- Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

(2nd corrected link) "Journey Reflection" most read blog posts of November2012
by John Cock 30 Nov '12

30 Nov '12

(sorry for earlier e-mails with broken link-hope this one works) Hope you enjoy the most read November blog posts of "Journey Reflection" at this link, some of them with quotes and comments from colleagues: http://rejourney.blogspot.com/2012/11/journey-reflection-blog-review-novembe r.html We celebrate the great global Human Development Conference of ICA International held in Nepal recently. With care, Lynda (and John) Merry Christmas in advance!

2 1

"Journey Reflection" most read blog posts of November2012 (corrected link, we hope)
by Lynda Cock 30 Nov '12

30 Nov '12

Hope you enjoy the most read November blog posts of "Journey Reflection" at this link, some of them with quotes and comments from colleagues: http://rejourney.blogspot.com/2012/11/journey-reflection-blog-review-novembe r.html We celebrate the great global Human Development Conference of ICA International held in Nepal recently. With care, Lynda (and John) Merry Christmas in advance!

1 0

"Journey Reflection" most read blog posts of November 2012
by Lynda Cock 30 Nov '12

30 Nov '12

Hope you enjoy the most read November blog posts of "Journey Reflection" at this link, some of them with quotes and comments from colleagues: http://rejourney.blogspot.com/2012/11/journey-reflection-blog-review-novembe r.html We celebrate the great global Human Development Conference of ICA International held in Nepal recently. With care, Lynda (and John) Merry Christmas in advance!

1 0

11/29/12, Spong: The Birth of Jesus, Part III. The Testimony of Mark, the Earliest Gospel
by Ellie Stock 29 Nov '12

29 Nov '12

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR The Birth of Jesus, Part III. The Testimony of Mark, the Earliest Gospel The first gospel to be written, the one we call Mark, was composed in the early years of the 8th decade (70-72). It contains no story of and no reference to the birth of Jesus. To explain this omission, there are only two possibilities: Either the author of Mark had never heard about the birth tradition because it had not yet been created or he knew about it and deemed it unworthy of inclusion. For a number of reasons the first of these two alternatives is generally agreed to be the overwhelming probability. First of all, it is not just an argument from silence. There are a number of episodes in the corpus of Mark’s gospel that would have been either impossible or incomprehensible, if he had been aware of a miraculous birth tradition. I will look at three of them. In the first chapter of this gospel we find the familiar story of Jesus coming to John the Baptist to be baptized. The preamble to this episode is not a birth story or a childhood story, but a reference to the fact that Jesus was believed to be the fulfillment of the hopes and the writings of the prophets. Mark builds this case by quoting Malachi 3:1 and II Isaiah 40:3, although he only acknowledges his dependence on Isaiah in the text. Then he launches into a description of John the Baptist that is developed in such a way as to identify him with the prophet Elijah. Mark describes John the Baptist as wearing the clothing of Elijah, a man of the desert, and portrays him as eating Elijah’s diet of locusts and wild honey (Mark 1:6-7 and II Kings1:8). By turning John the Baptist into an Elijah-like figure, Mark was playing to the messianic images that suggested that Elijah must come first to prepare the way for the messiah. John the Baptist has thus been co-opted by Mark to play this role in the first gospel to appear in writing. This is not history. This is interpretive portrait painting, but the synagogue audience for which Mark was writing would immediately understand the symbols he was employing. Next, in the first act that Mark attributes to Jesus, he is baptized by John in the Jordan River. There is nothing about this gospel’s first mention of Jesus to suggest that he was different or supernatural because of some aspect of his birth. He was pictured simply as an adult, a fully human male. Mark employed the custom of that day, by introducing Jesus by name followed by his home town. If any further identification was needed, Mark would have said, “Jesus of Nazareth, the son of _____ ” and then named his father. That was not deemed necessary for Mark’s introduction. Indeed, the father of Jesus, whether human or divine, is never mentioned in this gospel. It is only in this account of his baptism that the first supernatural references are mentioned by this writer. First, he said, the heavens opened. The sky was thought of as a dome that separated the realm of God above from the realm of human life below. In the creation story, which would have been quite familiar to Mark’s Jewish audience (Genesis 1:6), the sky was called “the firmament” and was supposed to have served to separate “the waters above from the waters below.” The heavenly waters that fell from the sky as rain formed the earthly waters that became the oceans, rivers and streams. In time, that heavenly water came to be identified with the Holy Spirit. So in this narrative the heavens opened to the dwelling place of God and the Spirit descended from God to fall on Jesus like a dove. Then a voice from heaven rang out across the earth proclaiming Jesus to be God’s “beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Once again in the use of these words, texts from the Hebrew Scriptures were in the mind of the writer of this gospel. II Isaiah (Isa. 40-55) had God refer to the “suffering servant” of his narrative as “My chosen in whom my soul delights” (Is. 42:1) and the Psalter has God refer to the Lord’s anointed as, “You are my son, today have I begotten you” (Ps. 7:2). The Spirit does not come on Jesus just for a season, but has come to dwell on him permanently, so that he becomes a God-infused human life. The Holy Spirit was not the male agent in conception as the later birth narratives would assert. The Holy Spirit dropped from heaven on the fully human adult Jesus at this baptism to indwell him in an ongoing manner. This was Mark’s way of explaining the source of the divine presence that was found in Jesus. Had he known about the virgin birth tradition, Mark’s explanation of the coming of the Spirit to dwell permanently in him would not have been necessary. The later developing supernatural story of Jesus’ miraculous birth had clearly not yet been thought of or composed by anyone. The second Marcan episode that reveals that he had never heard of the story of the virgin birth comes in chapter 3. Jesus, we are told, has broken onto the public scene in a series of rapid-fire activities. He had chosen some disciples; astonished a congregation at Capernaum with his teaching in a synagogue; healed a man with an “unclean spirit,” who then with supernatural insight, recognized Jesus’ divine presence; healed Peter’s mother-in-law; cast out demons and healed the sick of an entire city; cleansed a leper; healed a paralytic; called Levi from his tax collecting trade into discipleship; distinguished himself from John the Baptist; violated the Sabbath by picking and eating grain in the fields; proclaimed himself “Lord of the Sabbath,” and, finally, in the synagogue on the Sabbath healed a man with a withered hand (see chapters 2 and 3). This Sabbath healing was not an emergency act, which would have made it legitimate, since the hand would still be withered on the day after the Sabbath, so it was a calculated Sabbath violation. All of these provocative acts brought immediate public notice. Then Jesus went home to Nazareth and his family began to hear of these things. They were not pleased, Mark says, “They went out to seize him, for all the people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:20-21). This is the first biblical mention of the family of Jesus, other than Paul’s reference to James as “the brother of the Lord” in Galatians. It is not, however, until the end of this chapter that the family of Jesus is defined. Thinking him mentally disturbed, which is what the words “beside himself” mean, Mark tells us that “Jesus’ mother and his brothers came to where he was.” Standing outside the crowd, they sent a message to him asking him to come out. When informed of their presence, Jesus not only declined to accede to their wishes, but he also redefined his kinship to them. Whoever does “the will of God, he said, “is my brother and sister and mother” (Mark 3:35). Note first that the mother of Jesus thinks him mentally disturbed. That is not the behavior of one to whom an angel might have appeared to tell her she would be the mother of the messiah. One does not receive that divine message prior to a child’s birth and then think he has gone out of his mind when he reaches his adult life. No, when Mark wrote this gospel he had not heard of the tradition that Jesus had a supernatural birth because it had not yet been created. The final Marcan episode that makes it clear that the birth narrative of Jesus was not part of the original Christian tradition, but a late-developing addition to the story, comes in the sixth chapter of Mark. Jesus had returned to his home in Nazareth from a series of adventures described in chapters 4 and 5, which included casting the legion of demons out of a demented man and allowing these demons to enter a herd of swine, causing a stampede that resulted in the drowning of that herd in the Sea of Galilee; raising Jairus’ daughter from the dead, and healing the woman with the chronic menstrual flow. The author of this gospel clearly meant to suggest that the people were talking of his power and wondering about its source. At this point, Mark says, Jesus entered his synagogue and created astonishment at his teaching. The people, who had been his neighbors, could not believe what they were hearing. So Mark had an anonymous member of that crowd ask this question: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon and are not his sisters here with us” (Mark 6:3-4)? Please note the following things about this passage. First, this is the first time in the Christian story that the role of the carpenter has been mentioned and it is Jesus who is the carpenter, not Joseph, who is cast in that role. That will change when we come to Matthew a decade later when the shift is made. Second, this is also the first and only time in Mark that we hear that “Mary” is the name of Jesus’ mother. Third, there is no mention of a father in this family. In addition to his mother four brothers are named and the plural word “sisters” is used, indicating that there was more than one. Finally, be aware that for an anonymous voice in the crowd to call a grown man named Jesus, “the son of Mary,” was pejorative in Jewish society. One did not call a mature man the “son of a woman” unless his paternity was suspect. This phrase meant that his father was unknown. It thus suggested that Jesus was “base born” or illegitimate. Rumors to this effect were clearly beginning to swirl around Jesus and echoes of these charges can be found in the other gospels. These rumors would in time create the necessity for developing the virgin birth tradition, but that time had not yet come It is thus clear that the first gospel writer, Mark, had never heard of the virgin birth. When Mark was written over forty years had passed since the crucifixion and some seventy years had passed since the birth of Jesus. Mythological traditions build slowly. The story of the virgin birth of Jesus is one of these mythological traditions. We will pursue this study in subsequent weeks as this series continues. ~John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. Question & Answer Ann Tansey Virginia Beach, Va. Question: You have been a blessing to me as I have struggled all my life with the teachings of mainstream Christianity. I once wondered if I was Jewish because I just could not feel connected to the traditional Jesus. I also couldn’t grasp at all the “stories” about miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, etc. I am now reading Jesus for the Non-Religious and have sent a copy to my 35-year old daughter who has been struggling as well. I do have some questions I would like to ask you. Praying with words is difficult for me. How do I pray and does it work? Why did Jesus have to die to get his message across? What do you think of Baptism and Eucharist? I wish I could spend a day with you to get more clarity on my unsettled-ness but I have resigned myself to the fact that I will have to listen to you through your books! I hope you do not mind if I contact you now and again with a question or two to help clarify some things. Thank you for speaking out and helping so many people who find the teachings of the established Church hard to believe and a roadblock to an understanding of the REAL Jesus. Answer: Dear Ann, Thank you for your letter and for your kind words. Several years ago I did a series of lectures at Eastern Shore Chapel in Virginia Beach. That experience makes me aware that you are not alone in your response. The questions you ask are all worthy, but they are far too complex to be reduced to a few lines in a question and answer column. The subject of prayer is one that almost always comes up first when people begin to raise their consciousness about whether or not the portrait of God as a heavenly parent figure or even a punishing judge begins to be challenged. It is not prayer that is usually the problem, but rather our infantile understanding of it. In regard to the death of Jesus, the way you ask the question indicates that you are still in the power of that old adage that somehow the only way God could forgive us was for Jesus to die. “Jesus died for my sins” has become an almost irrational mantra that we repeat as if it still makes sense. It doesn’t. In my book to which you have referred, Jesus for the Non-Religious, I offer a very different perspective and in sufficient detail that so brief a response through this “question fore mat” could never match. Baptism and Eucharist were originally a version of the Jewish Ceremonial Bath and the Passover simply transformed for Christian use. Baptism was the rite of institution that brought the person officially into the Christian community and the Eucharist was the common meal of the community which was thought to renew and sustain each member’s identity. Throughout Christian history, a variety of interpretations has been laid on both of these rites, some of which violated everything we know about Jesus. (The unbaptized child is doomed said the Church during parts of its history. “Come unto me all ye!” said the Jesus of the Gospel) The Eucharist has been interpreted in some eras of history as if it is a cannibalistic rite in which the flesh of Jesus is literally eaten and his blood literally drunk. I don’t believe it is possible to be fully human alone and being Christian is about being fully human. So I welcome these rites that bind me to my community of faith. ~John Shelby Spong Announcements ProgressiveChristianity.org is in the process of creating A Joyful Path, Year Two- Progressive Christian Spiritual Children's Curriculum. 38 lessons broken down into 8 sections all about the foundations of Progressive Christianity. Click here or on the image below for more information. "I endorse it whole-heartedly!" Bishop Spong Please consider donating now to keep this project going. A Joyful Path, Year Two will be available to pre-order in the Spring of 2013. For information on A Joyful Path, Year One, which is available now, click here. Any questions or concerns, please contact us at support(a)johnshelbyspong.com or 503-236-3545. Copyright © 2012 ProgressiveChristianity.org, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have a membership at our website. Our mailing address is: ProgressiveChristianity.org 3530 SE Hawthorne Blvd. Unit 1 Portland, OR 97214 Add us to your address book

1 0

Want to smile? The Harmonica Man. An inspiring, true short story
by Janice Ulangca 25 Nov '12

25 Nov '12

http://wimp.com/harmonicaman/ Of course he's just a youngster at 70. Think what he'll do by the time he's 77 - as old as I am! (Smile!) Janice Ulangca

2 1

hAPPY THANKSGIVING!
by Ellie Stock 22 Nov '12

22 Nov '12

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL ~ VERY GRATEFUL FOR ALL OF YOU AND FOR OUR NETWORKING, WORK, AND COLLEGIALITY OVER THE YEARS ~ PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE! GRACE AND PEACE ~ CARLETON AND ELLIE

1 0

11/22/12, Spong: The Boil Has Been Lanced. A New Consciousness Has Arrived
by Ellie Stock 22 Nov '12

22 Nov '12

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR The Boil Has Been Lanced. A New Consciousness Has Arrived The votes have been cast, counted and the results have been made known. Radio and television stations are no longer relentlessly broadcasting anti-Obama and anti-Romney ads. The emotions of both victory and defeat have been experienced and expressed. The “blame game” is well underway. The 2012 election is over. President Obama has four more years in the White House. The Senate has a larger Democratic majority. The House of Representatives has a smaller Republican majority. Beyond these measurable results, however, another reality needs to be embraced. A new consciousness has emerged in this nation’s life and with it different and clear definitions of race, women, homosexuals and tribal thinking have entered the body politic. The birth pangs of this new consciousness are being felt in both the exhilaration of the victors and in the anger and despair of the losers. Racism has been a powerful, unspoken reality in every aspect of American life from the moment of this nation’s birth, contradicting everything we said we believed as a nation. When our Declaration of Independence was written it stated that each “man” was endowed by his creator with “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet, its author, Thomas Jefferson, was a slave holder and, indeed, the father of a number of children by a slave woman, Sally Hemings, none of whom would be counted as his heirs. When the Constitution of the United States was written, it counted each slave as 3/5 of a human being for the purposes of determining the size of congressional districts. In those documents marking this nation’s birth, women were completely disenfranchised and would not be given the vote until a constitutional amendment conveyed that right in 1920. Obviously, no woman could hold elective office, since women were excluded from institutions of higher learning that might have equipped them for careers outside the domestic sphere. At the beginning of our nation’s history, homosexuality was viewed as an abnormality, which brought great shame on the parents. The liberal understanding of homosexuality was that it was a mental sickness that the victim could not help, which should elicit at least a sense of pity. The conservative understanding was, that it was an act of moral depravity that evil people chose freely and thus it should be opposed and or repressed like all other unacceptable kinds of behavior. Ethnic or tribal feelings also ran deeply in that era. The white American majority identified themselves primarily with their European tribal roots, which included among others, the Angles, the Saxons, the Welsh, the Scots, the Franks and the Prussians. Historically, these tribes roamed across Europe’s unstable and ever-shifting map, seeking to lay claim to space to call a homeland. Germany, under Prussian pressure, did not become a nation state until the 19th century and Italy had to fight the Pope, Pius IX, to form a unified country, also in the 19th century. All of these attitudes were based on the operating definitions of that day and were in turn undergirded by the cultural forms of religion, which were assumed to be authenticated by scriptural quotations from the Bible, called the “word of God.” One by one the definitions behind each of these attitudes was challenged and the previously established values began to change, as a new consciousness based on new definitions was evolving. At first this new consciousness was only the voice of an agitated and alienated minority that was viewed in establishment circles as a threat to both law and order and needed to be destroyed or suppressed. As this new consciousness grew, however, the majority point of view began to feel power slipping away and this fear expressed itself in rising decibels of anger that frequently turned violent and even resulted in random acts of murder. The issue of race has dominated this country from its founding in 1776 to the civil war that brought an end to slavery by 1865. In 1876, in a political compromise that awarded the electoral votes of four disputed Southern States, including Florida, Rutherford B. Hayes was elected president. The compromise called for the removal of Northern troops of occupation from the South and the quid pro quo was a willingness to allow slavery to be replaced by segregation as the law of the land. This new law allowed the total disenfranchisement of black citizens and its implementation was enforced by intimidation, lynching and the activities of the KKK. Segregation held sway from 1876 to the birth of the civil rights movement after World War II, which finally resulted in the 1954 Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision desegregating schools. In 1964 and in 1965, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The first black Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall, was also appointed by Lyndon Johnson in 1967, creating the idea of a “black seat” on the court that Republican President George H.W. Bush honored in 1991. As segregation receded, however, police dogs, fire hoses and church bombings were used to prop up the dying power of the old order. No new consciousness is born without rampant anger from those being displaced. In 2004, I attended, as a member of the press, the Democratic National Convention, in Boston, which nominated John Kerry to be President of the United States. I listened to the keynote address given by a sitting Illinois State Senator and the Democratic nominee in Illinois for the United States Senate in the coming elections. His name was Barack Obama. I filed a story from that convention stating that I believed I had finally seen a black politician, who could be elected President of the United States. Just 4 years later that indeed happened. A new racial attitude was clearly breaking through. Changes in the roles of women and gay people were happening simultaneously. The first successful women politicians tended to be wives of successful male politicians. One thinks of Lurleen Wallace in Alabama, for example. Women had not been allowed to receive university educations in America until the early years of the 20th century and the state universities and private colleges were not open to them until well after World War II. Since then their rise in power and influence has been rapid. Today in some states both senate seats are held by women. Women first appeared on a major party’s national ticket in 1984. When Franklin Roosevelt appointed the first woman to his cabinet in 1932 it was a radical and hugely controversial step. Today it is a universal expectation. When Ronald Reagan appointed the first woman, Sandra Day O’Connor, to the Supreme Court, he established the principle that there is a “woman’s seat” on that court. That idea that there must be “one woman justice” soon departed and today there are three female sitting justices. Quite typically, the churches of this land have been very late in adjusting to female equality and some have not done so yet. Beginning with the Stonewall riots in 1969, the gay population entered in a major way the struggle for recognition and a new definition. In time Barney Frank, the openly gay congressman from Massachusetts, entered the ranks of national leaders as chairman of the House Banking Committee and gave his name to the Dodd-Frank Bill designed to curb the speculative practices of banks. Once again religious institutions were the most dismissive of these trends and many religious bodies split as some in their ranks could not adjust to new realities. While all of these things were happening on the level of what had once been the plight of those we called minorities, the economy of the world began to draw nations beyond their tribal identities into an economic interdependency never before imagined. The European Common Market withered the independence of Europe’s nation states. The same economic trends are happening in North and South American and in Southeast Asia, although they are not yet as far advanced as in Europe. National sovereignty is giving way to larger economic entities. So the fact is that this change in consciousness, which began as a crawl, is now galloping in all directions and as the world changes the fear of those whose power is declining is increasing. In the American primaries of 2008 a host of candidates, who would never have been considered for the presidency earlier, were serious contenders. There was a viable Hispanic candidate in Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico; a viable female candidate in Senator Hillary Clinton of New York; a viable Mormon candidate in Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts; a viable twice divorced and three times married candidate in Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City, and a viable African-American candidate in Barack Obama. When Barack Obama was elected it was a major breakthrough in consciousness, but the loss of both power and influence of the defeated ones found expression in thinly veiled racist language: “He is not one of us.” “He is illegitimate because his birth certificate was forged.” “He is a Muslim.” “We must take back America.” “He was really born in Kenya.” “He channels his Kenyan father’s anti-colonial mentality and hatred of white people.” These opposing voices vowed to limit him to being “a one-term president.” All of that lay behind the election of 2012. The rise in consciousness, however, has proved not to be a temporary phenomenon. President Obama, despite a weak economy, high unemployment, his public support for same sex marriage and the visceral anger of his opponents, was reelected. A post-election analysis revealed that his winning coalition was made up of women, minority and young voters. The world has changed. This nation has changed. An African-American is president for four more years. The number of women in the Senate has doubled. Two new members of the House of Representatives are under 32 years of age and more black citizens have entered the political process and occupy seats of power. Three states voted their approval of gay marriage and a lesbian was elected to the Senate from Wisconsin. The power of white males, supported by the overwhelmingly male religious institutions, that have controlled this nation’s political and religious life for so long is in obvious decline. The idea that a white, male establishment can direct women on issues of abortion and contraception has been broken. By 2016, the candidacies of women, Hispanics, African-Americans and openly gay people will be normal. Both parties will seek their votes. Republicans are already looking at their rising Hispanic stars, Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, for the presidency. The Democrats yearn even now to anoint Hillary Clinton to be their new standard bearer. The grid-lock between the old establishment and the new consciousness that held the government hostage for the past two years will be broken and will no longer be tolerated by the people. The election of 2012 reveals that the United States is in a new place. The anger exposed in such movements as the Tea Party will now dissipate. This was anger’s last stand. The citizens of this nation will adjust to this new reality. That is what always happens. Perhaps the feeling is not universal today, but in another generation this nation will be very proud of what we did in the presidential election of 2012. ~John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. Question & Answer Bryan Turk from Arlington, Texas, writes: Question: First off, I want to thank you. I have read The Sins of Scripture and Jesus for the Non-Religious and truly enjoyed both works. Your progressive view of God and theology has certainly been inspiring to me. I admire your strength of character and integrity for standing at odds with your religious upbringing. You are a hero of sorts to me and I can't thank you enough. I know all too well what it is like to grow up and currently live in the buckle of the Bible belt. While my sociological and political views today are much more progressive, I grew up in Louisiana in a fundamentalist Bible church. My father was on the board of elders. After several years of doubting what he believed and following his divorce from my mom, he embraced atheism. For years I struggled with his conversion and felt so lost in my own spirituality. The old worn-out tenets of Deep South Christianity gnawed away at me. I felt like I would lose him to eternal hell. After a few years, my own search for what I believe led me to viewing YouTube clips of you and subsequently some of your books and essays. At this point in my life, I’m still charting my course on my view of a God and things of spiritual nature. I lean towards atheism, but could be considered agnostic or deist or even pantheist at best. I really don’t know how to characterize what school of thought I espouse. However, theism for me is dead or rather non-existent. It still feels really great to know that I don’t have to believe the Bible in a strict, literal sense anymore. I still struggle with guilt from time to time. Especially the fear of death at times because of my apostasy. I would like clarification of the gospel writers. I know that Mark was the first gospel written around 70-72 CE shortly after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. I recently had a fundamentalist Christian tell me that her reason for believing the literal account of the life of Jesus was because the gospel writers were “disciples” of Jesus. It would seem to me that obviously these were not first hand accounts of Jesus because the first gospel was written some 40 years after his death. And Paul gives us sparse details on the actual life of Jesus. Paul would seem to be a better fit for someone that actually “saw” Jesus. Do you believe that any of the gospel writers walked or talked with Jesus? Through reading Jesus for the Non-Religious, I realize that Matthew borrowed heavily from Mark and so on. Much of what was written in the gospels were filtered through the lens of Jewish heritage and the Old Testament. I just want to increase my consciousness on these points so that I can discuss cogently and truthfully with people I come across who are fundamentalist Christians. Answer: Dear Bryan, First, thank you for your generous comments. Second, thanks for sharing with me some elements of your own faith struggle. It is not easy sometimes to move beyond yesterday’s certainties even when you have been disillusioned by them. My advice is simply to engage those feelings and not to be afraid to talk about them. For many people their religion is part of their security system and they hide within its defensive walls from any study or threat. When those walls don’t hold, that person feels exposed, let down and angry. It is not surprising that you now wish to hurl the whole system overboard. Christianity is, I believe, far more than what you have experienced. Another path for you might be to decide to study Christianity, including the Bible, more deeply than you ever have done before. To do this, however, you must be part of a church that welcomes such a dialogue. I hope you can find that. To answer your specific questions, your fundamentalist friend is simply wrong. It is clear that none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about in their gospels. First, the gospels were written between 40 and 70 years after the crucifixion. That same time frame embraces between two and three generations. If the disciples were Jesus’ contemporaries, they would have been when the gospels were written between 70-100 years old, far beyond the normal life expectancy in the first century. Second, the gospels were written in Greek, a language that none of the disciples or indeed not even Jesus himself appears to have either spoken or written. Third, the gospels reflect the background of the liturgical year of the synagogue. Prior to their having been written, the memory of Jesus had already been incorporated into the worship life of the synagogue and interpreted through the Hebrew Scriptures that were present in those synagogues. Paul does not seem to have ever interacted with the Jesus of history. He does claim to have “seen the Lord,” but that is apparently a reference to the conversion vision. I wish you well in your conversations with your fundamentalist friends. I have never found that to be a productive avenue to pursue because religious discussions are not really about religion. They are about people’s personal security and anything that confirms their security becomes what they believe. People move out of fundamentalism when they are ready to move, not when someone like you tries to push them. This was at least my experience when I was a fundamentalist. Most of the things I talk about in Jesus for the Non-Religious have been available in the world of biblical scholarship for almost 200 years. Fundamentalists have simply ignored these discoveries and insights if they could and they have denied them if they could not ignore them. I suggest that you simply love your fundamentalist friends, but don’t try to argue with them. Live well! ~John Shelby Spong Announcements Any questions or concerns, please contact us at support(a)johnshelbyspong.com or 503-236-3545. Copyright © 2012 ProgressiveChristianity.org, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have a membership at our website. Our mailing address is: ProgressiveChristianity.org 3530 SE Hawthorne Blvd. Unit 1 Portland, OR 97214 Add us to your address book

1 0

THANKS GIVING
by David Zahrt 21 Nov '12

21 Nov '12

*UNCONVENTIONAL NON-SECTARIAN TABLE GRACE* When we had guests at the B&B, back in Iowa, I used to introduce an unconventional non-sectarian table grace without asking. After giving it there were several times that Fundamentalists said, “Alright, now let’s say a prayer!” I finally realized that I needed to ask permission to give an unconventional non-sectarian table grace. I have now adopted the practice of doing so. It goes as follows. David Steindl-Rast wrote a book entitled GRATEFULNESS; THE HEART OF PRAYER. In the book he says that he watches people go through life looking for a way to be happy so they can be grateful for their lives. But, he says, “It isn’t happiness that makes you grateful. Its gratefulness that makes you happy.” When I read that I looked into my own life to find out where gratefulness comes out spontaneously. (Holding my hand over my heart with an outward gesture to include the meal table, I continue) I realized that the mealtime is one of those places: because I’m on the receiving end of things, (gesture to include the food) and I’m with family or friends. So I invite you to share the things for which you’re grateful. We’re grateful to have you as guests. What kinds of things have you found yourself grateful for in the past 12 to 24 hours? (Sharing takes place) Alright. Let’s eat and be grateful. Amen. *I've finally made a transition to BLESSINGS & CELEBRATIONS This comes from YES Magazine* *Special Table Grace* *[very appropriate at every meal—especially appropriate at Thanksgiving*]. Once all are present, call on each member to o Say what we are grateful for o Who or what we want to send special energy to o Where we wish for peace Gratitude; Blessings; Peace. Amen. David

5 4

Documentary: Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream
by Ellie Stock 21 Nov '12

21 Nov '12

Hi folks-- Below is a link to a new PBS documentary: Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream. First is an article. If you go to the bottom, there is a link to HULU where you can watch the whole documentary. It is about 1hr 10min., plus a few commercials but well worth the time to see it and begin to understand the relationship between big corporate money, the US political system, the environment, and poverty. A continued call for us to work on creating more resilient, self-reliant, sustainable re-localized communities and bio-regions. Ellie Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream, PBS, check ... www.patheos.com/blogs/sisterrosemovies/2012/11/park-avenue-money-power-and-... Nov 12, 2012 ... The notice announcing Academy Award winning filmmaker Alex Gibney's new documentary “Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American ... Hi folks-- Below is a link to a new PBS documentary: Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream. First is an article. If you go to the bottom, there is a link to HULU where you can watch the whole documentary. It is about 1hr 10min., plus a few commercials but well worth the time to see it and begin to understand the relationship between big corporate money, the US political system, the environment, and poverty. A continued call for us to work on creating more resilient, self-reliant, sustainable re-localized communities and bio-regions. Ellie Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream, PBS, check ... www.patheos.com/blogs/sisterrosemovies/2012/11/park-avenue-money-power-and-... Nov 12, 2012 ... The notice announcing Academy Award winning filmmaker Alex Gibney's new documentary “Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American ...

1 0

What a Wonderful World
by Janice Ulangca 21 Nov '12

21 Nov '12

Episode 71: What a Wonderful WorldHappy Thanksgiving, friends and colleagues. Great singing and dancing in under 4 minutes. I love this whole global idea! Could be a conversation starter: What's "wonderful" in the world that you are thankful for? Love, Janice Ulangca ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:29 PM -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Episode 71: What a Wonderful World Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:02:33 +0000 From: Playing For Change <noreply(a)playingforchange.com> Reply-To: Playing For Change <noreply(a)playingforchange.com> To: <wmjmdono(a)epix.net> You're receiving this newsletter because you've signed up to receive updates from Playing For Change. You can unsbuscribe from our mailing list at the bottom of this email. Episode 71: What a Wonderful World Hello Everyone! Playing For Change is proud to present a new video of the song "What A Wonderful World" featuring Grandpa Elliott with children's choirs across the globe. In these hard times children and music bring us hope for a better future. Today we celebrate life and change the world one heart and one song at a time!! This video was produced in partnership with Okaïdi childrens clothing stores. Okaidi designed a special line of PFC T-Shirts to be sold in over 700 Okaïdi stores worldwide this holiday season. Okaïdi has committed 1 euro per T-Shirt sold to go to supporting the PFC Musicians and PFC Foundation's music education programs. We thank them for their generous support of the Playing For Change Movement! One Love, Mark Follow us on Facebook: facebook.com/PlayingForChange Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/Playing4Change Support the PFC Foundation: playingforchange.org Photos from the road: flickr.com/playingforchange view email in browser | Unsubscribe wmjmdono(a)epix.net | Update your profile | Forward to a friend You are receiving this email because you signed up for it at playingforchange.com website Playing For Change 3103-B La Cienega Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90016 Add us to your address book Copyright (C) 2010 Playing For Change | All rights reserved.

2 1