- Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

10/12/17: Spong/Vosper: REFORMERS, ALL; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 13 Oct '17

13 Oct '17

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR REFORMERS, ALL By Rev. Gretta Vosper We’ve been anticipating the celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation for some time. Now that the month is upon us, it seems more like a private birthday party than something worthy of global attention. In truth, I suppose it is. With the global number of Reform Tradition Protestants diminishing, the celebration of the dramatic and cataclysmic leave-taking that was our birth seems of little interest to any but those enchanted by the history of such things and the few others taking advantage of the liturgical and party possibilities offered up by the date. The Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues of the past few decades culminated in the document From Conflict to Communion, published in 2013. Within it, Five Ecumenical Imperatives are laid out, providing a base from which the two traditions could ramp up together for a joint celebration of the Reformation, a healing of the centuries old rift between them. Shoving a new foundation of respect under the violence and rancour of the past, the Catholic and Lutheran ecumenists have demanded a new and generous spirit from their adherents: choose unity over disunity; start from a place of agreement rather than focusing on easily spotted differences. They seem simple and wise choices. If only we had managed to get to this place four hundred and ninety-five years earlier. So much hatred, horror, and bloodshed may have been avoided. There is no doubt that our great faith traditions have provided the human family much that has been of benefit. Perhaps their most important work was built of the evolutionary advantage provided humans by what we might nowadays call “group think”. Religion gave us a bigger and stronger clan than family. Members would die for us just as quickly as we would die for them; we were no longer alone but had the safety of our religious affiliates to add strength to our prejudices and personal desires. And those prejudices and personal desires were, in turn, further refined by our religious beliefs. Put in such a way, it is easy to see how, in the early 16th century, neighbours could turn against one another to the point of death, uncovering allegiances that damned an individual or family to the ultimate exclusion from God’s grace and forgiveness for all of eternity. Taking leave of an institution with that much power was a risky thing to do. The rhetoric continues to be chilling to this day. Bishop Spong has presented visionary work on what a new reformation might look like, what it might provide humanity in the third millennium, and how we might get there. His forthcoming book will take that work further, providing much more than the meticulously negotiated but necessarily simplistic Lutheran Catholic Imperatives. I expect this book will crown the past four decades of his leadership in this progressive Christian landscape, a terrain still tragically unknown to so many. CHOICE At any point in time, a range of possibilities lie before us. We make the best decisions we can, given the information we have at the time. Decades later, we sometimes realize that a single choice resulted in a myriad of other choices, each circumscribed by the first, and all resulting in a reality that, had it been clear to us from the beginning, we may have refused. We cannot see what the future brings and we are very poor at extrapolating our possibilities out much further than our immediate creature needs. And so we end up in situations, relationships, jobs, communities, social structures, or a whole world we may not have chosen had we been able to see the extrapolated implications of our every choice. But you don’t need to keep going in the same direction just because that is the direction you happen to be going. You certainly can and many do. But others, either because of a sudden reorientation of their perspective or because they were just born without a personal comfort zone, refuse to just keep on keeping on. To them, the cost is too high. In fact, it is idiocy. Enter, the Reformer. Many are the times I’ve heard Martin Luther compared to Jesus in the work they both undertook. They didn’t start dramatically; reformers rarely do. It may have been a conversation here or a private rant there. It may have begun in whispers and only risen to an audible level over many months or even years. It may have been with or without design, beginning with a broad, unfocused list of laments or emerging from the womb, so to speak, with a well-honed mission. But both Luther and Jesus, at some point in time, and very likely supported by the gifts of countless unnamed others who listened, shared, cajoled, and criticized, noticed that the faith traditions they cherished had veered in directions that were unacceptable to them. Choices made by those in leadership developed norms for the practices, thinking, attitudes, and prejudices embraced within the tradition, each chosen from the creative potentialities of time and place. For most believers, all was accepted as it was received. But for Reformers, what is normal for the masses is anathema to them. Both Jesus and Luther honoured their traditions. Though we long assumed Jesus was Christian, we now know he wasn’t; he was a Jew. Luther learned the only acceptable religion of his day, a Rome-centred Catholicism. They were steeped in their traditional religions, born into and formed by them. Like everyone around them, they were supposed to fit in. Their education, far above the level of the average believer, was supposed to further hone their beliefs. It was not supposed to expose the little hypocrisies and gross abuses that had been so artfully woven into the everyday business of religion. Once noticed, however, the normal way of doing things became unacceptable. There were no options for Jesus or Luther but those that would bring about catastrophic change in their religious traditions. Even as others fought to maintain the status quo, forcing banishment or conspiring toward more final solutions, the Reformers laid out and presented their arguments. And the world changed. LEGACY We stand on the shoulders of great men and women. Countless Reformers dared challenge the norms of their day – religious, political, economic, and social. And they did it at great cost. We are grateful to them for their struggles, for their lives, for their blood, and for the first discomfort noticed that set them on their course. They created the world in which we live, the freedoms we cherish, the perspectives we are welcome to embrace or refuse, the right to make our own decisions, whether wise or foolish. They set in course the possibilities from which we have chosen our new realities and so have become, with them, co-creators of the world we know. They also, however, created gross disparities and abuses that yet plague humanity and the planet: the economic enslavement of whole nations for the provision of privileges assumed by others; the legal jargons that entrap indigenous peoples in politically ritualized battles for sovereignty; the lines that set out who is worthy of the right to choose their own lifestyle and who is not; the notion that humanity is separate and above the natural world rather than enfolded within and vulnerable to it; the entertainments by which we anaesthetize ourselves to the truths that quake around us; the cruelties endured by herded, caged, and crated animals so we might pleasure our taste buds and sooth our sun-scarred skin. And we, in making our choices, remain co-creators, complicit in a litany of normals that, had we the heart of Jesus or Luther or the millions of unnamed men and women who have poured their lives out in the pursuit of justice and compassion and the building up of love in the world, would make every one of us a Reformer. There is a legacy in the Reformation that I believe belongs in the middle of our work, calling out the power brokers, the hegemonists, the deceivers. Ours is not the work of complacency or settling for imperatives that take decades to conjure only because it takes that long to soothe the sensitivities of those still wielding ecclesial powers that make no difference to the challenges facing our world. Our reforms must be much bolder, our work in the world more creative than what those beyond our walls believe is all we do. It may be that humanity is facing the greatest crises of its too-brief history as it reels with the challenges of global warming and climate change, exponential population growth, and resource depletion. There may be no future moment for us to step up. Now may be all there is. Literally. Change is our very birthplace. It is our right and responsibility as heirs of the Reformers, to stare down every comfortable “normal” that sings its siren song and refuse to be enchanted by it. It is our right and responsibility to count up every ease and privilege we enjoy and educate ourselves about its source – what makes it possible? Who pays for our pleasures and how? And when we find that “normal” is built on the subjugation of others – our tea, our chocolate, our party-ready shrimp rings – work to redistribute or limit those pleasures until all have access to shelter, security, food, clean water, and the joy of planning for their children’s futures. ECLESIA AS REFORMER But change is costly and few have the strength or fortitude to bring about its grander accomplishments. That’s why those usually identified with the most highly evolved faith in James Fowler’s Stages of Faith, a Universalizing Faith, are so few, so well known, and all assassinated: Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. We aren’t that strong, most of us. We might start out heartily, but we then draw up far short of our goals, beaten by our own fears, our own comforts, our own weakness. We may be legion but we are ordinary, too. Throughout the New Testament, the word translated to “church” is originally ecclesia. It’s a poor translation. Rather than “church”, it shared the idea of government. In Greece, the ecclesia was the council of elect elders who governed the city. It’s use in the early Christian writings was a radical refusal to live according to the rules of the day by a ragtag group of people who believed they had a better way. They believed they were called to a bolder and more perfect reflection of the dignity of humanity as they had seen it represented in or inspired by a heretical Jew who’d once moved among them and left a residual and radical idea of what community should look like. Perhaps it is not we, frail and human as we are, but our ecclesia that can set out upon the sea of change and call us forward. Perhaps we can use the New Testament ideal of an alternative ecclesia to set the standards, the ideals, the vision by which the corrective to human destruction of the earth might be realized. Perhaps my United Church of Canada and your United Church of Christ, United Methodist, or Disciples of Christ could be called to this greater and most urgent vision that lies in the roots of all our Christian traditions. Perhaps the sacramental traditions, Reformed and Roman, might step up together in this celebratory year and cry out the words that need to be heard by all, challenging us to notice that normal isn’t acceptable, even if it is the culmination of all our choices. We need our religious institutions to be the ecclesia they were called to be, to be great for us and challenge us to be the reform we want to see in the world. Perhaps this is the year for our ecclesial institutions to step into the role of the Reformer and built a vision we can work toward. Isn’t this the nature of the gospel call, that our ability to notice provides us the challenge to change for the better, to take and make good news and not simply welcome it? Like most, I’ve been largely indifferent to the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. It seemed to esoteric, to trivial in the face of what challenges us today. But perhaps it is exactly the opposite. Perhaps, like Jesus and Luther before us, it is time to challenge the traditions by which we have been formed. We would challenge them to reawaken to the purposes set out in their deep, deep roots: to bring the people together, to be the assembly of Christians and call us all to the frightfully challenging tasks ahead of us. To be sacrificial in their work, giving everything even if it leads to death. Or perhaps the Reformation anniversary is, more personally, a reminder that to each of us that we are a people born of cataclysmic change and inheritors of its demand: notice what lies all about you, what humanity’s choices have led to, what a continued trajectory might mean. Notice, and then stand up and make your stand. ~ Rev. Gretta Vosper About the Author The Rev. Gretta Vosper is a United Church of Canada minister who is an atheist. Her best-selling books include With or Without God: Why The Way We Live is More Important Than What We Believe, and Amen: What Prayer Can Mean in a World Beyond Belief. She has also published three books of poetry and prayers. Read the essay online here. Question & Answer Lesley from Minnesota, writes: Question: What are your views about so many Christians being in favor of gun ownership? Doesn’t that completely contradict the Jesus of peace we read about in the Bible? Answer: By Eric Alexander Thanks for your question Lesley. This is a timely question for me as I was in Las Vegas during the recent shootings. Being so close to an event like that made this issue feel even more urgent than it already did to me. What made the Las Vegas shooting so interesting to me is that it involved a large group of mostly white conservative casualties. It made a large demographic of people suspend their NRA sponsored talking points and deal with the reality of the situation in their own hearts and minds. And I should note here that I enjoy a good skeet shoot as much as the next guy, but that is not the issue at hand here. I think it’s an absolute perversion of the U.S. 2nd amendment to allow nearly anyone who can fog a mirror to have a cache of assault rifles. In my mind, there is no way America’s founding fathers intended that. And even if they did, they may not have imagined what the world would come to hundreds of years later. People say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and I say fine “let’s not put the guns that kill people in the hands of those people that kill people…” There are many sensible steps we can take to find a more sustainable footing here. The bottom line is that many Christians are not all that interested in Yeshua of Nazareth. Rather they follow a Jesus who has been morphed into a pawn of radical right-wing political agendas. I don’t think there is any way a disciple of Jesus, or someone who was brimming with love, compassion, and forgiveness in their hearts, would feel a need to accumulate military grade weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo. Disparate militias have no place in 21st century American politics, especially in a nation with over 325,000,000 people. No hunter alive needs to take more than one shot per second to put dinner on the table. And even though full automatic weapons are now illegal in many cases, it is quite easy to master or manipulate a semi-automatic weapon to inflict mass destruction. We need more stable progressive voices countering the NRA arguments within Christian circles. And as a side note, this was a key reason why I started the Progressive Christianity and Politics group on Facebook a couple years ago. It is now over 2000 members strong and we are propagating progressive principles out to compassionate and thoughtful people all across the world. If you or anyone else reading this would like to join, please feel free to register at www.JoinPCP.com ~Eric Alexander Read and Share online here 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 is the author of Teaching Kids Life IS Good. ________________________________________________ Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited The Bible, Corporal Punishment and Human Guilt - Part 2 The physical abuse of children under the guise of "proper discipline" has been practiced in western history so frequently as to be thought of as normative. It has had the approval of those recognized sources of cultural value - tradition, Bible, Church, School and family. It found expression in popular novels written by such noteworthy authors as Charles Dickens and Mark Twain in the 19th century and by no less a person than the 20th century's ultra-conservative political pundit, William F. Buckley. When some of these novels were turned into motion pictures, the corporal punishment scenes were quite graphic. In the schools of western history, which were normally church-related parochial or church-influenced public schools, corporal punishment was regularly employed until quite recently, certainly within my lifetime. Almost always this discipline was administered with parental approval. In boarding schools of the 19th and early 20th centuries this disciplinary activity sometimes had about it a quality of a ritualistic act and even came to be thought of as a kind of "liturgical observance." That is, the act of discipline was carried out at a time-certain. It was scheduled on a particular day for all offenders during a specified period of time for which the school staff prepared the instruments to be used, such as a bunch of bound switches or a freshly prepared cane. It was followed through in a prescribed, unchanging and traditional manner. The intended victim or victims would have to wait in fearful anticipation until the proper moment when the price of their misbehavior was exacted. The disciplinary act clearly defined boundaries and made all aware of where authority resided. In my own experience, as a public school boy growing up in the Southern Bible Belt, corporal punishment was employed, but much less ritualistically. It was administered on the spot whenever it was deemed essential to control the classroom and as a response to a particular act of misbehavior. Yet it also followed a set form that we all recognized. It was not used frequently. I recall that in my seventh grade class, which was the last time I knew it to take place, only two of my classmates were subjected to this discipline during the entire year. The fact, however, that I can still recall both instances some sixty years later, indicates that each of these occasions made an indelible, albeit not a positive impression, upon my young mind. Most of us who were not the actual recipients of the punishment were in fact intimidated by it. The offending student, in both cases, a boy 12-13 years old, would be asked to accompany the teacher who had ruler in hand, to the room adjacent to the principal's office, which was reserved solely for this purpose. That room also happened to be next door to our classroom, so even though we could not observe the act of discipline, we could not fail to hear it. The students remaining in the classroom sat in silence during the period of time it took the teacher and the pupil to reach the required location and to assume the proper positions for discipline. Then the noise of the ruler landing on its target resounded. No cries were ever heard because proving that "he could take it" preserved the pupil's last shred of dignity. Finally the blows would cease and in a few minutes the chastened student would return to the class, followed by the teacher, still gripping her ruler. The student would take his seat saying something about it "not hurting at all," a brave attempt to reestablish his place in the social fabric of the class. The teacher would then use this episode as a teaching moment by warning the other students that a similar fate awaited each of them if their behavior made it necessary. It seemed to me that it took the disciplined child a day or so to absorb the humiliation before he began to ease back into the life of his school community. The ever-present threat that the ruler would be employed again, however, instilled apprehension, fear and developed something of a herd instinct among us all. Instead of enhancing life, it seemed only to bruise a fragile ego. It certainly taught by example that physical force was a proper way to deal with those who are smaller and weaker. It surely issued in a more controllable classroom, but it was never, in my opinion, a pathway into maturity. It is interesting to note who, besides children, have been subjected to corporal punishment in the history of our Judeo-Christian world. There were basically four types of adults on whom corporal punishment was deemed to be appropriate discipline, at least during some part of our history. The one thing each of these four groups of people had in common was that they were thought to be deserving of the status of a child. The first category was adult prisoners. Those who had violated the rules of the society in such a way as to be judged a threat that must be removed, jailed and punished. I suppose the reasoning process was simple. If physical punishment made school children more pliable and obedient, to say nothing of being easier to control, then why should the same tactic not be used on those adults who consistently disrupted the well being of society's life? So the right to use corporal punishment was written into the penal codes of most Western, and by implication, Christian nations. The public whipping post was a regular feature in the criminal justice system in nations like Great Britain and the United States until the 20th century. The last state to make it illegal in America was Delaware. It is still employed to this day in Singapore and in several Muslim nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The familiar jail diet of "bread and water" was just another form of corporal punishment; that is, the punishment of the body. By extension from the penal codes physical discipline was used in situations where control was deemed essential to survival. It was a standard practice, for example, on the ships of the colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries when the whole world was shrunk to the dimensions of an individual boat, with the captain exercising the decision making responsibility for discipline, indeed sometimes for life and death, with no further appeal. Physical discipline was also employed on the Lewis and Clark expedition across the Continental United States on their journey to the Pacific Ocean, opening the West. The diaries from that journey describe what they thought were its salutary effects. The second class of adults to be treated in this physically abusive manner during our history was the slave population. Christians must never forget that the institution of slavery was accepted as normal, even in the New Testament. Paul directs a runaway slave named Onesimus to return to his master Philemon, not with the request for his freedom, but with the request that he be treated kindly. In the Epistle to the Colossians (3:22), slaves are ordered to "obey in everything those who are your earthly masters" and masters are urged to "treat your slave justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a master in Heaven (4:1)." With no rights accruing to the slaves, who were defined as sub-human and therefore childlike, it followed that disobedience was to be punished in slaves in the same manner that it was deemed to be appropriate in children. It is worth noting that even the popes have historically been slaveholders. No one denies that slaves were lashed in the United States for everything from disobedience to running away. The master had the right to do to his property whatever he wished. When slavery ended following the Civil War, these tactics of intimidation continued to be employed against powerless blacks in the South by quasi-religious organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. It is not as large a step as people now think to move from the corporal punishment of a slave or former slave with the bare back absorbing the lash while the victim was tied to a tree, to the ultimate act of corporal punishment called lynching, where the victim was hanged from the tree. Violence is always violence. The degree of violence is the only difference. What the inmate or prisoner and the slave had in common was that neither had power and no vestige of adulthood accrued to their status so they could be treated like children who had no rights. If it was the proper thing to do to powerless children, it must be appropriate for powerless adults. That was the reasoning. Violence is never contained. It always seeks new victims. Corporal punishment was and is legalized violence. Corporal punishment has been used on two other types of adults in our history: women and people in religious orders. To their story we will turn next week. ~ John Shelby Spong Originally published June 23, 2004 Announcements 5th Annual Climate and Creation Stewardship Summit The 5th Annual Climate and Creation Stewardship Summit will be Saturday, October 28 from 9:30 am – 4:30 pm in Hamden, CT. The focus of this summit is on water, both on land and the oceans. It will consists of speakers, panels and workshops on different aspects of our current climate change crisis and other critical environmental issues ... Click here for more information/registration

2 1

Global Buzz October 2017
by ICA International 07 Oct '17

07 Oct '17

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: October 2017 or copy and paste this URL into your browser's address bar http://globalbuzz.icai-archives.org/7dayreport-17/2017-10-01.php ICAI Communications

1 0

10/05/17, Spong/Alexander: What Can A Donkey Teach Us About Jesus?; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 05 Oct '17

05 Oct '17

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR What Can A Donkey Teach Us About Jesus? By Eric Alexander This series begins an exploration into the real Jesus. By which I mean, that character historically known as Yeshua of Nazareth. Which is in contrast of course to the other character more popularly known as Jesus Christ. I make a distinction there because I think Yeshua of Nazareth and “Jesus Christ” are two very different icons. And in my opinion, it is doubtful that future institutions will last much longer around the Jesus Christ icon, but it’s possible (and maybe very beneficial) that the historical Yeshua of Nazareth could sustain. This series is going kick off an exploration into those contrasting portraits, and seek to identify what the “real” Jesus might have been like, and how that might change the way we do Christianity, church, and spiritual community in our modern times. Before going further though, I will readily acknowledge that some of you may react to what I’ve just said by noting that we cannot know if Yeshua of Nazareth ever really lived. And I concede that. I know we have smart readers here, and I freely acknowledge that we are always on amorphous ground when talking about a historical Jesus. But for the purposes of this series we won’t worry about that. We will simply focus on discovering the figure called Yeshua of Nazareth, who was chronicled throughout the early biblical tradition. If you don’t happen to think Jesus was real, then perhaps we can just settle for finding the real fictional Jesus here. One of the most important things in understanding how “Jesus Christ” came into being is to look at some very specific examples within the Bible to uncover some real clues. That’s what Bible scholars (should) do. So today I want to explore an interesting truth about the triumphal entry, and this will help establish the paradigm for later installments. I want to begin with a scripture lesson from a donkey. Well, not directly from a donkey because donkeys don’t actually talk. (Or do they? Num 22:28 ) In the Book of Zechariah, written by a prophet from the region of Judah around 520 BCE during the reign of Darius of Persia, it states: “Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” The author of Zechariah wrote this to comfort the people who were returning from exile, and who were awaiting a proper homeland and king. This verse is germane to our first smoking gun, because many Christians today, and at the time of the writing of the gospels, believed that this passage was fulfilling a messianic prophecy. But the author of Zechariah was not thinking about a future messiah who would come hundreds of years later. The story was written to provide hope and encouragement to those folks who were alive during the time of its writing. Zechariah was offering them assurance that they would soon have a great king who was worthy of God’s trust and abundance. Back then, donkey’s symbolized peace and humility – as opposed to a horse which symbolized conquest and power. The author of this passage was talking about a king who would bring peace in their current age, not a king that would arrive over five hundred years later. After-all, how or why would a king showing up five centuries later be of any interest to them in their moment of need? I can’t think of a single human being who could find relevance in anything happening five hundred years in the future. So let’s look at that verse more closely to see what clues we can uncover about how this interpretation came to be. The passage from Zechariah states that the messiah would come “riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Now consider for a moment what that might be saying? Would the messiah be on a donkey? Or would he be on a colt? Or on both a donkey and a colt? Here’s what the gospel writers thought: The authors of Mark and Luke recorded that Jesus said “go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden…untie it and bring it here.” Of interest in this version was the addition of the line “that no one has ever ridden on.” That could have possibly been added to imply that the donkey was young. Or maybe it was to imply some supernatural powers of Jesus being able to just hop on an unbroken donkey and gallop through town without a hitch. That verse was written verbatim in both the gospels of Mark and Luke, so it was likely taken from an earlier source, or maybe one of the authors copied the passage over from the other. It gets more interesting though. The writers of John kept it simple and recorded: “Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, “as it is written, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.” This is a nice and basic paraphrase of the event, and we can see that the writers of John cleaned it up a bit to more closely match their interpretation of the original verse in Zechariah. Nothing too controversial there, just making their case for one young donkey. But the creator of Matthew records it differently. He writes: “Jesus said, go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me… They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.” As it is written “your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” When contrasting the other three gospels with the gospel of Matthew, this exercise illustrates how the gospel writers took creative liberties as it related to prophecies, either by adding to historical stories or even completely redesigning stories from scratch to fit their evangelical perspectives. And here’s why this situation is a solid example of that: Matthew’s misunderstanding of the original scripture from Zechariah highlights that the author of Matthew was not at that event in person; nor was he even hearing about an event via credible word of mouth – but rather he was attempting to retrofit the event to his (misunderstood) interpretation of the Old Testament scripture having two donkeys. He was creating his evangelical case, not documenting Jesus as a historian or eye witness. Once we can come to terms with what the gospels are, and what the intent was of those who designed the gospels, we can then look at these stories in new and exciting ways. In this case, whether some derivative of the triumphal entry ever historically happened or not, one of the most informative truths that we can glean is that Jesus was indeed a humble and peaceful type of leader. Therefore, from this account we can at least learn that Yeshua of Nazareth was a peaceful man who rejected his role as king and powerful leader. And that is a good first clue to work with in discovering the real Jesus, and hopefully also a good review of the ways we can learn more by reading between the lines. Next time we will look at what Jesus meant by “the Kingdom of God / Heaven,” and why it may still matter for today. ~ Eric Alexander 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 authored the popular children’s emotional health book Teaching Kids Life IS Good. Read the essay online here. Question & Answer Evelyn from Wayzata, MN writes: Question: Do you have any reliable estimates of the number of Christians worldwide who do not subscribe to the viewpoint that "salvation comes only through Jesus Christ”? I just wrote a letter to the editor (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) challenging such a statement, but then wondered how many of the >2 million Christians in the world (2011 Pew Research estimate) share a less conservative belief. Thank you for your attention, and thank you for your witness in the world! Answer: By Fred C. Plumer Dear Evelyn, You ask a very difficult question that I do not think anyone can answer accurately. There are a several things that get in the way, but let me try. First, there is the general challenge of people not wanting to talk about their religious beliefs, regardless of what they are, unless they are evangelical and believe it is their mission to share the gospel from their own perspective. Secondarily, there is the complicated issue of terminology. What do you mean by “salvation,” or being “saved?” If I was leading a difficult or maybe a self-destructive life, and I read a book about Jesus, maybe I would change my self-destructiveness. The book or books might be by a progressive author that made no promise of an afterlife, but focused on Jesus teachings about loving our neighbor, or about not being afraid to live life, or about sharing or maybe about learning there are no enemies, or…well, you get the idea. Maybe there was something about those teachings that gave me new insight and I changed my life. Have I been saved? I might think so. But most people who call themselves Christian would want something more. Thirdly, how far do you take that question? For example, after forty years of serious study, I no longer hold the belief that Jesus died for my sins or that believing something like that can purify or “take away” my sins. However, I view Jesus as a fully human being who lived in the history of his time and was one of several enlightened beings throughout the ages, who left us with some amazing life lessons. Does that make me a Christian? Does that make me a believer? I believe in what Jesus taught but not the 3rd century idea of personal salvation. For example, I am a follower of Jesus, but how would I show up in the PEW report? That being said, your numbers are a little skewed. Christians remained the largest religious group in the world in 2015, making up nearly a third (31%) of Earth’s 7.3 billion people, according to a new Pew Research Center demographic analysis. (In the last two years, the Muslim faith has slight outdistanced Christianity). A large percentage of Christians, roughly a 1/3, live in the African and Asian countries. The African, and I suspect the Asian, slant on Christianity is often like nothing we have seen in modern USA. Most likely this is true for developing nations. However, Christians make up roughly 70% of the USA population. That is a drop from 80% a little over ten years ago. Now of course we have to ask, “What do they mean by calling themselves, Christians.” For example less than 45% of those claiming to be Christian attend church on a regular basis. Then, of course, we have to ask what church do you attend? What do they believe? And are you saved? Now I can tell you that there are more people like me who no longer attend church. In fact church attendance has dropped so much that they are closing churches every week, all over the country. Right now less than twenty percent of the population go to church on a regular basis and researchers are telling us that only 7% of the millennials will be attending church in the future. That does not bode well for Christianity or any of the institutional religions in our country. How many people are like me and the numerous authors we post on our website regularly? How many people are like the authors we pay to write for us weekly? There really is no way to tell, but our website attracts over 300,000 people a year, we have 11,000 people on our mailing list and our Progressing Spirit (previously called John Shelby Spong) weekly goes out to over 5,000 people every week. Bishop Spong wrote a book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, in 1998. I think that says it all. Thank you for writing, Fred C. Plumer, President ProgressiveChristianity.org Read and share online here Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited The Bible, Corporal Punishment and Human Guilt - Part 1 .."He who spares the rod, hates his son; but he who loves him ..is diligent to discipline him. (Prov. 13:24)." .."Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him ..with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with a rod, you ..will save his life from Sheol (Prov. 23:13,14)." "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child; but the rod of discipline drives it far from him (Prov. 22:15)." "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is the typical way that these texts are usually quoted. This shorthand version has become a popular saying, referred to often enough to enable it to be passed on to the next generation as self-authenticating folk wisdom. Most people do not know either its source or its literal form. That is not surprising. These texts are located in a seldom-read part of the Old Testament called Proverbs, which is quite frankly a rather boring book and is generally ignored by most Ecclesiastical Lectionaries. A few sayings from Proverbs are, however, still quoted by people, who usually have no idea of the source: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 9:10);" "A soft answer turns away wrath (Prov. 15:1);" and calling a friend "closer than a brother (Prov. 18:24)." The great film, focused on the 1925 Scopes trial in Tennessee, bore the title Inherit the Wind, which was a phrase, lifted from Proverbs (11:29). When Paul wrote in the 12th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans (v.20), "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty give him drink, for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head," he was quoting Proverbs 25:21,22. The author of the Fourth Gospel, when composing his opening hymn to the divine logos or the "word," appears to be leaning on a text from the 8th chapter of Proverbs (v.22-31). So the book had its influence in Christian history. Yet the words that affirm the rightness of corporal punishment are still the best-known part of this book. They seem to touch something deep in either the human psyche or the human experience. If one is the victim of corporal punishment, these words suggest 'deserving' and they seem to play into a self-negativity that rises from a definition of humanity that is deemed sinful or fallen. If one is a perpetrator of corporal punishment, these words seem to feed a human need to control, to exercise authority or even to demonstrate that forced submission is a virtue. If a child is assumed to have been born in sin, it is clearly the duty of parents or their surrogates to curb that tendency toward evil. It matters not that child psychologists and child development experts generally condemn this style of parenting. Since the responsibility to punish children for their misdeeds fits comfortably into a view of God who is also perceived as a parental figure ready to punish sinful adults, it becomes easy to justify. It is of interest that Christians from the very beginning have applied the image of the "Suffering Servant" from II Isaiah to the story of Jesus, so that it is said of him, "With his stripes we are healed," (Isa.53: 5) and that "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:6.)" It sounds very much as if God has a heavenly woodshed reserved for the physical disciplining of God's "wayward children," or at least for Jesus, our surrogate. Physical discipline has been supported through the centuries by a variety of pious claims, allowing it to wear the mask of intellectual credibility. Only in recent decades has Western consciousness been raised on this subject, and corporal punishment has begun its inevitable retreat into the past. Yet the glorification of physical discipline for children still lingers in those pockets of our culture that, not coincidentally I believe, are identified with conservative Christian churches. Parochial schools are notorious for their use of physical discipline. The nuns were quite clearly feared by the students. When that reality is augmented by the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests that now appears to have been present in almost epidemic abundance, the sickness present in the attitude of the Church toward children becomes very clear. Not to be outdone in this evil by the Roman Catholic tradition, we discover that corporal punishment is still defended today in Protestant fundamentalist circles in the United States by such people as Dr. James Dobson and his "Focus on the Family" organization. To press the connection one step further, Philip J. Greven, a Rutgers University professor, has written a book entitled, Spare the Child, in which he seeks to demonstrate that, almost to a person, the popular radio and television evangelists in American history have revealed approvingly in their preaching or in autobiographies that they were physically punished as children. Dr. Greven has suggested that this life experience is not just coincidentally related to their message, which portrays an angry God standing ready to punish sinful people through all eternity unless they repent. It is rather part and parcel of their thinking. During the late 90's a task force on children in the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, made a report to the Diocesan Convention. This report included the following resolution offered for adoption: "Resolved, that there are no circumstances in which corporal punishment is appropriate as a method of disciplining children." The news of this report and its resolution began to circulate through the pre-convention meetings designed to inform delegates of the issues coming before them. We then discovered that the secular press wanted to follow this debate quite enthusiastically. Covering the typical church convention is not normally on the agenda of most daily newspapers unless there is some hint of scandal. When the resolution was placed before the assembly, the debate was quite revealing. It was for me, as the presiding officer, like watching over 600 people engaged in group therapy. We had people justifying publicly their own behavior as parents by praising their methods of discipline and the ways their own parents had disciplined them. "My father beat me regularly," said one gentleman well in his 70's, "and it made a man out of me." Another said, "My children have said to me that the discipline I meted out to them was the best thing I ever did for them." Still another used the old cliché, which attempts to turn violence into virtue by insisting "I did it for their own good and it always hurt me more than it hurt my children." Other delegates to this convention, however, spoke with very different tones, as childhood memories emerged through adult voices, to speak of their sense of being violated and humiliated in ways that were so deep they had never spoken of it publicly before. They told of the psychic damage they had sustained, the rage they had felt and the residual anger they still felt. They shared openly feelings of being humiliated a second time when their parents would speak of this disciplining session to their friends and family in a casual manner, as they sought to gain approval for their form of parenting. The debate was interesting in one other detail. This was a relatively well-educated, socially prominent assembly of approximately 150 clergy and 450 lay people. Yet, no consensus ever emerged and they were not willing to vote the resolution up or down. Finally, in a face-saving leap toward easing the assembly out of this dilemma, one priest offered an amendment. For the words "corporal punishment," he moved to substitute the words "injurious or humiliating treatments" so that the resolution then read: "Resolved, that there are no circumstances in which injurious or humiliating treatments are appropriate as a method for disciplining children." No one thought their use of corporal punishment was either "injurious or humiliating," and amendment passed almost unanimously, which in church gatherings means that it falls into the same category as resolutions opposing sin and extolling virtue or what politicians call, "God, motherhood and apple pie" resolutions. It committed, to use an improper but expressive double negative, "no one to nothing." Yet the emotions expressed, the anecdotal stories shared, the anguish and anger that were revealed painted an unforgettable portrait of inner conflict and provided insight into unresolved feelings. It also revealed a deep cultural ambiguity about who we are as human beings, what it is that we think we deserve from God, and why it is that we are taught that the physical punishment of children is somehow validated in a book we call the "Word of God." Violence is a constant presence in our world. What begins with helpless children facing their parents expands to helpless students facing their teachers or principals, then stretches to include helpless adults facing authority figures. Finally it confronts us with the picture of helpless sinners facing an angry God. The journey into this text will continue next week. ~ John Shelby Spong Originally published June 16, 2004 Announcements 6 Steps to Finally, Truly Loving Yourself with Margaret Paul Are you convinced that loving yourself is THE key to your healing, liberation and living in joy? Yet, do you find yourself repeatedly caught in the trap of trying to “get love” outside of yourself? If so, psychologist Margaret Paul’s has tools and practices for receiving deep, unconditional love… from within - Wednesday, October 4th. Click here for more information/registration

1 0

Jimmy Kimmel's monologue on Las Vegas
by Ellie Stock 03 Oct '17

03 Oct '17

Thought this was good. Contact your legislators. Ellie elliestock(a)aol.com Must-see TV: Jimmy Kimmel's monologue on Las Vegas

1 0

Fwd: A Prayer after Las Vegas
by Ellie Stock 02 Oct '17

02 Oct '17

Forwarding this prayer after Las Vegas from the pastor of our church. Our great niece goes to college there but fortunately was not at the concert but could see the police commotion and lights from her dorm room. Now, more talk about gun control...deja vu all over again... <div>Ellie elliestock(a)aol.com <div id="AOLMsgPart_2_f69bb959-b50e-4a74-8c02-2296762947d1"> <style scoped="">#AOLMsgPart_2_f69bb959-b50e-4a74-8c02-2296762947d1 td{color: black;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}.aolReplacedBody p.aolmail_MsoNormal,.aolReplacedBody li.aolmail_MsoNormal,.aolReplacedBody div.aolmail_MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}.aolReplacedBody a:link,.aolReplacedBody span.aolmail_MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:#0563C1; text-decoration:underline;}.aolReplacedBody a:visited,.aolReplacedBody span.aolmail_MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:#954F72; text-decoration:underline;}.aolReplacedBody p.aolmail_msonormal0,.aolReplacedBody li.aolmail_msonormal0,.aolReplacedBody div.aolmail_msonormal0 {mso-style-name:msonormal; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}.aolReplacedBody span.aolmail_EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; color:windowtext; font-weight:normal; font-style:normal; text-decoration:none none;}.aolReplacedBody span.aolmail_EmailStyle20 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:windowtext;}.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;}@page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}.aolReplacedBody div.aolmail_WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}</style><div lang="EN-US" class="aolReplacedBody"> <div class="aolmail_WordSection1"> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">God of Pain and God of Promise:</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Once again we are stunned by the cruelty and ugliness of gun violence.</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Once again our national obsession with guns has led to excruciating pain and death.</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Once again we feel broken and helpless and so very, very sad.</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Holy One, come to each of us – and give us clarity and compassion.</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Wrap your arms around grieving families and terrified victims, and traumatized first responders.</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Forgive us for failing to stop this madness.</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Forgive us for putting individual rights above community wholeness.</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Forgive us for our silence in the face of evil.</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Remind us of your promise to never forsake us.</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">And renew our promises to be agents of reconciliation and healing in this world.</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">We pray in the name of the One who endured pain and transformed pain into energy for change. Amen</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN" style="color:blue">The Rev. Susan R. Andrews</span></b></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN" style="color:blue">Interim Pastor</span></b></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN" style="color:blue">Second Presbyterian Church</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"></span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN" style="color:blue"><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="mailto:Ipastor2PC@secondchurch.net"><span style="font-weight:normal"></span></a><a href="mailto:Ipastor2PC@secondchurch.net">Ipastor2PC(a)secondchurch.net</a></span></b></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN" style="color:blue">Serving Others. Changing Lives</span></i><span lang="EN" style="color:blue"></span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN" style="color:blue"></span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span lang="EN" style="color:blue">4501 Westminster Place</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span lang="EN" style="color:blue">Saint Louis, MO.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"></span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span lang="EN" style="color:blue">314-367-0366</span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span lang="EN" style="color:blue"><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://www.secondchurch.net/"><span style="color:blue"></span></a><a href="http://www.secondchurch.net" target="_blank">www.secondchurch.net</a></span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><span lang="EN" style="color:blue"> </span></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"><b> </b></p> <p class="aolmail_MsoNormal"> </p> </div> </div> </div></div>

1 0

9/28/17, Spong/Plumer:Have Our Mainline Churches Failed Us?; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

<div id="AOLMsgPart_2_338c839d-c995-4569-8ea9-81a75158de18"> <style type="text/css" scoped="">#AOLMsgPart_2_338c839d-c995-4569-8ea9-81a75158de18 td{color: black;} .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_outlook a{ padding:0; } .aolReplacedBody { width:100% !important; } .aolReplacedBody { -webkit-text-size-adjust:none; } .aolReplacedBody { margin:0; padding:0; } .aolReplacedBody img{ border:none; font-size:14px; font-weight:bold; height:auto; line-height:100%; outline:none; text-decoration:none; text-transform:capitalize; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_backgroundTable{ height:100% !important; margin:0; padding:0; width:100% !important; } .aolReplacedBody ,.aolReplacedBody #aolmail_backgroundTable{ background-color:#FAFAFA; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templateContainer{ border:1px solid #4487cf; } .aolReplacedBody h1,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h1{ color:#202020; display:block; font-family:Arial; font-size:34px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; margin-top:0; margin-right:0; margin-bottom:10px; margin-left:0; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody h2,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h2{ color:#202020; display:block; font-family:Arial; font-size:30px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; margin-top:0; margin-right:0; margin-bottom:10px; margin-left:0; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody h3,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h3{ color:#202020; display:block; font-family:Arial; font-size:26px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; margin-top:0; margin-right:0; margin-bottom:10px; margin-left:0; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody h4,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h4{ color:#202020; display:block; font-family:Arial; font-size:22px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; margin-top:0; margin-right:0; margin-bottom:10px; margin-left:0; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody h5,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h5{ color:#202020; display:block; font-family:Arial; font-size:12px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; margin-top:15px; margin-right:0; margin-bottom:10px; margin-left:0; text-align:left; text-transform:uppercase; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templatePreheader{ background-color:#ffffff; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_preheaderContent div{ color:#505050; font-family:Arial; font-size:10px; line-height:100%; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_preheaderContent div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_preheaderContent div a:visited{ color:#336699; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templateHeader{ background-color:#D8E2EA; border-bottom:0; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerContent{ color:#202020; font-family:Arial; font-size:34px; font-weight:bold; line-height:100%; padding:0; text-align:center; vertical-align:middle; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerContent a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerContent a:visited{ color:#336699; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_headerImage{ height:auto; max-width:600px !important; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templateContainer,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent{ background-color:#FDFDFD; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent div{ color:#000000; font-family:Georgia; font-size:16px; line-height:150%; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent div a:visited{ color:#336699; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent img{ display:inline; height:auto; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templateFooter{ background-color:#FDFDFD; border-top:0; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_footerContent div{ color:#707070; font-family:Arial; font-size:12px; line-height:125%; text-align:left; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_footerContent div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_footerContent div a:visited{ color:#336699; font-weight:normal; text-decoration:underline; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_footerContent img{ display:inline; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_social{ background-color:#FAFAFA; border:0; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_social div{ text-align:center; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_utility{ background-color:#FDFDFD; border:1px dashed #d3d3d3; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_utility div{ text-align:center; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_monkeyRewards img{ max-width:190px; } .aolReplacedBody ,.aolReplacedBody #aolmail_backgroundTable{ background-color:#ffffff; } .aolReplacedBody h1,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h1{ color:#003d4a; font-family:Georgia; font-weight:normal; } .aolReplacedBody h2,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h2{ color:#4487cf; font-family:Georgia; font-weight:normal; } .aolReplacedBody h3,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h3{ color:#4487cf; font-family:Georgia; font-weight:normal; } .aolReplacedBody h4,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_h4{ color:#4487cf; font-family:Georgia; font-weight:normal; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_preheaderContent div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_preheaderContent div a:visited{ color:#4487cf; text-decoration:none; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerNavigation div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerNavigation div a:visited{ color:#4487cf; text-decoration:none; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerContent a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_headerContent a:visited{ text-decoration:none; } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_templateContainer,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent{ background-color:#ffffff; } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent div a:link,.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_bodyContent div a:visited{ color:#4487cf; }</style><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: none;margin: 0;padding: 0;background-color: #ffffff;width: 100% !important;" class="aolReplacedBody"> <center> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" width="100%" id="aolmail_backgroundTable" style="margin: 0;padding: 0;background-color: #ffffff;height: 100% !important;width: 100% !important;"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center" valign="top"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600" id="aolmail_templatePreheader" style="background-color: #ffffff;"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" class="aolmail_preheaderContent"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top"><div style="color: #505050;font-family: Arial;font-size: 10px;line-height: 100%;text-align: left;"> </div></td> <td valign="top" width="190"> <div style="color: #505050;font-family: Arial;font-size: 10px;line-height: 100%;text-align: left;"><a target="_blank" style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: none;" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…"><img style="border: none;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;height: auto;line-height: 100%;outline: none;text-decoration: none;text-transform: capitalize;" src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/b51b9cf441b059bb232418480/images/print.png"></a></div> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600" id="aolmail_templateContainer" style="border: 1px solid #4487cf;background-color: #ffffff;"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center" valign="top"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600" id="aolmail_templateHeader" style="background-color: #D8E2EA;border-bottom: 0;"> <tbody><tr> <td class="aolmail_headerContent" style="color: #202020;font-family: Arial;font-size: 34px;font-weight: bold;line-height: 100%;padding: 0;text-align: center;vertical-align: middle;"> <img alt="" border="0" style="margin: 0;padding: 0;max-width: 600px;border: none;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;height: auto;line-height: 100%;outline: none;text-decoration: none;text-transform: capitalize;" src="http://gallery.mailchimp.com/b51b9cf441b059bb232418480/images/newsletter_he…"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" class="aolmail_headerNavigation"> <h5 style="color: #202020;display: block;font-family: Arial;font-size: 12px;font-weight: bold;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 15px;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;text-transform: uppercase;"> <a style="color: #4487cf;text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…">Homepage</a> <a style="color: #4487cf;text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…">My Profile</a> <a style="color: #4487cf;text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb2…">Essay Archive</a> <a style="color: #4487cf;text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb2…">Message Boards</a> <a style="color: #4487cf;text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…">Calendar</a></h5></td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600" id="aolmail_templateBody"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" class="aolmail_bodyContent" style="background-color: #ffffff;"> <table border="0" cellpadding="20" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top"> <div style="color: #000000;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 16px;line-height: 150%;text-align: left;"><h1 style="color: #003d4a;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 34px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;">Have Our Mainline Churches Failed Us?</h1> <h3 class="aolmail_null" style="color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 26px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;">By Fred C. Plumer</h3> <p><a style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb2…"><img align="left" class="aolmail_alignleft aolmail_size-medium aolmail_wp-image-49823" height="124" style="border: 0px;width: 125px;height: 124px;margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;line-height: 100%;outline: none;text-decoration: none;text-transform: capitalize;display: inline;" width="125" src="https://johnshelbyspong.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Fred-Plumer-300x298.…"></a>I have been wondering lately, if we are really missing the conscience of our mainline churches in our country. Most of us are aware of the political, social and personal conflicts that are going on in our country right now. And most of us are aware of the sad numbers of our dying churches. I have been wondering if there is a connection.</p> <p>With some rare exceptions, churches all over the country are in serious decline or are actually closing. Many churches have merged with other churches and those combined churches are still in decline. Although there is some debate about the actual numbers, we know that on any given Sunday less the 22% of people in the country attend church. This is a national average taking into consideration the much higher reported attendance in the Southern states. Most of us are aware that in west coast and east coast cities, these statistics are much lower, probably closer to 10% of the population attending church on any Sunday.</p> <p>Denominations are also in serious decline, including our beloved mainline denominations. Although there are many false rumors, evangelical and conservative and even mega-churches are slowly declining as well. And according to at least three researchers and authors who have done extensive studies on the millennial generation-who could now be in their late thirties-the number could fall to less than 7% as the older generation dies.(1) By and large, millennials have rejected going to church when they are free of parental control.</p> <p>The reign of clergy, just for being clergy, is over. A few years ago I came upon a survey that was done by a magazine in 1962. In this article the authors explained they were reporting the outcome from the month before. They had asked the readers to rank the most trusted people in jobs in the US. They explained that this would include not only trust, but esteem. Clergy were ranked number 3, with an 84% approval rating after doctors and military. A recent Pew Research poll (2014) found that the favorable view of clergy had declined to 37 percent of those surveyed and had dropped to 6th position beating out artists and lawyers.</p> <p>Aside from these facts, almost anyone who attends church today can see that it is an ageing population. And yet many of our mainline denominations are still fighting over things that the country as a whole favors. I am referring here, in part, to gay and lesbian marriage, gay and lesbian pastors and other LGBTQ issues. We have just recently read about the negative fall-out from a UCC minister talking positively about Black Lives Matter and wondering out loud with his congregation about “white privilege.” This young man resigned as pastor because of the reaction from his congregation. If not in a church community, where are these subjects supposed to be discussed? It makes me want to shout, “It is over folks.”</p> <p>The net result of this change in our society is a little scary for me. Where are the voices of reason? Where are the clergy who have enough influence in our society to be invited to the White House to offer advice or input? Where is the public conscience of people like a Gandhi or Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.? I am not referring here to the Evangelical ministers who were recently invited to the White House to praise and pray for President Trump. Nor am I thinking about the prosperity preachers, like Joel Osteen, who reluctantly opened the doors of his church in Houston after a firestorm of criticism for keeping them locked during the first few days of the floods. I am talking here about the hard working, sincerely loving, real ministers who work in the trenches. The ones who talk, preach and act from the position of: “Do on to others as you would like them to do to you;” clergy who believe in equitable treatment for all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or income. Clergy who truly care about our environment, our animals, and our water supply, for example.</p> <p>I believe it was 1992 when I heard the founder and former president of the Alban Institute, Loren B. Mead, speak to a large group of clergy from Southern California. We were meeting in the Southern California Conference office of the UCC denomination in Pasadena. We had all gathered to hear about the future of the church based on his research for his recently released book, <em>The Once and Future Church</em> (Alban Institute, 1991). He was an engaging speaker, but most of us there were looking for answers, or at least ideas, about ways to grow our struggling churches. Rev. Mead was clear that the public had changed and old ways of doing church or attracting people to church no longer worked. Certainly it would not work for the next generation. He spoke at some length about clergy no longer being held in high esteem unless they had done something worthy on their own. As an example, he talked about the fact that clergy were seldom called to the White House to give advice to the President or Cabinet members.</p> <p>Well, it was just about that time that three uniformed officers came into the church hall. We were all startled and most of us thought the building was on fire, or there was a crazy person with a gun on the loose somewhere in the large building. Then one of the three officers came up to the podium and told us in no uncertain terms we had 15 minutes to move our cars if we were parked in a particular city parking lot. Most of us had parked in this lot since we had been informed by people sponsoring the conference that it was set aside for us. As it turns out, it was a city parking lot that the church had been given permission to use on Sundays, but not, as it turned out, during the week. Since this was the middle of the week, we did not have permission to park there. So off we trudged, in hopes we could find a place to park our vehicles in the busy city.</p> <p>After we had gathered back together again, Rev. Mead looked out at the group, most of us hot and sweaty, and said, “This was a perfect example of what I have been talking about. This would not have happened 30 years ago.” Remember this was over twenty five years ago.</p> <p>I do not mean to suggest that our churches are failing simply because clergy are no longer held in as high esteem as they were fifty years ago. It could simply be the fact that fewer and fewer people have decided to attend church. Our mainline churches have been losing members at an average rate of 1% a year since the 1960’s. Do the math.</p> <p>Nor am I certain the reasons our clergy are no longer held in high esteem is our country’s focus on making money. It is a rare clergy person today who makes a lot of money. Many clergy I know are either part time, are traveling clergy with two and even three churches, or are dependent on their spouse to financially survive.</p> <p>No, I am afraid the main reason our churches are declining and closing is because we are usually telling the same story about Jesus that we have been telling for sixteen hundred years. And while we are doing that, the world has changed around us. We change a little here and little there but basically we are preaching the same platitudes, the same lessons and treating Jesus as if he was indeed God. We are reading the Bible as if it held holy secrets, ignoring the parts that are clearly obscene.</p> <p>And all the while, scholars are telling us a whole, different story. They are telling us that Jesus was a peaceful, radical, and a revolutionary peasant. His birth signaled a new way of relating to others, through agape, that is, through radical love and forgiveness.</p> <p>Interestingly, our colleges and universities no longer teach religion and western civ classes the same way they used to, at least in our public colleges. Any college student who has had a “western civ” class or a class on religion in America, in the last four or five decades, has probably heard a challenge to the old way of interpreting the Jesus story. For these students, listening to a preacher talk about Jesus as if he was a god who performed miracles, was killed on a cross, was buried in a tomb, and three days later arose to meet his disciples again, will just not work.</p> <p>If a college professor has done his homework, he can come up with over a dozen gods/saviors over the past four thousand years or so, who have much in common with what has become “our Christian story,” some more than others. Here are a few examples:</p> <p>Thulis, or Zulis, of Egypt, 1700 BCE, who died a violent death, was buried, then arose, ascended to heaven to judge the dead and souls of the future. He then was resurrected to help the underprivileged.</p> <p>Next is Tammuz of Mesopotamia. He was popular in Assyria, Samaria, and Babylonia, around 1200 BCE he was killed but offered atonement out of his loins as he arose from his grave.</p> <p>Another one of interest is Indra of Tibet. He was nailed to a cross, with four wounds on his hands and feet, and was pierced in his side. His mother was a virgin. He had a life of celibacy, could walk on water and on air and was a god who would exist through all eternity.</p> <p>And finally, my last example is Mithras of Persia, popular sometime around 600BCE. Mithras was crucified on a tree to atone for the sins of all “mankind” and to take away the sins of the world. He, along with half a dozen other examples, was born on December 25. These stories, and eight or ten more are all available in books and yes, online. Feel free to look them up.</p> <p>Now can you imagine trying to convince a young, college educated couple that Jesus died for our sins, was resurrected and if we believe this, not only will we be saved from hell, but Jesus will return…someday? What about their friends, their relatives? People are getting smarter about how to approach the Jesus of a new age.</p> <p>Can clergy change the story in an existing church? It is hard work, full of pitfalls, but it can be done, especially if the clergy person is respected as a teacher, among other things. What if the community agreed that the Jesus story was full of myth and they began together, as a team, to figure out what those myths were trying to tell us? What if the pastor held classes every week and the community worked together to sort out what they felt was good for the community and what was not? What if in another class the pastor allowed us to decide what parts of the Bible the class felt were important and which parts they could let go.</p> <p>But it does not end there. Between the Jesus Seminar and other modern scholars today, there is a plethora of books that challenge the old Jesus story. There is a very real possibility that if enough people do the work and come up with some new ideas about how to approach Christianity, we can discover new and lasting ethical and moral guidelines based on the teachings of Jesus, that make sense in 2017. It is possible that working that way, a church community could come up with new standards of behavior that we could all live with. And maybe we could have a combined voice that would have some impact in our relationships, our communities and our government.</p> <p>Then I would not have to ask the question that I started with. Have our mainline churches failed us? Right now I would have to answer “yes.”</p> <p>~ Fred C. Plumer, President ProgressiveChristianity.org</p> <p>Footnote: (1) <em>Millennials Rising</em>, Neil Howe, William Strauss, Vintage Books, New York, N.Y, 2000, <em>Millennial Momentum</em>, Morley Winograd, Michael D. House, Rutgers University Press, 2011 <em>The Millennials</em>, Tomas S. Rainer, Jess W. Rainer, B&H Publishing, 2011</p> <p>Read the essay online <a target="_blank" style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb2…">here</a>.</p> </div> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table border="0" cellpadding="20" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top"> <div style="color: #000000;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 16px;line-height: 150%;text-align: left;"><hr> <h2 style="color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 30px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;">Question & Answer</h2> <p><span style="font-size:18px">Annie from Rhode Island, writes:</span></p> <h4 style="color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 22px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;"> Question:</h4> <p>With the #TakeAKnee movement growing, what do you think the Church's role in racism in the US is?</p> <p> </p> <h4 style="color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 22px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;">Answer: By Rev. Mark Sanlin</h4> <p><a style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…"><img align="left" class="aolmail_alignleft aolmail_size-full aolmail_wp-image-49705" height="125" style="border: 0px;width: 125px;height: 125px;margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;line-height: 100%;outline: none;text-decoration: none;text-transform: capitalize;display: inline;" width="125" src="https://johnshelbyspong.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Mark-Sandlin.jpg"></a>Dear Annie,</p> <p>What it is and what it should be, unfortunately, aren't always one in the same.</p> <p> </p> <p>A recent analysis led by Wendy Wood, Provost Professor of Psychology and Business at USC College and the USC Marshall School of Business, found a positive correlation between religiosity and racial bias.</p> <p>The analysis looked at data from 55 different studies on religion and racism in America dating back to the Civil Rights Act. Combined, the studies include more than 22,000 participants, mostly white and Protestant. (And that's important: Protestant. Much of the current support for our racially biased government comes from the more conservative Evangelical Christian movement, not the Protestant).</p> <p>As the study reports: "A meta-analytic review of past research evaluated the link between religiosity and racism in the United States since the Civil Rights Act. Religious racism partly reflects intergroup dynamics. That is, a strong religious in-group identity was associated with derogation of racial out-groups. Other races might be treated as out-groups because religion is practiced largely within race, because training in a religious in-group identity promotes general ethnocentrism, and because different others appear to be in competition for resources. In addition, religious racism is tied to basic life values of social conformity and respect for tradition.”</p> <p>Recognize here that the study did not find that religion causes racism. It's findings say that religion is fertile soil for those who have tendencies toward racism. Progressive, Christian, author Anne Lamott puts it this way, “You can safely say that you've created God in your own image when it turns out God hates all the same people you do.”</p> <p>Or as I've said, "If your religion doesn’t challenge you to care for people you might otherwise be dismissive of and, instead, reinforces your negative feeling about them, you don’t have a religion – you have a formalized structure for institutionalizing your biases."</p> <p>Basically, when it isn't practiced with intelligence and compassion, religion can easily be used as an authoritative confirmation of our biases – without the humanist perspectives of critical thinking and the innate value of individuals, perverting religious outlooks to suit personal prejudices is far too easy. Add to it the dogmatic environment of most churches and it can be the perfect petri dish for growing cultures of racism.</p> <p>Putting racism into the hands of God also makes life easier when you are confronted with social injustices. If you can blame a group's oppression on the retribution of an angry god or some inherent deficiency, then you really not only have no responsibility in it but you'd be foolish to go against God. Not only that, you don't have to feel bad about the privileges that are given to you when you choose not to extend those same privileges to people who've already been judged by God.</p> <p>The harsh reality of race and religion in America is that religion has become a cover for racism.</p> <p>The reality is that racial discrimination is now being touted as "religious freedom."</p> <p>You can wrap the law around it any way you want. You can call it religious freedom, freedom of speech... whatever you want. No matter what you call it, it remains morally repugnant and devoid of any god that I ever care to worship. There is no space in a healthy spiritual community for racism, or for that matter anything that pits one group of people over another.</p> <p>That kind of thinking, that kind of acting, stands over and against everything that can grow a person or a community spiritually. That kind of thinking plays to the lowest forms of human pettiness and uses religion as a weapon rather than as a balm. It is a bastardization of spirituality and must be actively resisted at every turn and cast out like the demon that it is.</p> <p>It does not mean that we stop seeking to care for those who practice it. That would put us in a similar place of denying people for being different than us, but it does mean not sitting silently by as it is being practiced. It does mean actively resisting it in our churches and communities.</p> <p>~ Rev. Mark Sandlin Read and share online <a target="_blank" style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…">here</a> </p> <p><strong>About the Author</strong></p> <p>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 <a style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb2…">The Christian Left</a>. His blog, <a style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="about:blank">RevMarkSandlin, 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 </a><a style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…">Facebook</a> and Twitter @marksandlin</p> <p style="text-align: center;">__________________________________________________</p> <h3 style="text-align: center;color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 26px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;"><strong>Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited</strong></h3> <p style="text-align: center;"><strong>The Ultimate Source of Anti-Semitism - The Circumstances That Brought Judas Into the Jesus Story</strong></p> <p><img alt="Spong" class="aolmail_wp-image-49832 aolmail_alignleft" height="128" style="border: 0px;width: 121px;height: 128px;margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px;float: left;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;line-height: 100%;outline: none;text-decoration: none;text-transform: capitalize;display: inline;" width="121" src="https://johnshelbyspong.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Spong-283x300.jpg"></p> <p>I return today to a subject that I have covered before. It is essential however, to this series on the sources of anti-Semitism, so I ask my reader's indulgence while I once again bring Judas into focus. My request to you is a simple one. Suspend for a moment your critical faculties, as well as your traditional presuppositions, and assume with me that the story of Judas Iscariot was a late-developing, contrived story and not a remembered bit of objective history. If this speculation is correct, as I think it is, then I must deal with two additional questions. The first one is: where did the gospel writers get the content that they wove into the Judas story? If it has all been borrowed, as I think I can demonstrate, then is any part of that story history?</p> <p>I find it fascinating that every detail that has been written into the story of Judas has been lifted almost directly out of other betrayal stories in the Hebrew Scriptures. The very words "handed over," which we somewhat loosely translated "betrayed" when Paul first used it (I Cor. 11), was lifted out of the story of Joseph and his brothers (Gen. 37). Rather than kill Joseph, the brothers agreed to hand him over for money. Of particular note is the fact that the brother who proposed that they secure this payment for their act of treachery was Judah. If written in Greek, it would be Judas!</p> <p>Second, a story in the book of Zechariah has the shepherd King of Israel being betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. This money says Zechariah was thrown back into the Temple treasury, which is exactly what Matthew, who is the only gospel writer to mention 'thirty pieces of silver,' says Judas did with his money when he repented (compare Zech. 11:12-13 with Mt. 27:5). This shepherd King in the book of Zechariah was betrayed, interestingly enough, to those who bought and sold animals in the Temple (11:15)!</p> <p>Third, there is a narrative in the David saga of stories in which a royal advisor named Ahithophel, who even though he ate at the table of the King, nonetheless raised his hand in betrayal against "the Lord's anointed," as King David was called. When this treachery backfired, he went out and hanged himself. It is this episode, cited by the book of Psalms (41.9), that John quotes to demonstrate that when Jesus identified Judas at the Last Supper as the traitor, the expectations of the prophets were being fulfilled.</p> <p>Next we are told that Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. A similar act is also found once again in the David cycle of stories. David, after putting down a rebellion led by his son Absalom, felt he could no longer trust his former military chief Joab, so he replaced him with a man named Amasa. Joab, under the guise of wanting to congratulate his successor, sought out and found Amasa. Drawing Amasa's face by the beard to his own, in order to extend to Amasa the kiss of friendship, Joab disemboweled him with a dagger (II Sam. 20:5ff). That was the content of the phrase 'the kiss of the traitor' before the story of Judas entered the tradition. Perhaps this story about Joab and Amasa also colored Luke's account in the book of Acts in which it was suggested that Judas died with all his bowels gushing out (Acts 1: 18).</p> <p>My point in this first exercise is to show that every detail of the Judas story has been lifted directly out of the Hebrew Scriptures, where it was originally part of a narrative about other traitors in Jewish history. This causes me to wonder if any part of the Judas story is history.</p> <p>The second question I wish to raise is: What was going on at that time in history that might have made it convenient or even necessary to create the Judas story? This leads me into an exploration of the world of the Middle East after the year 70 C.E. when the gospels were being written. One of the more obvious themes in the earliest passion narratives is the shifting of the blame for Jesus' death from the Romans to the Jews, for that is what the story of Judas seems to accomplish. Let me set that stage for you.</p> <p>From the time of Jesus on (30 C.E.), Jewish guerilla fighters had roamed the hills of Galilee doing hit and run attacks on the occupying Roman army. To the Jews, these guerillas were heroic freedom fighters. To the Romans, they were terrorists and killers. These guerillas were called Zealots. The fact that one of Jesus' disciples was known as Simon the Zealot (Lk.6: 15), may indicate a closer connection between these guerillas and Jesus than Christians have yet been willing to admit.</p> <p>In the year 66 C.E., this guerilla activity escalated into a full scale Galilean war between the Romans and the Jews that finally ended at Masada in 73 C.E. in total Jewish defeat. The climax of the war, however, occurred when the Romans decided they could not defeat the guerillas unless they destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish state. Led first by a general named Vespasian, and later by his son Titus, the Romans moved into siege positions around the Holy City and pounded it until Jerusalem fell in 70 C.E. The Romans moved in, smashing its walls, razing its buildings and demolishing the Temple. The Jewish state disappeared from the maps of history, and did not re-appear again until 1948 when the United Nations brought into being the State of Israel under the authority of the Balfour Declaration.</p> <p>In that war against Rome, the Jews lost everything they had: their nation, their holy city, their temple, and their priesthood. Jewish identity thus came to be attached to their sacred scriptures, which was all they had left. They invested these scriptures with both an absolute authority and a literal accuracy. The whole truth is in the Torah, they asserted. Nothing more is essential, or necessary. The Jews thus became increasingly rigid, fundamentalist and doctrinaire about their Bible. That always occurs when survival is at stake.</p> <p>In that same tragedy the followers of Jesus, who were still predominantly Jews, found themselves suffering the fate of all Jews at the hands of their Roman conquerors. Seeking to separate themselves from the Orthodox Party of the Jews, whom they blamed for starting that destructive war, the followers of Jesus sought to make the case that they should not be punished for the foolishness of the Jewish fanatics who constituted the Orthodox Party. It was a difficult case for them to make, however, since Jesus, the one they followed, had also been executed by the Romans.</p> <p>But suppose, they said to the Roman authorities, that the Romans only crucified Jesus at the behest of the Orthodox Party of the Jews, who sought to get rid of his threatening teaching by portraying Jesus as a political revolutionary, who wanted to set up a rival Kingdom. Recall the sign that Pilate ordered to be placed over the cross: 'This is Jesus the King of the Jews.' The Orthodox Party had twisted his message, they contended to the Romans, since the Kingdom of which Jesus spoke was not of this world. The same religious fanatics, they argued, who started the Roman war had earlier been instrumental in the death of our leader. It was a skillful use of that old adage: 'we should be friends since we have a common enemy.' Your wrath, they wanted the authorities representing Rome after that war to know, should not fall indiscriminately on all Jews.</p> <p>How better could they accomplish that purpose than to tell the Christ story with the chief person responsible for the death of Jesus bearing the name of the entire Jewish nation?</p> <p>How better could they seek Roman favor than by whitewashing the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate, in their narrative of Jesus' final days, exonerating him of any blame in his death?</p> <p>So Pilate, in the developing gospel story, was portrayed as washing his hands, claiming his innocence and referring to Jesus as "this just man in whom I find no fault." The Jewish crowd was portrayed as accepting the blame, by saying: "His blood be upon us and upon our children." The shift in blame was complete. The Jews did it. Judah/Judas did it. They are the enemy. He is the enemy. Pilate and the Romans are our friends.</p> <p>So the deed was done. That is the ultimate seed out of which this Christian prejudice of anti-Semitism has grown. That is the source out of which all the hostility toward the Jews has flowed. That is what allowed Christians to tolerate and even to celebrate a violent, killing anti-Jewish undercurrent that would emerge in chilling horror in the writings of the Church Fathers, in the Crusades, in the Inquisition, in the response to the Bubonic plague, in the writings of reformers like Luther and in the Holocaust. Judas is our clue. Christians took the life of one disciple who bore the name of the entire Jewish nation and made him the anti-Christ, thereby avoiding their own persecution as Jews by the conquering Romans and in that act, anti-Semitism was transformed into a virtue in Christian history.</p> <p>The only purpose in raising the sources of our prejudice into consciousness is to enable us to expel them. The biblical texts that we Christians have used for centuries to justify our hostility toward the Jews need to be banished forever from the sacred writings of the Christian Church. The way to begin I believe is to return to the Christ consciousness that caused the early Christians to assert, as Luke does in the Pentecost story, that to be filled with the Spirit is to transcend all tribal boundaries and to speak the universal language of love (Acts 2). It is to recover the power in Paul's words to the Galatians, that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek but a New Creation" (Gal 3:28).</p> <p>To enter that new creation may well be what is required if the human race is to survive.</p> <p>~ John Shelby Spong Originally published June 9, 2004</p> </div> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table border="0" cellpadding="20" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top"> <div style="color: #000000;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 16px;line-height: 150%;text-align: left;"><hr> <h2 style="color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 30px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;">Announcements</h2> <h2 style="color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 30px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;text-align: left;"> </h2> <h2 style="text-align: left;color: #4487cf;display: block;font-family: Georgia;font-size: 30px;font-weight: normal;line-height: 100%;margin-top: 0;margin-right: 0;margin-bottom: 10px;margin-left: 0;"><a target="_blank" style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb23…"><img height="267" style="border: 0px;width: 200px;height: 267px;margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px;float: left;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;line-height: 100%;outline: none;text-decoration: none;text-transform: capitalize;display: inline;" width="200" src="https://gallery.mailchimp.com/b51b9cf441b059bb232418480/images/1fadbb51-d76…"></a> <span style="font-family:georgia,times,times new roman,serif"><span style="color:#000000"><span style="font-size:16px"><strong>FaithandReason® presents The Challenge of Paul, featuring John Dominic Crossan</strong></span> <span style="font-size:16px">The D. L. Dykes, Jr. Foundation (DLDF), producers of FaithandReason®, will distribute, free of charge, <strong>The Challenge of Paul</strong>, an extraordinary video learning experience with J<strong>ohn Dominic Crossan</strong> (Themes 1 and 2, plus a digital resource guide – a $150 value) to 1,000 or more churches across the country. Congregations or organizations interested in participating in <strong>The Challenge of Paul Gift Program</strong> area asked to email: <a href="mailto:jennifervail@faithandreason.org">jennifervail(a)faithandreason.org</a> and simply state, “Yes. I am interested in participating in The Challenge of Paul Gift Program.” <a target="_blank" style="color: #4487cf;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: underline;" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://johnshelbyspong.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=b51b9cf441b059bb2…">Click here</a> for more information</span></span></span></h2> </div> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top"> <table border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" width="600" id="aolmail_templateFooter" style="background-color: #FDFDFD;border-top: 0;"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" class="aolmail_footerContent"> <table border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td colspan="2" valign="middle" id="aolmail_social" style="background-color: #FAFAFA;border: 0;"> <div style="color: #707070;font-family: Arial;font-size: 12px;line-height: 125%;text-align: center;"></div></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" valign="middle" id="aolmail_utility" style="background-color: #FDFDFD;border: 1px dashed #d3d3d3;"><div style="color: #707070;font-family: Arial;font-size: 12px;line-height: 125%;text-align: center;"><div class="aolmail_vcard"><div class="aolmail_adr"><div class="aolmail_street-address"></div></div></div></div></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" valign="middle" id="aolmail_utility"><div style="color: #707070;font-family: Arial;font-size: 12px;line-height: 125%;text-align: left;"></div></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></center><center><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" id="aolmail_canspamBarWrapper" style="background-color:#FFFFFF; border-top:1px solid #E5E5E5;"><tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="top" style="padding-top:20px; padding-bottom:20px;"> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <style type="text/css">#AOLMsgPart_2_338c839d-c995-4569-8ea9-81a75158de18 td{color: black;} @media only screen and (max-width: 480px){ .aolReplacedBody table#aolmail_canspamBar td{font-size:14px !important;} .aolReplacedBody table#aolmail_canspamBar td a{display:block !important; margin-top:10px !important;} } </style> </center> </div> </div>

1 0

conversation on white trash racism
by W. J. via Dialogue 25 Sep '17

25 Sep '17

Last night I was stunned to overhear my next-door neighbors sitting on their front porch and loudly spewing forth their toxic honky racist shit.This was in the wake of Trump's Alabama comments that stirred up a lot of racist indignation that denied there was anything 'racial' involved in protesting against racism. It was not just the nasty content, but more the tone of their comments and their South Carolina accents that were just so offensive to have to overhear. I closed my window, but that didn't stop their conversation from seeping into my living room like sewage in a Texas flood.Among their themes:1. They're still fighting their version of the Civil War, which was not about slavery, since "poor white folks had to pick cotton too".2. They still hate Martin Luther King, Jr. and resent the fact that everywhere they go, there has to be a 'Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard' in town.3. Their sense of white entitlement allows them to consider themselves 'better than' black people or more 'civilized'.4. Their cultural values--including their racism--are considered normative. Thus their racist biases are invisible to them.5. Other racial groups are considered intruders (unless they are 'silent' and subservient and don't 'rock the boat' of white superiority).6. Genocide is implicitly OK--especially if it can be justified under 'war' conditions. There was a story about Marines wiping out one quarter million Muslims on an island. That was a good way to 'fix that problem'. Other racial/ethnic/religious groups are considered subhuman and can be treated accordingly.I could go on, but my point is that I just don't like these neighbors. Fortunately, they're not around that often. And since they're old, they will soon die off, taking their racist prejudices with them. They are shrinking minority desperately holding out against cultural change.But they--and millions like them--elected Donald Trump. So we have to deal with a white racist cultural backlash with global implications.So here I am, surrounded by Trump voters like Davey Crockett at the Alamo (yes, I'm aware of the racist imagery here). And even if these folks never say another word, they still think like racist 'poor white trash' who had to compete with other economically disadvantaged groups.I realize that I benefit enormously from 'white male privilege'--including the advantages of a perspective informed by global experience, advanced education, a multicultural context, and a determination to examine and confront my own implicit/unconscious assumptions of white racist privileging. I'd like to begin a conversation that will explore how to survive and thrive and even support cultural change/transformation in this context--without getting pot shots aimed at my living room.Marshall Jones

1 0

Making White America Great Again
by W. J. via Dialogue 24 Sep '17

24 Sep '17

Last week a French teacher at a public charter school in Wake Forest, NC caught a lot of flack for posting this poster, which links 'Make America Great Again' to covert white supremacy.Fox News didn't like it. Neither did many parents. This 'white supremacy pyramid' (or 'iceberg') chart was adapted from http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/olcese.pdf that reflects an understanding of the 'intersectionality' of oppression. I highly recommend this document.Marshall Jones

5 4

Fall Equinox~Native American Day Greetings
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 22 Sep '17

22 Sep '17

Fall Equinox Greetings! In the Presbyterian Church Program Calendar, the day of the Fall Equinox is also designated as Native American Day. Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, and other days and months also have such designations. In once sense every day is a day to designate and remember the ancient wisdom that we have forgotten but that Indigenous Life Ways continue to teach us about living as part Earth and all Creation. The racial inequities and white privilege still rearing its ugly head in St. Louis and throughout the American society; the continued mistreatment and disenfranchisement of Native Americans; and the ramifications of political and economic colonialism which continue to lead us into wars (check out Ken Burns PBS series on Vietnam War); and the degradation of the Earth are rooted in the 15th Doctrine of Discovery which remains to this day part of US organic law and foreign policy. The words/prayers and music below were some of the liturgy we used at Second Presbyterian Church's (St. Louis) Celebration/Care of Creation service that wove together perspectives from science, Christian Faith and Indigenous Life Ways as they call humanity to live sustainably, compassionately, and justly as part of this emerging creation. Attached are copies of the service and a reflection I shared: "A Declaration of Interdependence." Blessings as a new season is upon us... Ellie :) elliestock(a)aol.com Every part of this earth is sacred, every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy. the rocky crest, the juices of the meadow, the beasts and all the people, all belong to the same family. Teach your children that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the children of the earth. The water’s murmur is the voice of our father’s father. We are part of the earth, and the earth is part of us. The rivers are our brothers; they quench our thirst. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The air is precious. For all of us share the same breath. The wind that gave our grandparents breath also receives their last sigh. The wind gave our children the spirit of life. This we know, the earth does not belong to us; we belong to the earth. This we know, all things are connected, like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Our God is the same God, whose compassion is equal for all. For we did not weave the web of life; we are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web we do to ourselves. ~ Chief Seattle Now I Walk In Beauty (Navajo Prayer) arr. by ... - YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGXI93Z6ieM Now I Walk In Beauty ... Play now; Mix - Now I Walk In Beauty ... Jane Valencia - Celtic harp & song - "I Walk In Beauty" ... Now I Walk In Beauty - Saint Anselm College www.anselm.edu/Documents/Academics/Departments/Nursing Continuing... Now I walk in Beau ty. ... - - - Beau-ty is be - hind me, a bove and be - - low me. Now I Walk in Beauty traditional. Title: Prayer to TheFour Directions by Chief Seattle Great Spiritof Light, come to me out of the East (red) with the power of the rising sun.Let there be light in my words, let there be light on my path that I walk. Letme remember always that you give the gift of a new day. And never let me beburdened with sorrow by not starting over again. Great Spiritof Love, come to me with the power of the North (white). Make me courageouswhen the cold wind falls upon me. Give me strength and endurance for everythingthat is harsh, everything that hurts, everything that makes me squint. Let memove through life ready to take what comes from the north. GreatLife-Giving Spirit, I face the West (black), the direction of sundown. Let meremember every day that the moment will come when my sun will go down. Neverlet me forget that I must fade into you. Give me a beautiful color, give me agreat sky for setting, so that when it is my time to meet you, I can come withglory. Great Spiritof Creation, send me the warm and soothing winds from the South (yellow).Comfort me and caress me when I am tired and cold. Unfold me like the gentlebreezes that unfold the leaves on the trees. As you give to all the earth yourwarm, moving wind, give to me, so that I may grow close to you in warmth. Mandid not create the web of life, he is but a strand in it. Whatever man does tothe web, he does to himself.

1 0

9/21/17, Spong/Sandlin: Dogma and the Perpetuating of a Dead God; Spong revisited; free Crossan resources
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 21 Sep '17

21 Sep '17

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR Dogma and the Perpetuating of a Dead God By Rev. Mark Sandlin In 1966 the cover of TIME magazine asked the jarring question, “Is God Dead?” It was the first time TIME used only text on it’s cover and the impact only added to the striking question. “Is God Dead?” Three simple words that for a brief time created quite a stir throughout the United States. Many angry sermons were delivered in rebuttal. Even Bob Dylan got in on the action in a Playboy interview saying, “If you were God, how would you like to see that written about yourself.” The National Review even asked the question if perhaps it was TIME that was dead. The reality was that the article, written by TIME‘s religion editor John Elson, was much more nuanced than the magazine cover suggested, but those three words and what they might mean garnished all the attention. Americans were shocked. They were outraged. Some were dismayed and others were simply worried. In reality, it wasn’t even a new question. In 1882, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had already famously (or infamously) put forth the statement that “God is dead.” And before that, another German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, had considered the death of God in his book, Phenomenology of Spirit/Mind. I suppose the question of “God” is really an age old question. As Nietzsche pointed out, before the age of Enlightenment, it was perhaps a much needed concept which helped establish morals, values, the order of the Universe, and even gave legitimacy to governments. But with the rise of science and philosophy, the role of or even need for God was lessened. For Nietzsche, not only was God dead, but humanity was the murderer. Our desire and pursuit to better understand the world had killed God. Nietzsche didn’t understand the death of God to be an entirely good thing, he realized that for many people the death of God would bring on despair and meaninglessness. He realized that for all practical purposes the understanding of God that humanity once believed in was of little use in an age of Enlightenment, but he also realized that humanity was not likely to let go of God all that easily. As he put it, “God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown.” He couldn’t have been more correct and the modern understanding of God couldn’t be more damaged because of it. Nietzsche, while an atheist himself, wasn’t proclaiming the ultimate death of God. He was proclaiming the death of the god that was needed pre-Enlightenment. Not surprisingly, Christians took quite a bit of offense to the statement and resisted it. What we ended up with was a pre-Enlightenment God in the age of reason and systems designed to protect and support those beliefs. As every year passed, we moved further and further into a more scientific understand of the world and the Church built up more and more dogma to prop up a concept of God that only had true relevance in a pre-scientific age. For me, “God is dead,” or more precisely, “the understanding of God we once had is dead,” should have pushed believers into a deeper pursuit of the reality of God, a deeper pursuit of the truth of God. Instead, we circled the wagons with God in the middle and clung desperately to what we thought we knew in spite of evidence to the contrary. We created “essential” confessions built upon ancient understandings and demanded unfaltering adherence. At times, the perceived threat of anyone thoughtfully challenging the religious establishment and its dearly held dogma was seen as so dangerous that the “heretics” were burned alive. Today, we simply chase such “heretics” out of the pulpit or out of the denomination – rather than taking their lives, we simply destroy them. We require full loyalty, full fealty, full submission to the establishment. In doing so, the modern Church continues to perpetuate belief systems that make little to no sense when placed next to modern advances in science, history, philosophy, literary criticism, and yes, even in theology. Many insist on adherence to a belief in the virgin birth when literary criticism and science suggest otherwise. From the Trinity to the divinity of Jesus to the concept of Hell, the modern Church dogmatically holds onto beliefs that require “blind faith” rather than the engagement of what the very same people might think of as our God given intellect. As Bishop Spong has said, “Christians must now come to understand that God does not inhabit creeds or theological doctrines shaped with human words.” It is the height of human hubris to believe that we can fully understand God, more or less contain God, in creeds and doctrines. Furthermore, our anthropomorphizing of God is a damaging attempt to package God up in something we can hold onto which further inhibits our ability to perceive the fullness of God and what God may be. So, yes. In my eyes, God is dead… or at least should be. That is, the God of most mainline Protestant churches, the God of the Catholic Church, the God of Evangelical churches is dead. It has been since the 1800’s, but yet we continue to insist on worshiping its shadowy vestige on the walls of our lives. This attachment to a God of ages past also contributes to the continue decline of the Church’s relevance in the eyes of the public, particularly to younger generations. They see the dogmatic adherence to beliefs that can’t stand up to modern discoveries as hypocritical and, frankly, absurd. The Church certainly shouldn’t ditch it’s historical beliefs simply in an effort to appease these folks in order to gain new members, but equally, it must stop ignoring these outside critiques and stop dismissing them as irrelevant or uninformed. There is a reason that the Spiritual But Not Religious are one of the fastest growing religious movements in the U.S. and, unfortunately, one of the big reasons is the Church itself. It’s long past time for the Church to shed its futile efforts to cling to a concept of God that was established prior to the scientific age. It’s time to hear the voices outside of the establishment who would like to be part of a religious movement but refuse to check their minds at the door to do so. Yes, it means there will be the need for quite a bit of deconstruction as we remove the dogma that carefully props up the dead God of the seventeenth century and before. It means that the religiously powerful will have to give up many of the rules and regulations that keep them in power. It means questioning the current human made construct of God which, less than surprisingly, makes God’s main interest that of meeting the needs of those who constructed God. It means letting go of the need to be “correct” or to have “right beliefs” and, instead, to begin valuing more seriously the pursuit of what is true and real – a willingness to not know and, in that not knowing, to be propelled into the quest for the newly revealed realities of God that advances in science, history, philosophy, literary criticism, and theology are offering up to us every day. The reality is, it is an exciting time to be seeking an understanding of God. It is an exciting time to be considering what your relationship to/toward/with God is. We live in a time when information is available to us in a way and with an immediacy that it never has been before. We can quickly and easily expose ourselves to a multitude of theological perspectives from religions all over the world and throughout history. Scientific discoveries are revealing realities of the Universe that we never could have previously imagined. We are learning more and more about how connected all of Creation is, how much we each impact others and our environment in every action we take, how fragile and surprisingly resilient life is. Technological advances and archeology are helping peal back the layers of many of our religious stories in ways that push us to new understandings of our religious ancestors. The list could go on and on. The real point is that, yes, God is dead. At least, THAT God is dead. Has been for a long time. But, it turns out, that we are in a perfect day and age to begin rebuilding our understanding of what God is. The question that remains is will our churches be brave enough to risk this exploration with us? Will they be willing to let go of all the dogma and trust in the community as we work together to reach a more modern understand of an ageless God? Up until this point, the majority of churches haven’t been willing to do so, forcing most spiritual seekers to go at it on their own. That may be the single most damage the the Church has done in this pursuit of God. I don’t claim to have much hold on the full reality of God, but one of the things I am more certain about is that God is part of what connects us all. Pursuit of spiritual knowledge on our own is certainly rewarding and revealing, but I am left to believe that there are certain realities of God that can only be revealed in the connectedness of community. It is time – it is well beyond time for the Church to lets this God of yesteryear die, lest it too dies trying to reanimate the dead. ~ Rev Mark Sandlin Read the essay online here. About the Author Mark Sandlin is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) from the South. He currently serves at Presbyterian Church of the Covenant. He is a co-founder of The Christian Left. His blog, RevMarkSandlin, has been named as one of the “Top Ten Christian Blogs.” Mark received The Associated Church Press’ Award of Excellence in 2012. His work has been published on “The Huffington Post,” “Sojourners,” “Time,” “Church World Services,” and even the “Richard Dawkins Foundation.” He’s been featured on PBS’s “Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly” and NPR’s “The Story with Dick Gordon.” Follow Mark on Facebook and Twitter @marksandlin Question & Answer A. J. from the Internet, writes: Question: “I recently received one of those emails with the sensational subject line: “ALL OF A SUDDEN MESSAGE FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN.” It started out with the question, "Has everyone lost their ability to see what is happening in the USA?” Then it lists nearly 20 “All of a Suddens” where Muslims are allegedly doing X, Y, or Z to undermine the American way of life. Each “fact” is presented with no attribution or source reference. Some of them are obviously made-up, but others seem like they could be possible. I’m including a couple of them to see if you have any suggestions for a response.” Answer: By Rev. David Felten Dear A. J., Wow, there’s a lot to cover here – but let me start out by saying that I’ve received that same email (more than once!). Every time it arrives, I flounder between being exasperated, angry, and despondent – and not only because of the contents, but in amazement at the people who forward me this clap-trap. It makes me stop and think, “Do I really know that person so poorly that I could be unaware of the ugly prejudice they harbor (and are now advertising by forwarding me this email)?” It also reminds me of the toxic undercurrent in our culture that my Muslim friends have to deal with every day – and from which my Christian privilege insulates me. And more importantly, we need to remember that this brand of one-click armchair bigotry is not harmless. It contributes to creating an environment where more and more blatant hate-speech and discrimination are tacitly approved of – all of which has led to a very real surge in anti-Muslim hate-crimes. Despite this demonstrable increase in anti-Muslim violence in the U.S., there has been nothing resembling a collective recoil or revulsion that one would hope to see in a country that claims to stand on principles of religious liberty and diversity. Suffice it to say, I don’t think there’s much that either of us could convey that would change the minds of the people who forward this email. Sadly, the avalanche of intentionally false stories, propaganda, and fake news has rendered moot whatever capacity many people might have had for critical thought. It shouldn’t be a surprise that when the very nature of reality itself is called into question by the “alternative facts” du jour, that people choose to cling to whatever information bolsters their most primal fears and prejudices – evidence to the contrary be damned. So, despite the seeming futility of any effort on your or my part to change the minds of most card-carrying Islamophobes, I’m going to wander down what may seem like “In Vain Lane” to offer some observations on a couple of these “All of a Sudden” claims. I’ve got to believe that even the smallest effort to push back against the tide of Islamophobia is not in vain, but an opportunity to light a candle against the darkness, to speak out in defense of genuine American values, and hone our skills in standing with the oppressed. All of a sudden, Islam is taught in schools. Oh no! Islam being “taught” in our schools?! The horror! This claim is part of yet another attempt by reactionary Fundamentalist Christians and Conservative politicians to 1) stoke the flames of conspiracy and 2) attempt to discredit the government and public schools as being un-American (Oh yeah, AND raise money). It dramatically over-exaggerates out-of-context information without any references to real world situations. But there’s certainly nothing “all of a sudden” about it. The basics of Islam are indeed already taught in many of our public schools – but not as a religion class. As the Bill of Rights makes clear, that would not be allowed for any religion, including Christianity. Smart schools bring in Muslim speakers from organizations like our local Islamic Speakers Bureau of Arizona to enhance students’ understanding of Islam. If a public school is doing its job, the history and tenets of Islam absolutely need to be taught right alongside the basics of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and any number of other traditions. Why? In part because there is hardly a political crisis happening anywhere in the world today that isn’t, in some way, driven by religious sensibilities. How much better off would we all be if every citizen had a basic understanding of world religions? But in our increasingly interconnected world, Americans who are stupid about religion will continue to make stupid decisions (just as we’ve already demonstrated over and over again). All of a sudden, we must allow prayer rugs everywhere and allow for Islamic prayer in schools and businesses. Schools may indeed be asked to flex schedules and room use to allow observant Muslim kids a place to pray, but schools are used to that – as they should be. We live in a country of diverse religious traditions. Who among the Jewish and Muslim community complains when the majority Christian culture sways school districts to take Good Friday off? Last year my kids had the day off for Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement). Where is the outrage over our public schools accommodating a religious minority and compromising the education of our upstanding Christian children? The bottom line is that it’s not unusual for schools to allow for the practice of Judaism and Christianity – so why not other religions? You’ve got to expect that in a country as diverse as ours, public schools are just one of the institutions for whom accommodating, without favoring (or “establishing”), particular religious traditions is both a daily challenge – and an expectation. As for businesses being forced to allow space and time for Islamic prayer in general (“we MUST allow prayer rugs everywhere”?), there’s just no evidence out there to support this claim. To the contrary, there have been a number of high profile examples of companies disallowing Muslim prayer during the day. Others make allowances as part of best HR practice or as an accommodation with a union. In a related development, a number of tech giants have stepped up in opposition to the Trump administration’s Muslim ban motivated by pure practical capitalism. If you have top engineers and scientists who are Muslim, it makes sense that businesses that value a particular expertise make allowances for top talent. All of a sudden, we must stop serving pork in public places and institutions. Oh good grief. The author of these “all of a suddens” is clearly running on conspiracy theory vapors. Do they not have Google?!? Do they not read? These kinds of broad generalizations are clearly designed to simply upset impressionable people who don’t care or don’t have the capacity to make even the slightest effort at getting the facts. Keeping conflicts over menus in Europe aside (Google it), let’s look at a recent dust-up in the United States. Back in 2015, it was announced that pork would be taken off the menu in Federal Prisons, but NOT as a concession to Muslims. In a Washington Post article, the head of the prisons reported that there were several non-Muslim reasons. One was: “Pork has been the lowest-rated food by inmates for several years,” AND pork has also become more expensive for the government to buy. SO, the initial rationale to stop serving pork was, in fact, to respond to inmate preference and save taxpayer dollars. But a firestorm erupted when The National Pork Producers Council and what seemed like the whole state of pig-inundated Iowa rose up in protest. The decision was overturned in less than a week – behold the power of the oink! Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley really knows how to bring home the bacon, huh? Even the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the country’s largest Muslim civil rights advocacy group, wasn’t a big fan of the no-pork menu. Spokesman Ibrahim Hooper predicted that anti-Islam groups would spin the decision into a case of the federal government acting under pressure from Muslims. “This is just the kind of thing that drives [Islamophobes] crazy,” he said. Clearly, this “all of a sudden” entry is exactly the kind of thing CAIR predicted. So, keep in mind that for tax-payer supported institutions (be they prisons or public schools), even what seems like a simple menu decision needs to keep in mind not only the optics, but a constellation of financial and legal considerations – some of which may include religious issues. On a purely practical level, schools here in the U.S. have demonstrated remarkable commitment to accommodate kids with gluten and peanut allergies. When there are enough kids who are allergic to something (or have a religious mandate to avoid something), it makes sense that institutions would make adjustments – especially when it also means saving money and not wasting food (unless you go up against the pig lobby). In the end, the motive of someone who first publishes things like this “all of a sudden” list is unclear. Is it simply for fun? To see how many low-information consumers of current events can be stirred up with irrational fear? Is it part of some coordinated effort by racial and religious bigots to stoke Islamophobia? Is it some random self-declared internet patriot seeking to resource “the movement”? The clearly anti-Obama slant on many of the statements suggests a political motivation. Maybe it’s a combination of all of the above (and don’t forget the Russians!). Whatever the source, these hateful diatribes of misinformation and blatant lies are with us for the foreseeable future. The solution? Keep working in your own circle of influence to promote interfaith understanding and relationships. Where you have time and ability, research some of the claims Islamophobes are making in order to educate yourself. Support your local Muslims: 1) take a group to the local mosque for a tour, 2) bring a Muslim speaker in to your local church or community group, 3) offer financial support to groups like CAIR or your local Islamic Speakers Bureau. Several members of my church have been trained by the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Arizona to go into local schools as part of a three-person “Abrahamic Panel.” A Jew, a Muslim, and a Christian spend all day sharing the particulars and the similarities among the three religions – and leaving a deeply positive impression of unity in diversity. Lots of people are worked up with fear and misinformation. Sometimes it seems that facts just don’t matter anymore. But don’t give up! Keep paying your dues to the reality club and keep your Islamophobia decoder ring handy. Don’t let people who are taken in by every anti-Muslim snake-oil salesman that comes around derail your commitment to what I think Jesus would want us to do: to treat “the other” with respect and dignity. Practice hospitality. Build genuine relationships with those who are excluded or lied about. And maybe, “all of a sudden,” a whole new world will emerge. ~ Rev. David M. Felten NOTE: If you’re looking for a curriculum resource to facilitate group discussion about Islam and how to support your Muslim neighbors, check out Living the Questions’ DVD series, “The Jesus Fatwah: Love Your (Muslim) Neighbor as Yourself.” Read and share online here About the Author David Felten is a full-time pastor at The Fountains, a United Methodist Church in Fountain Hills, Arizona. David and fellow United Methodist Pastor, Jeff Procter-Murphy, are the creators of the DVD-based discussion series for Progressive Christians, “Living the Questions”. A co-founder of the Arizona Foundation for Contemporary Theology and also a founding member of No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice, David is an outspoken voice for LGBTQ rights both in the church and in the community at large. David is active in the Desert Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church and tries to stay connected to his roots as a musician. You’ll find him playing saxophones in a variety of settings, including appearances with the Fountain Hills Saxophone Quartet. David and his wife Laura, an administrator for a large Arizona public school district, live in Phoenix with their three often adorable children. _________________________________________________ Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited Unmasking the Sources of Christian Anti-Semitism - Part 3 When I was a child attending an Evangelical Episcopal (Anglican) Sunday school in North Carolina, I was taught that it was OK to hate Jews. If I questioned this teaching the Bible was quickly quoted to validate that negativity. I was never introduced to a good Jew in any of my prepared Sunday school material. I assumed that there was no such thing. I was told that Jews were those evil people who were always out to get Jesus and get him they did. I grew up never doubting that it was the Jews who were responsible for Jesus' death and, just as many in the early church had done, I exonerated the Roman officials of any guilt in the death of Jesus. I accepted the propaganda that was so deep in our faith tradition that it was even enshrined in the creeds, that it was simply "under" Pontius Pilate, not because of Pontius Pilate, that Jesus suffered, died and was buried. There was only a vague biblical note reminding readers that the Jews did not have the power to perform capital punishment, so all executions, other than those resulting from mob violence, had to be carried out by the Romans. In the material handed out as part of our Sunday school curriculum, it was easy to identify the Jews. They were sinister, evil, plotting and scheming people who had names like Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Annas, Caiaphas and Judas Iscariot. When these Jews were pictured in these leaflets, it was in dark, negative colors, complete with facial scowls. Jews, I was taught, had no principles and would do anything for money. No one told me in this Sunday school that Jesus was a Jew. That appeared to escape their notice. When I saw pictures of Jesus, he did not look like a Jew. I thought he was a Swede, or at least an Englishman. He had blonde hair, blue eyes and fair skin. No one told me that all of the disciples were Jews, as were Mary and Joseph, Paul and Magdalene. The biblical episodes were normally interpreted to portray the Christians as the good guys battling the Jews who were the bad guys. When Paul spoke negatively about the Jews, it again did not occur to me that this was a Jewish man saying these things about another part of his own people. I did not understand that Paul's enemies were not all Jews but the traditionalist Jews, that we today might call the fundamentalist Jews. I did not grasp the fact that Paul represented a contending party within Judaism that believed that they had received a new vision of God in the Jewish Jesus and that this new vision needed to be incorporated into their ongoing faith story. This is how Judaism had always evolved. The gigantic heroes of their past had themselves been visionaries who saw beyond the boundaries of their own tradition. All of them had in their own time used their vision of God to reshape and reform the Jewish story. Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees to form a new people around a new idea. Moses led Abraham's descendents out of slavery stamping on them a radical monotheism. Elijah brought into this developing Judaism the role of prophets. Ezekiel reformed Judaism during the trauma of the Exile. Ezra and Nehemiah led a remnant of Jews out of that exile to pick up the threads of their broken history and to rebuild the dream. One could also count among these heroes that nameless prophet that we call II Isaiah, only because his writings had been added to the scroll of Isaiah. This shadowy, enigmatic figure laid aside Jewish dreams of future grandeur and proposed a vocation of vicarious suffering in which the people of God would absorb human hostility, transforming it through their suffering, and bringing the world thereby to a new wholeness. It was a startling vision that would lie dormant in the Jewish sacred writings until used to interpret the life and death of a first century Jew named Jesus. So those Jewish followers of Jesus, who saw him as another in this long line of people who had made the faith of the Jews a living tradition, challenged those members of the Jewish community who believed that they already possessed, in their orthodox formulations, the final truth of God that needed no further expansion. What looks to the contemporary reader as a vehement anti-Semitic polemic in the Bible was in fact a typical ecclesiastical dispute between traditionalists and visionaries. However, we must not forget that both parties were Jews. It was not unlike the battle in Christian circles between the fundamentalists and the modernists, in which epithets are hurled back and forth with little sensitivity. Religious battles are always visceral, emotional and exaggerated conflicts, because ultimately they are about our deepest identity, which means that they involve our sense of security and well-being. The New Testament is the product of these Jewish revisionists, who were determined to open a reformed Judaism to the inclusion of Gentiles. Look at who its authors were. First there are the epistles of the Jewish Paul and some of his Jewish disciples who wrote in his name. Then there are letters attributed to such early revisionist Jewish leaders (or their disciples who wrote in their names) as Peter, John, James and Jude, who had made the transition into the Jesus vision. Next we have gospels written by Mark, Matthew and John who were Jews by birth and a gospel and the book of Acts that were written by a man called Luke, who was a Jew by conversion. The battle between the Orthodox party and the followers of Jesus was originally a battle for the future of Judaism, between two Jewish groups. Over a period of time, probably less than a century, the revisionist Jews formed common cause with the influx of gentiles into Christianity and, as a consequence, loosened their own ties with Judaism. The barriers that proclaimed that Jews must stay separate and therefore could not eat or intermarry with gentiles faded among the revisionists, while among the orthodox Jews, those very same lines were hardening. A division was inevitable and during the last years of the 9th decade, the split occurred. Traditional Judaism was not flexible enough to contain the new vision, and the revisionists more and more defined themselves outside of Judaism. So a new religion called Christianity came into being. These Christians called their sacred scriptures 'The New Covenant,' or 'Testament' to contrast it with the original covenant. This New Testament was quite simply the product of the revisionist tradition. Both of these contending sides said terrible things about each other. That always occurs in ecclesiastical fights. It was at that time, however, an intra-Jewish fight. The hostile rhetoric of the Orthodox party was vehement, but since they believed that their scriptures were complete, this rhetoric did not enter their scriptures to echo through the ages. The hostile rhetoric of the revisionists, however, was present in their telling of the story of Jesus and thus it would be read through the centuries as the 'Word of God.' This meant that negativity toward Jews would become a regular feature in Christian worship each Sunday and its hatred would permeate Christian history. Finally it would result in Christians forgetting not only their own Jewish origins, but the Jewishness of Jesus as well. The legends of his miraculous birth, which suggested that he was he was fathered by the Holy Spirit, served to make him less Jewish. Since the woman at that time was not thought to contribute anything to the fetus except the nurture of her womb, people began to think of Jesus as completely non-Jewish. With the subsequent influx of gentiles into the Christian Church and the simultaneous decline in the influence of Jews, Christians more and more shed their Jewish practices. Many intermarried with gentiles and faded away ethnically. By the first quarter of the 2nd century, Christianity had become a gentile movement and had lost the world of its origins. >From that day to this, the primary readers and interpreters of the New Testament were Gentiles who had no great sense of Jewish history, of Jewish writing styles or of the original Jewish setting of the Christian story. They identified the Jesus movement about which the scriptures spoke not as revisionist Jews but as Christians with no reference at all to their Jewish background. They identified the orthodox party in the New Testament with all Jews as the enemies of Jesus. The narratives of the Jesus movement, that began to be read in the churches, were no longer heard as negative comments that the revisionist Jews had made to the orthodox Jews; but as things Christians, including Jesus, had said about all Jews. As these "sacred scriptures" were read through the ages, the apparent hostility of all Christians toward all Jews was reinforced in every century. At each Good Friday observance the role of the Jews in the death of Jesus was recounted again and again. The presumed acceptance of the blame for this dark act of "deicide" was articulated in those scriptures by the Jews themselves. "His blood be upon us and upon our children," became the most terrible of all the terrible texts of the Bible. So the children of Abraham, the very people who produced Jesus of Nazareth, were made to suffer in generation after generation wreaking havoc throughout Christian history. Anti-Semitism, born in this distortion, was and is a gift of the Christians to the world. It is the dark underside of the gospel of Love. It is not a pretty, a noble or an inspiring picture, but Christians need to own this prejudice. We created it. One more strand of anti-Semitism must be traced, however, before this story is complete. When the Christian Gospel, climaxing as it does with the crucifixion, came to be told, the anti-hero was pictured as a quintessential Jew. His name was Judas, which is nothing but the Greek spelling of Judah, the name of the Jewish nation. He was called "Iscariot," which means political traitor or assassin. In a real sense, anti-Semitism would always focus on this character. He was destined to become the lynchpin, perhaps even the ultimate source of Christianity's darkest chapter. To his story and his part in this dreadful bigotry, we will turn next. ~ John Shelby Spong Originally published May 26, 2004 Announcements FaithandReason® presents The Challenge of Paul, featuring John Dominic Crossan The D. L. Dykes, Jr. Foundation (DLDF), producers of FaithandReason®, will distribute, free of charge, The Challenge of Paul, an extraordinary video learning experience with John Dominic Crossan (Themes 1 and 2, plus a digital resource guide – a $150 value) to 1,000 or more churches across the country. Congregations or organizations interested in participating in The Challenge of Paul Gift Program are asked to email jennifervail(a)faithandreason.org and simply state, “Yes. I am interested in participating in The Challenge of Paul Gift Program.” Click here for more information ...

1 0