- Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

Shades of primal community and the stake dynamic
by James Wiegel 12 May '18

12 May '18

I thought you would want to read A Reporter at Large: The Spy Who Came Home, by Ben Taub. Why an expert in counterterrorism became a beat cop. http://nyer.cm/7vpwman Download The New Yorker Today app: http://nyer.cm/ba5wYPW 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 Loneliness does not come from having no people around you. But from being unable to communicate the things that seem important to you. Carl Jung

2 1

(no subject)
by Mirja Hanson 12 May '18

12 May '18

http://connect.fminsgrp.com John

1 0

(no subject)
by Lucille Chagnon 11 May '18

11 May '18

http://noble.haciendaheights.biz Lucille Chagnon

1 0

5/10/18, Progressing Spirit: A Conversation with John Shuck: Part 1 “On Being an Atheist in the Pulpit”; spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 10 May '18

10 May '18

View this email in your browser A Conversation with John Shuck: Part 1 “On Being an Atheist in the Pulpit” Essay by Rev. David Felten on May 10, 2018 The following is taken from an interview with the Rev. John Shuck on April 3, 2018. Recorded in an out-of-the-way corner at Portland’s famed Powell’s Books, it has been edited for length and thematic focus. David Felten:.. Tell me about coming out as an atheist. John Shuck:.. Well, that’s been a process – but I would blame it on religious education at seminary. David Felten:.. That’s what people fear the most. John Shuck:.. That’s exactly it. Don’t send people to seminary if you don’t want ministers to come back and talk about stuff. I went to Princeton, which is no liberal bastion. It’s basically a neo-orthodox school of Barth studies, right? But it was there that I learned about the historical critical method of reading the bible – and once you go there, once you actually learn it, appreciate it, and aren’t just fighting it, everything suddenly comes into question at the literal level. David Felten:.. So, you then come down from the ivory tower into the welcoming arms of a congregation that wanted to hear all about historical, critical thinking. John Shuck:.. Well, oddly enough, I did not. I started in 1992 at a congregation where I followed a fairly conservative minister. But within two years, the Jesus Seminar was featured on the cover of Time magazine and US News and it was church members who introduced me to John Dominic Crossan’s Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. So, this popularized version of the historical Jesus was actually introduced to me by a church member who said, “Think about this.” I remember talking to my colleagues within the Presbytery and most of them were freaked out about it or dismissive: “Well, you know that isn’t that big a deal.” David Felten:.. They didn’t like it. John Shuck: They felt like it was a problem to be solved. But for me, it was the coolest thing ever. David Felten:.. Click here to read online and to share your thoughts It was an adventure to be had. John Shuck:.. Yes. So, I said to the congregation, “This is what’s up” and asked, “What do you think about this?” I can’t say all, but many of them really liked it and appreciated it. What I remember saying way back then, in ’94, was, “As ministers, we’re really not supposed to say this stuff in church. We’re supposed to encourage you in faith, but I think you deserve to know what scholarship is about.” David Felten:.. Being a little subversive? John Shuck:.. Yeah. It is. My experience of people in church is that not everybody appreciates it, but there’s a group that genuinely appreciates this scholarship and finds it a way to strengthen their faith. I think the biggest thing I had to say was, “This isn’t necessarily the end of the road. It isn’t to the deep abyss of nothingness. You come out on the other side in some form or another.” David Felten:.. Maybe the ambiguity of “some form or another” is what people are afraid of. After all, you’ve come out the other side as an atheist. How have you come to live that out? Is there a particular way you describe your atheism? John Shuck:.. It’s a funny term, “atheist.” What does it mean? Well, the most precise definition of “theism” is believing in a supernatural God. I don’t. It may not be a technical definition, but I’m a person who does not put a lot of credibility in or care that much about supernatural things. David Felten:.. What’s the difference between a humanist, a non-theist, and an atheist? John Shuck:.. For practical purposes, I think they’re all the same thing. But I call myself a “Christian Atheist” because, in part, it’s so marvelously jarring. I think people have more of an acceptance of “Jewish Atheist” because there’s an ethnicity involved with being Jewish. But people have a hard time with “Christian Atheist.” I like Christianity, but I treat the symbols and ethics of Christianity from a humanist or natural point of view. In other words, I see all the stories of Christianity as human products of cultural evolution. David Felten:.. Awhile back, there was a bit of a dust-up over a column you wrote for “The Friendly Atheist” blog. How did that all come about and what was the reaction? John Shuck:.. It started back when I was in my previous church in Elizabethton, Tennessee. An article came out in our denominational publication, Presbyterians Today, that asked, “What do Presbyterians believe?” I looked through it all and said, “I don’t believe any of this.” I really don’t. All of these things: The Trinity, of Jesus being a certain way. I thought, “I’m just going to write down what I believe.” So, I wrote a blog post about things that I felt were true. For example, evolutionary science is true. The bible is human product. Jesus may have been an historical figure but most of the stories about him are legends. God is a symbolic name that we use for things we don’t understand or can’t grasp. I wrote that article and it raised a lot of heck. It got the Layman Magazine and other conservatives all upset and, as usual, they wanted to get me out of the denomination in some form or another. That eventually kind of went its way before I moved to Oregon. Then Hemant Mehta of “The Friendly Atheist” got wind of it and asked me to write a column for him and so I did. The title he chose and I ended up agreeing with was, “I’m a Presbyterian Minister Who Doesn’t Believe in God.” That really wasn’t the focus of it, but that was the title and I understand how titles work. The real focus was, and the point I would still make, is, can we have a beliefless Christianity? Can we have a Christianity that isn’t focused on believing things, on reciting creeds? That was the value system I wanted to put out there: a beyond-belief kind of thing. Anyway, that got picked up by conservative media and kind of went all over the place. We ended up having protestors at our church. Coincidentally, an article came out about my congregation at Southminster because the Presbyterian denomination just passed marriage equality. So right at the same time, the same week, we had an article about marriage equality and how our congregation had been helpful in that. When the protesters came, I wasn’t really sure which article they were upset about. “Portland’s Free Preachers” filmed themselves yelling at people about their minister not believing in God and “you’re a bunch of homos!” and all this stuff. They were even yelling at our kids. It was an awful experience. The pastor at a neighboring church confronted them and said, “Hey you guys, this isn’t the way to do Jesus.” So, they went and yelled at his church, too. This was all within just two or three months of being at Southminster! Anyway, it was Palm Sunday, which was nice, because I could use the protest as a sermon illustration of how confusing protests are and how sometimes you’re on one side, and sometimes you’re on another. David Felten:.. And you’re still at Southminster. John Shuck:.. Yes. I had to deal with all that with the church and I think I lost a few people. But, I actually gained a lot of respect. When people actually read the “Friendly Atheist” article, they realized, “Oh, I see what he’s saying,” and it really isn’t that radical. I was simply saying about Christianity what conservatives say about other religions: everyone else’s religion is mythology, but we would never say that about our religion, right? Our religion is “true.” David Felten:.. Speaking of other religions, Southminster is across the street from an Islamic Center with which you’ve established a relationship. What do they think about you being out on the ragged edge of Presbyterianism? John Shuck:.. I don’t know what they think about it. We have another Presbyterian congregation on the same corner. It’s Presbyterian Church of America. Very conservative. They also have a dialog with the Islamic Center and, on one level, it’s probably a cleaner dialog because they’re both fighting over which version of God is “right.” I personally don’t care. I’m mostly into it for the social, political, theological big picture thing. I really don’t know what they feel about that, but I think they appreciate that we’re very much interested in having this relationship and a community with them. Islamophobia is hugely on the rise right now. Anti-Semitism is too, but especially since 9/11 (and now the Trump thing) Islamophobia has increased. That’s what we’re helping to put a stop to. David Felten:.. Tell me about your experience with colleagues with whom you’ve had conversations along the lines of what we’ve been talking about today. What goes through the mind or heart of clergy who are struggling with being honest about where they’ve come to theologically? What have you heard from people about roadblocks? John Shuck:.. First of all, I know it’s hard. This isn’t my first go-around with conflict – with either fellow clergy or others from the Right. So, I’m kind of used to it. It doesn’t scare me – and it can be scary. I mean, I have great sympathy for ministers who, for the most part, aren’t out there fighting battles. They’re trying to take care of their congregations, do their thing. When they see these people (on the right) who are policing the system and coming down hard on non-conformists, it’s intimidating. David Felten:.. It makes you not want to be vulnerable that way. John Shuck:.. Right. So, my role has become being one who says to the right wing, “You are not going to get away with silencing the rest of us.” That’s not always been my role – and maybe it hasn’t been enough – but I’m going to push back at the Right and say, “No. You don’t get away with that.” David Felten:.. Would you say it’s more shaming or bullying – or both? John Shuck:.. It’s a silencing. It’s an attempt to threaten people into silence with, “You can’t say this or you’re not Christian anymore – and we’ll belittle you in any way we can.” Ten or fifteen years ago it used to be really hard in our denomination – Presbyterians and all of the heresy business. My feeling was then as it is now: “You can’t get away with that.” Sometimes, when I’m being a little cheeky with people who probably think like me but don’t want to say anything, I’ll say, “I think we’ve got to be honest with what we’re saying. What do we mean when we talk about resurrection? Do you really think that there’s a body that rose out of a tomb? If not, then say what you think it is.” We’ve been given so much double language to use. We’ve been trained to be able to talk about it in ways that don’t actually tell the truth. I think we’re paying the price for that. David Felten:.. People know when we’re not being honest. John Shuck:.. Yeah. And I think the modern new atheist movement is calling the Church out on that. That’s why Dawkins and Dennett and those guys ask, “What are you guys really saying?” From my perspective, they are calling us to be forthright and I think that’s a good thing. David Felten:.. A pastor being forthright?! John Shuck:.. Well, what’s a pastor to do? Help support the “truth” as it’s been received in the community? Or, is it about helping people discover what is true? Those two aren’t necessarily the same things. There’s a ceiling there. You can say truth, truth, truth – but when it hits the ceiling of creed, where you can’t go beyond a certain point, I think that ceiling needs to be broken down. David Felten:.. There are a lot of folks who think that if that ceiling is shattered, it means the end of everything for Christianity as we know it. John Shuck:.. I don’t think it’s the end of everything if that happens. There’s a great fear that if that happens, then the whole thing goes to hell, but I don’t see that being the case. I think it takes different shapes, but it doesn’t have to be the end of church. David Felten:.. That might not be a bad thing. John Shuck:.. You know, if the church ends, okay. The point is that the church isn’t the point. The point is truth and goodness. That’s got to continue. ~ Rev. David Felten with Rev. John Shuck Click here to read online and to share your thoughts About John Shuck: Once a professional radio announcer at stations in Boise and Seattle, Rev. Shuck has served as a Presbyterian pastor for 25 years. Through his blog, Shuck and Jive, John became known in Northeast Tennessee and Southwest Virginia as the “Radical Reverend.” His popularity (infamy?) lead to the development of his podcast, Religion for Life, which began broadcasting in 2012. Now moved to Oregon, John is the full-time pastor at Southminster Presbyterian Church in Beaverton, Oregon. He currently hosts the radio program/podcast, “The Beloved Community” on KBOO FM in Portland, Oregon. Since 2012, John has interviewed over 250 authors, scholars, and activists about social justice issues, religious scholarship, politics, sex, science, and more. The internet version of The Beloved Community, Progressive Spirit, can be subscribed to on iTunes and Podomatic. Be sure to visit John’s website by clicking HERE About the Author Rev. David M. Felten is a full-time pastor at The Fountains, a United Methodist Church in Fountain Hills, Arizona. David and fellow United Methodist Pastor, Jeff Procter-Murphy, are the creators of the DVD-based discussion series for Progressive Christians, “Living the Questions”. 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 Q: By Ryan Here’s my question: why is progressive Christianity so white? And who are the main non-white voices within the movement? Thank you so much. A: By Eric Alexander Thanks for a great question Ryan. A few years back I was admin of an eight-thousand member progressive Christian community. At that time I asked the group why they thought there weren’t more black and latino voices participating in progressive Christianity, and there certainly was no clear consensus that came of it; but a few themes did bubble up. We also ran some surveys in that group around that time (2014), and we concluded that the global community who labels themselves as “progressive Christian” was about 95% white at the time. We also determined that many blacks and latinos may not identify themselves as theologically “progressive Christians,” but they are often amongst the most socially progressive, especially as it regards issues of race, immigration, and income equality. One of the key data points that stood out from that research was that the modern progressive Christian theological movement has been incubated in white and liberal academia over the past fifty years. And in general since it started as a white movement, it has continued to attract whites. It is sort of the natural order of things in humanity that white (or non-white) movements tend to stay mostly white (or non-white) - although that is starting to change. Another reason for the trend is that members of black and latino communities don’t tend to have such an easy opt-out option from their spiritual communities. In non-white communities, churches tend to be much more integral to social / business / spiritual constructs. Even Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was quite theologically progressive, but given the social work he had to do, talking extensively about the theological aspects of the faith was not a key mantle that he chose to highlight during his ministry. When it comes to modern non-white progressive Christian voices, it has indeed been a challenge to find non-whites in the explicit “progressive Christian movement.” As I’ve talked to many people of color over the years I’ve found that many aren’t as hung up on the theology as whites tend to be. People of color tend more to be drawn to the spirituality and liberation aspects of the faith. Whether the Bible is literal or not is not often the key concern in non-white faith communities. In contrast, progressive Christianity has been a mainly white, academic, and affluent group, and it hasn’t appealed as much to the more charismatic and deeply spiritual crowd. With all of that said, diversification is definitely happening with each passing year. I have seen a number of black females getting involved within the label. One example is Rev. Irene Monroe recently joining the Progressing Spirit lineup. And Toni Reynolds being named to the ProgressiveChristianity.org board of directors. Neither of these women were added explicitly because of their ethnicity, but it is evidence that the demographics are changing. Of course, everything said here is based on generalizations and over-simplifications, but it is an attempt to look at a very complex subject in just a couple paragraphs. I, like you, am excited to see what is happening! ~ Eric Alexander Click here to read and share online About the Author Eric Alexander is an author, speaker, and entrepreneur. He is a board member at ProgressiveChristianity.org, and is the founder of Jesism, Christian Evolution, and the Progressive Christianity and Politics group on Facebook. Eric holds a Master of Theology from Saint Leo University and studied negotiations at Harvard Law School, and and is author of Teaching Kids Life IS Good. Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited Pre-Modern Theology in Public Life Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong on August 3, 2005 When the hurricane named ‘Dennis’ placed weary Floridians under water in the first major Caribbean disaster of 2005, their Governor Jeb Bush, reflecting on the recent pounding his state has taken, made an interesting, an almost stream of consciousness, observation. “I think there is a legitimate feeling,” he said, “Why me? What did I do wrong?” Governor Bush was giving expression to a major tenet in a pre-Copernican God theology that finds ample space in the pages of the Bible. In the Noah story, for example, the weather is sent by God to punish people for their sins. Consistent with this biblical lesson, natural disasters like floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, Tsunami waves and droughts have throughout history been interpreted as a divine response to a real or imagined human failure. People prayed for weather changes and accompanied those prayers with promises of repentance and a pledge to future actions more pleasing to God. General George Patton in his diary attributed the fair weather that accompanied his military successes in France in 1944 and 1945 as a sign from God, who, he believed favored the Allies and hated the Germans. Since God was assumed to live just above the sky, divine direction of the weather was easy to imagine. This childlike religious rhetoric is thus not the sole possession of a sitting governor. Indeed it permeates our culture on many levels. It is reflected by the fact that many people still view sickness as punishment. ‘What have I done to deserve this?’ is a familiar refrain falling from the lips of the ill. Most significant of all this is, as I shall try to demonstrate, the view of God upon which religious leaders and institutions have always leaned to build their power. We see this mentality being employed today by the Vatican, among television evangelists and in the words of many people in public life. Modern athletes seem to believe the God above the sky directs their fortunes. One sees an athlete making the sign of the cross before stepping into the batter’s box, or up to the free throw line. Others point to the sky in gratitude to the God who helped them strike out an opponent, hit a home run, or kick a winning field goal. This theology also penetrates the way tragedies are interpreted. Survivors, who climb out of an airliner crash or escape a subway bombing, seem almost invariably to assume that God has spared their lives. The unspoken implication is that those who died deserved it or that God had no special plan for them beyond premature death. What is it that gives such power to these primitive ideas that both athletes and presumably well-educated people in public life still think and talk this way? Is some basic human need met by this primitive theology? Does pious rhetoric blunt our thinking processes? Or does this tenacious idea simply reflect an ever present but seldom faced part of our humanity? It is part of what it means to be human to yearn for some assurance that we are not alone in this vast and empty-feeling world. We are the only creatures whose minds are sufficiently developed to embrace the vastness of the universe. We alone live inside the meaning of time. This means that we can both anticipate impending disasters and embrace the fact that we will die. It is, therefore, the nature of human life to be chronically anxious. Both are the byproducts of self-consciousness. This anxiety and fear seems to compel us to create a divine supernatural God figure, powerful enough to be our protector. This deity must not be limited as we are, since that would not give us security. Human beings never escape that childhood memory of having an apparently all-powerful parent figure taking care of us. Finding ourselves alone in adulthood we place a divine parent figure called God into the sky where, unseen but ever watchful, this God can look after us. Then we ascribe to this God the qualities we lack. God’s immortality counters our mortality. God’s power counters our impotence. Once that definition is set, we begin to relate to this God exactly the way children relate to parents. We bargain with God, make our requests known to God, manipulate God, flatter God into getting our way, seek to win favor by keeping God’s rules, confess to God when we fail and always remember to say ‘thank you’ so that God will reward us for being a grateful child. This supernatural theistic religion is still very much alive in our churches. Claiming the ability to interpret how God will act and what will please the Holy One is both the source of ecclesiastical authority and the cause of our own spiritual immaturity. From this perspective we view sickness and tragedy as signs of divine anger, reflecting the world we have created with ourselves living at the center of it and God, understood as a heavenly “Father,” keeping things fair like a good parent should. The result of this religious mentality might well be temporarily soothing but ultimately it turns destructive. In the disaster that fell upon Western Europe in the 14th century, known as the Bubonic Plague, between 20-35% of the adult population of Europe died. What caused the wrath of God to fall so heavily upon their world, they wondered? The first answer was that their own sinfulness was responsible, so a movement known as the “Flagellants” developed in which thousands of men marched through the streets of European cities lashing their own bare backs with whips. Their hope was that if they punished themselves sufficiently, God would withdraw the punishing ‘black death.’ The second answer they heard was that God was angry because Europe’s Christians had tolerated infidels. Responding to that premise they proceeded to persecute Jews in a frenzy of killing anti-Semitism. When unexplained mysteries baffled the citizens of Salem, Massachusetts, in the late 17th century, they responded by executing women they deemed to be the agents of Satan, who, they concluded, had caused their distress. Why do we find this capricious God comforting? Do we really want a Deity we can manipulate with the flattery of regular worship and from whom we can win brownie points with good behavior? Do human beings really desire a God who is so unstable that the divine mind will change to accommodate fervent prayers? What is the value we find in a God who keeps us in a state of perpetual dependency? Why can we not let this pathetic God die? Is it that we are not able yet to accept responsibility for our role in the determination of the destiny of this planet? Ironically enough, there does appear to be a far deeper connection between human behavior and natural disaster than our popular rhetoric imagines. Some natural disasters, like the collision of tectonic plates that create Tsunami waves are just that, natural disasters. They are not a response to anyone’s behavior. Other disasters, however, are connected with our behavior but not in the old moralistic sense. We are, for example, experiencing today changing weather patterns that reflect impending environmental disasters. They result not from an angry deity but from such things as irresponsible human breeding habits that have led to overpopulation and the resulting exhaustion of many of the earth’s resources. We have cut down the rain forests, polluted the air we breathe and the water we drink. Our behavior has led to global warming, acid rain, the melting of the polar icecaps and the resulting dramatic changes in the weather patterns of our world. These present and pending disasters are nature’s way of saying that our rape of mother earth has dire consequences. They are the result of a humanity that has not yet embraced the fact that the world is not an enemy that we must conquer and subdue as if we are not a part of it. They are the result of our conceptualizing God as separated from this world, isolated in the sky, then endowing this God with symbols of parenthood that allow us to remain irresponsible children who cannot see beyond the level of our own self-centered need for comfort and security. Let me say boldly what religious leaders are loathe to say. There is no God in the sky who will send out a divine vacuum to gobble up the human waste that now warms our atmosphere. There is no heavenly filtering system through which we can recycle the water of our river, lakes and oceans. In today’s world there is no scapegoat other than ourselves upon whom we can heap the blame for our rapid environmental degradation. That is why the number and intensity of hurricanes seems to rise every year. That is why the American Midwest has seen a tenfold increase in the number of tornadoes in the last fifty years. That is why killing heat waves have become regular features of both Europe’s climate and ours. These things are not the result of a wrathful God punishing us for some supposed misdeeds; they are the direct result of human beings continuing to act with childlike irresponsibility because we have not yet embraced the idea that there is no supernatural God in the sky who will protect us even from ourselves. Has not the time come for our understanding of God to mature, to embrace reality? Our ‘heavenly parent’ definition of God acts to relieve us of responsibility. Our great religious fear is that if God is not this Supernatural Being in the sky, then there is no God. Atheism is, we think, the only alternative to theism. That is the boundary over which religious people fear to walk. Suppose, however, that God is defined as the Source of Life, so that our worship demands that we cooperate with all of nature rather than trying to conquer it for our own benefit. Suppose God is defined as the Source of Love, so that our worship enables us to journey beyond the limits of our fear to embrace all that is. Suppose God is defined as the Ground of Being so that our worship relates us to a holiness that permeates all that is. That is what we need to understand before we human beings can grow up and accept responsibility for our world. The next time you see or hear a Governor or any other person act as if God is responsible for the weather, sickness, or our victories and defeats, recognize it for what it is: the juvenile whimpering of an immature human being who above all else needs to mature spiritually. ~ John Shelby Spong Announcements Deva Premal & Miten with Manose May 16th at 7:30pm at the First Congregational UCC, Portland, OR join celebrated chant masters Deva Premal & Miten, accompanied by Nepalese bansuri maestro Manose, with Canadian Joby Baker on bass and Danish percussionist Rishi, for an evening of mantra, song, celebration and meditation. Click here for more information

1 0

Mystery
by Richard 09 May '18

09 May '18

Witness to the Mystery of Life I have a long history of ‘baring my soul’ witnesses to the amazing and unusual things that happen in my life. There was the foul ball at the Cubs game, there was ‘expecting more from strangers’, the Monsignor Egan event, etc.. there is a lot of mystery out there if you have the eyes to see it .. a “thin places” where the other world that is in this world becomes apparent Ok, so I get an email from Terry Bergdall forwarding an email from Geri Tolman asking if Terry knew how to get in touch with Hannerl and Manfred Golda. The Tolmans had been in Frankfurt together with Goldas in 78-79 and wanted them to know of Warren’s passing. When I got Terry’s note I was on a bus returning from Springfield, Illinois at an Environmental Lobby day. It is a three-hour bus trip to Chicago, so I had time on my hands. I had known Hannerl and Manfred when I was part of the Brussels House and even traveled to Vienna to visit them as part of an ICA gathering. So I knew they had been or still lived in Vienna. So I googled Hannerl Golda.. nothing and then added Vienna. A lot of German text and other odds and ends, kept scrolling down and up popped the following German paragraph. I would of missed it except for the very end of the paragraph it has ICA. I am not sure what it says although when I googled Manfred it said in English he was a consultant/coach MANFRED GOLDA. A-1080 Wien, Skodagasse 9/2/12. Tel. 0222/42 34 SI. Wi en ,Weihnachten 1984. Esteigt. Liebe Verwandte, Freunde und Bekannte! Wenn Dich/Sie dieser ... von Berlin nach Wien mitgetragen haben. Es war dann, seit wir ... Der Familie geht es sonst gut , Hannerl ist in der ICA-Arbeit hier stark engagiert ,. I was amazed and when I told Sally about this find she suggested that since she is on her way with her sister to Paris we should google ICA Paris.. never know the kinds of ICA people still hanging around. Reminds me of the Coco movie..need to have pictures and thoughts of people to keep them around and in the other world. Dick Richard H.T. Alton 166 N. Humphrey Ave, Apt, 1N Oak Park, IL 60302 T:1.773.344.7172 richard.alton(a)gmail.com Don't let the fear of striking out hold you back Babe Ruth

3 2

Tracing a quote
by Karenbueno 08 May '18

08 May '18

Is there someone who can tell me the reference for the line, "there had to be someone who said yes". I know it is from a poem, but I don't know what or where or whom. Karen Bueno

3 3

5/03/18, Alexander: Progressing Spirit: Alexander: Jesism; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 07 May '18

07 May '18

View this email in your browser Jesism Essay by Eric Alexander on May 3, 2018 In Bishop Spong’s latest set of theses from his recent book Unbelievable, he offered a comprehensive commentary on the core traditional Christian ideas that have encompassed Christianity for much of its post-Constantinian era. After discussing the topic of “God” in Thesis #1 (which Fred Plummer wrote about last week), Bishop Spong went on to look at “Jesus [as] the Christ” in Thesis # 2, and that is what I will discuss in this installment. With that said however, I don’t plan to write a book report. Instead I want to do what I think is the true essence of where Bishop Spong wants the evolution of his newsletter to go, and I want to share a view of how I think we might relate to Jesus in a 21st century environment that has ventured beyond unique incarnation and substitutionary atonement. Over the past couple of years I have been talking about a concept called Jesism. It’s not meant to be a replacement for Christianity, nor is it a new religion, sect, or label; but rather it is an inclusive philosophical, mythic, and mystical paradigm by which we can relate to Jesus in a modern environment of ubiquitous education, communication, and information. It’s a perspective that describes a liberating alternative to many of today’s mainstream expressions of Christianity, which tend to focus on strict agreement to prescribed sets of creeds and biblical interpretations, and are often co-opted with far-right wing politics and religious fundamentalism. It is a distinct progressive Christian based idea to make clear what so many of us stand for, and it is applicable to Christians and post-Christians (or Christian alumni as Bishop Spong might say) alike. In this essay I want to share a bit more about this idea of Jesism as a new paradigm with you, and solicit your feedback in the comments. And remember, I’m not asking anyone to give up Christianity or adopt this new title of Jesism. This is no sales pitch. I am simply sharing a mindset by which to discuss some potentialities for where the Jesus movement is headed, in light of Bishop Spong and other’s leadings. However, if you want to call yourself a Jesist, in addition to or instead of Christian, that is fine too. It can be a fun term to use in a variety of situations. For a bit of backstory, you may wonder why we should even bother with such an idea. For starters, Jesus is probably the most notable figure in the history of the western world. And there seems to be a Jesus fabric within many of us that we just can’t erase — nor do many of us want to. Having been raised around Jesus, and having an overall positive vision of the Church, many progressive type Christians, including myself and Bishop Spong, continue to see a nucleus worth maintaining. And there are millions of people around the world who are in that same camp. They like (or even love) Jesus, or were raised in a Christian tradition that is part of the fabric of who they are. However, they just can no longer exist within today’s standard Christian culture without a step-function change of perspective It is my belief that with the onset of such easily accessible modern biblical scholarship and global communication fueled by the internet, there is no way for the Christianity of yesteryear to continue as it once did. The type of faith that discourages questioning and exploration simply will not prevail as in era’s past. The ultimate question is whether those of us on the leading edge can (or should) guide the reconstruction, or just let it die on the vine in the grasp of the fundamentalists? I use the word reconstruction very intentionally in the prior paragraph. This idea I am referring to as Jesism is not a deconstruction movement. It does not revolve around proving that the Bible isn’t literal or inerrant. Scholars such as Spong, Crossan, and Borg have done a phenomenal job at conveying those points to the masses. Instead it assumes a growing mass of people who are already educated and in-the-know about these things. And it is assuming that many of those people still hold a fondness for the teachings and example of Jesus, as well as the potential of the Church. This Jesism concept I speak of (which is pronounced Jēs-ism like Jēsus) was imagined with a similar naming etymology to the construction of the term Buddhism, which is based around the teachings and example of the Buddha, and is pronounced Bood-ism. And like Buddhism, it can be applied as an over-arching philosophy, practice, and path that can be integrated into one’s existing institution or community. It is for those who may have a connection or upbrining within the Jesus tradition, but who also value inclusivity, science, scholarship, exploration, and any other practice or philosophical elements that better inform our reality and help us live a better quality of life. And like Buddhism, it uses the popular name (Jesus / Buddha) instead of the given name of the historical person it was fashioned after (Yeshua of Nazareth / Siddhartha Gautama). With this in mind, a Jesist might be dogmatic or non-dogmatic, and could range from being more focused on a historical Jesus, or viewing the enduring message within a more mythically interpreted context, or “cosmic Christ” as some say. It is a fresh paradigm for how we can understand and follow Jesus if that is something we wish to do. Similar to Buddhism, those who practice Jesism vary greatly in application, with a strong emphasis on inclusivity and allowing space for individual interpretation. In other words, as Bishop Spong suggests, litmus test creeds and doctrines will no longer be how those who are interested in Jesus from a progressive point of view do things going forward. Jesism also readily acknowledges that the world doesn’t don’t need another “ism” to sort out. Jesism exists merely as a paradigm shift, or an idea of sorts, for those who may have a positive connection with Jesus in one way or another. A Jesist would not need to stop calling themself a Christian or progressive Christian, or even agnostic, panentheist, or a-theist. One could happily attend a church of any denomination and change nothing about that routine. Jesism would only indicate a more deliberate faith paradigm that over-arches it. Following are nine core concepts which carve this idea of Jesism out further in a more distinct manner. They will not be referred to as theses, but instead I am simply referring to them as “guidelines” of what I think a growing number of Jesus followers of tomorrow might resonate with. I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments. 1) The core of Jesism, both theologically and socially, revolves around the responses of Jesus when his followers asked him their biggest questions; such as “what is the greatest commandment,” and Jesus responded with “Love God, and Love others as you would want to be loved” (Matthew 22:36-40). Similarly, during his ministry Jesus articulated only one new commandment, when during the last supper he told his followers: “a new commandment I give to you, love others as I have loved you” (John 13:34). Therefore, love of our creator, and having compassion for others, ourselves, and all of creation is the core tenet of this Jesism framework. 2) Jesism is an intentionally alternative paradigm to the literalized and creed-based conservative Christian model that many practice today. Particularly, some of those theological explanations from the councils of Constantine, and modern-day fundamentalist evangelicals. It doesn’t replace liberal or progressive Christianity, it simply adds a framework to distinguish the more fluid ideas more readily. 3) Jesism is in no way in competition with most other spiritual paths or “ism’s.” Someone who appreciates Jesism could share and explore the best teachings from a multitude of beneficial paths – understanding that no path is complete, and every path has the potential for corruption and fundamentalism if attempted to be made exclusive. Jesists would not be threatened or afraid to explore and embrace beneficial practices and insights from other religions or customs. Jesism is often most relevant to those who have a cultural paradigm within a Jesus based tradition, and who continue to value the Bible and the Church in some way. It is a way to relate to Jesus in our new age. 4) Jesism is closely aligned with other eastern spirituality and philosophies as it regards the beneficial practices of mindfulness, non-attachment, simplicity, gratitude, and joy. Jesus and his followers encouraged meditation by name (Phil 4:8) and Jesus took frequent times away from the action to pray and meditate quietly (Matthew 6: 5-8). He was a promoter of a simple life, unattached to material possessions (Matthew 6:19) or worry about the future (Matthew 6:25-34). And the earliest followers of Jesus began a beneficial tradition of peace and joy despite life’s challenges (1 Thess 5:15-19). These teachings often go ignored by mainstream Christianity and its primary creeds, but many eastern and new thought traditions have offered deep insight into these areas, which most “Jesists” are happy to draw from. 5) Jesism focuses on social justice and helping address sociological ills. Much like the life of Jesus, it does not only focus on transcendence or an escape from suffering, but directly embraces the opportunities for advancement in the world, and seeks an overflowing spirit that supports, embraces, and advocates for others in need, especially those in the greatest need (Luke 10:25-37). Additionally, when Jesus was asked how one could find life, he told the parable of the good Samaritan, which suggested that people in positive spiritual alignment would help others even when it should seem inconvenient or difficult. 6) Jesism does not support a number of social platforms that are championed by many of today’s mainstream Christians, such as being anti-gay, ignoring climate justice, and denying the pursuit of science. Nor does it support systems that encourage massive wealth concentration at the top, mass militarization, mass armament, and mass incarceration, or blanket deportation. Jesism focuses on loving others and being open, affirming, forgiving, and inclusive; and valuing equality, education, and scholarship. 7) Jesism requires no specific literalized beliefs or creeds about God, Jesus, or the Bible. During his ministry, Jesus spoke of God but did not attempt to define God, or argue that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. He also never focused on a requirement to believe literally in a virgin birth, physical resurrection, or eventual return; therefore Jesism also does not put the focus on those elements. 8) Jesism doesn’t focus on specific miracles, but rather views all of life as a miracle. Just as Jesus did not try to define these concepts, neither do most Jesists. Jesism encourages honest and genuine exploration of the mystical elements of life, with a degree of faith and humility. 9) Jesism highlights the teachings of non-duality, non-exclusive incarnation, and the “Kingdom of God.“ It is recorded in Luke 17 that Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is within you.” John 10 records Jesus as saying “the Father and I are one.” But Jesus didn’t just think that God was just one with him, or just his personal literal father. He acknowledged God as everyone’s father equally. The level of divinity in Jesus was the level of divinity in all of us, although certainly levels of actualization and alignment with Source will vary. When Jesus was asked by his followers how to pray, he didn’t start it with my father, but instead he said our Father (Matthew 6:9). That prayer is often called The Our Father for that reason. Jesus related to God in completely equal ways to the others he was with, and he said his followers could do greater things than him (John 14:12). This is the very idea of the Christos, which Christianity was based on in the first place. Those nine concepts are some of the core ideas within this outlook I’m referring to as Jesism. They attempt to formulate how we might comprehend Jesus in this new age, which Bishop Spong so eloquently describes. Whether one adopts the name of “Jesism” or not, those are some ideas which I think may be a natural path going forward for many around the Jesus tradition. My experience is that without clarifying statements, such as the 8 Points of Progressive Christianity, and even Spong's earlier 12 Theses, it will become increasingly difficult for reasonable Christian-centric people to distinguish themselves within a Jesus based movement. As subscribers to Progressing Spirit, I know that you are among the most advanced and well versed in this conversation, so I am interested to hear your thoughts in the comments. I will endeavor to respond to every comment. Peace, Eric Alexander Click here to read online and to share your thoughts About the Author Eric Alexander is an author, speaker, and entrepreneur. He is a board member at ProgressiveChristianity.org, and is the founder of Jesism, Christian Evolution, and the Progressive Christianity and Politics group on Facebook. Eric holds a Master of Theology from Saint Leo University and studied negotiations at Harvard Law School, and and is author of Teaching Kids Life IS Good. Question & Answer Q: By Owen Foster I have a lot of respect for the non-literal interpretation of the New and Old Testament, but there are certain parts that I cannot see any metaphorical value in.  My stumbling blocks are these:  1. What is the metaphorical message given by the genealogy found in genesis and in the gospels? It is the former that precisely gives young earth creationists their earth age.  2. What is the metaphorical value of the various horrific laws laid down in Deuteronomy or Leviticus? I can’t see a non-literal interpretation of telling us to destroy people who have sex if a woman is on her period. Feel free to reword these questions, but please do try to answer. I am searching for Christ but there are so many stumbling blocks. My recovery from atheism is being hindered by Christians who either tiptoe around these issues or tell me to worship an evil tyrant. A: By Fred Plumer Well Owen you are on your way to a more clear understanding of the Bible, what it is and what it is not. First let’s look at your question, number 1. I hope my answer explains a lot about the rest of the Bible. First, one has to remember that the majority of the Bible was not actually written. And the parts that were written down by the original authors, particularly in the New Testament, were been translated, numerous times, redacted and were hand-picked by scribes with their own explanations. What you read in these “metaphorical messages” did not start out as written stories. These are most likely stories that were first told by the ancient people whose relatives lived in the Mesopotamian Valley. Most scholars understand that “humans” were first formed in Africa roughly 200,000 years ago. But these were, in large part, groups or tribes who lived off the land and were what we would call today “hunters and gathers.” Where religion existed, in those days, it was in large part matriarchically. Somewhere around 10,000 to 8,000 the people who migrated to the Mesopotamian Valley began to organize into communities. And for the first time humans began to domesticate their animals and crops, live in separate houses or huddles, and gather as a community to make laws. It was a long process but one of the changes that occurred over the millennium was a transition to more patriarchal gods. All along this roughly 6000 year journey we are on, the people were telling stories. Many of these stories ended up in the Bible, if you understand their significance. For example there is the story of Cain and Abel. What was Cain’s punishment for killing his brother? He had to toil in the fields. This is, in part, right out of the conflict between the hunters and gathers and the people who decided that they were going to organize and farm. The Midrash of this story (point of the story) is, he who kills, kills his brother or sister. Another example is the flood story. If you know anything about the Mesopotamian Valley, you know that it was known for its huge flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers until several dams were built in the mid-seventies. But these early settlers looked for the most fertile ground to make their stand and of course, it was in the plains where these tremendous floods had been and would be again and again. Thus it is not difficult to understand where the flood story came from. This is why, floods from God appear in so many of the different religious stories today. Now when you read the early OT stories, remember that these are not stories that were written down as they happened. They were stories told probably over community fires by possibly, an honored grandmother, who wanted to explain to a child why her mother has to go through so much pain to have a baby. These are created stories that attempt to explain why people have to die or why we are punished when we do something bad. This is why these ancient people believed in a three tier world. These were never intended to be factual. Factual was not a word that they would have understood. This is one of the reasons I have to chuckle when someone tells me that the earth is 6,000 years old. As you pointed out, this is done by the fundamentalist and some evangelicals by taking the ages of the people, starting in the Genesis stories, and carrying it through the entire Bible of the made up people, and possibly some real ones. Then they add up all of their ages to figure out how old the earth “really is.” This is why we find people who supposedly lived extraordinary long years when all of our scientific data tells us that the average age for these ancient people was between 30 and 40 years. It was an honor to live a long life and this is why, for example, Adam is supposed to have lived to be 930 years old and had his first child at 130 years old. His son lived to be 912 years. These are the kind of beliefs that keep some “Christians” from accepting the truth. That is why they are still looking for the ark and denying that prehistorical animals like dinosaurs actually existed. And yes, many of them still believe the earth is flat. Regarding the laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, question number 2, I believe you are a little off here but with the right idea. This are not metaphorical but rather some pretty harsh laws the some early Jewish people believed they had to follow when they were wandering tribes. However, the Leviticus laws were actually written in large part, for the honored Leviticus priest. They were considered a cleansing so that they would be pure. Remember these were ancient times and were much harsher times when they were written. Jesus would not have lived as long as he did if his community had been following these laws. Ninety percent of Jewish people do not treat these rules as something of importance today. Only the most conservative Jews would even consider them relevant. As far as your movement into Christianity, none of this should slow or hinder your progress. You just have to stop listening to fundamentalist and some evangelical Christians and listen more to the wonderful stories of the very human Jesus, who fought for the rights of the poor, who stood up to authorities, who gave the ultimate sacrifice, who loved people of all persuasions, who lived as a caring mystic, and who truly believed he was doing God’s work. What was His work? Live your life fully, with compassion and love. Focus on his positives and truly live more freely. It is not a bad place to be. ~ Fred C. Plumer Click here to read and share online About the Author In 1986 Rev. Plumer was called to the Irvine United Congregational Church in Irvine, CA to lead a UCC new start church, where he remained until he retired in 2004. The church became known throughout the denomination as one of the more exciting and progressive mid-size congregations in the nation. He served on the Board of Directors of the Southern California Conference of the United Church of Christ (UCC) for five years, and chaired the Commission for Church Development and Evangelism for three of those years. In 2006 Fred was elected President of ProgressiveChristianity.org (originally called The Center for Progressive Christianity - TCPC) when it’s founder Jim Adams retired. As a member of the Executive Council for TCPC he wrote The Study Guide for The 8 Points by which we define: Progressive Christianity. He has had several articles published on church development, building faith communities and redefining the purpose of the enlightened Christian Church. His book Drink from the Well is an anthology from speeches, articles in eBulletins, and numerous publications that define the progressive Christianity movement as it evolves to meet new challenges in a rapidly changing world. Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited A New Dark Age Begins Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong on July 27, 2005 Several years ago, in a column about the harassment, removal and silencing of Roman Catholic scholars like Hans Kung, Leonardo Boff, Charles Curran and Edward Schillebeeckx by that church, I referred to the leader of this “Inquisitional” mentality, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as “the pit bull of the Vatican.” Little did I realize that this church’s leadership would elect this man Pope and install him as Benedict XVI. That action sent a signal throughout the world that we are entering a new “Dark Age.” On many fronts this mentality, which has been building inside religion for at least forty years, has finally broken into our full awareness. We saw it in a document published a few years ago, written by the same Cardinal Ratzinger, in which the Vatican declared there to be only one true religion, namely Christianity, and only one true expression of Christianity, namely the Roman Catholic Church. The gentle Pope John XXIII (1958-1963), who opened that church to the accents of the 20th Century, must have turned in his grave. Ratzinger’s document went on to counsel Roman Catholic ecumenical representatives never to refer to other Christian bodies as “sister” churches for that implied some tacit recognition of their legitimacy. This attitude, the hallmark of authoritarian anti-intellectualism that historically has produced religious wars and persecution, is now installed in the Papacy itself. It signals the dimming of reason and suggests that Catholic Christianity has returned to the mindset of the Inquisition. Rome is not alone. A Danish Lutheran bishop has recently removed one of its most creative clergy, Pastor Thorkild Grosboell, from his parish near Copenhagen by charging him with heresy. To charge one with heresy implies that the charging authority possesses the truth of God. Another Danish bishop, seeing this as a public relations disaster, sought to smooth over the conflict by offering Pastor Grosboell another chance to resume his ministry, but only after a public interrogation in which the bishop read parts of the Creed developed in the fourth century and demanded that Pastor Grosboell declare, with a “yes” or “no” answer that he believes that these words have captured the eternal truth of God. That is “Dark Age” theology. We see the same mentality almost every day when various evangelical spokespersons, such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or R. Albert Mohler go on national television to express their opinion that the words of Scripture are the inerrant word of God. Their comments are frequently in the service of opposing evolution. All of these gentlemen either ignore the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship or they are not aware of it. Their rhetoric does little more than give aid and comfort to uninformed members of local school boards in the less well educated and less cosmopolitan parts of our nation who thrive on a lack of knowledge and who want to carry us back intellectually to the 1920’s, so that once again we might put learning on trial and convict it as we did in the Scopes Trial in Tennessee. One wonders when the historicity of Adam and Eve might begin to be defended again by the current ecclesiastical mentality. The Bible is so often used to perfume both ignorance and prejudice. If one had any doubt about this developing religious darkness, an op-ed piece that appeared on July 7, 2005 in the New York Times removed any lingering questions. This article, written by the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schoenborn, suggested that evolution was “not compatible with Catholic doctrine.” This author, no secondary figure in the Roman Catholic Church, served as the editor of the official 1992 Catechism of that Church. Earlier in his career this man had actually defended the literal historicity of the Book of Genesis. Adam and Eve here we come! Though the Vatican did not officially authorize this editorial, it is well known that Cardinal Schoenborn and Benedict XVI are very close friends and in that Church such events are never unplanned or accidental. Cardinal Schoenborn’s argument was intriguing as he first tried to undermine John Paul II’s words spoken in 1996 that “Evolution is more than a theory.” Secondly, he sought to drive a wedge between what he called the Theory of Evolution articulated by Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution that is held by those he called “The Neo-Darwinians.” According to the Cardinal, the distinction was that evolution “in the sense of a common ancestry might be true,” but evolution as “an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection is not.” Perhaps he does not recognize that the full title of Charles Darwin’s 1859 book was “The Origin of the Species by Natural Selection.” The implication was that anything that disagrees with or challenges the true faith of the Catholic Church could not be truth ipso facto. That is the typical claim found in all imperialistic religious systems. Clearly an alliance is emerging between the Vatican and the “creationist” wing of Protestant fundamentalism. Evolution, let it be said clearly, is no longer a debatable theory. DNA evidence has made it very clear that all of life is deeply and historically interconnected. Medical science assumes the truth of evolution in all that it does. The vast majority of the scientific world no longer salutes the primitive idea that a supernatural deity who lives above the sky has guided evolution to the glorious end of humankind and that it will go no further. Yet frightened religious leaders now interpret that to be an assault on their image of God. These leaders are unable or unwilling to embrace the fact that God for most Christians is a human creation that got frozen in a pre-modern form. The religious anxiety of our day stems from the fact that this definition of God is dying. Conservative Roman Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants appear to know that in the depths of their souls and so they seek to use authority in the task of divine artificial respiration. Former Christians also appear to know that much more consciously. That is why the fastest growing religious movement in the western world is the Church Alumni Association. The crisis to which these data point is real. I, for one, am not interested in being a part of a Christian Church that has to defend its faith against the insights of new knowledge. Any God who has to be protected from new truth cannot possibly be God. If the only alternative to the traditional view of God, that portrayed the deity as a supernatural theistic Being who invades the world periodically in miraculous ways to accomplish the divine purpose, is to say that there is no God, then I find that a healthier solution. That, however, is not the only alternative. I seek the God beyond the gods of men and women, beyond the gods of church and religious systems. I seek the God who is not bound by those antiquated creeds and dogmas that were hammered out in a world that no longer exists. If Cardinal Schoenborn wants to assert that anything that conflicts with Catholic doctrine cannot be true, or if Protestants insist that all truth is ultimately defined by the inerrant words of a 3000 year old book, then we are back to the time when the Christian Church condemned Galileo. Christianity lost that battle and it will lose this one as it marches headlong into the marginalized existence that leads to an inevitable death. What the fundamentalists, both Catholic and Protestant, do not appear to embrace is that evolution by natural selection is only the tip of the iceberg that threatens their narrowly defined religious system. Once the Darwinian principle of evolving life is fully understood, the old idea of an original creation that is both good and finished is doomed. The post-Darwinian scientific world almost unanimously views creation as an ongoing, unfinished process. Therefore the suggestion that there ever was a “fall into sin,” becomes nonsense, and the doctrine of ‘original sin’ collapses. The story of Jesus as God’s invasion of the world to rescue us from this fall becomes inoperative. One cannot fall from a perfection one never had. One cannot be rescued from a fall that never happened. One cannot be restored to a status one has never possessed. Inevitably, as this theological house of cards falls, we become aware that the traditional way of understanding baptism as the washing away the sin of the fall, or the Eucharist as a reenactment of the moment when the divine rescue was accomplished on the cross also become meaningless. The idea that salvation was accomplished in the shedding of Jesus’ blood becomes barbaric. Neither Cardinal Schoenborn nor the Protestant “creationists” appear to understand any of these implications in their shallow analysis of Darwinian thought. It is a sad day for enlightened people when the leaders of major parts of the Christian Church seek to reassert Catholic authority or scriptural certainty by herding us back into the ignorance of yesterday. The Christian Church has a choice to make. It will either engage the thought of the contemporary world or it will die. The early signs are that this Pope and the Church he represents have decided to cast their lot with the mindless fundamentalism, which is today the public voice of Protestant Christianity. This means that they are willing to allow their children to be shielded from truth and insight because the God they worship is simply too small to be God for the 21st century. A Christian Church ushering in a new Dark Age has no future. This frightening specter becomes very real when we recognize that this is the kind of Christianity encouraged by members of the Bush administration. They too are engaged in an assault on both intelligence and learning. They deny global warming, they oppose stem cell research, they are closed-mindedness about end of life issues, they express uninformed negativity about homosexual persons and they attempt to blur the line between church and state. The clouds are darkening. The fundamentalists are now allied with the Vatican and the present administration has given this mentality credibility by embracing it. Is it any wonder that I fear for the Christianity that has long nurtured me and for the country that I love. ~ John Shelby Spong Announcements Fox Institute for Creation Spirituality Summer Intensive 1: Sacred Space, Sacred Community Fox Institute for Creation Spirituality has a five-day intensive coming up June 11-15thin Boulder, Colorada that is especially designed for clergy. It is entitled, “Sacred Space, Sacred Community” with Reverend Sid Hall, DMin and Bruce Sanguin, MDiv. This intensive, featuring two dynamic and experienced clergy, will explore integrating Creation Spirituality components into spiritual communities and will look closely at worship as the organizing communal activity to build a creation-centered community for the 21st Century. We look forward to it being a nourishing and inspiring time for clergy and other community leaders. Click here for more information/registration. Copyright © 2018 ProgressiveChristianity.org, All rights reserved.

2 1

Global Buzz for May
by ICA International 06 May '18

06 May '18

Enjoy catching up with what is happening in ICAs across the globe.....If you wish to SEND a report...send to your ICA contact person OR...go to the members section on the ICA International website Please click the link below for the latest issue of the Global Buzz Global Buzz Report: May 2018 or copy and paste this URL into your browser's address bar http://globalbuzz.icai-archives.org/7dayreport-18/2018-05-01.php ICAI Communications

1 0

The Impact of ICA in Kenya
by Richard 02 May '18

02 May '18

Dear ICA Colleagues, how about a self funded trek to Kenya- see below and attached documents,mets Hi Seva, Dick, Hoping you are both well and with best wishes for 2018. As you may know, over the past few months Henry Ikatukhu, Nathan Andika and others have been exploring and then setting up a new organisation in Kenya, now called CAPI (COMMUNITY ACTION & PRACTICE INITIATIVE). Their intention is that this organisation will build on and extend the impact and legacy of ICA in Kenya, and will seek to fill the gap at the nationbal level left by the decline of ICA Kenya. One of the things we have been discussing with them is the idea of carrying out some research in Kenya to look at past ICA projects to assess their long term impact. This would not only be a valuable document for ICA globally but could also be used by CAPI to justify and explain their approach to potential partners and funders. It would also complement the review of the Kawangware project currently being done by the Archive Project and a similar review that we funded in Uganda last year. I attach two documents- one a brief description of the idea, and one the most recent version of the budget. ICA:UK (through Village Volunteers) can help with some of this cost, but certainly not all- do you think ICA:USA might be able to contribute as well? One of the things you will notice in the budget is the bulk of the cost is for the cost of a consultant and the expenses of the supporting staff. As an alternative, and knowing how successful you have been in doing this in the HIV/AIDS programme, I wonder if there are any members of the ICA USA network who would have the necessary skills and who would be interested enough/able to self-finance a trip to Kenya? I hope this makes sense- please get back to me if you have any questions. With best wishes Jonathan -- Jonathan Dudding ICA:UK 40, Faversham Road, London SE6 4XF Tel: +44 (0)208 314 1059 ICA:UK, registered charity #1090745, company limited by guarantee #3970365 registered in England & Wales, at 41 Old Birley Street, Manchester M15 5RF Tel/fax: 0161 232 8444 - website: www.ica-uk.org.uk<http://www.ica-uk.org.uk/> The Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA) - a global network of autonomous not-for-profit organisations in 30 countries "concerned with the human factor in world development" Richard H.T. Alton 166 N. Humphrey Ave, Apt, 1N Oak Park, IL 60302 T:1.773.344.7172 richard.alton(a)gmail.com Don't let the fear of striking out hold you back Babe Ruth

1 0

4/26/18, Progressing Spirit: Plumer, What is God?; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 26 Apr '18

26 Apr '18

View this email in your browser What is God? Essay by Fred C. Plumer on April 26, 2018 A few weeks ago, I recommended to our Progressing Spirit writers that we should all write articles that responded to Bishop Spong’s book, Unbelievable. Then it hit me. I was going to be doing the article this week and as I had suggested to our writers, I would have to start with Spong’s first thesis. “Holy moly,” what was I thinking? For Spong’s first thesis is “God.” Now, I am a student of the Bible. I have been studying it for over forty years. Nearly thirty years ago I came to the dramatic conclusion that the vast majority, if not the entire Bible, was written as metaphor by people who may have been very bright for their time in history but were largely ignorant of the world that inherited this book. We really do not understand the world they lived in, and obviously, they did not understand the world we live in today. Many of their sincere beliefs would be considered, at best, superstitions today. That is one of the reasons it has always amazed me people can argue for an inerrant interpretation of the Bible, using the Bible to “prove” their own interpretation. And then there is the issue of God. I know of no subject that is more challenging to discuss then the subject of God. Does this God answer our prayers? If not, why are we still saying them in most of our churches? I sincerely believe if we could poll the members of a two hundred member church, and ask them if they believed in God, we would get two hundred different answers. Spong suggest that this is largely the result of thinking of God as a “being.” He writes, “What we must do is find the meaning to which the word ‘God’ points.” Now I am not overly concerned about the readers of this column. Most of us have not believed in a “God-being” sitting up in the skies waiting to hear our prayers. Most of us, I suspect, get a strange feeling when we say the Lord’s Prayer, whichever version we use, when we get to the “forgive us our sins” or frankly any part of the famous prayer. Do we really believe that “God” is even listening or is going to forgive us? Do we really believe that “God” will answer our petitions? Do we believe in a God? If so, what is God? Spong continues, “God is not a being, not even a supreme being. A being is something that exists in time and space, but we are trying to describe that which is ultimate, unbound, meaning that such terminology-the category of existence –cannot be used.” This is apparently harder than it sounds. That may be one of the reasons several well-known theologians have suggested that we give up using the term “God” at least for an extended period of time until people of the next generation can “reconceive” its true meaning. Paul Tillich suggested something similar several decades ago. “We must abandon the external height images in which the theistic God has historically been perceived and replace them with internal depth images of a deity who is not apart from us, but who is the very core and ground of all that is.” Spong starts his thesis by stating once you are thinking of God not as a being then you begin to think of God as a “doorway” of a new experience of life. He writes, “My doorway into God is to take my God experience seriously and then to live it as deeply as I can…How do I experience God? First, I experience God as Life.” So what do we do with this? How do I approach the subject while offending the fewest number of people? I suppose I could dazzle you with something like Tillich wrote, but I am not Paul Tillich, or Bishop Spong for that matter. So I suggest we look at a few of the ideas that are out there right now. Certainly one of the best ways to approach this is to give some concrete examples. One is the Oasis Communities. Oasis communities started around 2012 in this country. At last count they have to over 12 communities across the States and two in Canada. They started as an alternative, atheist “church” but they have grown-up since then. Their anti-attitude toward a god has transitioned a bit since they first started. They now say they do not believe in an intercessory god or a being. They gather on Sunday mornings because the leaders ascertained that this was the time that most folks had the least commitments. Their core values that are stated on the website are: 1. People are more important than beliefs. 2. Reality is known through reason. 3. Meaning comes from making a difference. 4. Human hands solve human problems. 5. Be accepting and be accepted. Another organization you might find interesting is called The Clergy Project. It is growing rapidly. The organization works with clergy who want to “come out of the closet,” meaning to proclaim to their congregations that they no longer can in good conscious use the term God. They consider themselves atheist. None of them believe in a theistic god and have given up trying to “fake” it in church. The Clergy Project was started to help these people either by learning how to reconfigure their ministry by becoming more honest in their churches or through helping them find another profession. You may want to look them up on the web. (clergyproject.org) If you do, you might be interested in reading the story by John Harkey Gibbs, currently on the front page of the Clergy Project. One of our regular writers, Gretta Vosper, is part of this organization and is a very effective pastor in her own church. A couple of you have notified us that you have stopped reading her articles because you do not like the term “atheist.” I suggest you take another look at what Ms. Vosper is writing. She does not believe in an intervening God, and does not believe there is anything “up there” or “out there” that she would call “godlike.” Vosper has been challenged by a few of her former church members, but far more by her denominational hierarchy. And yet she has a vital church that works very well for a lot of people. The congregation has no desire to “please” God, and most of the congregants are better for that. Their focus is about caring and pleasing each other as a community. If someone has a problem they may be more comfortable discussing it with a peer rather than with clergy or more importantly, asking “God” to fix it. I suggest you read her first book, With or Without God. She makes a solid argument that we should remove the term god from our vocabulary in the church. Vosper writes, “It is time for the church to give up that truth-testing role. Those in leadership positions in the church are fully aware that whatever god is, it is not described by the church’s doctrines. They are even aware that there may be no such thing as god.” Perhaps John Robinson, Ph.D., D.Min who is a clinical psychologist with a second doctorate in ministry, has the right idea. Robinson believes that God exists and it is “us.” In his most recent book, The Divine Human: The Final Transformation of Sacred Aging, he writes; “The Divine Human is someone who experiences body, self and the world as literally divine. It’s a state of consciousness free of identity, time and story, and the whole problem-ridden labyrinth of left brain thinking that dominates our lives. In mystical awareness, we experience our “own” consciousness and being as the consciousness and being of God.” Robinson says the answer is less religion and more mysticism. He suggests that we have been looking in all the wrong places for God. He explains that Jesus was a mystic first and foremost. When Jesus said we live in a sacred and divine world he meant something more than, “this is a beautiful world.” This beautiful world is actually an opportunity to discover who and what we are. He quotes Jesus, “The father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth and people do not see it…What you look for has come, but you do not know it.”(Gospel of Thomas, Marvin Meyer and Harold Bloom p65, 113) And in Robinson’s same book he also quotes Joseph Campbell, “This is it. This is Eden. When you see the kingdom spread upon the earth, the old way of living in the world is annihilated. That is the end of the world. The end of the world is not an event to come, it is an event of psychological transformation, of visionary transformation. You see not the world of solid things but a world of radiance.” Once we “wake up” and see this reality, according to Robinson, we will also realize that we are gods or godlike. It is something we can experience any time…but we have to do the work. In part we have to learn how to become mystics through meditation, changing our attitudes and opening our eyes. Robinson may have a point here. If we really began to see the world as sacred and our lives as a divine experience, how would that change our vison of the world and the way we experience it? How would that change the world? Can we even imagine the sense of becoming godly as we work through our lives? It is an intriguing idea. And finally, for years now, I have wondered about the string theory. In short, it is the idea that the entire universe is connected with some kind of invisible string and this “string” moves in large waves. It brings me back to the Buddhist saying, when a butterfly flaps its wings, the world is changed. Is that something we could refer to as god or God? Just the idea of being interconnected to each other, let alone to things we do not even think of or know about, is tantalizing to me. The bottom line with this way of reasoning is that we still are responsible for our lives. Yes, other people, animals, plants, whatever, may be “pulling on our string” or strings, but we still have to decide how we are going to live our lives. So I bring you back to Bishop Spong’s explanation of God. In short he says God is explainable only through experience. And how do we experience God, according to Spong? “I experience God as Life.” Maybe another good start would be to keep the wisdom of naturalist John Burroughs in mind when we are entering that doorway: the more we allow science, reason and wonder to lead us forward down the trail, the more we find ourselves “at home in the universe.” ~ Fred C. Plumer Click here to read online and to share your thoughts About the Author In 1986 Rev. Plumer was called to the Irvine United Congregational Church in Irvine, CA to lead a UCC new start church, where he remained until he retired in 2004. The church became known throughout the denomination as one of the more exciting and progressive mid-size congregations in the nation. He served on the Board of Directors of the Southern California Conference of the United Church of Christ (UCC) for five years, and chaired the Commission for Church Development and Evangelism for three of those years. In 2006 Fred was elected President of ProgressiveChristianity.org (originally called The Center for Progressive Christianity – TCPC) when it’s founder Jim Adams retired. As a member of the Executive Council for TCPC he wrote The Study Guide for The 8 Points by which we define: Progressive Christianity. He has had several articles published on church development, building faith communities and redefining the purpose of the enlightened Christian Church. His book Drink from the Well is an anthology from speeches, articles in eBulletins, and numerous publications that define the progressive Christianity movement as it evolves to meet new challenges in a rapidly changing world. Question & Answer Q: By Ralf from Oklahoma Recently, while in the middle of a difficult and tragic event in my life, a friend told me not to worry because God has a hand in everything that happens and that means that everything that happen is meant for good. He even suggested I read Romans 8:28. Do you think that's what the verse actually means? A: By Rev. Mark Sandlin Dear Ralph, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” —Romans 8:28 This verse is so chock full of issues I barely know where to start. Considering there are so many issues, I think I'll just focus on the overarching problem – certainty. When folks quote this they tend to say it loaded with a bunch of theological perspectives that they hold to strongly simply because they were told to, or want to, or they have blind faith in them. The thing is, even scholars who spend their careers looking at these theological issues find it hard to say, with certainty, that they definitely have one “correct” understanding of Romans 8:28. Let’s just look at one piece of the verse: “in all things God works for the good…”. Most folks who like to quote this scripture hear it as saying “all things are meant for good by God.” But, that way of seeing the world elevates tragedy into blessing and dismisses human grief as an inability to understand God’s “larger plan” or the “mystery of God.” >From the holocaust, to Rwanda, to child abuse, to the 21,000 people who die every day due to hunger related causes, this take on the providence of God paints a picture of a God who creates death and suffering in order to achieve some supposed greater good. That’s no god. It’s not even what the verse says. It says, “in all things God works for the good.” Perhaps what is being said is that in all things (even things humanity creates that are horrible and tragic)God is endeavoring to create something good. And perhaps the reason God struggles to do so, is that the only tools he has available are us – God’s people. So, no. I definitely don't think that's what the verse actually means. PEACE!  ~ Rev. Mark Sandlin Click here to read and share online About the Author Rev. Mark Sandlin is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) from the South. He currently serves at Presbyterian Church of the Covenant. He is a co-founder of The Christian Left. His blog, has been named as one of the “Top Ten Christian Blogs.” Mark received The Associated Church Press' Award of Excellence in 2012. His 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 Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited Debating with Evangelicals Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong on June 22, 2005 Twice recently, I have had the opportunity to engage in public debate two people who identify themselves as evangelicals, the Rev. Dr. Albert Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and the Rev. Dr. William Craig, a non-residential “Research Professor of Philosophy” at the Talbot School of Theology, an evangelical school in La Mirada, California. The venues for these debates were quite different. Dr. Mohler and I were in two studios in different cities so we never actually met, nor could I see him. Dr. Craig and I shared the stage before a live audience in an auditorium at Bethel College in Ohio. The subject matter was also different. With Dr. Mohler, it was the Bible and how one is to approach the sacred text, while with Dr. Craig we limited our subject to the resurrection of Jesus as the gospels describe it. These two gentlemen differed greatly in personality. Dr. Mohler was overtly aggressive, while Dr. Craig was quite civil, despite slipping occasionally into ‘cuteness.’ There was, however, little to distinguish their perspectives. In typical evangelical style both validated their points of view by describing the time when each “gave myself to the Lord,” suggesting in subtle ways that without this saving moment, rational conversation about the Bible had little relevance. Yet both of these guardians of the literal Bible appeared to me to be highly defensive. Their defensiveness was apparent first in their constant citing of the names of those biblical authorities they quoted to justify their evangelical conclusions. They worked hard to build up the credibility of these ‘scholars’, listing their degrees and publications and stating that they represented a new wave of learning. That was, they suggested, why I might never have heard of them. It was an argument not dissimilar from the way evangelicals also quote certain ‘scientists’ who, they claim “challenge Darwin and evolution in the name of science.” An investigation of the credentials of these authorities, however, reveals that the majority of their degrees come from evangelical schools and that their books are published by evangelical publishers. When these facts are raised to consciousness, the response is typically that “liberals do not take evangelical scholarship seriously because of an intellectual bias.” I confess that I plead guilty to that charge to this degree. I can read two or three pages of the work of someone described as an “evangelical scholar” and tell you quickly why I have no desire to read more. What they call scholarship is always in the service of the evangelical agenda. There is in fact no such thing as “conservative” biblical scholarship, any more than there is something called “liberal” biblical scholarship. Scholarship is by definition neither liberal nor conservative, it is, rather, competent or incompetent. The nature of scholarship is to go wherever the search for truth leads; it does not exist to buttress pre-conceived evangelical conclusions. That is to confuse both education and scholarship with propaganda. Most of the evangelical “scholars” that these two gentlemen cited are unknown in the academic circles I inhabit not, as they claim, because of a liberal bias but because their work is not regarded as academic at all. It, therefore, stands at odds with the great tradition of biblical scholarship that broke upon the Western world in the late 18th century, and that continues to challenge, deeply and successfully, the literal assumptions made by most evangelicals. When Dr. Mohler asserted in our debate, “that every word of the Bible is the inerrant word of God,” it was obvious that this critical work of the last 200 years has never engaged his mind. The inerrancy he claimed for “the Word of God” requires one to live in a pre-Copernican, pre-Darwinian world. To pretend that the earth is still the center of the universe is simply no longer credible. Old Testament narratives from the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis, to the story of manna raining down from heaven on the Israelites in the wilderness reflect that now-rejected world view, as do the New Testament accounts of a star being dragged across the heavens slowly enough to allow wise men to keep up with it and Jesus returning to God by ascending into the sky. DNA evidence also makes the idea of a separate creation for human life laughable. The people who wrote the Bible, knew nothing about germs, viruses or tumors, and assumed that sickness was punishment for sinfulness, that epilepsy resulted from demon possession and deaf muteness derived from the devil tying the victim’s tongue. One does not want to attribute such ignorance to God. Furthermore, evangelicals do not face the fact that a book which says quite literally that homosexuals should be put to death, women are inferior to men, slavery is legitimate or Jews deserve God’s wrath, should never be called “the Word of God.” When Dr. Craig proclaimed that the gospels were “biographies of Jesus,” reflecting “eye witness accounts that go back into the first decade following the life of Jesus,” it was apparent that he was either unaware of or had deliberately rejected the conclusions of two centuries of biblical studies. Then he stated that the Book of Acts was written in the early sixties, a date reputable scholars find incredible. To debate such ideas as if they are competent is like debating with members of the flat earth society. It is universally attested today that Acts is volume two of Luke and that Luke has copied into his gospel about fifty percent of the Gospel of Mark. If Dr. Craig were correct that would force us to date Luke and Mark early in the 50’s. Both gospels reflect a much later structure of church life and appear to be cognizant of such external events as the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., each of which makes Dr. Craig’s dating impossible. I have no desire to impugn the integrity of either of these gentlemen, but I can say that their level of learning is at best naive. Like most evangelicals, they know much about the literal content of the Bible and can cite its proof texts with alacrity, but they seem to know nothing about the Bible’s formation, its clear conflicts, or anything else that threatens their primary presuppositions. Neither man understood a basic distinction, which is that while all people are welcome to their own opinions, none are welcome to their own facts. Facts can be tested. Evangelicals also do not seem to recognize that there is a time-honored method by which new thoughts enter the public debate. The one with the challenging insight writes a book or a paper and allows it to be circulated among those judged to be experts in that field so that they might react to it. If the insight opens new doors into truth it will ultimately win its way to acceptance. If it does not, it will receive the treatment it deserves and be roundly dismissed. Insights that are saluted only by evangelicals do not meet that test and all the rhetoric, designed to make credible that which has no academic merit, will avail nothing. The major problem with those who read the Bible literally is that they do not understand how the world has changed since the Bible was written. Propositional statements made in any time frame reflect the worldview of the one speaking. Language is always a dialogue between truth and time. Ultimate truth may be timeless but all articulations of truth are time bound and time warped. That distinction is still foreign to the conservative religious mind. My debating partners became quite contentious when trying to maintain their intellectually indefensible positions. Dr. Mohler revealed this by going into a full-scale attack. He suggested that I had rejected “every tenet of traditional Christianity.” He checked them off: the Virgin Birth, the blood atonement, the physical nature of the Resurrection, the supernatural God, and the reality of miracles. As he fired his fundamentalist artillery, he slipped quickly into character assassination. The oldest trick in debating is to attack the messenger when you can no longer deal with the message. What I do reject is not the basic ‘tenets of Christianity’ but the literal interpretations and dated world view that have been imposed on traditional Christianity by those who think they are ‘defending the faith.’ That is a distinction that those who identify Christianity with their own narrow definitions of it cannot make. Dr. Mohler’s assertions were almost identical with those things outlined by evangelicals in a series of early 20th century tracts called “The Fundamentals,” every one of which has been dismissed by the academic world of Christian scholarship. No scholar of world rank today, treats the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke as literal biology, the resurrection as physical resuscitation or envisions God as a deity who requires a blood offering and a human sacrifice as the means of achieving salvation. Such literalizations have become nothing less than a source of Christian embarrassment. Dr. Craig sought to distance himself from such strict fundamentalism by announcing that he was not an absolute literalist. When the Bible suggested that the hills clapped their hands, he explained, he did not believe that “hills actually had hands that could clap.” If that’s the mentality that tempers his literalism, he has a long way to go before he can enter the contemporary theological dialogue. His wife actually articulated the real problem at the end of the debate. I had related the story of how my evangelical church had taught me as a child that segregation, patriarchy, anti-Semitism and homophobia were the will of God, quoting the literal words of the Bible to ‘prove’ it. She expressed her sorrow “for the way I had been treated as a child by evangelicals.” If I had just had a wise and loving evangelical as my childhood pastor, perhaps someone like Dr. Craig, none of these dreadful things would have happened and, presumably, I would be a good evangelical today. I smiled inwardly, for clearly her comment revealed no insight at all into the things we had been discussing for two hours. Christianity is in desperate need of reformation but dialogue with evangelicals is not the way to pursue that task. As the old love song suggests, ‘we live in two different worlds.’ ~ John Shelby Spong Announcements Events and Updates Pilgrimage as a Journey of the Heart Online eCourse offered by Spiritual & Practice April 30th - May 25th Pilgrimage transcends religious, national, cultural, and linguistic boundaries. This e-course will explore the many dimensions of pilgrimages as a spiritual practice and offer resources to aid those called to the journey today. We will look specifically at the value of pilgrimages in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and psychology. Click here for more information/registration ..

1 0