October 2015 - Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

I am interested to join with some colleagues for a study of Laudato Si, the Papal Encyclical related to climate change
by James Wiegel via Dialogue 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

Join me if you can. Invitation is extended to interested folks from current ICA's, colleagues, and those interested from the Technology of Participation (ToP) network. Please pass it on. Suzanne, can you send this on to ToP folks who might have interest? Could this be sent via the Global Buzz? There are 6 chapters plus an introduction and a couple of prayers and some notes at the end, so, perhaps through November and early December we could schedule 7 online sessions maybe once a week -- Tuesdays or Thursdays work best for me right now . . . We could start with an initial get organized session where we looked at the whole and the introduction and got organized, then a session on each chapter. You could participate by joining in the sessions, you could guide one of the sessions, you could just lurk / listen in Email if you are interested. We can start sometime after the 4th of November. Here is a link to download a pdf version. Paragraphs are already numbered. http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-f… I also attached my chart of the encyclical and a "word cloud" of the text. Jim Wiegel “If you want an adventure . . . what a time to be alive!”. Joanna Macy 401 North Beverly Way,Tolleson, Arizona 85353623-363-3277jfwiegel(a)yahoo.comwww.partnersinparticipation.com

1 0

10/29/15, Spong: Creating Easter VI: The Dawning of the Resurrection
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR Re-Creating Easter V The Dawning of the Resurrection We have now explored our sources, looking where we could beneath the literal words of the biblical texts. We have come to four conclusions. First, whatever the Easter moment was Peter appears to be the person who stood at the center of it. He was the first to “see” or to embrace this new reality. We cited the evidence points to that conclusion. Second, the location of the Easter experience seems to be clear, it dawned on the disciples’ consciousness in Galilee. The Jerusalem location appears to be a later developed tradition. Third, the time between the crucifixion and the Easter experience was not three literal days, but a significant period of time, perhaps months, even up to a year. That, for most of us, is a new idea, but many things demand that it be so. Christianity was not born in an instant. Everything about Easter was an evolving process, not an instantaneous eruption. Fourth, the context in which the disciples’ eyes were opened to “see” the “resurrected” Jesus appears to be related in some way to the primary liturgical act observed from the very beginning by the followers of Jesus. Resurrection was somehow made known to them in “the breaking of the bread.” Can we now on the basis of these four clues recreate the moment when the meaning of Easter dawned in the minds and hearts of the followers of Jesus? I think we can or, at the very least, I think we should try. We begin with what I believe was a fact of history. Jesus was arrested and when that arrest occurred all of his disciples forsook him and fled. I suspect that the arrest took place in Jerusalem for the certainty is that he was crucified there. Was it at the time of the Passover? No, that connection was also a later development coming after Paul and others had begun to think of Jesus as the “new paschal lamb.” We need to keep in mind that Passover was not the only Jewish celebration for which worshippers journeyed to Jerusalem. The fall festival called Sukkoth also required a Jerusalem location. My reasons for suggesting a separation of the crucifixion from the Passover are threefold. First, the passion story of Jesus stretching from the first Palm Sunday to Easter is a highly stylized drama, reflecting a fixed liturgical pattern. Locating it at the season of the Passover, however, creates several anomalies. Passover was set in the early spring, late March to early April. No one could, for example, have waved “leafy branches” in a Palm Sunday procession at that time of the year because none of the trees had leaves yet. Matthew, writing about a decade after Mark, but with Mark before him, seemed to recognize that this was a problem so he dropped the adjective “leafy” from the word “branches” in his version of Palm Sunday. This means that in Matthew, the worshippers’ wave only branches. Branches without leaves, however, are sticks. Sticks do not wave, they slash; it is only the leaves that wave. Luke writing a decade or so after Matthew, but also with Mark before him, also senses a problem with this identification so he drops both the leaves and the branches. In Luke, those welcoming Jesus to Jerusalem simply lay down their clothes on the road to line his path. That statement, however, also suggests another time of the year rather than late March for disrobing, since that text means shedding one’s outer garments, would not normally be done when it was that cold. It might happen, however, in the warmth of a fall day. The second reason I do not think that the crucifixion literally occurred at the season of Passover is found in a strange story that Mark includes in that last week of Jesus’ life. After the Palm Sunday procession, Mark says that Jesus went to the Temple, looked around, saw the Temple commerce and the moneychangers at work. Then, Mark says, he returned to Bethany, a village about two miles from Jerusalem, for the night. The next day according to Mark, they journeyed back to Jerusalem for the event that would be called the cleansing of the Temple. On this journey Jesus was said to have been hungry. Seeing a fig tree in the distance, he went to gather some figs to eat. No figs, however, were found on the tree. Frustrated by this fact, Jesus was said to have put a curse on the fig tree. Why was he so surprised to find no figs on this tree? No fig tree in the northern hemisphere ever produces figs in late March. Does one curse a fig tree for doing what it is impossible to do? Could it be that this narrative was originally set in the fall of the year? It would certainly make more sense in a fall setting. Did this story get moved to March when the crucifixion came to be associated with the Passover? I think that is a distinct possibility. Once again, Matthew and Luke, both of whom, I repeat, wrote with Mark before them, seem to indicate that they knew something was wrong with this story at least in its present location. Matthew, seeking to rid himself of this story as quickly as possible, collapses it into a single event, not a two-part story as Mark tells it. Luke handles it by omitting this episode altogether, turning it into a parable later. Its location in the early spring of the year appears out of place, suggesting that perhaps it had been moved without much thought about the consequences when the crucifixion was moved to the season of Passover. The third reason for suggesting that the crucifixion was not originally set in the season of Passover, comes out of the content given to the description of the Palm Sunday procession in all three of the synoptic gospels. That content appears to have been borrowed from Sukkoth, the Jewish eight-day fall festival of the harvest. At Sukkoth, the Jews marched around the Temple waving something they called a “lulab,” a bunch of leafy branches made up of willow, myrtle and palm. As they marched waving these branches, they recited Psalm 118, which reads: “Hosanna in the Highest-Blessed is he (or the one) who comes in the Name of the Lord.” Those words should sound familiar to Christians. They are the words spoken by the crowds on Palm Sunday, but they have been lifted directly out of the Harvest Festival of the Jews, obviously a fall event. So my first conclusion is that we must break the identification that has connected the crucifixion with the season of Passover. It is not history, but a later liturgical adaptation which developed after Jesus came to be identified with the paschal lamb of Passover. So I allow the crucifixion narrative to break from its traditional moorings and to float freely in time. What is history, however, is that at the arrest of Jesus, all of the disciples forsook him and fled. Why am I so convinced of this? Because by the time the gospels were written, the disciples had become heroes. The tendency is to whitewash heroes, but apostolic abandonment did not flatter the disciples. Instead the gospels reveal an apologetic defense that was built around this desertion. This abandonment, they said, was done in order to fulfill the scriptures. They based this defense on a text from Zechariah (13:7), which reads, “Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.” The desertion of the disciples at the time of Jesus’ arrest, they asserted, was done not because of weaknesses in the disciples’ characters, but to enable them to play the role assigned to them by the scriptures. One does not build such a powerful defense of inappropriate behavior if that behavior did not actually happen. So I come to my second reconstruction conclusion. When Jesus was arrested his followers, all of them, not some of them, fled in fear. We need to embrace the overwhelmingly probable fact of history that Jesus died alone, his disciples had abandoned him. There were no eyewitnesses. Only when we embrace that probability can we begin to recreate the likely post-arrest behavior of the disciples. Where did they go? I expect they scattered. A collection of Galileans in Jerusalem, armed as they appear to have been, was highly suspicious. Their leader had been arrested. They might be next. Safety was in small numbers, maybe just one, or two, probably never more than three. Survival was their primary agenda. Perhaps some went into hiding. Perhaps others began their journey back to the safety of Galilee. Their emotions were a strange combination of fear and grief. Jesus was gone. Jesus had been the center of their lives, perhaps their hopes, but now he was dead. Any messianic dreams that they might have attached to him died with him. The Jews had no concept of a “dead messiah.” So his death meant that he could not have been what some of them at least thought he was. In Peter’s mind the closest sanctuary was not in fleeing immediately to Galilee. Those trails might well be guarded as the authorities looked for Jesus’ collaborators. Just two miles away was their headquarters for this Jerusalem journey. It was in Bethany, probably at the home of Mary and Martha. Peter could get there before sundown announced the beginning of the Sabbath. He could spend the Sabbath there in relative safety and then journey home at dawn on the first day of the week. So to Bethany, I believe he fled. Death brings guilt and anger with it. Were any of them at fault? Could they have done anything that would have made a difference? I suspect that in Bethany the story of Peter’s denial came up. That had to be real. It was much too indelible an experience, too guilt producing to have been suppressed. I suspect that some of the others, including Mary and Martha, vented their anger at Peter that night. Death, especially tragic death, always looks for someone to blame. I suspect that it was an uncomfortable night for Peter and it fueled his plans to leave at the crack of dawn, once the Sabbath had passed, to begin his journey back to Galilee. He wanted safety and solace, perhaps aloneness. With this speculative detail in place, the reconstruction of how Easter dawned has begun. We leave Peter in Bethany, bitter, guilty, angry, having been abused for his weakness, and resolved to return to the safety and anonymity of his home in Galilee as quickly as possible. The journey will continue next week. John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. Question & Answer Maxine, via the Internet, writes: Question: I do not know what is meant by the term “Ground of All Being” used by Paul Tillich and you. I do not get a concept of what the term means. I need someone to explain it to me in more understandable terms. I have read all of Marcus Borg’s books and can understand his terminology of Panentheism, but am lost on what is meant by “Ground of All Being.” Answer: Dear Maxine, Part of the power of that phrase, “Ground of All Being” is that it resists definition, so your quandary is both normal and natural. The phrase represents a rebellion against the idolatrous God definitions that mark human history. Historically, we human beings have defined God by analogy. God was like the tribal chief; God was like the king; God was like the father figure; God was like the judge. Then someone realized that all these images were male, so God by definition did not represent 50% of the human race. Human beings needed a God image bigger and more inclusive than that of an all-powerful male. We also noticed that the duties ascribed to the powerful male deity began to shrink as we learned more about how the universe operated. Were natural disasters instruments of God’s hostility? For centuries that was our explanation. Some primitive and unlearned religious figures still traffic in that kind of nonsense. It was Jerry Falwell who stated on television that the tragedy of 9/11 was caused presumably by God since America needed to be punished for tolerating abortion, feminism, homosexuality and the American Civil Liberties Union. Pat Robertson announced that the earthquake in Haiti was an expression of the Divine wrath at the Haitians for throwing the French out and declaring independence. The God understood as a supernatural male simply was no longer big enough to be the object of human worship. The question then was does this mean that there is no such thing as God? Or does it mean that our understanding and definition of God is so inept as to be false and misleading. The push to begin to think of God, not as a being, but as the Ground of Being was the result of this struggle. The phrase was introduced into philosophical language with the work of Plotinus in the third century (204-270 CE). It proved to be emotionally unsatisfying and so it languished. It was brought into Christianity and popularized by a man named Paul Tillich (1886-1965), who probably became the most influential Christian theologian in the 20th century. It presents us with a concept of God in whom all that is, is rooted. It suggests that God is an idea or presence that permeates all living things. It suggests that the more deeply and totally each of us can be all that we are capable of being, the more we make the God who is the Ground of Being visible. It sees the divinity of Jesus not in incarnational terms in which God is thought to have invaded the realm of the human, but as a human life which expanded until humanity was seen as part of what God is. It suggests that good is the enhancement of being and that evil is the denigration of being. Ultimately, this concept of God challenges traditional Christianity at every point. I got my theological degree in 1955 from the Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Virginia. My professor of theology, Clifford L. Stanley, was a thoroughgoing Tillichian. He challenged me in every way imaginable. The difficulty was that he was a lone voice on that faculty of “traditional believers” and so the thought of Paul Tillich was never integrated into the rest of Christianity. That has not happened yet. The concept of an external “theistic Being” operating on or in the world no longer has credibility and still the churches pray “Our Father, who art in heaven,” and speak of an intervening God who knows all and sees all. To re-image God from a being to the Ground of Being is a theological revolution of the first order. The leader or the church that tries to achieve that revolution will probably be defeated or will die trying. Not to participate in that revolution, however, is also to die. Yes, understanding the idea of God as the Ground of Being is difficult. It may never become clear to millions, but not to face the reality that God, understood as a being who is supernatural in power is also doomed, is the first step that must be taken. To put it another way: If one ceases to be a theist does that make one an atheist or can one be a non-theist and a profound Christian at the same time? I vote for this latter possibility, but I do not see many churches, denominations or theological seminaries either willing or capable of entering this arena. I think that is tragic because the future of Christianity lies in the willingness to walk into this uncharted territory. John Shelby Spong Announcements "The future of Christianity depends first on hearing the life-giving message of love that is the heart of the gospel and then transforming our various guilt-laden liturgies so that they too reflect this message. Without these things rising to consciousness inside the Christian church, I do not believe that there will be or can be a Christian future. So I live more in hope than in confidence as I view the life of institutional Christianity in its various manifestations in our world." ~Bishop Spong That's what we are here for! Find progressive, relevant, and meaningful liturgies here... and nourish your hope for the future of Christianity.

1 0

Who Could Have Known . . .?
by Gordon Harper via Dialogue 28 Oct '15

28 Oct '15

My Troublesome Colleagues -- I certainly couldn’t have anticipated the cascade of responses that my Brief Collegium note turns out to have precipitated. You have overwhelmed me with all your well wishes, memories, reflections, shared experiences, suggestions, quotations, music, art--such a cornucopia, an effulgence of gifts that could come only from you. My first reflection was that what you’d done had left me with a crushing burden of guilt. I felt that each of your thoughtful notes fully deserved--and has failed to receive--an equally personal word of appreciation from me. The severe diminution of energy that I’m living with simply made that impossible. This anemic state is the primary physical effect I experience from my form of leukemia, the result of inadequate production of red blood cells by my bone marrow. About all the time I could muster for working at my computer was taken by just reading your comments and doing triage on the numerous other message headers. This note, therefore, began as an excuse for that extended dereliction on my part and an attempt to express the heartfelt gratitude I have for each one of your responses. Each has been such a rich gift. I truly experience being enclosed by your circle of love and support, as well as by that of the cosmos itself. I found myself thinking that it was a good thing how frequently in our previous life we rehearsed that accountability had always to be followed by absolution. (Of course I also recall that it had to be pronounced by someone other than yourself.) In the course of my writing this, however, I’ve had a second reflection. I now recognize that I quite misconstrued the actual nature of your responses. They are of an entirely different order than personal notes expecting individual replies. Indeed, they are much more akin to the word we addressed to one another on the occasion of our birthday celebrations. We were expected, you will recall, to simply stand before the community and receive that word--no thank you, corrections or rebuttal permitted--we just had to allow our lives to be addressed in this way as an important part of celebrating our unique being. (Now, how’s that for creatively offloading the aforementioned burden of guilt?!) ----------------------- A brief update on our situation at this moment. By now, Roxana and I have handled the end of life paperwork and had good conversations with our kids over the week they spent with us, in which they got to ask many of the questions they’d always wanted time to explore. Some of this was video recorded for the grandchildren as well. In terms of the dance that this rare and unfamiliar form of leukemia (CMML) and I are doing, things seem to have leveled out a bit, at least for the moment. I’ve now shed about thirty pounds, am just below what the statisticians calculate to be my ideal weight and am approaching where I tipped the scale upon returning from India for Joe’s funeral, while still recovering from my bout with hepatitis. The only form of treatment we’re doing is the red blood transfusions (two so far), which seem to give my tired blood a bit of a boost. My doctor and I are seeking to learn how long we can extend the time between these (currently appears to be five or six weeks), since at some point we know they will cease to be effective. We’re not trying to fight the disease, rather learn from it and work with it. I’ve come to call this period of time since the diagnosis, Extraordinary Time (I think we used that term, in distinction to Ordinary Time, but I can no longer recall in what context). I’m particularly grateful for the work we did to explore and experiment with shifting our living patterns and time designs, discovering how fluid time can be. This has helped me to shape my days and nights into modules of roughly three hours each (shades of the Canonical Hours). When I finish a rest and restoration module (generally about two hours), I have a bit over three hours to use as creatively as possible before I need to go down again. These social modules are the occasions when Roxana and I schedule routine tasks, clinic visits, mealtimes, checking email, drop-ins from our local friends and the somewhat rare outside excursion that we hazard to places like church or the supermarket. At the start of one of these modules,I experience my highest level of energy; approaching the end of the three hours, my tank has run dry and I am visibly dragging. Surprising how natural and manageable this pattern has become. We keep our friends’ visits to under an hour, but during that time I am relatively perky, even moderately civil with our guests. I have trouble sleeping through the night, so somewhere between 2 and 5 am I regularly get up and do my daily stretch exercises, read, meditate and listen to classical music. I’m not in pain, beyond the normal aches and twitches for my age. Roxana and I have explored how our health care insurance handles palliative care, hospice service and even death with dignity (legal in WA state), for possible future reference. We suspect that hospice is the one we’ll draw on when this chronic state leukemia makes its anticipated transition to the acute form. Roxana continues to be my caretaker nonpareil. In addition to ensuring that I make and get to clinic appointments, accommodating my strange time designs and catering to some equally strange requests for foods that I come up with, she facilitates the phone calls with friends wanting updates or opportunities to come by. She somehow manages to find times for these that work for me and keeps my calendar current. When family members or close friends ask to stay with us (our living room hideabed has been surprisingly in use these past weeks), she plays Wayside Inn host to our guests with a flourish. Our Order community here in the Northwest also continues to be most supportive, even providing the meals when our kids were here with us. Vanity, as we know, never dies. I’ve indulged myself in a striking rosewood cane, which I can use when I go out, either as a sophisticated *New Yorker* walking stick (when I’m at peak energy) or as something to help keep my shaky balance when the tank is drying up. To facilitate streaming my favorite classical music station (WFMT Chicago, of course), you will find me sporting a new BOSE wireless headphone that provides exceptional sound reproduction. Last week, our 27 inch analog TV went to Goodwill, and a 40 inch flat screen replacement appeared in its place. Finally, I do always try to comb my hair and beard when I’m going to be on a Skype call with one of you. Even with limited mobility, it seems I’m still capable of causing a little trouble. Just recently, Bill and Sheila Westre dropped in, and Bill asked if I could help him with some technical support for a proposed direct action to wean one of our providers of electrical power here in the Northwest off its use of coal generated power. I was able to connect him with one of my most knowledgeable Occupy Movement colleagues, who just happens to have written the book on that particular technology. (So far, no word of any arrests in the Seattle paper.) -------------------------- I hope this provides a vignette of where things stand at present. We’re trying to take each day as a special gift, I’m practicing mindfulness of the given moment and rendering up each day to the Mystery at its conclusion. Roxana and I deeply appreciate all that you’ve done to make this Extraordinary Time the blessing it is for both of us -- Gordon

6 5

Re: [Dialogue] [ICA_Aus_Faculty] Re: Risk Management
by Bryant, Hedy via Dialogue 27 Oct '15

27 Oct '15

Thanks Mark Yes this is the model that I used in my Board work. We also use something like this at CSU – I can’t find it at the moment so I have attached the one for Uni of Adelaide. Cheers Hedy Hedy Bryant Acting Manager Diversity and Equity | Division of Human Resources and Program Coordinator Introduction to Leadership for Women Program Certified Professional Facilitator (International Assoc. of Facilitators) Charles Sturt University Panorama Avenue Bathurst, NSW 2795 Australia Tel: +61 2 63384555 Fax: +61 2 63384555 Email: hbryant(a)csu.edu.au<mailto:name@csu.edu.au> www.csu.edu.au<http://www.csu.edu.au/> I work variable days and will respond to your email within 3 days Twitter<http://twitter.com/charlessturtuni> | Facebook<http://facebook.com/charlessturtuni> | LinkedIn<http://linkedin.com/groups?gid=163050> | YouTube<http://youtube.com/user/CharlesSturtUni> Give Generously – Help students to achieve their goals. You can help Australians to go to University and succeed in their studies by giving to the Charles Sturt University Foundation. To find out more or to make a donation, go to the Foundation www.csu.edu.au/special/foundation<http://www.csu.edu.au/special/foundation> website. Australian donations are tax deductible. From: ICA_Aus_Faculty(a)yahoogroups.com [mailto:ICA_Aus_Faculty@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 2015 7:52 AM To: ICA_Aus_Faculty(a)yahoogroups.com; 'ICA_Aus(a)yahoogroups.com'; 'Charles Jago'; 'Dialogue ICA' Subject: RE: [ICA_Aus_Faculty] Re: Risk Management Hi Frank & all Frank, thanks for revealing nostalgic music as a legal way to get ‘high’ – will try it out tonight My work has a slightly different take on this – many of my clients in government and not-for-profits work within a broadly consistent frame, although the process varies: A preferred state or a set of preferred actions are analysed for risk by 1) identifying risk and 2) assessing both likeli hood and impact of that risk As a guide to priority effort, these can be plotted in a simple quadrant (there had to be a quadrant!) e.g. likelihood on vertical axis, impact on horizontal axis: High likelihood + Low impact High likelihood + High impact Low impact + Low likelihood High impact + Low likelihood The priority effort needs to be focused on upper right risks – this involves strategies and actions to mitigate the impact and/or to reduce the likelihood of that risk biting Little effort is warranted in lower left, and the others need case-by-case thought (although most will retain some focus on high impact risks, regardless of perceived likelihood) Compared with ToP, there are lots of helpful consistencies e.g.: - generating the preferred state (desired future, practical vision) or initial set of actions or actions to mitigate and avoid risk can be done by focused conversation or workshop (depending on scale and context) - addressing ̵ 6;risk’ requires people to layer down to causal factors (I am avoiding ‘root cause analysis’ here because it has become tainted with controversy) – essentially, to work out what is driving what (what begets what) because if we target risk mitigation & avoidance actions further down the chain of causality, we have can have an effect on multiple identified risks – we sap the strength from ‘below’ - not much different from the approach commonly taken for contradictions (underlying obstacles, underlying reality) - in explaining this to participants beforehand, I like to have a conversation about road safety, work safety or health to illustrate how a range of factors for both avoidance of likelihood and mitigation of impact might be considered (personal protective equipment is a common one – sometimes we can’t or don’t want to avoid a situation but we can reduce its impact with forethought about having protective apparatus available) - plotting into the quadrant is a case of using ‘given categories’ (often a workshop) – this is a very useful dialogue for participants about the interaction between the nature of their business, the way they do business, and their working context(s) - after this analysis, a set of (targeted) mitigating or avoiding actions is generated (generally a workshop) All of that is consistent with what Charles has said more precisely – I hope it helps Best wishes Mark From: ICA_Aus_Faculty(a)yahoogroups.com<mailto:ICA_Aus_Faculty@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:ICA_Aus_Faculty@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 2015 12:08 AM To: ICA_Aus(a)yahoogroups.com<mailto:ICA_Aus@yahoogroups.com>; Charles Jago; Dialogue ICA; Faculty ToP Subject: [ICA_Aus_Faculty] Re: Risk Management Thanks Charles. The Wikipedia item is useful, too. ________________________________ To: ICA_Aus(a)yahoogroups.com<mailto:ICA_Aus@yahoogroups.com> From: ICA_Aus(a)yahoogroups.com<mailto:ICA_Aus@yahoogroups.com> Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 23:08:12 +1100 Subject: [ICA_Aus] Re: Risk Management Hi Frank and all My "project management" mostly in information technology projects involved a lot of risk management. It comes down to what could go wrong, so that you have plans in place to deal with eventualities. Also awareness to notice issues before they get out of hand. Some of these are quite basic, such as what happens if there is a flood, power failure, financial crisis or whatever. This is a big deal for pilots, where accidents happen when things aren't under control. Airline risks are usually OK until two or more things go wrong at once, leading to accidents. < p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white;">From my perspective, contradictions focus more on the underlying things, while most risk management is fairly objective. People in risk management do brainstorming and classifying risks, so that could look like an issues workshop. So there is some overlap. Over time, especially with the introduction of ISO 31000, risk management has moved to cover more systemic issues, so this would also feed the overlap with contradictions you have noticed. Wikipedia has good coverage of risk management<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management>. Cheers Charles ._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: frank bremner <fjbremner(a)hotmail.com<mailto:fjbremner@hotmail.com>> G'day colleagues I'm on a bit of a "high", having been to a concert with Burt Bacharach last night - two hours, no interval, and almost every Bacharach song you could think of - even back to Liberty Valance and 24 Hours from Tulsa. Great backing musicians (about a dozen) and singers (three plus some of the musicians). And at almost half-price, thanks to a group called Lasttix, who promote slow-selling shows. Anyway, down to business. I've been helping a friend doing a TAFE-level course in Man aging Risk. (TAFE = Technical and Further Education > similar to the US community college.) I've not touched "risk" in this context before. Has anyone done so? Risk Management, from the "management" area, seems to overlap with the area we used to call Contradictions. Any reflections? Cheers Frank Bremner __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Mark Butz" <mark.butz(a)bigpond.com<mailto:mark.butz@bigpond.com>> ________________________________ Reply via web post<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ICA_Aus_Faculty/conversations/messages/…> • Reply to sender <mailto:mark.butz@bigpond.com?subject=RE%3A%20%5BICA_Aus_Faculty%5D%20Re%3A%20Risk%20Management> • Reply to group <mailto:ICA_Aus_Faculty@yahoogroups.com?subject=RE%3A%20%5BICA_Aus_Faculty%5D%20Re%3A%20Risk%20Management> • Start a New Topic<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ICA_Aus_Faculty/conversations/newtopic;…> • Messages in this topic<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ICA_Aus_Faculty/conversations/topics/11…> (3) Visit Your Group<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ICA_Aus_Faculty/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdXFrM…> [Yahoo! Groups]<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcjZpNnR1BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkA…> • Privacy<https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • Unsubscribe<mailto:ICA_Aus_Faculty-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use<https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> . __,_._,___ [Charles Sturt University]<http://www.csu.edu.au/> | ALBURY-WODONGA | BATHURST | CANBERRA | DUBBO | GOULBURN | MELBOURNE | ORANGE | PORT MACQUARIE | SYDNEY | WAGGA WAGGA | ________________________________ LEGAL NOTICE This email (and any attachment) is confidential and is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not copy, distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone. Any confidentiality is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery. Email should be checked for viruses and defects before opening. Charles Sturt University (CSU) does not accept liability for viruses or any consequence which arise as a result of this email transmission. Email communications with CSU may be subject to automated email filtering, which could result in the delay or deletion of a legitimate email before it is read at CSU. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily those of CSU. Charles Sturt University in Australia<http://www.csu.edu.au> The Grange Chancellery, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst NSW Australia 2795 (ABN: 83 878 708 551; CRICOS Provider Number: 00005F (National)). TEQSA Provider Number: PV12018 Consider the environment before printing this email.

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] Risk Management
by frank bremner via Dialogue 26 Oct '15

26 Oct '15

Thanks Charles. The Wikipedia item is useful, too. To: ICA_Aus(a)yahoogroups.com From: ICA_Aus(a)yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 23:08:12 +1100 Subject: [ICA_Aus] Re: Risk Management Hi Frank and all My "project management" mostly in information technology projects involved a lot of risk management. It comes down to what could go wrong, so that you have plans in place to deal with eventualities. Also awareness to notice issues before they get out of hand. Some of these are quite basic, such as what happens if there is a flood, power failure, financial crisis or whatever. This is a big deal for pilots, where accidents happen when things aren't under control. Airline risks are usually OK until two or more things go wrong at once, leading to accidents. >From my perspective, contradictions focus more on the underlying things, while most risk management is fairly objective. People in risk management do brainstorming and classifying risks, so that could look like an issues workshop. So there is some overlap. Over time, especially with the introduction of ISO 31000, risk management has moved to cover more systemic issues, so this would also feed the overlap with contradictions you have noticed. Wikipedia has good coverage of risk management. Cheers Charles __._,_.___ Posted by: Charles Jago <charles(a)cejago.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2) Visit Your Group • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___

1 0

Risk Management
by frank bremner via Dialogue 25 Oct '15

25 Oct '15

G'day colleagues I'm on a bit of a "high", having been to a concert with Burt Bacharach last night - two hours, no interval, and almost every Bacharach song you could think of - even back to Liberty Valance and 24 Hours from Tulsa. Great backing musicians (about a dozen) and singers (three plus some of the musicians). And at almost half-price, thanks to a group called Lasttix, who promote slow-selling shows. Anyway, down to business. I've been helping a friend doing a TAFE-level course in Managing Risk. (TAFE = Technical and Further Education > similar to the US community college.) I've not touched "risk" in this context before. Has anyone done so? Risk Management, from the "management" area, seems to overlap with the area we used to call Contradictions. Any reflections? Cheers Frank Bremner

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] Dialogue Digest, Vol 43, Issue 11
by via Dialogue 24 Oct '15

24 Oct '15

Funny, I just watched Salvatore give a tour of the five elements park of the Litibu settlement that Gordon took and uploaded to YouTube (TG I can finally access YouTube), and thought about Patricia and her fury (being in a typhoon belt and just got devastated by one in early August). Good to know Jack and crew went up to higher grounds! j'aime la vie yesterday, appreciate; tomorrow, anticipate; today, participate! in all, celebrate! -----Original Message----- From: via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> To: dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Sat, Oct 24, 2015 3:09 am Subject: Dialogue Digest, Vol 43, Issue 11 Send Dialogue mailing list submissions to dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to dialogue-request(a)lists.wedgeblade.net You can reach the person managing the list at dialogue-owner(a)lists.wedgeblade.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Dialogue digest..." Today's Topics: 1. 10/22/15, Spong: Creating Easter V: How did Easter Dawn? What was the Context? (Ellie Stock via Dialogue) 2. Any word from Jack Gilles (George Holcombe via Dialogue) 3. Re: Any word from Jack Gilles (Jack Gilles via Dialogue) 4. Re: Any word from Jack Gilles (Wilson Priscilla H via Dialogue) 5. Re: Any word from Jack Gilles (Jack Gilles via Dialogue) 6. Re: Any word from Jack Gilles (Randy Williams via Dialogue) 7. Re: Any word from Jack Gilles (Doris Hahn via Dialogue) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:14:08 -0400 From: Ellie Stock via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> To: dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net, oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net Subject: [Dialogue] 10/22/15, Spong: Creating Easter V: How did Easter Dawn? What was the Context? Message-ID: <150912feca7-6173-55d7(a)webprd-m43.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR Re-Creating Easter V How did Easter Dawn? What was the Context? We are told, but only in Luke?s gospel, that when Cleopas and his traveling companion returned from Emmaus to Jerusalem to share their experience of the risen Christ with the disciples, they used these provocative words: ?He was made known to us in the breaking of the bread? (Luke 24:35). These interpretive words, written some 60-65 years after the crucifixion, nonetheless provide the first overt biblical hint that somehow the experience of the resurrection might have been related to the Eucharist. We now grasp that clue and seek to probe it, even to expand it, by looking for additional clues in all of the feeding stories in the New Testament. Is there a pattern here? Can clues found here shout out new possibilities? My first step is, therefore, to examine all of the feeding stories in the gospels looking for insights. The earliest mention of the Eucharist in the New Testament comes in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, dated about 54 CE. That would make it some 18 years earlier than the first gospel. This suggests that long before the narrative of the last supper appears in any gospel account, the Eucharist was functioning as part of Christian worship. In this early first source, Paul introduces it this way: ?The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread and when he had given thanks (or blessed it), he broke it and said: ?This is my body given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.? In the same way, he took the cup, after supper, saying: ?This is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.? Then he summed up the meaning of these words by saying: ?For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord?s death until he comes.?? This early passage is worthy of serious study. We need to see exactly what this 6th decade text says without polluting its meaning with last supper references drawn from the much later gospels. How did the pre-gospel, primitive church understand this liturgical act? First, note that the word that has been translated ?betrayed? (in Greek paredidoto) means literally ?handed over.? That is the earliest place in the Christian story where the idea that Jesus was betrayed is noted. Paul, however, never mentions Judas and he gives us no sense that this ?handing over? was actually done by one of Jesus? disciples. Those notes would be added later as the tradition developed. We do observe, however, just four chapters later in this same epistle, Paul states, describing Easter, that on the first day of the week Jesus appeared ?first to Cephas? and then to ?the Twelve.? In Paul?s mind three days after the crucifixion ?the Twelve? was still intact. No defection had happened. That detail usually surprises people. The second thing to note about this earliest reference to the Christian Eucharist was that it was not identified as a Passover meal; that connection also had not yet been made. The third noteworthy thing is that Paul says that in repeating this Eucharistic act, they would ?show forth the Lord?s death until he comes.? The Eucharist was an interpretation of the crucifixion and death of Jesus. No connotation of resurrection was yet associated with it. The final thing to note is that Paul used a stylized vocabulary to relate this episode. Jesus ?takes,? ?blesses? (or gives thanks), ?breaks? and then distributes or ?gives? the bread to the disciples. Paul then stated that this bread was symbolic of Jesus? body, which was broken in the crucifixion, and that the cup of wine, which was also taken and distributed, was symbolic of the new covenant sealed in his blood. There was clearly something powerful and crucial about this liturgical act, but its focus was on interpreting Jesus? death, not in pointing to the resurrection. Next we look at all of the feeding stories in the New Testament. There are six narratives about Jesus feeding a multitude related in the four gospels. It is the only miraculous act, other than the resurrection, to appear in all four of the gospels. Two feeding the multitudes stories are in Mark and in Matthew, but only one is in Luke and John. In Mark and Matthew, where two distinctly different feeding stories are included, other symbols abound. On the Jewish side of the lake it is with five loaves and two fish that five thousand are fed, after which twelve baskets of fragments are collected. Two chapters later, Jesus repeats this act, but this time on the Gentile side of the lake with seven loaves and a few fish being used to feed four thousand. After this feeding seven baskets of fragments are collected. Surely, these are not literal or random numbers; they are picked for a reason. In both stories the symbolic Eucharistic words are used. Jesus takes, blesses, breaks and gives. This means that these stories reflect the Eucharistic act, an act that pre-dates the gospels by decades. What, therefore, did this primal liturgical act originally mean? What was its significance? We move next to the biblical narratives of Jesus? Last Supper. We have that meal described in Mark, Matthew and Luke, but not in John. In each episode the Eucharistic formula is included. Jesus takes the bread, blesses it, breaks it and gives it. He adds some interpretive words according to each gospel. In Mark, he says: ?This is my body? as he distributes the bread, and he says: ?This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many,? when he gives the cup. Then he adds these words, ?I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.? What does that mean? In Matthew, Jesus says of the bread: ?Take, eat; this is my body,? and as he distributed the cup he says: ?Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father?s kingdom.? The words are slightly different, but the meaning is still not clear. In Luke?s gospel, the words of Jesus vary again. He introduces the Eucharistic act by saying: ?I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.? Then after taking the bread and giving thanks, he says: ?Take this and divide it among yourselves for I tell you,? he says, repeating his previous words, ?that from now on, I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.? Then, once again, he repeats the key verbs. He took, blessed, broke and gave, saying: ?This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.? John does not describe the last supper, giving that space to the story of washing Peter?s feet, but in the Epilogue to his gospel, a meal shared between Jesus and his disciples is described. It takes place early in the morning on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The elements in this Eucharist are not bread and wine, but bread and fish, the elements used in the feeding of the multitude stories. The bread, presumably was taken from storage on the boat, and the fish from the miraculous catch just hauled in. Jesus presides over this meal, the familiar verbs are used with one omission. Jesus takes the bread, blesses it and gives it; he does not break it. By the time John was written, Jesus himself has been identified with the bread of life. He even claims to be this bread. In John, the bread of life is broken only once and that was on the cross. So in this post-crucifixion story, the body of Christ is not broken, perhaps cannot be broken again. What do we make of these facts? The Eucharist is present in every feeding story. They all appear to anticipate, not the resurrection so much as the coming of the Kingdom of God. They point to the reality that something elemental in the Christian experience is connected with the Eucharist. Is it possible that the Eucharist was a liturgical action in which Peter?s eyes were opened to see the meaning of the resurrection? Was the Eucharist designed by the followers of Jesus to reorient the angle of vision in every generation to the context in which the Easter experience was born? Was Easter more about understanding the crucifixion and seeing Jesus? role in establishing the Kingdom of God, than it was about seeing Jesus raised from the dead? Those are the conclusions that I am forced to draw and they coincide with the words of Cleopas in Luke?s gospel when he says to the disciples: ?He was made known to us in the breaking of the bread.? So we are forced to consider some new possibilities. Was the resurrection of Jesus an event in history? That is what literal-minded people have argued through the centuries, but the New Testament suggests otherwise. The Eucharist interprets ?the death of Jesus until he comes,? said Paul in 54 CE. It was the death of Jesus not the resurrection in which the reality of God was revealed. The death of Jesus was an event in history, but was the resurrection? In I Corinthians, Paul says ?Jesus was seen? by a list of witnesses. The Greek word that has been translated ?was seen,? however, was ophthe, the word from which we derive our word ophthalmology, but what kind of seeing was being described? Was it physical seeing? Was it insight? Was it second sight? We know that the word ophthe was also the Greek word used to translate Moses? ?seeing? of God at the burning bush in the book of Exodus. Did Moses see God as a physical entity? Could God have been photographed? Is the language of resurrection the kind of language that cannot be liter alized, but can only point us to something beyond the power of words to capture? Is the resurrection too profound a reality to be reduced to words? Can resurrection still be real if it is not or was not physical? These are the questions with which we must wrestle if we are to recreate the moment when Easter dawned. Next week we will begin to draw these clues together into a single, cohesive narrative, so stay tuned. John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. Question & Answer John R. Brehmer, via the Internet, writes: Question: It may have been 1980 when the assassination of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero made headlines that I became interested in liberation theology only to see the concept crushed by Papal orders and brutal military suppression. I had a life to live, however, and a family to support so problems so far away did not occupy much of my thinking then and for the next twenty to thirty years. But during those years I was also dismayed at the retrenchment of the Vatican on so many social needs issues and was shocked that the attitude of the church had trumped piety over social action. So now in 2015 under Pope Francis, we have the beatification of Oscar Romero (hopefully soon to be Saint Romero) and the appointment of Gerhard Ludwig Muller to Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the renewed interest in the writings of Gustavo Gutierrez. This is great news for not only Latin America, but for all of us, religious and secular, concerned with preferential treatment for the poor. Would you give us your blessings on this change (philosophy, attitude, imperative) knowing that we will continue to fight for justice regardless of attitudes around us, but we are interested in your opinions? Answer: Dear John, I remember so well the murder of Archbishop Romero. I recall the thrill of reading the writings of both Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff. At that time in my life I was wrestling with the issue of the repression of people of color in the United States. Segregation had been declared by the Supreme Court as ?inherently unequal.? Desegregation had been ordered with ?all deliberate speed.? The mainline churches in the United States, Catholic and Protestant, were silent backers of the status quo. Massive resistance to the law of the land was the name of the official response in the state of Virginia. The ?liberal? position was articulated by the Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina. It was called ?gradualism,? which basically meant that justice for black people was to move at a pace slow enough so as not to offend white people! Archbishop Romero, Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff and their Protestant American counterparts, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy and John Hines, ca lled the church to look at the gospel of Jesus through the eyes of the poor, the victims of prejudice and the oppressed. The religious establishment struck back. Romero was murdered, Boff was ?laicized,? King was murdered and Hines had financial support withdrawn and was ultimately rendered so ineffective that he had to resign. God was clearly seen as on the side of the establishment and against the poor. The people chosen to be Pope were more and more conservative and oppressive in thought and action. When John Hines was forced out of the leadership of the Episcopal Church, the Bishop of Mississippi, Hines? ideological opposite, was chosen to succeed him. When the great progressive Pope John XXIII died prematurely in 1963 after only four years and seven months in the papal office, he was succeeded by ever increasingly retrogressive occupants of the See of Rome: Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Attempts were made by many of these Christian leaders to asso ciate the members of the Civil Rights movement with communism. It was a dark time for Christianity in the world. A witness to truth, however, is never futile and justice will finally prevail. Pope Francis is a sign of that. His conversations with Gutierrez have helped to fulfill his commitment to make the poor the center of his papacy. The change in the leadership in the Vatican position of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine and Faith of the Church, once called the Office of the Inquisition, is another sign. The election of first, a brilliant woman, Katharine Jefferts-Schori and then a courageous African-American, Michael Curry, to be the presiding bishops of the Episcopal Church is yet another. What all of these things say to me is not only that a new day is dawning, but also that one?s witness to truth, even at the cost of one?s life, is never in vain. Oppression of truth and justice will never finally succeed. One does not act in fear, but in faith. One puts one?s life on the line and lets the chips fall where they may. The arc of the universe finally tends toward justice. Thank you for writing. John Shelby Spong Announcements Join the Bishop Spong community on Facebook!

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] Any word from Jack Gilles
by Dawn Collins via Dialogue 24 Oct '15

24 Oct '15

May our dear friend, Jack and the beloved community in Mexico weather this night and the approaching storm in God's care and keeping. Dawn ------------------------------------------- On Fri, 10/23/15, Jeanette Stanfield via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Any word from Jack Gilles To: "Wilson Priscilla H" <pris(a)teamtechpress.com> Cc: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: Friday, October 23, 2015, 6:12 PM Advisories at this moment indicate that hurricane is southwest of Guadalajara and moving inland. Jack indicated earlier that they were moving folks away from sea level and preparing for rains which will be strong into tomorrow. jeanette On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Wilson Priscilla H via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: Who else is with Jack…or is he there alone. The news doesn’t sound too good.Priscilla Wilson On Oct 23, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Evelyn Philbrook via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: Good question, has anyone heard from Jack? Evelyn who knows about typhoons and hurricanes in Taiwan On 10/23/15 9:10 PM, George Holcombe via Dialogue wrote: The strongest hurricane to ever make landfall is coming ashore near where he lives in Mexico. Anyone have news from Jack? George Holcombe 14900 Yellowleaf Tr. Austin, TX 78728 Mobile 512/252-2756 geowanda1(a)me.com "Whatever the problem, community is the answer. There is no power greater than a community discovering what it cares about." Margaret Wheatley _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net -- Facilitator and Social Artist 3Fl, #12, Lane 5, Tien Mu West Road Taipei, Taiwan 11156 Tel:8862-2871-3150 email: joyful52(a)gmail.com or joyful(a)icatw.com skype: joyfuleakp Cell: 886926682821 _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net Wilson Priscilla Hpris(a)teamtechpress.comwww.teamtechpress.com follow me on:LinkedinTwitter, #prishwilsonFacebook _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

1 0

10/15/15, Spong: Creating Easter IV When? The Question of Time
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 24 Oct '15

24 Oct '15

- HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR Re-Creating Easter IV When? The Question of Time Life-changing “revelations” may well be timeless, but the one receiving these revelations is always bound in time. These insights invade time at a particular moment. We seek now to discover just when it was that the meaning of Easter first broke into human consciousness. The original Easter story provides us with some time references but, like most of the details in the biblical narrative, the content of those references is confusing and contradictory. Paul is the first New Testament writer to attach a time reference to the Easter story. “On the third day, he was raised,” Paul asserted. What does “the third day” mean? Is it a literal measure of chronological time? Or is it a symbol that stands for an undefined period of time? Literal minds have always assumed that Paul’s words “on the third day” referred to a specific day, perhaps as much as seventy-two hours later, for that is what the term “on the third day” usually means. When Mark, writing about a decade after Paul’s death, picks up the story he changes Paul’s time designation from “on the third day” to “after three days.” This change, however, does not give us the same day. If we are measuring from Friday, the day of the crucifixion, then “on the third day” would be Sunday, with Friday being day one, Saturday day two and Sunday the third day. If, on the other hand, the phrase “after three days” is a literal time measure, it means after Friday, Saturday and Sunday, so that Monday becomes the resurrection day. It is thus of interest to note that Matthew, who had Mark in front of him when they wrote, changed Mark’s time references to “after three days” (Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34), to “on the third day” (Matt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19). Matthew, however, is not consistent elsewhere. In a story that only he relates about the chief priests seeking Pilate’s permission to place a guard around Jesus’ tomb to prevent his disciples from stealing his body, Matthew seems to forget that he has made this change and in this narrative, he quotes Jesus as having said, “after three days I will rise” (Matt 27:63). Mathew complicates this time reference further by having Jesus say to the Pharisees, who were asking him for a sign: “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a whale, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt 12:40). Three days and three nights? Count the time. Jesus was buried at sundown on Friday so Friday sundown to Saturday dawn is one night. Saturday dawn to Saturday sunset is one day. Saturday sunset to Sunday dawn is two nights. Sunday dawn to Sunday sunset is two days. Sunday sunset to Monday dawn is three nights. Monday dawn to Monday sunset is three days. That is not the first day of the week. The symbol “three days” wobbles significantly in the New Testament. The wobble is introduced by Matthew. Turning now to Luke, who also has Mark in front of him when he writes, we note that he changes two of Mark’s references to “after three days” to “on the third day” (Luke 12:20, 13:32) and he omits the third. Luke also builds “the third day” into his Emmaus Road story (Luke 24:13-35) and he reiterates this time measure by placing it into the mouth of the raised Jesus himself (Luke 24:46). Clearly pressure seems to be coming from some source in the early church to have the words “on the third day” become the proper time measure for marking the resurrection of Jesus. Can we identify the source of that pressure? I think we can. By the time the gospels were written, 42-70 years after the crucifixion, a liturgical pattern had developed among the followers of Jesus. The gospel narratives all date the dawn of Easter as having occurred very early on “the first day of the week.” This day later would be called the day of the resurrection and celebrated as such in Christian worship. Since the crucifixion was identified with Friday, the resurrection came to be identified with Sunday, “the first day of the week.” This meant that it was “the third day.” A resurrection liturgy, observed on the first day of the week was then read back into the Easter narratives. It was not the other way round. This means that even though the third day symbol was set when the gospels were created, an earlier debate was still remembered. The earliest time reference to the Easter event does not appear to have been set firmly or literally and each gospel in its own way bears witness to that. As we noted earlier, Mark never tells us a story of the risen Christ appearing to anyone. He rather presents a messenger who makes the resurrection announcement to the women at the tomb at dawn on the first day of the week. Obviously, the tomb was located in Jerusalem where the crucifixion occurred outside the city walls. The messenger directed the women to instruct the disciples, who presumably were still in Jerusalem, to return to Galilee with the promise that in Galilee they would “see” the raised Christ. If Jesus was to be seen as “resurrected” in Galilee by his disciples, however, there was no way that this “seeing” could have occurred within the framework of a three-day period. Galilee was a seven to ten day journey from Jerusalem. So how could this reality fit into Mark’s suggestion that the resurrection occurred within three days after the crucifixion? Matthew, who does describe this Galilean appearance of the raised Jesus, has the same problem. For the disciples to have returned from Jerusalem to Galilee to “see” the raised Christ there, that could not have happened inside the parameters of the three day symbol. Luke addresses this problem by omitting any return to Galilee. The Easter experience for Luke was a Jerusalem phenomenon. The disciples did not return home. So Luke has the first appearance of the raised Christ occur to a man named Cleopas in the village of Emmaus near Jerusalem at about sundown on the first day of the week. Luke is, therefore, clearly within the traditional three days’ time frame. Luke is not, however, confined to that time frame. He goes on to refer to multiple appearances of the raised Christ that supposedly occurred over a period of forty days (Acts 1:3). “On the third day” is thus coupled with another time measure, namely “forty days.” “Forty” is a familiar measure of time in the Bible. Jesus fasted in the wilderness for forty days. So Luke now suggests that resurrection appearances also occur over a similar period of time. These appearances, says Luke, cease quite abruptly when Jesus is taken from them in an act, which Luke alone relates, called “the Ascension.” Finally, we look at the time line regarding the resurrection in the Fourth Gospel. Easter dawns in this gospel when the empty tomb is discovered by Mary Magdalene alone early on the first day of the week. She runs, we are told, to the disciples, who presumably are still in hiding in Jerusalem, to inform them of this emptiness. Two of them, John says, Peter and the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” came to check out that fact. Both see, but only the “Beloved Disciple” believes. John then follows this narrative with a story of the risen Christ actually appearing first to Mary Magdalene at the tomb later, and on that same day at the time of the evening meal, to the disciples in Jerusalem, where they were hiding in a secure place with the windows shut and the doors locked. When this narrative is complete, we are surprised to discover that one of the twelve, Thomas, was not present. So the story is repeated “after eight days,” on the first day of the second week. So resurrection in the Fourth Gospel is extended to cover eight days. With this second episode, most scholars believe that the writer of the Fourth Gospel completed his story. An Epilogue, Chapter 21, however, has been added to the text of this gospel by an unknown hand. This epilogue is set in a very different period of time. Weeks, perhaps months, have passed since the crucifixion. The disciples’ grief is less intense. A degree of normalcy has returned. These followers of Jesus have begun to pick up the routines of their pre-Jesus lives. First, Peter announces, “I am going fishing” (John 21:3). That is not a reference to a recreational activity. It is a statement that he is returning to the fishing trade of his life. The others say, “We will go with you.” They are already in Galilee, near the sea where they plied their fishing trade. So off they go into the Sea of Galilee to trawl the waters with their nets. We are told that they catch nothing. As the dawn breaks, they return to the shore. There a stranger suggests they cast their nets on the other side of the boat; they do so and the catch is so large that their nets break. They now recognize the stranger as Jesus. Coming ashore, they build a fire, place some of their catch on the coals to cook. They take bread which they had with them on the boat and together they eat a meal on the shore. Bread and fish had once fed the multitudes, now bread and fish will feed the disciples. The raised Jesus is the host for this meal, he takes the bread and blesses it. He does not break it, but he distributes it. In the mind of the epilogue writer there was only one time when the bread of life was broken and that was on the cross. Then Peter is restored in a direct confrontation with the resurrected Jesus. That completes the New Testament memory about the “time” when Easter dawned. So did resurrection dawn on the third day, after three days, 7-10 days later in Galilee, over a period of 40 days, over eight days, or was it even months after the crucifixion when resurrection dawned on the consciousness of first Peter and then on the rest of the disciples? We break open the literalness of the three day symbol and we place a long lasting, but undetermined span of time into our story. We entertain the possibility that Easter might be separated from the crucifixion by months, perhaps even as long as a year! The clues are many. A new perspective on Easter is emerging. The story is not yet complete, so stay tuned. John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. Question & Answer John Foster, Retd. Lt. Col. of the USMC, writes: Question: I was listening to an audible.com book created through the Great Courses that addressed Books that Changed the World. During one of the discussed books (the Book of Job), the professor stated that the best translation of the Bible books was the King James Version. I was taken aback by this. From my earlier studies, I learned from Dr. Ehrman that the King James translators failed to work off the oldest of the known copies of ancient manuscripts; hence, we must assume that the King James Version might not be as accurate as one might expect. Have you come to a conclusion on which published Bible is the more accurate reflection of ancient Bible books? Answer: Dear John, Thank you for your letter. I too listen to the Great Courses from the Teaching Company, which enrich my life enormously. I take 10-12 of their university professors, including Bart Ehrman, a year and still cherish the hope that someday I will be an educated man. In regard to your question, Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina is correct. The King James Version of the Bible is a beautiful, treasured Elizabethan expression of the English language. King James did the world a great service when he ordered it to be translated. The translators also did a magnificent job. What was known about biblical sources in 1611, however, is but a fragment of what is known about them today. If it is accuracy you cherish, then the King James Version is not the biblical source that you ought to read. I still prefer the Revised Standard Version though I cringe at some of its sexist language. The New Revised Standard Version sought to get rid of that sexist aspect but, in the process of being politically correct, I believe it violated the intention of the original gospel writers in a number of places. I still use the NRSV along with the RSV, but if I had to pick one, it would still be the RSV. I note that you are retired from the Marine Corps. Our daughter was a marine for nine years, serving three tours of duty in the II Iraq war. I came to admire what the Marines have done and what they stand for, without always approving of the wars in which our nation has engaged, so I want to thank you for your service. John Shelby Spong Announcements Dear Friend, We have been leaders in the fight for inclusion and equality since our inception and have been a primary voice in the recognition of gay rights, which has directly born results. We will continue to fight for the full equality of all beings. The world needs to hear the strong voice of an informed and compassionate Christianity that embraces the life and teachings of Jesus as wisdom for our time. Support our continued fight for equality by chipping in today.

9 10

10/22/15, Spong: Creating Easter V: How did Easter Dawn? What was the Context?
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 22 Oct '15

22 Oct '15

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR Re-Creating Easter V How did Easter Dawn? What was the Context? We are told, but only in Luke’s gospel, that when Cleopas and his traveling companion returned from Emmaus to Jerusalem to share their experience of the risen Christ with the disciples, they used these provocative words: “He was made known to us in the breaking of the bread” (Luke 24:35). These interpretive words, written some 60-65 years after the crucifixion, nonetheless provide the first overt biblical hint that somehow the experience of the resurrection might have been related to the Eucharist. We now grasp that clue and seek to probe it, even to expand it, by looking for additional clues in all of the feeding stories in the New Testament. Is there a pattern here? Can clues found here shout out new possibilities? My first step is, therefore, to examine all of the feeding stories in the gospels looking for insights. The earliest mention of the Eucharist in the New Testament comes in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, dated about 54 CE. That would make it some 18 years earlier than the first gospel. This suggests that long before the narrative of the last supper appears in any gospel account, the Eucharist was functioning as part of Christian worship. In this early first source, Paul introduces it this way: “The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread and when he had given thanks (or blessed it), he broke it and said: ‘This is my body given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, he took the cup, after supper, saying: ‘This is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.’ Then he summed up the meaning of these words by saying: ‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.’” This early passage is worthy of serious study. We need to see exactly what this 6th decade text says without polluting its meaning with last supper references drawn from the much later gospels. How did the pre-gospel, primitive church understand this liturgical act? First, note that the word that has been translated “betrayed” (in Greek paredidoto) means literally “handed over.” That is the earliest place in the Christian story where the idea that Jesus was betrayed is noted. Paul, however, never mentions Judas and he gives us no sense that this “handing over” was actually done by one of Jesus’ disciples. Those notes would be added later as the tradition developed. We do observe, however, just four chapters later in this same epistle, Paul states, describing Easter, that on the first day of the week Jesus appeared “first to Cephas” and then to “the Twelve.” In Paul’s mind three days after the crucifixion “the Twelve” was still intact. No defection had happened. That detail usually surprises people. The second thing to note about this earliest reference to the Christian Eucharist was that it was not identified as a Passover meal; that connection also had not yet been made. The third noteworthy thing is that Paul says that in repeating this Eucharistic act, they would “show forth the Lord’s death until he comes.” The Eucharist was an interpretation of the crucifixion and death of Jesus. No connotation of resurrection was yet associated with it. The final thing to note is that Paul used a stylized vocabulary to relate this episode. Jesus “takes,” “blesses” (or gives thanks), “breaks” and then distributes or “gives” the bread to the disciples. Paul then stated that this bread was symbolic of Jesus’ body, which was broken in the crucifixion, and that the cup of wine, which was also taken and distributed, was symbolic of the new covenant sealed in his blood. There was clearly something powerful and crucial about this liturgical act, but its focus was on interpreting Jesus’ death, not in pointing to the resurrection. Next we look at all of the feeding stories in the New Testament. There are six narratives about Jesus feeding a multitude related in the four gospels. It is the only miraculous act, other than the resurrection, to appear in all four of the gospels. Two feeding the multitudes stories are in Mark and in Matthew, but only one is in Luke and John. In Mark and Matthew, where two distinctly different feeding stories are included, other symbols abound. On the Jewish side of the lake it is with five loaves and two fish that five thousand are fed, after which twelve baskets of fragments are collected. Two chapters later, Jesus repeats this act, but this time on the Gentile side of the lake with seven loaves and a few fish being used to feed four thousand. After this feeding seven baskets of fragments are collected. Surely, these are not literal or random numbers; they are picked for a reason. In both stories the symbolic Eucharistic words are used. Jesus takes, blesses, breaks and gives. This means that these stories reflect the Eucharistic act, an act that pre-dates the gospels by decades. What, therefore, did this primal liturgical act originally mean? What was its significance? We move next to the biblical narratives of Jesus’ Last Supper. We have that meal described in Mark, Matthew and Luke, but not in John. In each episode the Eucharistic formula is included. Jesus takes the bread, blesses it, breaks it and gives it. He adds some interpretive words according to each gospel. In Mark, he says: “This is my body” as he distributes the bread, and he says: “This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many,” when he gives the cup. Then he adds these words, “I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.” What does that mean? In Matthew, Jesus says of the bread: “Take, eat; this is my body,” and as he distributed the cup he says: “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” The words are slightly different, but the meaning is still not clear. In Luke’s gospel, the words of Jesus vary again. He introduces the Eucharistic act by saying: “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.” Then after taking the bread and giving thanks, he says: “Take this and divide it among yourselves for I tell you,” he says, repeating his previous words, “that from now on, I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” Then, once again, he repeats the key verbs. He took, blessed, broke and gave, saying: “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” John does not describe the last supper, giving that space to the story of washing Peter’s feet, but in the Epilogue to his gospel, a meal shared between Jesus and his disciples is described. It takes place early in the morning on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The elements in this Eucharist are not bread and wine, but bread and fish, the elements used in the feeding of the multitude stories. The bread, presumably was taken from storage on the boat, and the fish from the miraculous catch just hauled in. Jesus presides over this meal, the familiar verbs are used with one omission. Jesus takes the bread, blesses it and gives it; he does not break it. By the time John was written, Jesus himself has been identified with the bread of life. He even claims to be this bread. In John, the bread of life is broken only once and that was on the cross. So in this post-crucifixion story, the body of Christ is not broken, perhaps cannot be broken again. What do we make of these facts? The Eucharist is present in every feeding story. They all appear to anticipate, not the resurrection so much as the coming of the Kingdom of God. They point to the reality that something elemental in the Christian experience is connected with the Eucharist. Is it possible that the Eucharist was a liturgical action in which Peter’s eyes were opened to see the meaning of the resurrection? Was the Eucharist designed by the followers of Jesus to reorient the angle of vision in every generation to the context in which the Easter experience was born? Was Easter more about understanding the crucifixion and seeing Jesus’ role in establishing the Kingdom of God, than it was about seeing Jesus raised from the dead? Those are the conclusions that I am forced to draw and they coincide with the words of Cleopas in Luke’s gospel when he says to the disciples: “He was made known to us in the breaking of the bread.” So we are forced to consider some new possibilities. Was the resurrection of Jesus an event in history? That is what literal-minded people have argued through the centuries, but the New Testament suggests otherwise. The Eucharist interprets “the death of Jesus until he comes,” said Paul in 54 CE. It was the death of Jesus not the resurrection in which the reality of God was revealed. The death of Jesus was an event in history, but was the resurrection? In I Corinthians, Paul says “Jesus was seen” by a list of witnesses. The Greek word that has been translated “was seen,” however, was ophthe, the word from which we derive our word ophthalmology, but what kind of seeing was being described? Was it physical seeing? Was it insight? Was it second sight? We know that the word ophthe was also the Greek word used to translate Moses’ “seeing” of God at the burning bush in the book of Exodus. Did Moses see God as a physical entity? Could God have been photographed? Is the language of resurrection the kind of language that cannot be literalized, but can only point us to something beyond the power of words to capture? Is the resurrection too profound a reality to be reduced to words? Can resurrection still be real if it is not or was not physical? These are the questions with which we must wrestle if we are to recreate the moment when Easter dawned. Next week we will begin to draw these clues together into a single, cohesive narrative, so stay tuned. John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. Question & Answer John R. Brehmer, via the Internet, writes: Question: It may have been 1980 when the assassination of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero made headlines that I became interested in liberation theology only to see the concept crushed by Papal orders and brutal military suppression. I had a life to live, however, and a family to support so problems so far away did not occupy much of my thinking then and for the next twenty to thirty years. But during those years I was also dismayed at the retrenchment of the Vatican on so many social needs issues and was shocked that the attitude of the church had trumped piety over social action. So now in 2015 under Pope Francis, we have the beatification of Oscar Romero (hopefully soon to be Saint Romero) and the appointment of Gerhard Ludwig Muller to Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the renewed interest in the writings of Gustavo Gutierrez. This is great news for not only Latin America, but for all of us, religious and secular, concerned with preferential treatment for the poor. Would you give us your blessings on this change (philosophy, attitude, imperative) knowing that we will continue to fight for justice regardless of attitudes around us, but we are interested in your opinions? Answer: Dear John, I remember so well the murder of Archbishop Romero. I recall the thrill of reading the writings of both Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff. At that time in my life I was wrestling with the issue of the repression of people of color in the United States. Segregation had been declared by the Supreme Court as “inherently unequal.” Desegregation had been ordered with “all deliberate speed.” The mainline churches in the United States, Catholic and Protestant, were silent backers of the status quo. Massive resistance to the law of the land was the name of the official response in the state of Virginia. The “liberal” position was articulated by the Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina. It was called “gradualism,” which basically meant that justice for black people was to move at a pace slow enough so as not to offend white people! Archbishop Romero, Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff and their Protestant American counterparts, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy and John Hines, called the church to look at the gospel of Jesus through the eyes of the poor, the victims of prejudice and the oppressed. The religious establishment struck back. Romero was murdered, Boff was “laicized,” King was murdered and Hines had financial support withdrawn and was ultimately rendered so ineffective that he had to resign. God was clearly seen as on the side of the establishment and against the poor. The people chosen to be Pope were more and more conservative and oppressive in thought and action. When John Hines was forced out of the leadership of the Episcopal Church, the Bishop of Mississippi, Hines’ ideological opposite, was chosen to succeed him. When the great progressive Pope John XXIII died prematurely in 1963 after only four years and seven months in the papal office, he was succeeded by ever increasingly retrogressive occupants of the See of Rome: Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Attempts were made by many of these Christian leaders to associate the members of the Civil Rights movement with communism. It was a dark time for Christianity in the world. A witness to truth, however, is never futile and justice will finally prevail. Pope Francis is a sign of that. His conversations with Gutierrez have helped to fulfill his commitment to make the poor the center of his papacy. The change in the leadership in the Vatican position of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine and Faith of the Church, once called the Office of the Inquisition, is another sign. The election of first, a brilliant woman, Katharine Jefferts-Schori and then a courageous African-American, Michael Curry, to be the presiding bishops of the Episcopal Church is yet another. What all of these things say to me is not only that a new day is dawning, but also that one’s witness to truth, even at the cost of one’s life, is never in vain. Oppression of truth and justice will never finally succeed. One does not act in fear, but in faith. One puts one’s life on the line and lets the chips fall where they may. The arc of the universe finally tends toward justice. Thank you for writing. John Shelby Spong Announcements Join the Bishop Spong community on Facebook!

1 0