- Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

6/22/17, Vosper/Spong: The Little Denomination that Could Have; Spong revisited: Terrible Texts, Pt IV
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 22 Jun '17

22 Jun '17

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR The Little Denomination that Could Have By Gretta Vosper It’s been four years since I decided to publicly identify as an atheist. After the manner of time’s calming influence upon things about which we were once so passionate, my perspective on the wisdom of the decision has altered. And as we so often do, I revisit that decision from time to time and wonder if, given the opportunity to relive those days, I would make it again. Considering one result of my choice is the likelihood that I will lose my credentials and so, too, my vocation, it is easy to consider the choice to call myself an atheist reckless. Having been very clear and very public about my lack of belief in a divine, supernatural, interventionist god called God for many years prior, it seemed a simple act of solidarity with a group of people I did not know, but whose lives were at stake because they were atheists. I later learned that they did not identify themselves as atheists but had been so labelled as a way to incite violence and hatred against them. I have learned that even in my progressive denomination, The United Church of Canada (UCCan), many are quick to encumber an atheist with a whole host of characteristics, none of which, in fact, reflect what the theological term means. And so, over the past years, I have seen myself represented as arrogant, angry, and spiteful, and despite consistent clarification and qualification of my beliefs and interests regarding religion, Christianity, and my denomination, I am described as someone who wants to make the whole denomination atheist (even my own congregation is not “atheist”), to destroy religion in all its iterations, and to win the world for those who would sneer at and spit on all people of faith. It’s a pretty ugly picture but it reminds me how easy it is for people to turn others into the enemy, especially those they do not know. But before you get too quickly critical of either me or my United Church, let me explain it to you and share with you why I thought the challenge I presented fit perfectly within the mandate of my denomination and why I have given my life – so far – to it. In the late 19th and early 20th century a softening of Christian dedication was well underway as a persistent critique of contemporary religion blossomed. Inside the church, theologians pressed themselves to grapple with new ideas about god that took them far beyond traditional theism. Outside the church, Albert Schweitzer left off his exhaustive review of treatises on Jesus with the conclusion that no matter who you were or how learned, your quest for the real, historical Jesus always ended up describing a man who looked just like you. Clergy, confronted with Darwin’s great ideas by parishioners, were asked to account for themselves and their beliefs. And popular literature began to depict and normalize the unbelieving clergyman. Against this secularization of the church emerged a strident conservatism. Tales of miracles surfaced regularly in Protestant churches that had previously taught that the age of miracles had died with the Apostles. The popular Niagara Bible Conference launched the idea of five essential Christian beliefs. * A few years later, the Stewart brothers published a book on each of the so-called “fundamentals” and the concept went mainstream. Liberal churches faced a growing dilemma: how to maintain their privileged position in society while attendance dwindled and increasing numbers of clergy grew uncomfortable pressing home beliefs and admonishments they questioned themselves. How could they inspire whole communities to return to their pews and re-embrace the threatened Christian narrative? The answer settled itself in the dirt, soot, and escalating economic disparity of the newly industrialized world. As the captains of industry amassed vast fortunes, most of it built upon the sweat, labour, and lives of factory and mine-bound lower-classes, the Kingdom of God descended from heaven and took its place among the downtrodden. No more the evasive hope of an afterlife perfection, the new Kingdom of God shone out of the salvation of the world as well as the salvation of the soul. As cities grew and poverty and distress multiplied exponentially within them, the Social Gospel and its kinder, more practically accessible Kingdom, coalesced in their midst. Here was a Kingdom of God liberal Christians could get their hearts around. Rather than belief in a heavenly afterlife, a belief fast becoming suspect, a bigger, brighter vision of the Kingdom of God could be preached as something to be made manifest on earth through acts of compassion, social justice, organizing against the elites, and raising up the downtrodden. If church goers could be convinced to have enough faith and undertake sufficient good works, they could bring the Kingdom about in the lives of the innocent victims of the industrial revolution. As the liberal church grappled with the demise of biblical inerrancy, it no longer preached a heavenly realty, popular with increasingly fewer buyers, and sold instead the vision of a world made right. Against the harsh realities of urban industrialization, this new interpretation of the old, old story promised to provide the liberal church a mandate far, far into the future. Amidst all this upheaval, three Canadian denominations came together to proclaim this new idea of the Kingdom and its champion, the down-to-earth, historical and compassionate Jesus. The United Church of Canada was born in 1925 to bring the country to Christ and to live out the Social Gospel that was its foremost theology. It almost didn’t happen. Clergy from each of the three amalgamating denominations were unwilling to give up beliefs they had professed at their ordinations to embrace the Articles of Faith wrestled into being over the course of the previous decade. At the last minute, a clergyman from the Congregationalist churches – dissenters, one and all – suggested that clergy only be required to be in “essential agreement” with the statements. That would allow them to embrace union but continue to preach what they’d been taught in their own denominations. Under such a condition, no one really needed to believe the entire statement; they could believe or not as long as, basically, they were in agreement with the gist of the thing. It was a great idea with ramifications those who voted in favour of it might never have imagined. I’m one of those ramifications. For all clergy who came into the UCCan from the founding denominations on the day of Union in 1925, essential agreement worked as the founders had intended. Subsequent to that date, however, it took on a new energy as committees across the country began interviewing candidates for ordination. Theological colleges continued to challenge long-held doctrine with emerging scholarship and churned out candidates whose doctrinal beliefs often failed to square with the Articles of Faith the three denominations had hammered out. Without an express definition of essential agreement included in the denomination’s polity, however, each committee had to interpret what the term meant for themselves in order to examine the beliefs of candidates who came before them. As a result, more progressive areas gave the candidates more leeway and ordained more progressive clergy; and more conservative areas retained more literal interpretations of the statement and ordained more conservative clergy. And as theological colleges and scholars who trained clergy continued to embrace ever more critical contemporary scholarship, that tapestry grew to include the most progressive perspectives on Christianity the world had ever seen. The key element within this history lesson is this: with the intention and determination of an increasingly progressive clergy and laity, the United Church found itself regularly refusing the biblical imperative in favour of a compassionate one. It refused the law of the word if it compromised the law of love. When asking whether women be ordained when the Bible said they should not, the denomination voted “Yes.” Should divorced clergy be able to remain in the pulpit despite the biblical injunction against divorce? Again, “Yes.” Were women able to decide what happens to their bodies, particularly when they are carrying an unwanted pregnancy? “Yes.” “Yes,” “Yes,” “Yes.” Over and again, the UCCan chose its own moral imperatives, grounding “essential agreement” in a compassionate and just love and preferring it to the biblical imperatives most Christian denominations follow. And while many liberal, mainline denominations headed off down the same path, the UCCan seemed more able to stay the course, deciding decades before other denominations to ordain LGBTQ leaders into the ministry, defying one of the most widely supported condemnations heard in twentieth century Christianity. These may seem like old arguments from this vantage point, but my point is that the UCC consistently cleared the way for change in the social mores in innumerable communities – large and small – across the country long before those same issues were common in the public space. And it led the wider Christian community as struggles between biblical “truths” and human relationship continued to rage. Because the UCCan regularly stepped out in front of its peers on issues of social, environmental, economic, sexual, and gender justice, its leaders were encouraged to preach on these issues even when the biblical texts linked to them provided little support. Rather, the prevalent desire for love lived out in acts of justice and compassion, proof of our Social Gospel pedigree, challenged the biblical text where it was found wanting and prevailed. The UCCan established itself as the leader in progressive interpretations of Christianity, keeping pace in its seminaries with the rise of secularism throughout the twentieth century. But in contrast to its emergent theologies, the language and rituals of faith proved to have a profound hold upon UCCan clergy. Across the denomination, they refused to leave behind ecclesial language made incomprehensible to the general public and many in its own pews through “reclaiming” and “reinterpretation”. It retained a privileged but increasingly irrelevant text. And a claim originally questioned decades before the denomination had even been born, that Jesus was the answer to all life’s perplexing questions, retained a visible presence in Sunday gatherings. And so, as generations of Canadians eschewed the same doctrinal beliefs UCCan clergy had questioned and refuted themselves, the denomination abdicated its responsibility to them, unable to embrace the work for which its first decades had seemed to richly prepare it, that of realizing the full secularization of Christianity. It was within this context that I took the label “atheist” to describe my belief that there is no supernatural god called “God” who is able to intervene in human and earthly events at whim. My error, I believe, was in not accurately assessing the strength of my denomination’s determination to reject the course it had charted itself, one accessible to those inside and outside the church but that led beyond the boundaries of traditional Christianity. My consolation is that, were I to have recognized the UCCan’s desire to return to a more traditional Christianity, my choices would have been the same for I remain convinced of the importance of non-doctrinal elements of religion for the cohesiveness of community and the wellbeing of the individuals within it. And I remain convinced, too, that those individuals who are strengthened by the gifts such communities provide them are the very ones who will change the world as The United Church of Canada I have known and loved has so powerfully done. ~ Gretta Vosper Read the essay online here. 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. Question & Answer Sandra from Leeds, writes: Question: What are your feelings about singing hymns in churches where salvation requires the portrayal of Jesus as a sacrifice who shed his blood to cleanse us from our sins? Are these ideas still meaningful to anyone? Answer: By Cassandra Farrin Dear Sandra, What a tough question. Perhaps you have similar experiences to mine of these dear old hymns: As a child I used to travel into the Idaho foothills with my parents, grandparents, and the many aged members of my grandparents’ Presbyterian congregation for an Easter sunrise service where we sang hymns like “The Old Rugged Cross” and “Amazing Grace” by heart. On a hill far away, stood an old rugged Cross The emblem of suff'ring and shame And I love that old Cross where the dearest and best For a world of lost sinners was slain So I'll cherish the old rugged Cross Till my trophies at last I lay down I will cling to the old rugged Cross And exchange it some day for a crown Many years later, while I was teaching English in Japan, I expressed an admittedly nostalgic wish to my friends there to watch the sunrise for Easter. They introduced me to the Japanese version of watching the sunrise—staying up all night, singing karaoke!—and then led me to an empty Tokyo canal as the sun rose between the skyscrapers. Huddled with my friends on the sloping concrete, I explained the double meaning of “sunrise” in the Christian tradition, taught them how to sing Amazing Grace, and we shared a beautiful moment together. Amazing Grace! How sweet the sound That saved a wretch like me I once was lost but now am found Was blind but now I see Are these hymns, by default, morally wrong simply because their content reflects an earlier era? For the individual person who feels a sense of connection and affinity for a hymn, no, I do not believe so. These hymns speak to all-too-human experiences such as failure and redemption, loss and renewal, loyalty and standing up for what is right. Indeed, many of these hymns have long histories that also make them special to us in a more personal way, such as my memories of my grandparents and friends. Should we jettison a hymn simply because it reflects the beliefs of its era? I think that’s not fair, any more than we should stop reading books like Huckleberry Finn or Shakespeare’s plays (which are unbelievably raunchy, by the way). These classics all reflect outmoded ways of thinking, yet we still love them. Incidentally, some literary curmudgeons do argue we should no longer read these works, lest you think this is a problem confronted by religious types only! However, it is the responsibility of each generation to create new works of art that reflect our realities and our values and, let’s be honest, our foibles. If our message is not more compelling than “Amazing Grace” and the “Old Rugged Cross,” how is anyone going to believe it is “good news” (gospel)? It’s hard work to convince people to accept new songs to love, but the effort is worth the challenge. I’ll close with a few lines from one of my favorites, a Unitarian Universalist hymn “Blue Boat Home” by Peter Mayer: I was born upon the fathoms Never harbor or port have I known The wide universe is the ocean I travel And the earth is my blue boat home ~ Cassandra Farrin Read and share online here About the Author Cassandra Farrin is a poet, writer and editor of nonfiction books on the history of religion. She recently launched the blog Ginger & Sage on religion, culture, and the land. Her writing can be found on the Westar Institute and Ploughshares websites, along with a poetic retelling of "On the Origin of the World" forthcoming in Gender Violence, Rape Culture, and Religion (Palgrave Macmillan). A US-UK Fulbright scholar, she has more than ten years' experience with cross-cultural and interfaith engagement. Cassandra can be reached at welovetea(a)gmail.com. ________________________________________________ Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited The Terrible Texts: The Attitude of the Bible Toward Women – Part IV "Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die' "But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons (Gen: 3: 1-7, RSV). The ancient Hebrew myth, which opens the Book of Genesis, describes the biblical understanding of many things, one of which is how evil entered the world. Since a man undoubtedly framed these legends, it is not surprising that a woman was depicted as the villain. In the man's world women have been blamed for many things from that day to this. If a man rapes a woman, it is because she tempted him. If a man abuses a woman, it is because she irritated him. If a man divorces a woman, it is because it was no longer tolerable to live with her. It is always the woman's fault. Male putdowns are everywhere. If a woman is competent at playing the man's game in business, she is at best a hussy and at worst a bitch. If she resorts to feminine wiles to achieve her goal, she is said to be "playing the female thing for all she is worth." Nothing has changed since the Garden of Eden. Eve, says the Bible, was the reason for humanity's downfall. In the beginning God, viewing the world, pronounced it good. Creation was finished so God could take a day off to rest from the divine labors and thus to establish the Sabbath. In that perfect world God placed Adam and his helpmeet Eve to be God's stewards. They were to live in Eden, where all their needs were supplied. There was ample water, gold and even onyx, vegetables, fruit trees, everything that human beings could want. There was no separation since God lived in a perfect relationship with Adam and Eve, which was symbolized by the fact that God walked with Adam and Eve each day in the cool of the evening. There was but one rule in this garden. A tree stood in its midst, the fruit of which was forbidden to human beings. It was called the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." It did not become an apple tree until Jerome translated the scriptures into Latin in the early years of the fifth century. Jerome's clever designation has enriched our language by designating the nervous cartilage that vibrates in the throats of some men as "Adam's apple." Apparently, the forbidden fruit was stuck permanently in the throats of some of the Sons of Adam. Adam and Eve accepted this prohibition and began their life together in the Garden of Eden. Forbidden fruit casts a peculiar spell when it enters our fantasies. One gets the impression that in the first family this tree was the topic of conversation and mouth-watering anticipation. Nonetheless, Adam and Eve remained faithful to the divine command, until one day when the woman was circling the tree alone. As Eve stared at that fruit, the story says, a serpent walked up to her on two legs, for that was the way snakes walked in those days. "Miss Eve." said the snake, "did God really say you could not eat the fruit of this tree?" "Yes, Mr. Snake," Eve responded, "God said that if we eat the fruit of this tree, we will surely die!" "You won't die, Miss Eve," said the snake, "God knows that if you eat of this tree, you will be as wise as God. God doesn't want his creatures to compete with the Holy One!" "You, Eve, can be as wise as God!" That was an intriguing idea to Eve and it offered her a vision of being something more than any of her dreams or fantasies had yet been able to create, and as such was a determinative temptation. She succumbed and ate the fruit. Then she called Adam over and urged him to try it. He did. The deed was done. God's perfect creation was wrecked. Disobedience had entered the human arena through the woman, the weak link in God's creation. After they ate, the story told us their eyes were opened. They discovered they were naked. They felt ashamed. They scurried to cover their nakedness with fig leaf aprons. Suddenly, they realized that it was nearing the time for God's evening stroll through the Garden. Before their disobedience, God was their friend whose presence they looked forward to with pleasure. After their disobedience, God was their judge, the elicitor of their guilt whom they feared. They decided that they could not endure the divine presence so, in an act of wonderful naiveté. ~ John Shelby Spong Originally published January 21, 2004 Announcements Job Opportunity with Westar Institute Executive Assistant: Marketing and Events Management Westar is a non-profit religious research and educational institute whose mission is to foster collaborative scholarly research in the study of religion and to communicate the results of that scholarship to a broad, non-specialist public. Interested and qualified candidates may apply online at Westar Institute For questions, please email: dgalston(a)westarinstitute.org Important Dates: • Application Deadline: June 30, 2017 • Start Date: August 28, 2017

2 1

Standing Rock: 9/5 minute video summary regarding Standing Rock
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 19 Jun '17

19 Jun '17

Hi Folks, Check out the communications below and 9.5 minute video summary of Standing Rock from the Lakota People's Law Project. Click on the picture for the video. Ellie elliestock(a)aol.com >From the Lakota People's Law Project: The short video gives a larger history and context to the events at Standing Rock. Danny Sheehan continues to provide courageous and clear perspectives on Standing Rock and other less known events in our nation's history. He also teaches at the University of Santa Cruz. Many of his interviews, lectures and his courses are available on line... From: "Chase Iron Eyes, Lakota People's Law Office" <info(a)lakotalaw.org> Subject: BREAKING: Judge Rules DAPL Needs Environmental Review Date: June 14, 2017 9:35:33 PM EDT To: "Miriam MacGillis" <threeriversmm(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: info(a)lakotalaw.org We just received breaking news that US District Court Judge James Boasberg ruled that the environmental review of the controversial Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) was insufficient and must be reconsidered. Your persistence and dedication to this cause over the past few months paved the way for this important decision, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Now, you can ensure that our movement to stop this pipeline and defend the rights of water protectors moves forward with strength by making a donation today. After many defeats on the #NoDAPL front, we are beginning to see rays of hope that the Trump Administration/oil industry alliance can be unraveled. Judge Boasberg’s decision comes on the heels of explosive revelations published by investigative reporters from The Intercept. They shed light on wartime tactics employed by pipeline security painting our #NoDAPL movement as a dangerous insurgency and branding water protectors as criminals and terrorists. Leaked documents show that the Blackwater-style paramilitary firm TigerSwan, Inc. surveilled the members of our movement, stole equipment from our camps, spread disinformation online, and framed water protectors by torching cars and blaming their actions on us. Make no mistake: Our country is under attack from within. You can be part of the movement to expose the corporate-sponsored, state-executed violence at Standing Rock by donating to our legal defense fund today. My people have been here for thousands of years, but this land does not belong only to us. It is your homeland too. I hope you will create a respect relationship with the rivers and creeks and streams that flow through this beautiful nation and never fail to stand strong in her defense. Wopila—I thank you for your care and support at this crucial time in our nation's history. Chase Iron Eyes Lakota Law lead counsel P.S. Today’s ruling is a beacon of hope, as nothing less than the fabric—the heart and soul of our very democracy—is at stake. You can stand with us as our resistance continues in the courts. Our battle for water has become the defense of freedom. Join us by donating to our legal defense fund today. It is imperative that we act together. We cannot do this without you. Lakota People's Law Office 522 7th St Ste 218 Rapid City, SD 57701 United States If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe.

1 0

Excellent summary/background info/implications re Standing Rock/DAPL lawsuit
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 16 Jun '17

16 Jun '17

<div id="AOLMsgPart_2_aefb9c93-cc93-40f3-8f18-6fabfcd7fb1e"> <div class="aolReplacedBody"><font color="black" size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hi folks, <div style="font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black"> <div id="aolmail_AOLMsgPart_2_07715fff-699b-4190-bdd0-45a40c821b7d"> <div class="aolmail_aolReplacedBody"><font color="black" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Excellent summary of/background information/implications for Standing Rock's Law Suit regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline: <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="http://act.credoaction.com/go/14328?t=2&akid=23647.6611696.ICj7Wm"><b><u><font color="#0066cc">READ: Judge to Trump: Approving Dakota Access pipeline was illegal</font></u></b></a> Ellie <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="mailto:elliestock@aol.com">elliestock(a)aol.com</a> </font></div> </div> </div> </font></div> </div>

1 0

6/15/17, Farrin/Spong: Land, Family, Failure, Prayer: Reflecting on Wendell Berry’s Farmers’ Manifesto; Spong revisited, pt III
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 15 Jun '17

15 Jun '17

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR Land, Family, Failure, Prayer: Reflecting on Wendell Berry’s Farmers’ Manifesto By Cassandra Farrin June is planting season in Idaho. One can drive along rural highways past fields of corn shoots followed by the satisfyingly dark green foliage of mounded potato starts, fresh mint, and sugar beets. Small-scale and industrial farmers alike rush against the short growing season of the high desert to get plants into the ground after the last frost but before the July heat can kill the tender seedlings. This is the time of year I can’t help but recall Wendell Berry’s wonderful poem, “Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front.” Now, I could have long conversations with Berry about some of his less appealing notions, but this poem speaks in a wonderfully anti-imperial, Christian voice that I can embrace. Here is how it begins, in an ironic tone: Love the quick profit, the annual raise, vacation with pay. Want more of everything ready-made. Be afraid to know your neighbors and to die. And you will have a window in your head. Not even your future will be a mystery any more. Your mind will be punched in a card and shut away in a little drawer. When they want you to buy something they will call you. When they want you to die for profit they will let you know. Historically speaking, religion has strong ties to agriculture. Rituals now associated with religion often have deep ties to the changing of seasons and complementary human life passages. But the religion-agriculture couple has a third bedfellow: politics. The specific political system Berry is critiquing here is capitalism and its cultural counterpart, commercialism, that is, the pursuit of what is newest, most convenient, and “cutting edge” in a free market that remains as unregulated as possible. A person who values capitalism might say, for example, that if being “green” is important to people, they will back green initiatives with their money. If education is treated as a free-market enterprise, as the current Secretary of Education suggests, people will vote for the style of education they prefer by sending federal dollars with their children to their school of choice. Don’t like the options? Create your own school and compete in the free market to attract parents and children with whatever unique value your school offers. Value in capitalism follows the dollars. Some elements of this you might like and embrace, and that’s fine. It’s certainly an exhilarating challenge: put your values into action and do the hard work of convincing people to invest in you. What you might not like is that the only investments that count in the competition are those that can be translated into monetary value. Berry is critiquing specifically the problem that if we become so predictable, that is, if we always follow the new and newfangled, our lives will no longer be our own. We will feed greedy men’s dreams and impoverish our mother earth. What does he suggest we do instead? So, friends, every day do something that won’t compute. Love the Lord. Love the world. Work for nothing. Take all that you have and be poor. Love someone who does not deserve it. Denounce the government and embrace the flag. Hope to live in that free republic for which it stands. Give your approval to all you cannot understand. Praise ignorance, for what man has not encountered he has not destroyed. Ask the questions that have no answers. Invest in the millennium. Plant sequoias. Say that your main crop is the forest that you did not plant, that you will not live to harvest. Say that the leaves are harvested when they have rotted into the mold. Call that profit. Prophesy such returns. Jesus’ parables come alive in these stanzas, and that is not insignificant given that Jesus’ parables and aphorisms are among the most historically reliable material we have from him. Think of the Parable of the Hired Workers from Matthew 20, where all the workers are paid the same wage no matter when they started: “I am not being unfair to you, friend,” the landowner says to the man he hired earliest in the day. “Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” Berry’s stanzas echo both Jesus and the Cynics, a philosophical movement that was popular in Jesus’ era, when he says, “Take all that you have and be poor.” Where today we might experience a twinge is in Berry’s line “Praise ignorance, for what man / has not encountered he has not destroyed.” Many people today are calling President Trump “ignorant” as a result of his destructive actions, but I want to caution against collapsing Berry’s meaning and this more recent comment. For one thing, I’m not sure Trump is all that ignorant; I think he just doesn’t have to care about the same things as other people because he belongs to an ultra-elite class of society (valued, again, in monetary terms) that frankly has a very good chance of surviving even the worst environmental fall-outs and even benefitting from them. I will reiterate that Berry is calling upon the Cynic strains of Jesus’ thought, the willingness to learn from nature before man, to be less concerned with commercial standards of intelligence. This is not simple. It’s hard to take one’s cues from the land because it requires self-restraint even regarding causes we may cherish. On my quarter-acre lot, mostly land engulfing a modest thousand-square-foot house, I’ve spent the past three years planting subsistence crops for my family. This has meant wrestling with what will grow in our clay-heavy soil and what can tolerate temperatures exceeding 100 degrees day-in, day-out, at the peak of summer. Where can trees be planted so as not to steal all the sunlight from the garden? Which varieties will ensure the nuts and fruits produced are edible and capable of flourishing in the high desert? Which flowers feed the birds and the bees, and which birds and which bees? Which plants replenish the soil, and in what order should they be cycled? When should I pick the pears so they won’t fall and rot, and how do I beat the squirrels to our walnuts and apricots? I’ve failed more often than I’ve succeeded, but that’s only to be expected. Three years barely cuts into the finer points of raising enough to reasonably feed one’s family. As Berry says, “Invest in the millennium. Plant sequoias.” Farming is and always has been a way of life that benefits from inherited, localized knowledge. It does not reward the new and newfangled, although it does embrace mindful, grounded experimentation. Leaping to the other side of the world, families in rural Japan prior to the rise of the modern nation-state consisted of “an exceptionally large unit as the nucleus and with lines running between it and each of the others,” Thomas C. Smith explains in The Agrarian Origins of Modern Japan. “The central unit was (or had been) an extended family, and the whole group had formed by the pulling away of elements belonging to that family: pulling away very gradually, first becoming branch families and then slowly winning an increasing measure of social and economic autonomy.” In other words, in pre-modern (pre-capitalist) Japan you’d be likely to encounter whole villages made up of a single extended family or cluster of three to four extended families all working the same land. Longevity on the land was honored, with a line of distinction drawn between families who settled the land prior to reaching the land’s capacity for development and those who arrived after. The latter class of families was not allowed to develop new land and had to wait for a plot of land to open up in the natural ebb and flow of family generations before they were allowed to claim a spot. In the meantime, they earned their right to that land by working for the ancestral families, building up knowledge and experience, proving they could be trusted. Not coincidentally, new families were not permitted to invite the ancestral god of the village into their homes until they had lived as many as five generations there. Yes, the struggle in this kind of environment is in the ability to break free of traditions that do harm either to whole communities or to individuals in them (and even today in Japan individuals regularly sacrifice themselves to communal desires and expectations, glorified in film but painful in practice). However, right now in modern societies we’re suffering from the opposite problem—an entitled society that frames everything, literally everything, in terms of individual rights and individual freedoms to the expense of land and community. Drawing boundaries around behavior is viewed as automatically oppressive. Religion notoriously was the locus of that activity. It would hem in behaviors either for the sake of the health of land and community or for the religion’s own perpetuation. The downside of this is that the original purposes for certain rules became masked and even harmful once the religion was divorced from the land and society that birthed it. Our challenge today is to accept some boundaries on our freedom for the sake of the earth, and to acknowledge that different communities have to set different kinds of boundaries because not all landscapes are the same. Returning to Berry, and the conclusion of his Manifesto: Put your faith in the two inches of humus that will build under the trees every thousand years. Listen to carrion – put your ear close, and hear the faint chattering of the songs that are to come. Expect the end of the world. Laugh. Laughter is immeasurable. Be joyful though you have considered all the facts. So long as women do not go cheap for power, please women more than men. Ask yourself: Will this satisfy a woman satisfied to bear a child? Will this disturb the sleep of a woman near to giving birth? Go with your love to the fields. Lie down in the shade. Rest your head in her lap. Swear allegiance to what is nighest your thoughts. As soon as the generals and the politicos can predict the motions of your mind, lose it. Leave it as a sign to mark the false trail, the way you didn’t go. Be like the fox who makes more tracks than necessary, some in the wrong direction. Practice resurrection. I love these final lines about losing one’s mind and being like the fox—what a wonderful recollection, again, of Jesus at his most historical and most politically damning! His is a resistance of the little ones, the ones who perhaps aren’t empowered to engage in a physical rebellion but whose actions quietly undermine the aims of the elite anyway. We “expect the end of the world,” but we also “practice resurrection.” This is not an easy teaching in practice. We live in an era in which resurrection happens to be tied with the death of plastic wrap, oil, and convenience. Our rebirth is in the very thing our Christian heritage taught us to view as evil: sin, better translated as “corruption”—manure, compost, dirt. The world’s corruption is the bedrock of creation. We must not confuse physical decay with moral decay, as the Apostle Paul once did. We can draw upon a touch of the fox’s sort of treachery, and I think Jesus even would have liked it: make more tracks than necessary, some in the wrong direction, and don’t settle for a life of ease with a window into our heads. Care for the sick, accepting only a meal in exchange. Share good news as if it were a pearl given away for free. Here’s my good news of the season: If you plant vetch, the bumblebees will return. How wonderful to hear them buzzing happily after not having seen a single one since I was a child! How small yet powerful are some acts of resurrection! ~ Cassandra Farrin Read the essay online here. About the Author Cassandra Farrin is a poet, writer and editor of nonfiction books on the history of religion. She recently launched the blog Ginger & Sage on religion, culture, and the land. Her writing can be found on the Westar Institute and Ploughshares websites, along with a poetic retelling of “On the Origin of the World” forthcoming in Gender Violence, Rape Culture, and Religion (Palgrave Macmillan). A US-UK Fulbright scholar, she has more than ten years’ experience with cross-cultural and interfaith engagement. Cassandra can be reached at welovetea(a)gmail.com. Question & Answer John from the Internet, writes: Question: What are your thoughts about where progressive Christianity is going from here? In some groups I find it barely different than other evangelical sects, and other expressions seem to feel completely new-age without hardly a remnant of Christianity. Answer: By Erice Alexander I very much understand that perspective John. Over my time in progressive Christianity, especially over the past decade, I have seen it trend from a more mature and academically advanced group of people, into a much broader type of “Evangelical Lite,” where the defining tenets are to lean Democrat, sympathize with gay rights, and reject the idea of an eternal hell. But if you suggest something like the resurrection of Jesus as non-historical, some people still tend struggle with that and want you to leave Christianity all together. As progressive Christianity has absorbed the Emergent label it has inherited a tension between those two macro factions. Mainly, those who still see Jesus as ontologically unique in comparison to every other human ever to live -- and those who don't. Those who lean very progressive are sometimes feeling pushed out and unwelcome within the big tent they founded as their sanctuary from closed-mindedness. And those who are less progressive are wanting to draw some lines within that sanctuary and ensure that other progressives don’t dismantle Christianity to a point that is unrecognizable to them. I think that path of evolution will continue to take its course. Only time will tell whether we tend toward a huge tent that meets the needs of most left-leaning Jesus followers, or whether progressive Christianity stays true to its roots as a very theologically progressive bastion that explores beyond the boundaries of mainstream Christianity. My bet is that the big tent will prevail and that those who originally labeled as progressive Christians will become so uncomfortable that they will explore the next things (as I have begun to do with Jesism). My hope however is that as the new breed of progressives come into the fold they become humbled enough to learn from the veterans who have spent years studying and wrestling with this stuff. ~ Eric Alexander Read and share online here About the Author Eric Alexander is an author, speaker, and activist. 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. __________________________________________________ Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited The Terrible Texts: The Attitude of the Bible Toward Women – Part III "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen. 2:7) "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.' So out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name." (Gen. 2: 18,19) "But for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept, took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said ------ 'she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man'." (Gen. 2: 20b-23) These are all words from the oldest creation story in the Bible. It is dated around 1000 B.C.E. and thus is some 400 years earlier than the familiar six-day creation narrative with which the book of Genesis opens. It presents a far more primitive view of God and a much more negative view of a woman than is found in other places in the Bible. What makes it particularly important for our purposes, and what gives it most of its destructive power, is that Paul leaned on this more ancient tradition to justify his own prejudices against women. Paul thus lifted this negativity into prominence and incorporated into the Christian Faith an attitude toward women that has been the source of much pain. To understand the essential impact of this Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden tale, it must be heard as the ancient Hebrew myth that it is. Too often we have listened to it through the stained glass accents and pious sounds of Holy Scripture. So gather with me around the campfire where the wisdom of the past was regularly recited to educate each generation, and embrace the origin of one of our major cultural definitions of women. Once upon a time, before people were on this planet, the Lord God decided to make a man, and to place him in God's beautiful world to tend this world as God's steward. So it was that God came down from the sky and began to shape the dust of the earth into a human form, like a child might make a mud pie. When this human creature was fully formed, however, he was still inert. So the Lord God swooped down upon this lifeless dirt form to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, except that God breathed the divine breath into this man's nostrils. When the breath of God entered this creature, the man came alive and God called his name Adam, which means humankind. The fact that God named Adam meant in the Hebrew world that Adam was known by God and was subservient to God. God then set Adam to work in a place called the Garden of Eden where plants, vegetables, fruit trees and shade trees were plentiful. Adam accepted this God-given vocation and tended this garden and so time went by. After some days or even months or years, Adam became dissatisfied. Perhaps he was lonely and so the Lord God, perceiving this need in the first human being for companionship, decided to make a friend for Adam, for as God said, "It is not good for the man to dwell alone." So the Lord God got busy and made the first polar bear. Bringing this gift with some pride of creation, God presented the bear to Adam. "It is a very nice polar bear," said Adam, "But it is not the kind of friend that I seek." Adam, however, demonstrated his superiority over this animal by the act of giving it a name. So God tried again. In turn God made the cat, the horse, the camel, the cow, the pig and even the kangaroo and God brought each animal in turn before Adam. Adam did not want to discourage God's efforts. These creatures were lovely and unique and Adam dutifully named each one, securing his position as the crown jewel of God's creation and dominant over all other forms of life. But none satisfied Adam and God became a bit distraught. "Adam, you are very hard to please," God said. "I have now created all the animals of the world looking for a helpmeet for you and none of them satisfies you!" It was a marvelous picture of a trial and error deity who was clearly not omniscient or omnipotent but was rather actively engaged in the world reacting anew to that world's response. God had shaped each of these creatures a bit differently from the others. Some had horns and some had long trunks. Some had tails that were curly and others had tails that were straight. Some produced milk and others had humps on their backs that enabled them to go for days without water. Some were mammoth in size and some were tiny. Some loved the arctic regions while others called the hot equatorial forest their home. Some could fly, some could climb trees and some could sit on top of the water for hours barely paddling their web-like feet. It was a marvelously diverse world but no matter how hard God tried, nothing, absolutely nothing, seemed to satisfy Adam. Since God appears not to have known any better than Adam just what it was that God was seeking to make, God said to Adam in great frustration, "Adam, I do not know what else to do!" In this day of intimate conversation between God and the first man, Adam simply pleaded ignorance, "I would like to help you out God," said Adam, "but how can I describe to you what I have never seen! It is one of those intuitive things, God. I think I'll know it the first time I see it but not before." So God decided to try a new approach. This time God put Adam to sleep (God must have used an anesthesia that was not yet commonly known). God then opened Adam's chest and removed a rib from Adam's side. Then God closed Adam up again. From that rib, God fashioned a new creature - like Adam but not quite in God's image. It was a strange birth process. This creature was more human than the animals but not quite as human as the man. Then with this creature shaped as only God can shape a creature, with curves and lines that Adam had never seen before, God stood this creature before Adam and gently wakened him from sleep. Having opened his eyes, and feeling no pain from the divine surgical procedure, the impression one gets as one reads the text is that Adam's eyes bulged out of his sockets about three inches as if they were on coiled springs. Then Adam said, according to the King James' translators, "Behold, Lord, this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, she will be called women because she was taken out of man." When one reads the original Hebrew of this verse, however, it is a bit more effusive. Adam actually uses a slang expression, which might be translated thus, "Hot diggity Lord you finally did it!" So the first woman was born or made. She, like the animals, was God's creation but she, like the animals, was also subject to the man. The man named her like he named all of the animals. She did not share his status, his glory or his divine image. He was made in God's image; she was taken out of the man. She was kin to the man in a way that the animals were not but she was to be subservient, obedient and aware of her second-class status. Her chief role in life was to be the male's helpmeet, to bring him pleasure, to relieve his need for sex and companionship. Sex incidentally was originally meant for recreation not procreation. The story hints that childbirth, with its resultant pain, was punishment handed out after the fall not something that was part of the original intention in creation. So in this way the sexes, male and female, came into being, says the Bible. Theirs was to be the relationship of the superior to the inferior, of the master to the servant, of the lordly male to the submissive female. No one could argue with this order since it was written into creation as the very purpose of God. To do so was to subvert God's plan. One's sacred duty was to relate to this ultimate truth not to try to change it. So it was that the religious system called Christianity that grew out of this Jewish womb, carried with it this God-given definition of female inferiority and installed it in our civilization as one of its unchallenged presuppositions. Women were taught that they fulfilled their purpose by accepting this God-given definition. If they rebelled, the superior men in their lives could beat them, divorce them and even kill them without any fear of retribution. Women were defined as less intelligent than men and therefore incapable of being educated, entering the professions or voting. Long after this story was abandoned as literal history, the implications in this narrative would still hold sway. It was regularly reinforced by "holy men" who quoted these terrible texts from the Bible to justify keeping the oppression of women as an operating principle of both church and society. In the name of God, women were told that their sole purpose in life was to satisfy the man, and to obey their husbands in all things. Since the scriptures were believed to be the "revealed will of God" and since the Church presented itself as the sole authority that could properly interpret the scriptures, Christianity grew more patriarchal and inevitably more misogynist. That behavior can be tolerated no longer. Terrible texts that destroy life need to be exposed, their power broken and the kind of Christianity that is based on that premise needs to be overthrown. My desire in this series is not to destroy the Holy Scriptures. It is rather to assert that nothing can ever be properly called 'holy' if it suggests that any person can be subjugated to another in the name of God. So the Bible opens by defining the woman as a dependent second class citizen. Not content with that rough beginning, it then moves to blame her for the presence of evil in the world. To that part of the biblical story I will turn next week. ~ John Shelby Spong Originally published January 2004 Announcements Fulda River in Kassel, Germany: Friday at noon a “Refugee Ship” with 80 copper sculptures of refugees will start touring the river. It is one of several art manifestations. The event marks the launching of the initiatives To Arrive Safely and Don’t Feed Your Inner Beast, along with the publication of the Manifesto on the Artist’s Role in a globalized world. READ ON...

1 0

DAPL breaking news
by Karenbueno via Dialogue 15 Jun '17

15 Jun '17

Note: attachment is also copied here: Breaking: DAPL Approval Illegal, Judge Finds Judge James Boasberg’s 91-page decision saysU.S. Army Corps ‘did not adequately consider’ oil spill impacts; no ruling onwhether to keep DAPL operational ICMN Staff • June 14, 2017 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated thelaw in its fast-tracked approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), a U.S.District Court Judge in Washington D.C. has ruled. Judge JamesBoasberg said the Corps did not consider key components of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) in granting the Lake Oahe easement under the Missouri Riverwhen directed to do so by President Donald Trump shortly after his swearing-in. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, with the Cheyenne River Sioux asinterveners, had challenged the approval on the grounds that adequateenvironmental study had not been conducted. Boasberg agreed on many points,though he did not rule on whether the pipeline should remain operational. Ithas been carryingoil since June 1. “Although the Corps substantially complied with NEPA in manyareas, the Court agrees that it did not adequatelyconsider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, orenvironmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likelyto be highly controversial,” Boasberg said in his 91-page decision. “To remedythose violations, the Corps will have to reconsider those sections of itsenvironmental analysis upon remand by the Court. Whether Dakota Access mustcease pipeline operations during that remand presents a separate question ofthe appropriate remedy, which will be the subject of further briefing.” A status conference will be held next week, according to theenvironmental law firm EarthJustice, which is representing the tribes in thiscase. Energy Transfer Partners, the pipeline’s builders, did not respond torequests for comment by press time. “This is a major victory for the Tribe and we commend the courtsfor upholding the law and doing the right thing,” said Standing Rock SiouxChairman Dave Archambault II in a statement. “The previous administrationpainstakingly considered the impacts of this pipeline and President Trumphastily dismissed these careful environmental considerations in favor ofpolitical and personal interests. We applaud the courts for protecting our lawsand regulations from undue political influence, and will ask the Court to shutdown pipeline operations immediately. ” The fight over the 1,172-mile-long pipeline that runs hotlycontested through four states has been the source of controversy since it wasfirst proposed. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe became the flashpoint for theissue when thousands of water protectors and hundreds of tribes gathered atcamps along the Missouri River over the summerof 2016. They were protesting the routing of the pipeline through treatylands—especially in light of the fact that it had been rerouted from moreaffluent Bismarck for the same reason the tribe didn’t want it nearby, becauseof the danger to drinking water—in a conflictthat involved a militarized police force. “This decision marks an important turning point. Untilnow, the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have been disregarded by thebuilders of the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Trump Administration—prompting awell-deserved global outcry,” said Earthjustice attorney JanHasselman in a statement. “The federal courts have stepped in where ourpolitical systems have failed to protect the rights of Native communities.” Copyright© 2017 All Rights Reserved Indian Country Media Network 5218 Patrick Road Verona, NY 13478 {original article at this website. You can subscribe to this daily Indian news.} Karen Bueno http://reply.indiancountrymedianetwork.com/dm?id=55266C468543811F06B4A69F95…

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] Chronological History - Our Common Future Oaxtepec
by Beret Griffith via Dialogue 10 Jun '17

10 Jun '17

Wendell, I know you checked for Oaxtapec documents. Wondering if you checked Frank's drive for the video? Colleagues, Do any of you have a copy of that Sunny Walker and Rick Jones filmed as a report of the event? Thanks, Beret On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Beret Griffith <beretgriffith(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps the three of you can pool your memories and come up with Oaxtapec > information and stories. > > Beret > > On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Dennis Jennings < > dennisjennings1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Mary Warren Moffat was in attendance at Oaxtapec. As I recall, she fell >> and broke her leg while there. Nevertheless she is known for having a >> great memory >> about these events. Al Lingo was there also. He likely shepherded Andrew >> Young. >> >> I would probably need to be sitting with a group of people to help >> stimulate my memory of events. I am pretty sure I do not have any written >> records. >> >> Dennis >> >> On Jun 10, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Beret Griffith <beretgriffith(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hello again colleagues, >> >> There is very little information on the Chronological History re: Our >> Common Future Conference in Oaxtepec in the archives, so very little in the >> ChronHist. There are a couple of brochures and very LARGE MP3 files of >> Andrew Young's talk. (via Wendell Refior) now available on >> Wedgeblade.net. (see link at the end of this message). >> >> And, Oaxtepec represents a huge turn for the organization. It would be >> very good to have more details on the event and outcome. >> >> Mary Laura suggested those of you individually named above as colleagues >> she recalled were at the conference. >> >> Glenda Long Eggerling looked at the timeline and wondered if there is >> more information surrounding the Order being called out of being at the >> Oaxtepec. >> >> Glenda's questions: >> >> 1. Is there information about the gathering? >> 2. Who led conference? >> 3. What was written about dissolving the Order? Is there a document >> declaring the structures of the Order being called out of being? >> 4. Role of the Panchayat? >> 5. When was the Panchayat called out of being? >> 6. Who was on the last Panchayat? >> 7. What were the practics of letting people know, manage the staff >> centers, etc, etc.? >> >> Below is the link to the Chronological History 1952-1988 to see the >> original text in the document. You cannot add material in this part of the >> document. >> >> https://wedgeblade.net/files/archives_assets/20197.pdf >> >> Go to page 110 to see text. If you have changes please send to myself >> beretgriffith(a)gmail.com & David Dunn dmdunn1(a)gmail.com and additions >> will be made to the text. >> >> Thank you! Beret & David >> >> ________________________________________________________- >> >> Andrew Young - Part 1 >> ICAI Address to ICAI Summer Conference in Mexico City Part 1 >> >> https://wedgeblade.net/files/archives_assets/20060.mp3 >> >> ICAI Address to ICAI Summer Conference in Mexico City Part 2 >> >> https://wedgeblade.net/files/archives_assets/20061.mp3 >> >> >> -- >> >> *Dennis Jennings, Certified ToP Facilitator/Mentor Trainer* >> >> >> >> *Technology of Participation (ToP) Network* >> >> *4750 North Sheridan Road* >> >> *Chicago, IL 60640* >> >> *Tel Office 773/769-9266 <(773)%20769-9266> Mobile 773-729-6184 >> <(773)%20729-6184>* >> >> *dennisjennings1(a)gmail.com <dennisjennings1(a)gmail.com>* >> >> >> >> *Find course dates and register for trainings at * >> http://top-training.net >> >> *ToP Community of Practice - FREE* First Monday of the month, 11:00 AM >> -12:30 PM >> >> AICP CM units: 14.5 CM for ToP Facilitation Methods and ToP Strategic >> Planning >> >> 13.5 CHES-MCHES hours available for Certified Health Ed Spec for TFM >> >> >

1 0

Chronological History - Our Common Future Oaxtepec
by Beret Griffith via Dialogue 10 Jun '17

10 Jun '17

Hello again colleagues, There is very little information on the Chronological History re: Our Common Future Conference in Oaxtepec in the archives, so very little in the ChronHist. There are a couple of brochures and very LARGE MP3 files of Andrew Young's talk. (via Wendell Refior) now available on Wedgeblade.net. (see link at the end of this message). And, Oaxtepec represents a huge turn for the organization. It would be very good to have more details on the event and outcome. Mary Laura suggested those of you individually named above as colleagues she recalled were at the conference. Glenda Long Eggerling looked at the timeline and wondered if there is more information surrounding the Order being called out of being at the Oaxtepec. Glenda's questions: 1. Is there information about the gathering? 2. Who led conference? 3. What was written about dissolving the Order? Is there a document declaring the structures of the Order being called out of being? 4. Role of the Panchayat? 5. When was the Panchayat called out of being? 6. Who was on the last Panchayat? 7. What were the practics of letting people know, manage the staff centers, etc, etc.? Below is the link to the Chronological History 1952-1988 to see the original text in the document. You cannot add material in this part of the document. https://wedgeblade.net/files/archives_assets/20197.pdf Go to page 110 to see text. If you have changes please send to myself beretgriffith(a)gmail.com & David Dunn dmdunn1(a)gmail.com and additions will be made to the text. Thank you! Beret & David ________________________________________________________- Andrew Young - Part 1 ICAI Address to ICAI Summer Conference in Mexico City Part 1 https://wedgeblade.net/files/archives_assets/20060.mp3 ICAI Address to ICAI Summer Conference in Mexico City Part 2 https://wedgeblade.net/files/archives_assets/20061.mp3

2 1

6/8/17, Alexander/Spong: Five Beliefs I Continue to Hold About the Bible; Spong revisited; Terrible Texts: Bible's Attitude Toward Women, Pt II
by Ellie Stock via Dialogue 08 Jun '17

08 Jun '17

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR Five Beliefs I Continue to Hold About the Bible By Eric Alexander This is the last installment in this opening series, and it was my most challenging to construct. In my opening articles: Five Beliefs I Continue to Hold About Jesus, and Five Beliefs I Continue to Hold About The Church, I had a lot of inspiration to write about what I found value in (vs. what I no longer find useful). Those positive aspects came easier because I remain quite interested in the potential of following the message of Jesus, and the possibilities for the Church. But in this final installment about the Bible, I tended to become flooded with a lifetime of baggage. At the end of the day though, there are still some positive aspects about the Bible which I think are beneficial to share. As in the previous two parts of this series, before I get going on what I do believe, I will indulge in a moment of catharsis to set the stage with what I don’t believe. And I am going to assume that if you’re reading this, and you were savvy enough to sign up for this publication, that you already know many of the basics, so I won’t bother getting too remedial. I don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I don’t believe that it is universally authoritative. I don’t particularly like when people say “it may not be all literal, but it’s all true,” because I firmly think there are patently false and harmful premises within the Bible that aren’t true in any way, shape, or form. That last bit is one of the most important to me. The Bible doesn’t have to be all good or all true in order to have value, and in admitting so it opens the door for a better way of gleaning value from the Bible. Atheists have a saying that goes: “if you want to convince someone to become an atheist, just tell them to read their Bible.” And I agree that is a pretty good strategy. But it also sometimes sets up a straw man that the God of which atheists don’t believe in is a literalized God of the Bible, and not a more universal and mystical form of source energy. That sometimes stunts them from further growth and exploration, very similar to how it entraps many religious fundamentalist from continued growth. But we will tackle that topic more in a later article. When I was a teenager, I viewed the Bible as a holy and revered book. It was the “word of God,” and sometimes just holding it in my arms felt good. Now and then I was even inspired to read it, but that usually had an adverse effect. Most times, when I actually began reading it I thought YUCK! I found it to be loaded with tribal, low vibrational, misunderstandings and misalignments. Most of what it said about God seemed far too anthropomorphic and personified. It seemed like a bunch of ancient theocrats creating God in their own image, and not the other way around. Most times I would read only a short bit and end up just putting it away before the cognitive dissonance became too much to handle. I wish I knew then what I know now, because I may have been able to better sort the wheat from the chaff and glean more of its wisdom and historical context. So with all of that said, here are five things I do believe about the Bible: 1) I believe that you and I are the light of the world. The Gospel According to John, which is the last canonical gospel composed roughly 70 years after the death of Jesus, features the infamously fundamentalist favorite words of Jesus: “I am the light of the world.” Before that however, Matthew had Jesus saying “YOU are the light of the world.” (Matthew 5:14-15) This seemingly minor difference is so significant that I wanted it to be the first on my list. In this simple dichotomy, we see much of what is misunderstood about the Bible. If Jesus ever did say that he was the light of the world, it could have only been taken in context with a likely much more historical and prevalent sharing of “you are the light of the world.” Cherry picking the one but not the other sets the stage for much of where modern Christianity, and the modern Church, has gone astray. 2) I believe that the Bible is a beautiful book, but only when we understand it for what it is. The Bible is not “God’s word for all eternity.” It is the writings of humans just like you and I, who were at times inspired to make sense of the world in which they lived. It is ultimately a story of the progression of a society and their own view of morality. It is a collection of stories that were canonized into what we today call the Bible. Some Bible stories were simply usurpings of earlier ancient near-eastern stories, and given a different theological spin from their own tribe’s perspective – similar to many of our holiday traditions. 3) I believe that it’s important to acknowledge that Yahweh is not literally God. The figure referred to as Yahweh in the bible was the early writer’s vision for the ideal monotheistic God. Back then, every tribe had their God. At the time, Marduk was the primary God over the Mesopotamian region, along with a host of other polytheistic cultures in surrounding regions. In fact, to the discerning Bible scholar, they will recognize that at the outset of Biblical composition, Yahweh was not the only God, but rather the best and most powerful God. Then over time he became known as the only God. Even the simple opening statements of Genesis, “Let us make man in our image” would have been a clue that the Judeo-Christian God derived from a much earlier understanding as leader of the God realm, and not that he was talking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit when he used the term “us.” Every culture needed their own God, and their own King. Yahweh was the God created by the Judeo tradition, and David was the King (before Jesus, that is). 4) I believe the Bible contains some wisdom. Scattered throughout the many mischaracterizations of God, and unsustainable moral positions, there is some wisdom to be gleaned from the Bible. Most often however, the Bible will simply tell the reader what they already want to know and hear. The average person will read it and ignore most of what doesn’t resonate, and they will key in on what they already do believe. It’s the nucleus of the self-affirming religious experience. 5) I believe the Bible should only be read with extreme focus on context. Sometimes the Bible is a historical book – and sometimes it is even historically accurate. Other times it is a religious book, and sometimes it is even beneficial to humanity. Other times it’s collections of wisdom sayings, songs, prayers, and lamentations – and sometimes those collections still have relevance to our modern lives. Other times it offers law codes, and sometimes those laws are ethical. Other times it offers gospels written by evangelists to persuade an allegiance to Jesus, and sometimes those gospels contain real facts. And sometimes it’s collections of letters by followers of Jesus, and sometimes those letters remain valuable for us to read thousands of years later. Context is everything when reading the vast collection of history and culture that we refer to as The Bible. I truly hope you’ve have enjoyed this opening series as much as I have writing it. I’ve attempted to extract the positive remnants of a Christian culture that has by-and-large become hijacked and dysfunctional. By taking the time to find some positive and sustainable elements of Jesus, the Church, and the Bible, we can think together about where we go from here. I also was glad to use this series as an opportunity to introduce myself to all of you who may be following this publication. In the coming months I plan to dive deeper into many of these concepts, and I think it will be an exciting and interactive journey. If you have questions or comments that you prefer not to leave in the comments section, please continue to feel free to reach out to me directly via email at EricAlexanderCE(a)gmail.com or connect with me on Facebook. ~ Eric Alexander Read the essay online here. About the Author Eric Alexander is an author, speaker, and activist. 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. Question & Answer Ann Kish from Indiana, writes: Question: A friend recently quoted 1 Peter 2:18-20 as her response to how to live in a country with civil disagreements. This concerns me as I have read about the role of the Confessing Church in WWII and believe that Christians are too often ignorant of political concerns and their role in defending the oppressed. How should we read this verse? Does it condone slavery or domestic abuse or being subservient in an undemocratic regime? What is the original context we should consider? Answer: By Rev. Mark Sandlin Hi Ann, Interesting question(s). Let's cut right to the chase on verse 18. The word that's translated as “slaves” is οἰκέτης (oiketēs) which is a masculine noun that very specifically refers to someone who lives in the same house as the person they are under the authority of. It seems to me that that alone makes this very clearly a poor verse to choose if you are trying to make a statement about things of a political/national nature. Frankly, 1 Peter 2:13 would have been much better for making their point. Back to verse 18. When read through our privileged, 21st century eyes, it's easy to understand the “masters” to be Christians, but the reality is that when 1 Peter was written (probably around 65 C.E.) Christians were much more likely to be the slaves than the masters. There are also indications that because of their beliefs, Christian slaves may have been somewhat persecuted by their masters. For me, this is where your friend's choice of verses gets all the more interesting. They conveniently stopped just before verse 21, but it seems to me that verse 21 is where 1 Peter's author starts to reveal what's really going on. What's really going on, at least in my opinion, is really crappy theology. Specifically, the concept of redemptive suffering. Seldom is suffering redemptive and if it were, surely humanity would be redeemed by now. My translation of verse 21 would be something like, “For you have been called to this because Christ also suffered for us leaving us an example that you should follow in his footsteps.” Even though I find redemptive suffering to be horrible theology, it does seem to be the underpinning that 1 Peter's author is using to encourage Christian slaves to endure the suffering that they are subjected to under their masters. The larger implication, however, is that you are doing it because you are “following in [Jesus's] footsteps.” That's the interesting part. Jesus's suffering on the cross happened because he stood up to the Powers That Be on behalf of all of those that the Powers were abusing. He did it loud enough and consistently enough that the Powers decided that they needed to eliminate him. That's what “following in [Jesus's] footsteps” looks like. Loudly and consistently confronting the Powers That Be when they are abusing their powers and making people suffer. I have a feeling that is nowhere close to your friend's intention in using these verses, but it's definitively where I end up with them. ~ Rev. Mark Sandlin Read and Share 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, RevMarkSanklin, has been named as one of the “Top Ten Christian Blogs.” Mark received The Associated Church Press' Award of Excellence in 2012. His work has been published on "The Huffington Post," "Sojourners," "Time," "Church World Services," and even the "Richard Dawkins Foundation." He's been featured on PBS's "Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly" and NPR's "The Story with Dick Gordon.” Follow Mark on Facebook and Twitter @marksandlin _____________________________________________ Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited The Terrible Texts: The Attitude of the Bible Toward Women – Part II “If a woman conceives and bears a male child then she shall be unclean seven days; as of the time of her menstruation she shall be unclean. ——- But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks as in her menstruation; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days (Leviticus 12:02, 05).” “When a woman has a discharge of blood which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her uncleanness for seven days, and whoever touches her will be unclean until evening. And everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean. Everything also upon which she sits will be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until evening (Leviticus 15:19-24).” “You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness (Leviticus 18:19).” “Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” (Islamic Scholar Razi commenting on Quran 4:11) Is the male need to dominate the woman, and even to disparage her, a rational response, or is it based on some subliminal fear? One can certainly demonstrate that this need is universal, crossing all boundaries. This universality forces us to view it as a response to a human need, not a cultural response to a cultural need. It certainly cannot be understood as a particular religious response to a local need. So our search of the ‘terrible texts’ of the Bible takes us into the realm of the unspoken, and perhaps the unconscious, where taboos are born. Why do religions almost universally require rites of purification after childbirth? What is unclean about having a baby? Why was it thought to be dangerous to bring a new mother back into the life of the clan, family or church until she had undergone some rite of purification? Why was menstruation feared in primitive societies? Why is it still covered with guilt or shame for many? Why were women isolated from the tribe during the days of their menstrual flow? What created this prejudice? Why were menstruating women thought to be so dangerous that it was said of them that they polluted the water, killed the fish, damaged the life of the clan and affected men adversely? How did this perfectly natural part of human life come to be called “the curse?” Why was it interpreted in such bizarre ways in the ancient world? One of the early Church fathers even suggested that women were really castrated males and that menstruation was the way the female body once each month mourned its lost organ. This was to him a perfectly reasonable explanation. When all of these practices and definitions are gathered together, a mammoth body of evidence appears to point to the existence of an irrational male fear associated with menstruation. What is the content of that fear? Can we raise these questions to consciousness so that they can be confronted and perhaps banished or must we live forever under their power? Does the latent hostility of men toward women reside here? As I mentioned in the first installment of this series, blood was so powerful a force in the ancient world that it has actually shaped our language. There was and is something mysterious about blood, so to ‘shed blood’ became a synonym for dying. In time of national crises, the state still asks its young people to give their ‘blood,’ that is their lives, to protect their nation. Our breath was identified with the spirit within, but our blood was the place where life itself resided. Given that definition, menstruation was a profound mystery to human beings. The woman could bleed from her most secretive and intimate opening on a regular basis and despite that shedding of blood, the woman did not die. This was interpreted to mean that every woman possessed some magical power, perhaps the power of life itself. When this assumption was combined with childbirth, its mystery was only enhanced. Pregnancy stopped the menstrual cycle for nine months. Then when the baby was born, the menstrual blood seemed to flow incessantly for days. These things were somehow combined in the ancient mind. The cessation of menstruation prior to menopause meant that life was being produced. The baby’s birth then inaugurated an uncontrollable flow. Perhaps the menses worked against life since the woman was incapable of producing life until it ceased. Perhaps when the baby was expelled, the unclean anti-life substance, which had been contained by this new life, was finally allowed to flow freely, a sure sign that the woman’s body was once more unclean. So purification rites were a necessity lest this latent death force be loosed publicly upon the clan. So myths grew about menstruation from the assumption that a woman’s hair would not curl during the menstrual cycle to the fear that the male organ might actually break off or become inoperative if intercourse took place during menstruation. Women were thus thought to be so powerful that they could lose their blood and not die. They could also produce a new life and, in the process, actually stop the negative menstrual flow. Men feared this power and sought to capture it. Sigmund Freud, that brilliant product of an extremely patriarchal mentality, once suggested that women suffered from what he called “penis envy.” That was nothing more than a 20th century Freudian version of that myth that women were castrated males. They yearned, suggested Freud, to be made whole by having their penises restored. Freud’s conclusion was that since that could not happen physiologically, women addressed that need psychologically. Though I have great admiration for Freud’s enormous intellect, this is one place where I suggest Freud could not overcome his German predilection for male supremacy. Far from women suffering from a “penis envy,” I think a case can be made for the fact that men have suffered from a menstruation envy. Men yearned to capture that female life power that enabled them to bleed from their genitals and not die. That is, I believe, how circumcision entered the human and religious arena. There is also something quite irrational about circumcision. The body of the male is mutilated and religious reasons are given to support it. Circumcision was originally a male puberty rite. It did not become an infancy rite until much later in history. Attempts to defend this practice on the basis of some presumed health value are so fanciful as to be amusing. These explanations suggest that the foreskin is difficult to clean so that it subjects the penis to potential infections. Circumcision was therefore designed to be a pre-emptive strike, a preventive measure. Does that not sound irrational? Ears are difficult to clean. Ears get infections. Yet no one that I know of has suggested that they be cut off to prevent those possibilities. There is a better solution it seems, namely to wash them. Why isn’t that procedure applied to the foreskin? Then the suggestion has been made that circumcision protects one’s wife or partner from infection. Once again, a good shower before sex would seem to be equally effective and much less traumatic. Have we gotten to the place where we think surgery improves on creation? Did the foreskin, like the appendix, originally have some purpose that has now become lost? When that purpose is no more, is the foreskin rendered redundant so that life is actually thought to improve when the foreskin is removed? The foreskin was designed to roll back during sexual excitement and thus to provide a ridge of flesh that enhances sexual pleasure. Both the men who have been circumcised and their partners have had their pleasure diminished by this essentially barbaric practice perpetrated first in the name of religion and now widely practiced for its “health benefits.” It was also probably defended because of the extra fee charged by the doctor to perform this surgical procedure today, primarily on newborn baby boys. What is this all about? How did this strange practice enter the human experience? I would wager that circumcision began in a male attempt to capture the woman’s menstrual power. Circumcision enabled the man, just like the woman, to bleed from the genitals at puberty and not die. It became an initiation into manhood, part of the rites of passage. It was both feared and anticipated equally, the pain being offset by the expectation of adult sexual pleasures. Its original impetus, I submit, was male envy, this need to demonstrate that men could, by being circumcised, capture menstrual power. They too could bleed from their genitals at puberty and still survive. These thoughts were, at their inception, quite unacceptable and so they were pushed deep into the unconscious. However, what was not suppressed was the fear of women’s power that manifested itself in the constant male oppression of women, the pejorative male definitions imposed upon women and the long and brutal patriarchal abuse of women. When one quotes God to justify prejudices and to uphold definitions of inferiority and inadequacy in fifty percent of the human race, one should look beneath the level of rationality to find the reason why. The woman’s presumed inability to function fully during the days of her menstrual flow has been used, in our pre-sanitary pad history, to keep her in protected domestic rather than in vulnerable public roles and thus to enhance her servitude. Underneath the Christian Church’s historic negativity to the ordination of women has been the fear that this would admit polluting women into the sanctuaries of church life. Behind the medieval practice of limiting church choirs to men and boys was the need to guarantee that holy places would not be corrupted by the presence of menstruating women. Is it not time to force these insights into consciousness and to purge this ancient ignorance and this patriarchal fear from our lives? The place to start this process is to challenge those “terrible texts” of the Bible that have presumed to define both women and menstruation as unclean. It is also time to redefine the claim made for this book, that somehow, it contains the very “words of God,” and to remove that book from its position of power that has allowed irrational ignorance such as this to flow from its religious pipelines into the corporate life of our society. Anything that diminishes the life of a human being cannot be of God, if God is understood as the Source of life. Next week I will go back to the Bible and examine its oldest creation story (Gen.2: 4-25), which presented the woman as higher than the animals but still not fully human. For in that original tale of creation only the man was created in the image of God. ~ John Shelby Spong Originally Published December 31, 2003 Announcements Click here for more information/registration

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] songs
by jlepps39 via Dialogue 06 Jun '17

06 Jun '17

I got a birthday card with 3 men talking. The first says, "it's windy." The second responds, "no, it's Thursday." The third says, "So am I. Let's have a beer." Such is elder hearing. You know you're getting old when you and your teeth sleep in a different place. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message --------From: James Wiegel via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: 6/5/17 21:49 (GMT+01:00) To: "McCabe, Diann A" <dm14(a)txstate.edu>, Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Cc: OE(a)wedgeblade.net, Dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net Subject: Re: [Dialogue] songs While we are on this topic, I remember yesterday some comments about "the sound of heaven" . . . Judy says I am more and more concerned about the hereafter. I walk into a room and wonder what I am here after . . . Jim Wiegel “That which consumes me is not man, nor the earth, nor the heavens, but the flame which consumes man, earth, and sky." Nikos Kazantzakis 401 North Beverly Way,Tolleson, Arizona 85353623-363-3277jfwiegel(a)yahoo.comwww.partnersinparticipation.com From: "McCabe, Diann A" <dm14(a)txstate.edu> To: James Wiegel <jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com>; Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Cc: "OE(a)wedgeblade.net" <OE(a)wedgeblade.net>; "Dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net" <Dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [Dialogue] songs Jim, your experience would make a good poem in the tradition of WC Williams, apologizing for doing something you are not really sorry for doing.—Diann McCabe From: Dialogue <dialogue-bounces(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> on behalf of James Wiegel via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Reply-To: James Wiegel <jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com>, Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 12:11 PM To: James Wiegel <jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com>, Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Cc: "OE(a)wedgeblade.net" <OE(a)wedgeblade.net>, "Dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net" <Dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] songs The other night, we were watching television after supper, and I thought about the ice cream in the freezer and got up to get a bowl. I asked my wife if she wanted some, and she said "Yes, but don't forget the chocolate sauce. You know I like chocolate sauce on ice cream, and you always forget it." As I walked into the kitchen the phone rang, so I answered it -- one of those phone solicitations. When I hung up, I couldn't remember why I went to the kitchen, so I looked around and saw the pot of leftover soup on the stove that we had for supper. I made a bowl for me and one for my wife. I walked into the living room and handed my wife the soup. She looked and said, "See! You forgot the crackers! You know I like crackers with my soup and you always forget them!" Jim Wiegel 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353 Tel. 011-623-936-8671 or 011-623-363-3277 jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com This Is Just To Say BY WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox and which you were probably saving for breakfast Forgive me they were delicious so sweet and so cold On Jun 5, 2017, at 09:57, James Wiegel via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: Kitchen?? Jim Wiegel 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353 Tel. 011-623-936-8671 or 011-623-363-3277 jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com This Is Just To Say BY WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox and which you were probably saving for breakfast Forgive me they were delicious so sweet and so cold On Jun 5, 2017, at 06:49, Karenbueno via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: <image009.jpg> _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

3 3

Belated happy birthday!
by Lynda C via Dialogue 06 Jun '17

06 Jun '17

What a delightful gift you gave those little ones. Dear Auntie Mame! I know you had a good time with them and trust that the family member who was injured is doing ok now. It is special to be needed at times like that. I think we all need to be needed to help make our purpose in life stronger at the local level! I haven’t done very well on my calling. I was trying to get several other projects finished before I started another one that I wasn’t organized to get going on. Thought about a spread sheet, but that was beyond my skill. Now going for a notebook or at least one of those old RS-I recruitment sheets in a notebook. I’ll be on the call tomorrow, altho I don’t have much to report. Glad you are back home. Glad you had a good time. Fondly, Lynda From: ICA Dialogue List <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> Reply-To: "Long. Jean" <jean.long512(a)gmail.com<mailto:jean.long512@gmail.com>>, ICA Dialogue List <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 1:06 PM To: Lin Walker <sunwalker(a)comcast.net<mailto:sunwalker@comcast.net>>, ICA Dialogue List <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] songs jean long here - when my adopted grandkids celebrated my 77th birthday on May 20 I said to them - before we light the candles, I have a gift for you all. Their eyes got brighter and they stiffened up and looked around! I said it doesn't come in a box -- the gift is that I am the only "old" person you know who has fun getting older each year. Do you know anybody who is old who likes being old? No? When I was 12 I decided I never wanted to be old like my aunts (in flour sack dresses) and my uncles (sleeping on the porch or playing cards). Now there is nothing wrong with any of those things - unless that is the sum total of your activities! I think I have succeeded in being Auntie Mame gloryifically thank you very much!! What an adventure - I've never been 77 before! jean loving the global archives On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:40 AM, via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> wrote: Thanks for the belly laugh, John. I resemble all these remarks! Sunny Walker 303-587-3017<tel:(303)%20587-3017> Saving the planet is the most pressing moral issue of our time On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:18 AM -0600, "jlepps39 via Dialogue" <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> wrote: I got a birthday card with 3 men talking. The first says, "it's windy." The second responds, "no, it's Thursday." The third says, "So am I. Let's have a beer." Such is elder hearing. You know you're getting old when you and your teeth sleep in a different place. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: James Wiegel via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> Date: 6/5/17 21:49 (GMT+01:00) To: "McCabe, Diann A" <dm14(a)txstate.edu<mailto:dm14@txstate.edu>>, Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> Cc: OE(a)wedgeblade.net<mailto:OE@wedgeblade.net>, Dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net<mailto:Dialogue@wedgeblade.net> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] songs While we are on this topic, I remember yesterday some comments about "the sound of heaven" . . . Judy says I am more and more concerned about the hereafter. I walk into a room and wonder what I am here after . . . Jim Wiegel<http://partnersinparticipation.com/?page_id=123> “That which consumes me is not man, nor the earth, nor the heavens, but the flame which consumes man, earth, and sky." Nikos Kazantzakis 401 North Beverly Way,Tolleson, Arizona 85353 623-363-3277<tel:(623)%20363-3277> jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com<mailto:marilyn.oyler@gmail.com> www.partnersinparticipation.com<http://www.partnersinparticipation.com/> ________________________________ From: "McCabe, Diann A" <dm14(a)txstate.edu<mailto:dm14@txstate.edu>> To: James Wiegel <jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jfwiegel@yahoo.com>>; Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> Cc: "OE(a)wedgeblade.net<mailto:OE@wedgeblade.net>" <OE(a)wedgeblade.net<mailto:OE@wedgeblade.net>>; "Dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net<mailto:Dialogue@wedgeblade.net>" <Dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net<mailto:Dialogue@wedgeblade.net>> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [Dialogue] songs Jim, your experience would make a good poem in the tradition of WC Williams, apologizing for doing something you are not really sorry for doing.—Diann McCabe From: Dialogue <dialogue-bounces(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net>> on behalf of James Wiegel via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> Reply-To: James Wiegel <jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jfwiegel@yahoo.com>>, Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> Date: Monday, June 5, 2017 at 12:11 PM To: James Wiegel <jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com<mailto:jfwiegel@yahoo.com>>, Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> Cc: "OE(a)wedgeblade.net<mailto:OE@wedgeblade.net>" <OE(a)wedgeblade.net<mailto:OE@wedgeblade.net>>, "Dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net<mailto:Dialogue@wedgeblade.net>" <Dialogue(a)wedgeblade.net<mailto:Dialogue@wedgeblade.net>> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] songs The other night, we were watching television after supper, and I thought about the ice cream in the freezer and got up to get a bowl. I asked my wife if she wanted some, and she said "Yes, but don't forget the chocolate sauce. You know I like chocolate sauce on ice cream, and you always forget it." As I walked into the kitchen the phone rang, so I answered it -- one of those phone solicitations. When I hung up, I couldn't remember why I went to the kitchen, so I looked around and saw the pot of leftover soup on the stove that we had for supper. I made a bowl for me and one for my wife. I walked into the living room and handed my wife the soup. She looked and said, "See! You forgot the crackers! You know I like crackers with my soup and you always forget them!" Jim Wiegel 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353 Tel. 011-623-936-8671 or 011-623-363-3277 jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com<mailto:marilyn.oyler@gmail.com> www.partnersinparticipation.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.partner…> This Is Just To Say BY WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox and which you were probably saving for breakfast Forgive me they were delicious so sweet and so cold On Jun 5, 2017, at 09:57, James Wiegel via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> wrote: Kitchen?? Jim Wiegel 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353 Tel. 011-623-936-8671 or 011-623-363-3277 jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com<mailto:marilyn.oyler@gmail.com> www.partnersinparticipation.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.partner…> This Is Just To Say BY WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox and which you were probably saving for breakfast Forgive me they were delicious so sweet and so cold On Jun 5, 2017, at 06:49, Karenbueno via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>> wrote: <image009.jpg> _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.wedge…> _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.wedge…> _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

1 0