March 2017 - Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

8/11/16, Spong: The Unlikely Honored Guest at the Democratic National Convention
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 31 Jul '18

31 Jul '18

<div id="AOLMsgPart_2_1c149769-41d3-4c3b-8300-eaccdde19ae7"> <style type="text/css" scoped="">#AOLMsgPart_2_1c149769-41d3-4c3b-8300-eaccdde19ae7 td{color: black;} .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_outlook a{ padding:0; } .aolReplacedBody { width:100% !important; } .aolReplacedBody { -webkit-text-size-adjust:none; } .aolReplacedBody { margin:0; padding:0; } .aolReplacedBody img{ border:none; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold; height:auto; line-height:100%; outline:none; text-decoration:none; text-transform:capitalize; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_backgroundTable{ height:100% !important; margin:0; padding:0; width:100% !important; } .aolReplacedBody ,.aolReplacedBody #aolmail_backgroundTable{ background-color:#FAFAFA; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templateContainer{ border:1px solid #4487cf; } .aolReplacedBody h1,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h1{ color:#202020; display:block; font-family:Arial; font-size:34px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; margin-top:0; margin-right:0; margin-bottom:10px; margin-left:0; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody h2,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h2{ color:#202020; display:block; font-family:Arial; font-size:30px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; margin-top:0; margin-right:0; margin-bottom:10px; margin-left:0; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody h3,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h3{ color:#202020; display:block; font-family:Arial; font-size:26px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; margin-top:0; margin-right:0; margin-bottom:10px; margin-left:0; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody h4,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h4{ color:#202020; display:block; font-family:Arial; font-size:22px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; margin-top:0; margin-right:0; margin-bottom:10px; margin-left:0; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody h5,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h5{ color:#202020; display:block; font-family:Arial; font-size:12px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; margin-top:15px; margin-right:0; margin-bottom:10px; margin-left:0; text-align:left; text-transform:uppercase; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templatePreheader{ background-color:#ffffff; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_preheaderContent div{ color:#505050; font-family:Arial; font-size:10px; line-height:100%; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_preheaderContent div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_preheaderContent div a:visited{ color:#336699; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templateHeader{ background-color:#D8E2EA; border-bottom:0; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerContent{ color:#202020; font-family:Arial; font-size:34px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; padding:0; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerContent a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerContent a:visited{ color:#336699; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_headerImage{ height:auto; max-width:600px !important; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templateContainer,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent{ background-color:#FDFDFD; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent div{ color:#000000; font-family:Georgia; font-size:16px; line-height:150%; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent div a:visited{ color:#336699; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent img{ display:inline; height:auto; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templateFooter{ background-color:#FDFDFD; border-top:0; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_footerContent div{ color:#707070; font-family:Arial; font-size:12px; line-height:125%; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_footerContent div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_footerContent div a:visited{ color:#336699; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_footerContent img{ display:inline; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_social{ background-color:#FAFAFA; border:0; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_social div{ text-align:center; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_utility{ background-color:#FDFDFD; border:1px dashed #d3d3d3; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_utility div{ text-align:center; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_monkeyRewards img{ max-width:190px; } .aolReplacedBody ,.aolReplacedBody #aolmail_backgroundTable{ background-color:#ffffff; } .aolReplacedBody h1,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h1{ color:#003d4a; font-family:Georgia; font-weight:normal; } .aolReplacedBody h2,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h2{ color:#4487cf; font-family:Georgia; font-weight:normal; } .aolReplacedBody h3,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h3{ color:#4487cf; font-family:Georgia; font-weight:normal; } .aolReplacedBody h4,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h4{ color:#4487cf; font-family:Georgia; font-weight:normal; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_preheaderContent div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_preheaderContent div a:visited{ color:#4487cf; text-decoration:none; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerNavigation div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerNavigation div a:visited{ color:#4487cf; text-decoration:none; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerContent a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerContent a:visited{ text-decoration:none; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templateContainer,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent{ background-color:#ffffff; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent div a:visited{ color:#4487cf; }</style><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: none;margin: 0;padding: 0;background-color: #ffffff;width: 100% !important;" class="aolReplacedBody"> <center> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" width="100%" id="aolmail_backgroundTable" style="margin: 0;padding: 0;background-color: #ffffff;height: 100% !important;width: 100% !important;"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center" valign="top"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600" id="aolmail_templatePreheader" style="background-color: #ffffff;"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" class="aolmail_preheaderContent"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top"><div style="color: #505050;font-family: Arial;font-size: 10px;line-height: 100%;text-align: left;"> </div></td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <div style="color: #505050;font-family: Arial;font-size: 10px;line-height: 100%;text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: none;" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…"><img style="border: none;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;height: auto;line-height: 100%;outline: none;text-decoration: none;text-transform: capitalize;" src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/b51b9cf441b059bb232418480/images/print.png"></a></div> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600" id="aolmail_templateContainer" style="border: 1px solid #4487cf;background-color: #ffffff;"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center" valign="top"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600" id="aolmail_templateHeader" style="background-color: #D8E2EA;border-bottom: 0;"> <tbody><tr> <td class="aolmail_headerContent" style="color: #202020;font-family: Arial;font-size: 34px;font-weight: bold;line-height: 100%;padding: 0;text-align: center;vertical-align: middle;"> <img alt="" border="0" style="margin: 0;padding: 0;max-width: 600px;border: none;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;height: auto;line-height: 100%;outline: none;text-decoration: none;text-transform: capitalize;" src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/b51b9cf441b059bb232418480/images/newsletter_he…"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" class="aolmail_headerNavigation"> <h5 style="color: #202020;display: block;font-family: Arial;font-size: 12px;font-weight: bold;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 15px;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;text-transform: uppercase;"> <a style="color: #4487cf;text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…">Homepage</a> <a style="color: #4487cf;text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…">My Profile</a> <a style="color: #4487cf;text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…">Essay Archive</a> <a style="color: #4487cf;text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb2…">Message Boards</a> <a style="color: #4487cf;text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…">Calendar</a></h5></td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600" id="aolmail_templateBody"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" class="aolmail_bodyContent" style="background-color: #ffffff;"> <table border="0" cellpadding="20" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top"> <div style="color: #000000;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 16px;line-height: 150%;text-align: left;"><h1 style="color: #003d4a;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 34px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;">The Unlikely Honored Guest at the Democratic National Convention</h1> <p>He was seated in the VIP box at the Democratic National Convention, held during the last week of July, 2016, in Philadelphia. He was surrounded in that reserved and exclusive seating area by the power-elite of the Democratic Party: A former President, the sitting Vice-President and the “second lady,” the spouses and children of the nominees, as well as those especially invited guests, who were uniquely and politically related to the convention’s eventual nominee. This unlikely guest was in his own way quite unique. He was a Republican, one who had been elected to a state-wide office as a candidate of the opposition party. He served as the governor of Virginia from 1970 – 1974 and was the first Republican governor of Virginia since 1869 in the last days of reconstruction. Later he sought his party’s nomination to the Senate of the United States, losing to another Republican, John Warner, who served with distinction from 1979 until he retired in 2008. The name of this mystery quest is Abner Linwood Holton. He is now, and has been since the day I first met him, an extraordinary man. People, unaware of the history of the Democratic Party in Virginia, find it strange that the man I regarded as the best governor of Virginia during the years I lived in that state would be a Republican. Let me tell you his story.</p> <p>Linwood Holton was born in 1923 in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, a town deep in the heart of Appalachia. He was a Republican from the moment of his birth. He was also bright and ambitious. Being a Republican in Virginia in those days was to be part of a distinct minority, perhaps even an endangered one! The Democrats of Virginia were the only cohesive political force in the state. This majority party was run by Virginia’s senior United States Senator, Harry Flood Byrd, who after serving a term as governor from 1926 to 1930, effectively ran the state until he died in 1966. It was said of Harry Byrd that he and a few of his closest political advisors would sit on the porch at his home in Berryville, Virginia, and pick the candidates for every political vacancy in Virginia from governor on down. The electorate was deliberately kept small by poll taxes, which effectively discouraged both blacks and poor whites from voting. A Byrd loyalist was in every county seat in Virginia to run the party. Racism was deep and “States Rights” was a holy slogan designed to make racism seem socially acceptable. Virginia was a one party state. Frequently the Republicans would not even nominate candidates and, even when they did, no one paid much attention to them because whoever won the Democratic primary seldom even campaigned in the general election, since Republicans simply did not win in this state! Linwood Holton made it his life’s ambition to establish two-party politics in Virginia.</p> <p>He graduated from Washington and Lee in Lexington, Virginia, and then entered the law school at Harvard University. Along the way he married a Roanoke girl, named Virginia Rogers, who went by the name of Jinks. She was the daughter of Frank Rogers, an upright, but ultra-conservative, successful and well-connected Roanoke citizen, who was the grandson of the first Episcopal Bishop in Southwestern Virginia. In his mind, the two greatest virtues were to be a conservative Episcopalian and a loyal Byrd Democrat. Jinks, the more rebellious of Rogers’ two daughters, chose to marry a Republican and a Presbyterian! Supported by this remarkable woman, Linwood began his life’s task of strengthening Virginia’s Republican Party. This party’s base, such as it was, had always been in the mountains of the western part of Virginia. As a force in opposition to Byrd Democrats, the Virginia Republican party tilted slightly leftward. There was no room to the right of the Byrd machine. The Virginia Republicans were known for their party’s efforts to improve education statewide and to develop better state mental health facilities. Linwood’s organizational efforts were so successful that in 1965 he was the Republican nominee for governor opposing the Southside, Virginia, Byrd Democrat, Mills Godwin, who had emerged as the new leader of the Democratic Party. The sickness, retirement and subsequently the death of Senator Byrd meant that the torch of party leadership had to be passed to the next generation. It is interesting that Harry Byrd, Jr., always known as “Little Harry,” who was appointed to succeed his father in the Senate, did not succeed him in the leadership of the statewide Democratic Party. Holton was defeated in that first run for the governor’s office, but he garnered a respectable total of votes and succeeded in introducing himself to the state. The day after the defeat, he began planning for his second run in 1969. The governorship in Virginia, we need to note, is limited by the Constitution to a single term.</p> <p>National issues soon began to erode the Byrd majorities. Poll taxes were declared unconstitutional in 1964. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 opened the ballot to people of color. The feminist movement began to galvanize women into an effective political force. A national- thinking Virginia Democrat, named Henry Howell, began to build a liberal political base made up of labor unions, blacks, women and young people. His challenge to the Byrd machine resulted ultimately in his election as Lt. Governor in 1971, but he could go no farther. He remained anathema to Byrd Democrats. In the Democratic Primary of 1969, the Byrd candidate, William Battle, the son of former Governor John Battle, defeated Henry Howell in a bitter contest. The party could not heal this division, so in the General Election, Linwood Holton, supported by many of Howell’s still angry voters, rode to victory with a 65,000 vote majority.</p> <p>In his inaugural address, Holton called for an end to Virginia’s pattern of racial discrimination and its racist politics. No Virginia Governor had ever uttered such words before. Words, however, were not enough. People looked for actions. They would follow soon.</p> <p>In the most dramatic step imaginable, the new governor and his wife made the decision not to put their children in the church-related or independent private schools of Richmond, where all governors’ children had previously attended, but to enroll them in Richmond’s public schools which were at that time about 80% black. It was such a startling action for a Virginia politician that the New York Times covered it with a front page story and a picture of Virginia’s Governor Holton escorting one of his daughters into a school surrounded by a host of black faces smiling broadly. In a state where the official response of the ruling Democratic machine to “Brown vs. the Board of Education,” had been to call for “massive resistance to the law of the land,” a state in which some counties chose to close their public schools rather than to integrate them, here was the highest elected official in the state escorting his children into the majority black public schools of Richmond, Virginia. No action could have announced better that a new day was dawning in what had once been the capital of the Confederacy. One of those Holton children entering those public schools on that day was their oldest daughter, Anne.</p> <p>The white population of Virginia was shocked. They believed and stated that their new governor was sacrificing his children on the “altar of integration.” Many suggested that the “inferior education” that his children would receive in those heavily black schools would cripple them for life. It was a strange argument that gave the lie to the previous white claim that all of its racially segregated schools were “separate, <em>but equal</em>.” Anne, in her early teens, would be an exemplary student. She received a fine education and upon graduation from high school would be admitted to Princeton University, from which she graduated <em>magna cum laude</em>. She seemed not to have been penalized at all in her educational achievements. After Princeton she was accepted into the class of 1983 at the Harvard Law School, from which she now holds a doctor of Jurisprudence degree. From there she went into a legal career that in time would include being a domestic relations judge and Virginia’s Education Secretary.</p> <p>While at Harvard she met, fell in love with and married a fellow law student, who was born in Minnesota and educated at the University of Missouri. His name was Tim Kaine. She lured him back to Richmond, where his earlier life experiences, including his Jesuit high school education, his year as a volunteer missionary to Honduras and his mastery of the Spanish language, prepared him to begin his Richmond law practice as a civil rights attorney. Then responding to an expressed community need, he entered politics at the most local of levels, running for a seat on Richmond’s nine-member City Council. In a majority black city, Tim not only won that seat, but was also later elected by that majority-black city council to be Richmond’s Mayor. Two years later, in 2001 he moved to the state level, being elected Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor. In 2005, he won the governor’s office. His wife, Anne Holton, became the first person to be at one time living in the governor’s mansion as the child of a Republican governor and then a second time as the state’s first lady and wife of a Democratic governor. In 2012, Tim Kaine won a seat in the United States Senate. In 2016, with two years remaining in his first term as senator, he was chosen by the presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, to be her vice-presidential running mate. Anne Holton was there with him, waving to the crowd on the final night. As Hillary Clinton raised Tim Kaine’s hand high, former president Bill Clinton was at her side and Anne Holton was at Tim Kaine’s side. The crowd roared with approval.</p> <p>In the VIP section of that vast Philadelphia arena sat the former Republican Governor Linwood Holton, now 92 years old, with his wife Jinks, both still vibrant and attractive, watching their daughter being introduced to the nation. There is sometimes a reward for integrity. Linwood and Jinks Holton, who would not allow their lives to be twisted by the prejudice of racism, challenged the distorting and debilitating social structures of his generation in Richmond, Virginia. Doing what is right sometimes carries with it intimations of transcendence and even immortality. To this day he remains one of my heroes.</p> <p>John Shelby Spong</p> <p>Read the essay online <a target="_blank" style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb2…">here</a>.</p> </div> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table border="0" cellpadding="20" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top"> <div style="color: #000000;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 16px;line-height: 150%;text-align: left;"><h2 style="color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 30px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;">Question & Answer</h2> <p><span style="font-size:18px">Alberto Mejia Aguilera from Mexico writes via the internet:</span></p> <h4 style="color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 22px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;"> Question:</h4> <p>I am from Mexico and I would like to know your opinion about Liberation Theology. Do you think that this theology is still an inspiration for the struggle against the social injustice?</p> <h4 style="color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 22px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;">Answer:</h4> <p>Dear Alberto,</p> <p>Liberation theology was, I believe, was born in Latin America, so you should be especially proud of it. I associate the name of Leonardo Boff, primarily, with it, but there were others like the murdered Bishop Oscar Romero. It was born in an attempt to apply the principles of the gospel not just to individuals, but also to the structures of our society, which so often drive the masses into poverty. It identifies God with the poor. For those reasons it tended to be resisted in ecclesiastical circles, especially by the leaders of the Roman Catholic during the years of Popes John Paul II and Benedict, both of whom were so politically conservative that they saw it as another manifestation of Communism. I think they were both wrong in this judgment. Liberation theology, I believe, constituted a call to Christianity to see that its alliance with power, both in Europe and the new world, had corrupted the essential justice that Christianity requires.</p> <p>Christianity was born among the poor and the outcasts. It rose to dominate society and so became the religion of kings. Liberation Theology was a necessary correction.</p> <p>I wish you well.</p> <p>John Shelby Spong <a target="_blank" style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…">Read and Share Online Here</a></p> </div> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table border="0" cellpadding="20" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top"> <div style="color: #000000;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 16px;line-height: 150%;text-align: left;"><h2 style="color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 30px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;">Announcements</h2> <div style="text-align: center;color: #000000;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 16px;line-height: 150%;"><a target="_blank" style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb2…"><img align="none" height="262" style="width: 350px;height: 262px;margin: 0px;border: none;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;line-height: 100%;outline: none;text-decoration: none;text-transform: capitalize;display: inline;" width="350" src="https://gallery.mailchimp.com/b51b9cf441b059bb232418480/images/e67ac6a0-334…"></a></div> <h2 style="color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 30px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:26px"><span style="color:#000000">Bishop Spong at the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan September 10th & 11th</span></span></h2> <strong>Schedule:</strong> Saturday, September 10, 2016 1:00 pm at the Reynolds Recital Hall, Northern Michigan University 7:00 pm at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Marquette Sunday, September 11, 2016 2:00 pm at the Memorial Union Building , Michigan Technological University At each location, there will be an opportunity for Q&A and book signing.</div></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top"> </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></center><center><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" id="aolmail_canspamBarWrapper" style="background-color:#FFFFFF; border-top:1px solid #E5E5E5;"><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="top" style="padding-top:20px; padding-bottom:20px;"> </td></tr></tbody></table></center></div> </div> <style type="text/css">#AOLMsgPart_2_1c149769-41d3-4c3b-8300-eaccdde19ae7 td{color: black;} @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .aolReplacedBody table[id="canspamBar"] td{font-size:14px !important;} .aolReplacedBody table[id="canspamBar"] td a{display:block !important; margin-top:10px !important;} } </style>

2 1

"Journey Reflection" Blog Posts (March 2017)
by John C via Dialogue 31 Mar '17

31 Mar '17

1 0

Book Age of Discovery
by Jeanette Stanfield via Dialogue 31 Mar '17

31 Mar '17

Dear Colleagues, I am reading a book that challenges me so thought I would share it with you. It is called Age of Discovery: Navigating the Risks and Rewards of our new Renaissance by Ian Goldin with Chris Kutarna at Oxford University. Ian was an adviser to President Nelson Mandela. They have a whole research team from Oxford working with them. Here is link to to Ian's website which includes 4 minute video sharing context of book:. https://iangoldin.org/books/age-of-discovery/ I am using book to help me plot what is happening using the social process triangles as a screen. Take good care, Jeanette

1 0

3/30/17: Spong/Sandlin:“Hopey-Changey”; 3rd article: Spong revisited: Historicity of Judas, Part I
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 30 Mar '17

30 Mar '17

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR “Hopey-Changey” By Mark Sandlin Churches are dying at an alarming rate. Every year more than 4000 churches close their doors for good and more than 2,765,000 people leave the church each year. Yet we, the Church, insist on doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting different results. When confronted with change we tend to insist that “it has always been done that way,” as if history is an acceptable excuse for continuing down our path to demise. Far too many congregations are denying the reality of the New Reformation in favor of the comfortable old religion of their grandparents who practiced a religion that last had true relevance in the 19th century. As we ponder that difficult reality, I think it is helpful to turn to Dr. Paul Batalden. In looking at the dysfunction of our healthcare system Dr. Batalden, a Dartmouth Medical School Professor, is fond of saying, “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” That brings me to the even more difficult reality that, if your church is dying, it is perfectly designed to die. Said differently, you can keep repeating the comfortable religion of your grandparents over and over again, and if you do, you can consistently expect to get the results of a dying church – for that matter, a dying theological perspective as well. That’s exactly what most churches are doing. For years and years churches have joined in with movement after movement, each designed to help the church change. Most of them don’t work – at least not in terms of change. They do tend to be very good at distracting from real, substantive change. They are very successful at taking away our guilt for having a church that can’t attract new members, because we think “at least we are doing something.” The problem with why these programs fail more times than they work is also part of the problem with many churches themselves: our ability to accept cognitive dissonance. Talking the talk, but not walking the walk… and not really being bothered by it, more or less acknowledging it. The world outside the church, in large part, sees most churches (and their members) as hypocritical. And we’ve given them every reason to see so. Churches profess love of neighbor yet either explicitly condemn people of certain lifestyles or implicitly condemn them by our silence when others claiming to be Christians do. We profess that we are all made equal and that we are equal in the eyes of God, yet we are astoundingly silent on issues of social justice. The list could go on and on, and I’m not saying that some churches aren’t authentically living into these things (because some are). What I am saying is that the world outside the church just doesn’t see it much. What they do see leads them to deem us all as hypocritical. That kind of existence allows us to work our way through programs on emerging\transforming\re-imagining church without ever really doing much more than the head work. We have learned the skill of cognitive dissonance well. It keeps us from having to do things that make us uncomfortable like spending time in low income housing areas, talking to the homeless, ministering with those in jail… you know all the things Jesus said we were doing to him when we do them. Cognitive dissonance means we get to be ‘Christian’ without actually being very Christ-like. Naturally our churches get to do the same. We can read all about the “hopey, changey” stuff, talk about it in positive tones, and ultimately back away from it when it leads us to do something as “drastic” as playing a guitar instead of an organ during worship – or worse yet, playing a guitar instead of an organ during worship and feeling like we have really stretched ourselves. While we “study” the programs on changing, we get to feel like we are doing something. The problem is the companies who market them have to actually be able to market them, so the programs always have some kind of a release valve built in that allows those who don’t really want to commit to change to be able to do a little something different, feel better about having done something, without actually, really addressing any of the systemic problems. It leaves the core system intact and it continues to, perfectly, get the results it gets, but we feel better because, “Well, at least we tried.” Sit Boy, Sit. Good Dogma. In order to understand a little better what we need to do as spiritual communities in the face of the New Reformation, I think we first need to understand a little about how we, the Church, arrived at our current location as well as what that location is. There was a time, frequently referred to as “the good ol’ days,” when the church was the center of society. A large percentage of a community’s life centered around the church. It was not only the moral compass and center for their lives, but it was the social and philanthropic center of their lives as well. This afforded the church the ability to define for its community what was acceptable and what was not. It was really unlikely that people would challenge the status quo that was being established (one that was, not so surprisingly, heavily weighted down with dogma of centuries upon centuries.) Challenging the thing that defined your community and was the center piece of many people’s daily lives and activities would have probably been a really good way to make sure you were not accepted by those who had power in the establishment and ultimately you would probably be pushed out to the margins of the circle of society, if included in it at all. So, the status quo that’s being established goes unchallenged and ever-unchanging. As you could probably guess, this kind of influence (and let’s just be honest, power) was somewhat intoxicating. The Church, particularly its leaders, began to believe the myth that they had established. The myth wasn’t that they were at the center of community, because in many ways they really were. The myth that they had begun to believe was that they deserved to be there, that it was by some divine right that they had so much influence (and power.) That was the beginning of getting left behind. Over time, society began changing. The Church, in its perceived place of godly instituted influence and power, did not change even though it has a history of changing and, at times, doing so dynamically. The more society changed with the times, the more the Church did not. With each passing year, the Church became less and less relevant for a quickly changing society. Now we’ve arrived at a place where society has moved on well past where the Church stayed stuck and, much to the surprise of the Church, society has done just fine without us. Much as our scriptures should remind us, people are responsive and quite dynamic and are able to find other social centers, other ways to express their philanthropic needs and other ways to fulfill their spiritual desires. These difficult realities are not the reason why the Church needs to change. They are, however, the results of the Church not changing when it needed to. Our dogma and theological foundations are outdated and deny advancements in science as well as in literary criticism. Our churches are built around male dominated, hierarchical systems of governance that are perfectly designed to “maintain” the system, to bend but not break, ultimately insuring that those who have power remain in power. Said differently, they are perfectly designed to get the results they get. And that’s not a good thing. At this point, we are so far behind the need to change, that the only way forward is going to be intense change, sometimes painful change. That’s why people like Bishop Spong, and the work they have done, are vitally important to the Church as well as believers outside the Church. It’s why resources like this New Reformation newsletter are so important. We have to start learning new ways to look at our Christianity. We have to learn to use every modern advancement available to us in order to get back to what appears to be a truer understanding of our history and religious texts than what they have evolved into. As we do, I suspect that we will find a fuller and more satisfying spiritual journey. Also, I suspect we will find fewer and fewer folks seeing hypocrisy within our belief system. And with that, I believe we will find some of the folks who have walked away from Christianity will see new hope within it and may once again not only find personal value in it, but their communities will as well. ~ Mark Sandlin Read the essay online here. About the Author Mark Sandlin is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) from the South. He currently serves at Presbyterian Church of the Covenant. He is a co-founder of The Christian Left. His blog, The God Article, has been named as one of the “Top Ten Christian Blogs.” Mark received The Associated Church Press’ Award of Excellence in 2012. His work has been published on “The Huffington Post,” “Sojourners,” “Time,” “Church World Services,” and even the “Richard Dawkins Foundation.” He’s been featured on PBS’s “Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly” and NPR’s “The Story with Dick Gordon.” Follow Mark on Facebook and Twitter @marksandlin Question & Answer Robert J. Freer from Cincinnati, Ohio writes: Question: Why do we assign a gender to God? I feel that it started with the Lord's Prayer (Our Father who art in Heaven. . . . .) That paternalism was objected to by the feminists who started calling God she. If God is not human, how can there be a gender assigned? I am still trying to rid myself of the image of a man up in the sky somewhere, wearing flowing white robes, keeping track of my good deeds and misdeeds!! Answer: By Fred Plumer Dear Robert, You ask an interesting question and unfortunately a complete answer would take several pages. But let me try and answer your excellent and timely question the best I can. Actually, we would have to go back roughly 10,000 years ago to even begin to understand what really happened. As the Hunters and Gatherers began to settle in the Mesopotamia Valley, they moved away from what anthropologist have suggested was a balanced responsibility when men and women had equal job responsibilities. Every single person had a “job,” a responsibility, including children, and there was no hierarchy because each person’s job might impact the survival of the tribe. Up until this time in history most of the most powerful gods were female. It was frankly a more matriarchically society as you might guess. But when the Hunters and Gatherers realized they could build fences, raise animals and crops, protecting the boundaries became paramount. It was the men who began to take on the warrior mentality. To raise their crops, they needed workers, so the women stayed home to raise children to work in the fields. It was during that time that these societies moved from a matriarchically to a patriarchic society. The most powerful gods had become males. Keep in mind there were still many gods, but the most powerful were pictured as men at some point in this development. When we get to the beginning of what we know as the Jewish tradition, roughly 5,000 years ago, there was still many gods, but the most powerful came to be known as YHWH, a word that was intended to never be spoken by practicing Jews. However, as centuries passed, different groups, in different eras, had their own name for god, i.e. Yahweh, Adonai, Elohim, and El. Scholars generally propose that the Torah, the Christian Old Testament, was compiled from various original sources, two of which (the Jahwist and the Elohist) are named for their usual names for God (YHWH and Elohim respectively). Many modern Jews today, do not necessarily see their “God” as male or female. However, the more conservative Jews are still extremely patriarchal. They are still protecting their turf. We really have no idea when the Jewish people decided there was one God, but it is clear from passages in the Torah that it was not the case in their earlier years. From Exodus 20:3…you shall have no other gods before me. This is repeated in the same citing in Deuteronomy 5:6. However, I have used the term “God” here several times to explain how we became more patriarchal. But the truth be told, no one has been able to decide where the word God came from or how long ago. The word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin. Scholars tend to agree that is was sometime in the 6th century, probably in the Germanic culture and a derivation of the word, gudan. So Robert, here is my point. It is the current society that decides who and what we call God, or god or Adonai or “Max.” And it is the society that decides what kind of attributes we assign to this thing we currently call God. Yes, it takes a long time, many lifetimes to make these changes. But our society is changing very rapidly right now and frankly our young people, the millennials, are not buying our ancient idea of God or the power we have given this figure, whether male, female or transgender. We now know it is not “a man up in the sky somewhere, wearing flowing white robes, keeping track of good deeds and misdeeds.” Many of us now have agreed it is not a male or female. The more scientists study our animal kingdom, the closer we humans seem to be. Are animals judged? Should we be judged? We all come into this world with different gifts, and wounds, opportunities and failures. How would a judging god decide how to weigh those factors? Personally, I have found the String Theory encouraging. The idea that we are all inner-connected (by “string” or “god”) sits well with me, although I am not certain how to put that idea into a theology. However, this means when a “butterfly waves it wings, the entire universe is changed. That means what you do or what I do matters to the entire universe. Can you imagine what kind of world it would be if we people started acting as if this were true? Can you imagine the entire universe dependent on your actions? And so you ask, what does Progressive Christianity have to say about this? It is about the very human Jesus, who in spite of, or because of, a troubled beginning, overcame the natural inclination to strike out or punish others. He became a mystic who showed us a way to live that transcends all of the things that have been piled onto Christianity that have little to do with living a full and joyful life. Rather than focusing on sin, he taught us to find the joy. Rather than focusing on the bad things in life, he taught us to look for the positive. He taught us to recognize the interconnectedness of all life and the power of love over hate. And he taught us not to fear death. That is why I still am a follower of him. And these are some of the reasons, Progressive Christianity is still growing. Thank you for your question. I hope I have answered it. ~Fred Plumer, President ProgressiveChristianity.org Read and Share Online Here _________________________________________________________ Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited My Suspicions about the Historicity of Judas Iscariot, Part I One of the primary personalities of the Easter story is Judas Iscariot, the anti-hero of the Christian Gospel. Judas has traditionally been painted in dark and sinister colors. His act of betrayal has been described as the worst villainy in human history. The name Judas, once popular as a name for boys in the Jewish tradition, has all but disappeared from history, a fate not suffered by such biblical names as Peter, Simon, John or James. As the story of the crucifixion is recounted this week in churches throughout the world, the tale of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus will be related once again, and “the Jews” will be said to have been responsible for the death of Jesus. That has happened annually for two thousand years and through this familiar narrative we Christians have poured a steady stream of virulent anti-Semitism into the life of the world. Perhaps the time has come for us to look at this story with a different set of eyes. I am suspicious of Judas. Everything about him raises questions in my mind. My suspicion is that he is not a person of history at all but a totally fictitious character created in the second generation of Christian history. I suspect that the purpose for which the story of Judas Iscariot was developed was to shift the blame for the death of Jesus away from the Romans, who were surely responsible, and to place it on the Jews, who were destined to be scapegoated for that death through all of western history. When this suspicion is voiced, however, people argue that the historicity of Judas Iscariot has been assumed for so long and that it is so integral to the Christian story, that this revisionist idea would reorient all of Christianity in a radical way. They demand to know the data for my suspicions. Since I believe that Christianity must be reoriented if it is to continue to live, I am glad to offer these data. First, my suspicion that Judas is a mythological character is aroused by his name. Iscariot seems to be derived from the word “sicarius,” which means ‘political assassin’ and is attached to his name to identify his act of treachery. The name Judas, however, is nothing but the Greek spelling of the word ‘Judah,’ sometimes written ‘Judea,’ and is the name of the Jewish homeland. Judah is also the word from which the English word “Jew” is derived. Jewish prisoners of the Nazis at the time of the Holocaust had to wear a sign on their clothing that said “Jude,” the German word for a Jew. When the name of the traitor is identical with the name of the nation of people from whom the Christians were trying to separate themselves when the Gospels were being written some 40 – 70 years after the life of Jesus came to an end, it causes me to wonder about the authenticity of the story. My second reason for being suspicious is in the dramatic detail found in the passion story of the gospels that locates the act of betrayal at the precise stroke of midnight that separated the first Maundy Thursday night from the first Good Friday morning. To place that which the gospel writers thought was the darkest deed in human history at a time thought to be the darkest moment of the night, serves well to provide a dramatic touch to the story but it does not strike me as serving well the truth of history. Thirdly, my suspicion is aroused when I recognize the fact that the word ‘betrayed’ enters the Christian story, not in the Gospels, but in Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians written about 15 years before the first gospel saw the light of the day. Paul, in the 11th chapter of that Epistle, recounts the inauguration of what came to be called “The Lord’s Supper.” He dates this narrative with the words, “On the night in which he was betrayed.” Two things about this text are significant. One is that the word we translate “betrayed” is more accurately rendered “was handed over.” It is the same word used in the Joseph story in the Book of Genesis, when Joseph’s brothers handed him over to the Ishmaelites or the Midianites, depending on which version in Genesis one is reading (see Genesis 37:25 and 28). While in some sense to hand Jesus over to his enemies might be understood as an act of betrayal, the connotations are not quite the same. The next thing about this Pauline text that is unique is that Paul does not associate this ‘handing over’ with anybody in general and certainly not with one of the twelve. This suggests to me that the Judas story was not known by Paul. This point is solidified in Chapter 15 of that same Epistle when Paul says, “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” The twelve certainly included Judas! After the crucifixion Judas was, in the mind of Paul, still one of the twelve. That would hardly be so if Judas had been the traitor who brought about that crucifixion. I think it is fair to say that Paul seems to know nothing of the tradition that one of the twelve was a traitor. The Judas story had simply not yet entered the Christian consciousness. My fourth reason for being suspicious about the historicity of the Judas story is rooted in a theoretical document that scholars have named Q which is short for quella, a German word which means source. Q was discovered, according to this theory, when scholars recognized that both Matthew and Luke had sufficient common material, other than Mark, that could not be explained by suggesting that one knew the other. The conclusion was that they both must have had a second source in common upon which they drew when they composed their gospels. So everywhere that Matthew and Luke were identical or nearly identical and where that material is not derived from Mark, it is assumed to be Q material. Further study of this material seemed to indicate that the Q document was basically a collection of the sayings of Jesus and was earlier than any written gospel. If this is so then Q is a primary source of Christian material that predates the canonical Gospels. One passage found in that Q material has Jesus speaking to the disciples during his earthly life and promising them that they will sit on ‘thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’ Judas was, on this occasion, clearly one of the twelve. But neither Matthew nor Luke thought to edit this passage in the light of the betrayal story. This material appears to reflect a period in the development of the Christian history before a story of a betrayal by Judas was known. That assumption is further enforced when one notes that when Matthew tells the story of the Resurrection, he says that the Risen Christ appeared only to ‘the eleven.’ Matthew has, by the time he composed his gospel, edited his narrative to conform to the Judas story, which had entered the tradition in Mark, some ten years earlier and which Matthew was not just copying but also expanding. Finally my suspicions are aroused about the historicity of Judas when I look at the way the Judas story appears in the gospel tradition. It is, first inconsistent, and second the story grows as each new Gospel is written. All four Gospels, for example, have a story about identifying the traitor as one who broke bread with Jesus at the last supper. But what it was that Judas actually betrayed is hard to isolate. Starting with Mark, the first Gospel to be written (70-75 c.e.), we discover that this author says that it was the chief priests who initiated the suggestion that Judas would receive money, but no amount is mentioned. Judas next appears in Mark’s story at midnight to identify Jesus with a kiss. It is hard to imagine why identifying Jesus was important since he was publicly teaching in Jerusalem and had by this time, the narrative says, driven the moneychangers out of the temple. Surely these authorities knew who Jesus was. Judas then disappears from Mark’s Gospel. Matthew (80-85 c.e.) enhances Mark’s story by having Judas request money for the act of betrayal. The price is set at 30 pieces of silver. The betrayal in Matthew also takes place at midnight but this gospel writer has added dialogue between Jesus and Judas. Matthew goes on to give us additional details. Judas repented, said Matthew, and tried to return the money. The chief priests and elders refused. Judas then hurled the money back into the temple and went and hanged himself. The chief priests and elders, Matthew says, then took the silver and bought a potter’s field with it in which to bury strangers. Luke (88-92 c.e.) further embellishes the story. The traitor did this, said Luke, because, “Satan entered into Judas.” Finally, in Luke, we are told what Judas actually did for the authorities. He betrayed Jesus to them “in the absence of the multitude.” It is a weak answer to a perplexing question. Could the authorities not have tracked him to a place where he was alone? That should not have been a problem, since people in the first century certainly knew how to tail a suspect. Once again in Luke the act of betrayal took place at midnight. The dialogue is increased. The disciples are said to have fought back. One of them, who is unnamed, cut off the ear of the slave of the high priest. Jesus healed him. That is all we hear of Judas in Luke. In the books of Acts, however, which Luke also wrote, we are told that Judas himself bought a field with “the reward of his wickedness” and “falling down headlong, he burst open and all his bowels gushed out.” That is clearly not the same as hanging though the effect is quite the same. In John’s Gospel (95 – 100 c.e.), Judas becomes more sinister. He was a thief, said John. When Judas leaves the Last Supper, John notes, “it was night.” Judas leads the authorities to the place where Jesus could be found in Gethsemane. Here the dialogue is enhanced, but the kiss of the traitor has disappeared. Judas’ act is said to fulfill the expectations of the prophets. Both the disciple who cut off the ear of the high priest’s slave and the slave himself are identified in John’s Gospel. Their names are Simon Peter and Malchus. Then Judas disappears from John’s Gospel and is not seen again. The story grows. The details are enlarged. The narrative is enhanced. But when those details that constitute the Judas story are studied every one of them appears to have been lifted out of other accounts of betrayals known in Hebrew history. The Judas tradition seems to have been crafted out of the whole cloth of the Jewish Scriptures. Is that not enough to make one suspicious? I will return to this theme next week and fill in the details. I will also look at what was happening in that region during this period of history when the Gospels were written, to see if we can discover anything which might provide a motive for encouraging the second generation of Christians to create a traitor whose name was Judas. I believe we can, so stay tuned! ~ John Shelby Spong (Originally Published April 2, 2003) Announcements Click here for more information/registration

1 0

Test email
by Jim & OliveAnn Slotta via Dialogue 26 Mar '17

26 Mar '17

To: OE & Colleague list serves Quite a few days have gone by without our receiving emails from either list serve. It may simply be a period of inactivity or a problem with our Earthlink Account. Jim Slotta

7 7

Anyone old notes? Pictures of blackboard drawings??
by James Wiegel via Dialogue 26 Mar '17

26 Mar '17

I attended the funeral for a coworker's grand daughter yesterday. Briell only lived 2 months. Celebrant sang solo "Because he lives". Message was about this life and eternity, and the world is going to hell and god is waiting for each of us at the moment just after death to assign each of us to heaven (with Briell, because she is an innocent, not yet able to decide) or to hell, depending on whether we accepted Jesus. Anyway, I vaguely recall an intro to some one of the Rs 1 lectures with little drawings of different world views which historical christianity had named as heresies . . . Anyone remember these? Able to reproduce them? Somehow, in my still firing brain cells this is also connected to a study of Tillich's History of Christian Thought . . . Jim Wiegel 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353 Tel. 011-623-936-8671 or 011-623-363-3277 jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com "We are no longer living in an era of change. We are living in a change of era." Francis Upcoming public course opportunities click here http://partnersinparticipation.com/?page_id=10 For online registration go to http://www.top-training.net The AZ ToP® Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday, 1-4 pm, starting again on Sept 5th at ACYR, 648 N. 5th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85003 AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP® courses > On Mar 26, 2017, at 03:59, via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: > > This email received in Baltimore, MD > Elizabeth Engleman > > > On 03/25/17, Joy Bonafield via Dialogue wrote: > > This one came through in Minnesota > > Joyce Bonafield-Pierce > >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jim & OliveAnn Slotta via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: >> To: OE & Colleague list serves >> >> Quite a few days have gone by without our receiving emails from either list serve. It may simply be a period of inactivity or a problem with our Earthlink Account. >> >> Jim Slotta >> _______________________________________________ >> Dialogue mailing list >> Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dialogue mailing list > Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net > _______________________________________________ > Dialogue mailing list > Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] Test email
by via Dialogue 26 Mar '17

26 Mar '17

1 0

February 24 through March 3 emails--how to access them
by Jim & OliveAnn Slotta via Dialogue 14 Mar '17

14 Mar '17

Dear ICA Listserve, Please help us recover subject emails to our email address. While on a trip, our address storage quota was exceeded, causing us to miss having emails delivered. This is also true for the OE listserve. Jim (& OliveAnn) Slotta slottaglobalnews(a)earthlink.net

2 1

First Nations in Washington, DC; Joint Standing Rock/Yakama Joint Proclamation re The Doctrine of Discovery
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 11 Mar '17

11 Mar '17

Dear Friends of Standing Rock and Original Nations This week, March 7-10, Original Nations Peoples have set up a Tee Pee camp on the Mall in Washington, DC as part of their 4-day celebration of solidarity with Standing Rock, each other, and Mother Earth. Today, Friday, was a march followed by a rally where many Native Americans sang or share words of truth to power and encouragement to continue to care for Earth and all its Beings. One speaker was Yakama Nation Chairman JoDe L. Goudy who talked and gave a joint proclamation with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe on the "Doctrine of Discovery"--Doctrine of Christian Discovery"--the 15th century doctrine of popes, and kings which gave explorers permission to conquer lands already inhabited for thousands of years by Non-Christian Original Peoples, including North and South America and E. Africa to begin the slave trade. This doctrine is foundational to the US legal system and remains a precedent for legal cases, including the Supreme Court. The doctrine continues to play out in the manifest destiny and eminent domain actions of the US government and corporations which continue to threaten not only Native American lands and culture but also the well-being of this Earth's eco-systems. Many denominations have denounced the Doctrine of Discovery, including the PC(USA). This statement is asking those who have not done so, to do so and asks the US Government to revoke the Doctrine of Discovery. If you want to see some other videos from the march and rally, google: Digital Smoke Signals. Below is the link the proclamation. If anyone finds the text for this, please email it to me. Thanks! Yakama Nation Chairman JoDe L. Goudy gives joint ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH0QVfzPHuE Yakama Nation Chairman JoDe L. Goudy gives joint proclamation with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe on the "doctrine of discovery." Ellie elliestock(a)aol.com

2 1

3/09/17, Spong/David Felten/Fox: How to Repeal and Replace Christianity’s Addiction to “Fake News” and “Alternative Facts” #tremendous #huge
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 11 Mar '17

11 Mar '17

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR How to Repeal and Replace Christianity’s Addiction to “Fake News” and “Alternative Facts” #tremendous #huge By David Felten Bishop Spong’s reputation for expressing unapologetic, sometimes blunt, theological opinions is long-established. While some have accused him of being overbearing or egotistical, others have depended on him for a firm defense of a particular spot on the theological spectrum. After a comment deemed potentially offensive to a particular Fundamentalist group, Jack was accused of sounding patronizing. He replied, “If they feel patronized that’s too bad.” Harsh. But how many times have we been tempted to say the same? Many Progressive Christians feel that they’ve moved “forward” and resent any expectation that their status as a Christian depends on their ability to intellectually and spiritually go “backward.” But because one of the characteristics of a more liberal perspective is to reject black-and-white thinking, Progressive Christians often struggle with confidently expressing the validity of their perspective without feeding into the divisiveness and incivility rampant in our culture. So how does one remain steadfast in communicating a hard-won theological perspective without getting caught up in the stark us-vs-them environment in which we find ourselves? The Problem. #sad #believeme Consider the newest additions to our collective lexicon: “fake news” and “alternative facts.” Although they’re recent additions to our everyday language, they seem strangely familiar. Why? Because they’re just today’s take on a very old problem: our tribal selves’ need to project our superiority over others, often doing so by harming or diminishing those who are not like us or who don’t believe as we do. The stubbornness of our most primitive and base instincts have been on full display in a thin-skinned egotistical fear-mongering Executive who not only promotes a nationalist fervor to be “number one,” but perhaps most insidiously, demonstrates an obsession with being “right” in every tweet. When “fake news” first entered the lexicon in the 2016 Presidential election, it was used to identify intentionally false stories generated by fake news “mills” – often whole websites – devoted to creating sensational and made-up stories as “click bait” targeting easily-influenced low-information voters. But in a matter of months, the term has been turned on its head. It is now used almost exclusively by Conservatives to divert attention from evidence-based reality in order to muddy people’s perception of current events. Recently, hardly a day went by that the President didn’t use the phrase “fake news” to try and invalidate any story that he simply [didn’t] like (even though his attempts at misdirection were glaringly obvious). When Kellyanne Conway coined the phrase, “alternative facts,’ she feigned disgust at the elitist idea that anything like objective “facts” actually existed. Claiming that Press Secretary Spicer’s “alternative facts” were every bit as valid as everyone else’s “regular” facts, Conway availed herself of a practice well established among Christian Fundamentalists: appeal to an authority that is unfettered by reason or rational thought. Blogging on Patheos, Chuck Queen, writes, “It is remarkable how gullible this administration considers the electorate to be,” and then suggests that Christianity itself is culpable in creating the environment in which this kind of gullibility is not only fostered, but celebrated. He writes that Fundamentalism, “feeds and grows on the gullibility of people to believe what they want to believe. It thrives on the propagation of beliefs that defy logic, reason, science, and common sense, but somehow appeal to our lower instincts and passions.” As many Christians grow up, they are expected to believe that the biblical story of “Noah’s flood is actually a historical, factual account” – despite the impossible logistics and the appalling theology. Every day, countless fundamentalist Christians congratulate themselves for being able to suspend disbelief and embrace the “divine wisdom” of an all-loving and gracious God committing global genocide. In analyzing people’s susceptibility to “fake news,” Christopher Douglas notes that this tendency has its historical origin in Christian fundamentalism’s rejection of expert elites.” While many Catholics and Mainline Protestants have taken the last 150 years of expert Biblical and theological scholarship to heart, Fundamentalism has proudly embraced the rejection of science and rational thought as a badge of honor – oftentimes creating whole universes of “alternative facts” (the so-called “Biblical Worldview”) to defend a literal 6-day creation, intelligent design, and Jesus’ literal virgin birth and physical resurrection. So, as in our current political sphere, no matter how articulate Progressive Christians are in expressing the wisdom of Progressive Christianity, Fundamentalist Christians will simply never come around. Never. After all, their very identity is, in part, rooted in the ability to not only dismiss any evidence that contradicts their worldview (fake news!), but to double down on the veracity of their “alternative facts.” As objective and well-grounded as Progressive Christian apologists might be in pointing out the shortcomings of a Fundamentalist mindset, it will make no difference. Theological liberals can choose to continue the debate, but to what end? Any serious conversation is doomed before it starts, a casualty of the war between two irreconcilable tribes. The Solution. #tremendous #huge First task: own up to the fact that “fake news” and “alternative facts” are not the problem. They’re the symptoms. The problem is our addiction to a kind of dualism that sees the world divided between competing ideas of right and wrong, true and false. That’s not to say that right and wrong, true and false don’t exist, but obsessing over convincing those who won’t be convinced is getting us nowhere. Neither is isolating ourselves in our bunker and smugly settling for “being right.” What’s needed is a framework that transcends our primal us-vs-them mentality and reflects our conviction that we are evolving as a species. Perhaps part of the antidote to our dualistic tendencies can be glimpsed in James Fowler’s book, Stages of Faith. In it, he develops a theory describing six stages through which all people move as their faith matures (or doesn’t). In the first stage, usually associated with preschool children, basic ideas about God are shaped through a mix of fantasy and reality filtered through the authority of parents’ beliefs. In Stage 2, logic begins to shape one’s understanding of the world. Stories told by faith communities are often understood in very literal ways. While usually associated with school-aged children, some people (Fundamentalists) remain in this stage throughout adulthood. Stage 3 is begun in the teenaged years as youth differentiate between various social circles and influences. A person in this stage usually adopts an all-encompassing belief system of some kind. Once comfortable “inside” this belief system, Stage 3 people can have a hard time seeing outside their box – often not recognizing that they’re in any kind of box at all. Many people remain in this stage for life (think conventional Mainline Protestants). If people get to Stage 4, it often begins amidst the challenges of young adulthood. Critical thinking skills uncover reality “outside their box” – maybe even realizing (for the first time) that other “boxes” even exist. Disillusioned with long-held beliefs, some abandon their Stage 3 faith. It’s rare for people to reach Stage 5 before mid-life. Living life confronts people with irresolvable paradoxes and the limits of “black and white” thinking – so those in Stage 5 often begin to see life as a mystery and, while abandoning old theological boxes, explore the depths of sacred stories and symbols across a variety of traditions. Very few reach the universalizing Stage 6. Those who do often live their lives unfettered by petty doubts and live to serve – often risking their lives for others or principled causes. Six stages. Each level a prerequisite of the next. Some people remain firmly in stage two or three, fiercely suspicious of any “new” information – and blissfully unaware that there could be so much more depth and breadth to their spiritual lives. Others move from one stage to another in a life-long journey toward spiritual understandings that people in previous stages can’t even comprehend. And yes, those who discover they are being categorized in Stage 2 or 3 will be indignant and declare those of us who identify with Stage 4 or 5 as arrogant and patronizing (accusations Bishop Spong is well acquainted with!). The bottom line is that Fowler’s system isn’t judgmental of people in particular stages. They simply acknowledge that there ARE stages — and we’re all in different places along the way. Once liberated from the dualism of being “right or wrong,” there’s no need to try and convince a Stage 3 person of anything. Simply be who you are where you are on the spiritual journey. Don’t be deterred from being a person on the way to Stage 6 for fear of offending someone in Stage 2. Just get on with it. We no longer need to feel the urge to give in to our tribal impulse to prove others wrong and ourselves right. If we’re familiar enough with Fowler’s stages, we can endure a sermon that is theologically medieval and resist the urge to shout, “You’re WRONG!” Instead, we can simply acknowledge, “Wow, that was a seriously “Stage 2” sermon. There may even be an opportunity to demonstrate some Stage 5 compassion by empathizing with the pastor: “I know she’s a Stage 5 Christian, but the demographic of her church is Stage 3. That must be really hard on her spiritual integrity to preach to where people are rather than where she’d like them to be…”. Think of how helpful a “Stages” labeling system could be. For the benefit of the consumer, whole churches or denominations could be designated as Stage 2, 3, 4, or 5 – saving people a lot of grief in choosing a faith community. Like English 101 or 102, Bible studies could be identified as Stage 4 or Stage 5. Perhaps truth-in-advertising would lead to announcements indicating “WARNING: Stage 2 Bible Study!” Understanding the stages of faith can also help explain the absence of young people in “liberal churches.” Despite our obvious failure to present young people with an “age appropriate” path, it is some consolation to be reminded that reaching the later stages of faith are often more a function of chronology and life experience than “right information.” At a 2016 conference in Queensland, Rev. Dr. Margaret Mayman said: “Just thinking new ‘right things’ will make us as useless as the fundamentalists.” So, let’s get over the arguments about who’s got “the truth” or the “facts.” It’s not a competition to be “right.” Adopting Fowler’s “Stages of Faith” (or a similar system) is essential in telling the story of our new Reformation. We need no longer be captive to the either/or-ness of our primal past. We are liberated from being held back by those living in the past and freed to evolve spiritually, transforming ourselves and, with any luck, the world. #tremendous #huge! ~ Rev. David M. Felten Read Online Here About the Author David 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”. A co-founder of the Arizona Foundation for Contemporary Theology 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 and his wife Laura, an administrator for a large Arizona public school district, live in Phoenix with their three often adorable children. Question & Answer Kay from St. Louis, writes: Question: What do you mean when you speak about idolatry among Christians? Answer: By Matthew Fox Thank you for your question, Kay. This is a very important question for our time. The late and great Catholic monk, Thomas Merton, had some blunt things to say about idolatry when he wrote that today many “half-religious people are engaged in “the greatest orgy of idolatry the world has ever known.” He goes on to warn that “it is not generally thought by believers that idolatry is the greatest and fundamental sin.”(1) When hypocritical so-called Christian politicians use the name “Christianity” to further their agendas to kill safety nets for the aged and the poor and who oppose defending Mother Earth and sacred creation from onslaughts by multi-national corporations and Wall Street whose gods are the bottom line these very gods are idols. Such worship substitutes for honoring the real God—a God of justice, compassion and creativity. When the president of CBS was questioned about why the media gave billions of dollars of free air time to the Trump campaign but no such support to the Bernie Sanders or even Clinton campaigns he replied that “Trump may be bad for America but he is good for the bottom line.” That is idolatry. (It is also in my opinion treason, a selling out of one’s country for the bottom line.) Indeed, idolatry by its very nature, reduces God to an object—an object to be manipulated and used for our own interests (including getting elected, re-elected, or getting big money from big donors—somehow the Koch brothers come to mind—to further our selfish aims). Meister Eckhart talks about people who worship God like they do a cow—for the milk and cheese they can get from it. Again, Merton comments on this form of idolatry when he says, “When God becomes object, he sooner or later ‘dies,’ because God as object is ultimately unthinkable. God as object…is hardened into an idol that is maintained in existence by a sheer act of will.”(2) Sheer acts of will but also, I would add, of projection. Projecting onto our own man-made God is an act of idolatry. Our making God over into our own image instead of striving to be shining with the Divine image in us and in our actions—this is idolatry. Study is important to resist idolatry. We need to learn on a daily basis who/what the real God is and is not. Merton elaborates on the idols of our time when he comments on “the dangerous and potent idols” in the world today: Signs of cosmic and technological power, political and scientific idols, idols of the nation, the party, the race….The fact that they are evident in themselves does not mean that people do not submit more and more blindly, more and more despairingly, to their complete power. The idol of national military strength was never more powerful than today, even though men claim to desire peace.(3) I would add that idols of consumerism—a fetish for things we buy and feel we need to buy or have bought—is part and parcel of today’s idolatrous scene as well. Indeed, our very economic system, to the extent that it creates and whips up consumer fetishes, is running on idolatry: That somehow the acquisition of more goodies will satisfy the deep hunger and longing of the human heart—even if such idolatrous buying results in other people going hungry or the earth itself being exploited, species rendered extinct, and climate change raising the seas, destroying cities and homes and the future for our great, great grandchildren. Such idol-worship fails to satisfy the heart. Idols are that kind of worship—unsatisfying. But dissatisfaction is at the heart of economic idolatry—it feeds the machines of advertising to keep us buying. And buying. And buying. The addiction of shopping is a special form of idolatry born of consumer capitalism. Fundamentalism is a form of idolatry because it focuses on the literal as Bishop Spong reminds us in his solid study on Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy. This turning the literal into a god invites projection and with projection comes the worship of idols, i.e. man-made gods. Literalism also feeds the idols of fascism and empire-building because it focuses on external forces including “law and order” and military might at the expense of our inner wellbeing, the grace that community, celebration, joy, sharing, forgiveness, creativity, are all about. Such idolatry becomes a substitute for true religion. And there is plenty of that going around. Inner work is required to resist it. We can also make an idol of rationality itself. Einstein warned about that when he declared that we should not overvalue the intellect for the intellect, he said, does not give us values; it only gives us methods. Values come from intuition he insisted and rationality should serve intuition. Yet we live in a society, he commented, that honors rationality and ignores intuition. This is one reason I elevate Rationality to being today one of the capital sins. Education has crashed on the rocks of rationality—rocks of idolatry. It needs a complete new start. Including for sure our seminary training which rarely includes training in how to be a mystic and teach others to be mystics, i.e. persons at home and accomplished with their intuitive (mystical) brains. This effort to create a balanced educational pedagogy where our left brain (intellect and analysis) and our right brain (mysticism and intuition) are both exercised and respected has been at the heart of my work as an educator for 45 years. I am happy to say that a new school is being launched in Boulder, Colorado this year to carry on this pedagogy. Started by graduates of our University of Creation Spirituality, it is being called Fox Institute for Creation Spirituality and it will offer master’s degrees and doctor of ministry and work degrees and a doctor of spirituality degree along with certificate programs in creation spirituality. It is an effort to combat idolatry in our culture, our souls, and of course in our education. You might want to check it out. ~ Matthew Fox Read and Share Online Here About the Author Matthew Fox holds a doctorate in spirituality from the Institut Catholique de Paris and has authored 32 books on spirituality and contemporary culture that have been translated into 60 languages. Fox has devoted 45 years to developing and teaching the tradition of Creation Spirituality and in doing so has reinvented forms of education and worship. His work is inclusive of today’s science and world spiritual traditions and has awakened millions to the much neglected earth-based mystical tradition of the West. He has helped to rediscover Hildegard of Bingen, Meister Eckhart, Thomas Aquinas. Among his books are Sins of the Spirit, Blessings of the FleshTransforming Evil in Soul and Society, The Pope’s War: Why Ratzinger’s Secret Crusade Has Imperiled the Church and How It Can Be Saved and Confessions: The Making of a Postdenominational Priest (1) Cited in Matthew Fox, A Way To God: Thomas Merton’s Creation Spirituality Journey (Novato, CA: New World Library, 2016), 204. (2) Ibid., 237. (3) Ibid. Announcements The Charter for Compassion has decided to take a leadership role with the newly formed One American Registry/One Coalition and we are launching this commitment in a special webinar to be held on Thursday, March 9th at 9 am PT and 12 pm ET. Click here for more information.

2 1