will never get to the meaning the gospel writers sought to communicate.
When this series continues, we will look at how the Jewish audience would have heard the Sermon on the Mount, which was, I am convinced, the creation of the Jewish Matthew.
~ John Shelby Spong
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Announcements
A Monthly Sangha Practice
Last Saturday of the month.- Next: Saturday, April 29th at 9 am PST
Charter for Compassion and Orlaith O’Sullivan from Plum Village have partnered to have a monthly Sangha practice following the tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh.
This is a space to establish your presence in peace, connect with others, and refresh your own heart. The format is guided practices to nourish your mind and spirit, circle sharing together, and deep relaxation. READ ON ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20230427/631c3b15/attachment.htm>
More information about the OE
mailing list