- Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

4/01/2021, Perogressing Spirit: Rev Jim Burklo: Otherdoxy: A Questionable Faith; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 01 Apr '21

01 Apr '21

| | | | View this email in your browser | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Otherdoxy: A Questionable Faith | | | | | | | | | | Essay by Rev. Jim Burklo April 1, 2021 Trust the science." It's a phrase on many lips these days, as the United States recovers from a presidency notorious for basing public policy and pandemic strategy on lies and hearsay. It is a huge relief to have national leadership that takes science seriously again. The health of Americans, of humanity as a whole, and of the planet depends on it. The problem with the phrase is that science is not about trusting science. On the contrary. Science is the disciplined distrust of science. Theories arise to explain phenomena, based on evidence. Scientists question the theories and the evidence, perhaps posing alternative theories. Over time, in this process of organized skepticism, a scientific consensus often emerges - a theory that works, at least for the time being - providing a scaffold for further scientific inquiry and progress. That progress may result in new evidence and insights that could undermine the consensus and lead to a new theory that accounts for a broader base of evidence, around which a new consensus can form. In contrast to this process, disorganized skepticism of science is a mounting threat. Anti-vaxxers cling to disconnected shreds of evidence and discredited theories that confirm their convictions. The same applies to climate-change deniers. And to 6-day-creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. These are literally unhealthy forms of skepticism. The healthy version is called science. There are many questions that mainstream science can't answer, at least at the moment. Ethical and moral questions, such as: who should get the Covid vaccine first? And how can such a prioritization be made understandable and acceptable to the public? Science provides data upon which such judgments can be made, but ultimately we can't trust science itself to sort them out. The scientific consensus is overwhelming that humans are causing catastrophic climate change with CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. But scientists can't tell us exactly what to do about this reality. Ethical and political calculations must be made that will rely on information from scientists, but are beyond their purview to decide. In this fuzzier realm of ethics and values and public decision-making, skepticism has its place as well. In politics, questioning authority should not just be allowed, but required. Democracy at its best is disciplined, organized skepticism. Does this policy really distribute resources effectively and ethically? Or is another one better? Transparency is essential in government, in order to facilitate this kind of questioning. And disciplined skepticism is necessary in religion, too. Not only to keep churches and their leaders honest, but to refine and deepen faith itself, re-interpreting or releasing doctrines if they no longer rise to the standard of Jesus' simple law of love. Progressive Christianity is a form of the faith that never stops asking questions about the Christian tradition: healthy skepticism is integral to our faith. To claim to be orthodox is to assert that you hold the correct doctrine of the faith. The Greek root words are “ortho,” which can be translated as “straight,” and “doxa,” which can be translated as “opinion.” By the time of the early Christian church, the word “doxa” had developed the connotation of “glory.” An opinion of high regard. But to follow Jesus is to hold him in much higher regard than orthodoxy can express. And in any case, the faith has had many different orthodoxies. Jesus said that his Father’s house had many mansions, many rooms. Lots of room for creative spiritual expression and practice. The Christian house is not defined by an outer edifice of fixed, hard doctrine. Rather, it is defined by its inner dining room, where the bread and wine of spiritual communion with the Christ is offered to all. The Love that is God, as revealed by the words and deeds of Jesus - a man who lived for others - leads to what we might call otherdoxy. Otherdoxy was the way of this unorthodox rabbi. The Pharisees tried to stone Jesus to death for heresy. They colluded and conspired with the Romans to kill him for expressing Judaism in a manner contrary to the dominant paradigm, by declaring love to be the supreme law. So it is orthodoxymoronic for any Christian to claim to practice the once-and-for-all correct version of the faith. Christian otherdoxy makes room for my voice and yours. In loving fellowship, we follow the historic traditions of the Christian faith, questioning, interpreting, and practicing them in light of social and scientific progress: We worship God, who is Love. We follow Jesus’ way of radical compassion. We find grace in intellectual engagement with our faith. We believe there is more value in questioning than in absolute answers. The Bible gives us a beautiful language to express our spiritual experience: we find inspiration in its myths and its poetry. We affirm that other religions can be as good for others as ours is good for us: we are eager to learn from other faiths. We are called to preserve our earth as a heavenly place of peace, justice, kindness, inclusion, and beauty. Ours is the humble faith of a humble man. If common sense, science, and compassion conflict with our beliefs, our faith calls us to change the ways we interpret and practice our religion. If another tradition has something to teach us that could be useful for our walk with Jesus, we are led to be humble enough to take it seriously. Divine love is the Ultimate Reality. Our religion is not. God is "agape" - unconditional love. And unconditional love is open, opinion-free attention. And open, opinion-free attention leads to questions. Kind but unabashed and unfettered questions. When we love others with such questions, we move deeper and deeper into the truth of each other's hearts. This kind of love leads to transparency: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we shall see face to face..." (Paul, 1 Cor 13:12) All is revealed: our crowning glories, our failings, our frustrations, our hopes, our emotions -- our highest yearnings, our greatest regrets. Like science, love is an endless process that leaves no stone unturned, no assumption unquestioned. Love is a disciplined, compassionate, gentle form of skepticism that always wants to see and know more. Love may reveal painful things, but it also assuages that pain. Love leads us to spiritual, personal, and social progress. May healthy questioning flourish in the realms of science and spirituality alike - in the service of otherdoxy. ~ Rev. Jim Burklo Read online here About the Author Rev. Jim Burklo is the Senior Associate Dean of Religious and Spiritual Life at the University of Southern California. An ordained pastor in the United Church of Christ, he is the author of six published books on progressive Christianity, with a new one coming out soon: TENDERLY CALLING: An Invitation to the Way of Jesus (St Johann Press, 2021). His weekly blog, “Musings”, has a global readership. He serves on the board of ProgressiveChristiansUniting.org and is an honorary advisor and frequent content contributor for ProgressiveChristianity.org. | | | | | | | | Question & Answer Q: By Supong If there are many ways to the truth (salvation), can we preach that Krishna (or any other God) as one of the ways to attain salvation? Or, can we proclaim “In the name of Krishna your sins can be forgiven”? A: By Rev. Lauren Van Ham Dear Supong, The answer is YES, at least according to my theology which values an interfaith perspective. I particularly love that you have asked about Krishna since he and Jesus are often seen as similar, complements, or possibly even the same, archetypally. God -- who across cultures, languages, eras, and religions, is called by many names -- always inhabits or points to Truth, even in the ways that surpass our human understanding. When we think about salvation broadly, its Greek root, soter, means “healing.” Religious traditions and spiritual paths, when offered in a healthy and whole way, create practices for enlightenment (truth) and healing. As practitioners of any of these Traditions, we study and learn and do our best to apply our beliefs in everyday moments – the good ones, the difficult ones and the ones where we really mess up and try to address what we wish we would’ve-could’ve-should’ve done. Isn’t it a relief then, that in these moments we have somewhere to turn so that we are not alone, but rather in community with other believers and, ultimately, a Source of Life, who wraps us in compassion and wisdom so that we might discover deeper understanding, reconciliation or peace? In these ways the religious tradition or deity’s name is far less important than the practice itself. May all beings everywhere feel fully welcomed into practices of healing, reconciliation, forgiveness and love! ~ Rev. Lauren Van Ham Read and share online here About the Author Rev. Lauren Van Ham, MA was born and raised beneath the big sky of the Midwest, Lauren holds degrees from Carnegie Mellon University, Naropa University and The Chaplaincy Institute. Following her ordination in 1999, Lauren served as an interfaith chaplain in both healthcare (adolescent psychiatry and palliative care), and corporate settings (organizational development and employee wellness). Lauren’s passion for spirituality, art and Earth's teachings have supported her specialization in eco-ministry, grief & loss, and sacred activism. Her essay, "Way of the Eco-Chaplain," appears in the collection, Ways of the Spirit: Voices of Women; and her work with Green Sangha is featured in Renewal, a documentary celebrating the efforts of religious environmental activists from diverse faith traditions across America. Her ideas can be heard on Vennly, an app that shares perspectives from spiritual and community leaders across different backgrounds and traditions. Currently, Lauren tends her private spiritual direction and eco-chaplaincy consulting practice; and serves as Climate Action Coordinator for the United Religions Initiative (URI), and as guest faculty for several schools in the San Francisco Bay Area. | | | | | | | | Please continue to send us your feedback… we are listening. We aim to give voice to many different perspectives that are relevant and inspiring along this spiritually progressing path. We are not here to tell you what to believe or how to act. We are here to support your journey, to share and learn together.Thank you for being a part of this community - join us on Facebook! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In New Orleans, there’s a unique tradition of parading for funerals. Anyone who comes along is welcome to follow behind the band in a “second line” of singing and dancing to celebrate the deceased person’s life. On Palm Sunday, at least when there’re no COVID restrictions, my congregation has begun observing a New Orleans-style second line parade that we call “Palms and Parasols.” We invite a local jazz band to lead our processional around our neighborhood, as we wave our palms and our parasols joyfully in the air. It’s a way of remembering that while the day is jubilant, the parade that we are joining is also a funeral march. In their book, The Last Week, Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan remind us that the decision of which way, which path, we are going to follow is at no point clearer on our Lenten journey than on Palm Sunday. Palm Sunday is the day when Jesus staged a planned protest against the principalities and the powers and asked his followers to choose between the path of the world that perpetuates the status quo or the way of Christ that embodies the Reign of God. Tomorrow, as we observe Palm Sunday, we should imagine Jesus asking us to join his parade, even though it leads to the cross. Marching in the Jesus parade challenges us to confront the crosses of poverty, racism, inequality, violence, environmental injustice, oppression of the LGBTQ+ community, a world that values money over all, and a country that has refused to fully welcome the stranger. Now the question becomes for us: which parade will we choose? A financial gift to ProgressiveChristianity.org is a way of choosing to join the Jesus parade. This Holy Week, please join us in marching in the parade that calls for reason, compassion, social justice, and prophetic witness. Thank you for your generosity. The Rev. Dr. Caleb J. Lines, Co-Executive Director ProgressiveChristianity.org Progressing Spirit Help keep ProgressiveChristianity.org/Progressing Spirit online and going strong - click here to donate today! * Another way to support us is to leave a bequest in your Will and/or Trust designating us a beneficiary. | | | | | | | | Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited The Origins of the New Testament, Part XXXV: The Epilogue of John Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong August 26, 2010 The last chapter of John’s gospel, known as the Epilogue, is not believed by most scholars to be part of the original text of this gospel. A careful reading of chapter 20 makes it clear that this was how the original evangelist chose to end his story. Listen to his closing words: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples that are not written in this book but these are written that you may believe, that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing you may have life in his name.” After that one expects no more. Yet chapter 21 has been added. It seems not to follow from or to fit in with anything said in chapter 20. The scene has shifted from Jerusalem to Galilee. A significant amount of time has elapsed. The disciples seem not motivated at all by the appearances of Jesus recorded in chapter 20. They have clearly passed the stage of mourning and have returned to their Galilean homes and picked up the pieces of their pre-Jesus lives. They have even gone back to the source of their livelihood as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee. One other aspect to chapter 21 of John is that it replicates fairly closely the details of a Lucan narrative (see Luke 5:1-16), which Luke asserts was a miracle story not of the risen Christ, but of the Galilean Jesus near the beginning of his public ministry. Despite these problems, I have always been attracted to this Epilogue and it has played a major role in my understanding of the Easter event. I close my columns on John’s gospel by describing how that connection came into being. Earlier in my career, I made an extensive study of all of the resurrection narratives in the New Testament. This study resulted in the publication of a book entitled Resurrection: Myth or Reality?. In that book, I tried to sort out the elements that seemed to culminate in the enormous power that was connected with the Easter moment. I asked four questions: Who was it who stood in the center of the resurrection experience? Where were the disciples when the experience of resurrection dawned? When was the moment in time in which the meaning of resurrection broke through in the lives of the disciples? What was the context, the setting, in which the Easter experience emerged? I then began to explore the clues present in the New Testament that might lead to new conclusions about this central experience in our faith story. As I worked through not only all of the specific resurrection texts, but also anything else that might throw light on the Easter experience, recognizing that every word in Paul and in each gospel was actually written as post-Easter narratives, I came to these conclusions. Peter is the crucial, central figure in the Easter story. Peter is singled out as the one who first saw. Paul says, “He appeared first to Cephas.” Mark, the first gospel to be written, has the messenger say, “Go tell the disciples and Peter.” Luke has the disciples claim, “The Lord has risen and has appeared to Peter.” John portrays Peter as the first one who entered the tomb and saw its emptiness, including the burial clothes neatly placed where his hands and feet would once presumably have been. In Matthew and in other parts of the gospel text, Peter is the one who makes the first confession at Caesarea Philippi. He is always listed first when the disciples are named. In John’s gospel, Jesus is quoted as saying to Peter, “When you are converted strengthen your brethren,” as if Peter would be the first one who would enable the others to see. The primacy of Peter in the entire gospel tradition seems to me to rest on the fact that Peter was the first one whose eyes were opened to see both the meaning of Jesus and his resurrection. Then I searched every Peter story in the gospels looking for resurrection clues. I believe that they are there, from the story of Peter after the feeding of the multitude in John, saying “Lord, to whom shall we go, you have the word of eternal life,” to Peter demanding to be washed all over when Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. All Peter stories I concluded ought to be read as resurrection stories for they show Peter’s coming to faith very clearly. So I filed my first conclusion. Peter stood at the center of the resurrection tradition. Secondly, I pursued the “where” question. The New Testament is divided between the competing claims for primacy in the resurrection tradition between Galilee and Jerusalem. Mark has the Easter messenger direct the disciples to return to Galilee with the promise that, “there you will see him.” Matthew says that it was only in Galilee that the raised Christ ever appeared to the disciples. Luke, however, counters this Galilean tradition by asserting that the appearance of the risen Christ occurred only in Jerusalem and its environs, thus overtly refuting the Galilean tradition. John supports Luke by insisting on the primacy of Jerusalem, but then to the end of John’s gospel was attached the Epilogue that centers the resurrection squarely in Galilee. A deeper analysis of these competing texts, however, reveals that the Galilee tradition was not only earlier, but it was the more primitive and the more original. It is noteworthy that all the Jesus sightings, the visions, the aspects of his bodily physicality, the feeling of his flesh and the touching of his wounds are associated with the later and clearly secondary Jerusalem tradition. So Galilee emerged from this study as the answer to the question about where the disciples were when the resurrection experience dawned. Building on that conclusion, I then looked at other stories that might also contain Easter references, from the disciples mistaking him for a ghost coming to them out of the darkness, to Jesus walking on the water, to the account of the transfiguration, which portrays him as translucent. I noted that all of these were set in Galilee. I came next to the “when” question and confronted the familiar time symbol “three days.” A study of the New Testament reveals that this symbol is wobbly at best. Paul and Mark say “On the third day.” Matthew and Luke change that time designation to “after three days,” a variation that sounds similar, but clearly is not, for “on” and “after” do not result in the same day. According to a literal reading of the gospels, the time from burial on Good Friday to the empty tomb at dawn on Sunday morning is only 36 hours, or a day and a half. Mark, however, has the messenger say only that they will see him in Galilee, but Galilee is a seven- to ten-day journey from Jerusalem, so this “seeing” could not possibly occur inside the literal “three day” symbol, whether it is “on” or “after.” Luke stretches the appearance stories to forty days, culminating with the first account of the ascension. John has resurrection appearance stories occur in Jerusalem over a period of eight days, but then in the Johannine Epilogue the resurrection appearances seem to cover a period of months. These were the data that drove me to conclude that the phrase “three days” is not only a symbol, but one that was never intended to be a literal measure of time. That insight opened me to the possibility that the time between the crucifixion and the Easter experience needs to be expanded at least to months. My third conclusion thus became that I needed to destabilize and de-literalize the symbolic time marker of three days and to extend the time between crucifixion and resurrection significantly. Finally, when I searched for the context in which resurrection dawned, I found the key phrase in Luke, “He was known to us in the breaking of bread.” That valuable clue led me to look at all the feeding stories in the gospels for resurrection clues. So I examined the stories about the feeding of the multitude with a limited number of loaves and fishes, I examined the various accounts of the Last Supper, and I even looked at the parables of Jesus that focused on a great banquet. In each of these places I found elements of the interpretive meal in which the risen Jesus made himself known and present. My study drove me to these conclusions: First, whatever Easter was, Peter stood at the center of it and was the first to “see” and was thus the one who opened the eyes of the others so that they could also see. Secondly, Galilee was the original setting in which the meaning of Easter dawned, while the Jerusalem tradition was secondary. That is why the Jerusalem stories feature a supernaturalized Jesus and insist on the resurrection being understood as a resuscitated Jesus. Third, I concluded that the moment of Easter dawned slowly and over a period of months after the crucifixion. Finally, I became convinced that the common meal of the church was designed to be a liturgical reenactment of what the original resurrection experience was, so that liturgical meal must have played a role in the beginning. With these conclusions in hand, I returned to the gospels in search of a resurrection narrative that was based on these four principles. I found it only in the Epilogue to the Fourth Gospel, which I now regard as the most authentic, and maybe even the earliest, of the resurrection narratives in the New Testament. It is about Peter fighting his way through to a new understanding. It is set in Galilee. It clearly occurs some time after the crucifixion. It concludes by suggesting that it was during a beachside, early morning Eucharist that the experience of their living Lord broke through first to Peter, then to the twelve. The Epilogue of John thus grew in significance for me. Further study opened me to the possibility that this narrative might well have been an earlier tradition that floated freely during the oral period and found two very different resting places, first in Luke and then in the Epilogue of John. My supposition is that someone, perhaps a member of the Johannine School, recognized its authenticity and decided to attach it to the Fourth Gospel. That decision preserved, I believe, the earliest and most authentic memory of the dawning of Easter and, at the same time, true to the Johannine principle, it was clear that this experience could never be literalized, for it was not bound inside either time or space. It is fitting that with this story the Fourth Gospel is drawn to its second conclusion and that is why John says that “to know Jesus is eternal life.” ~ John Shelby Spong | | | | | | | | Announcements Poetry for Inspiration and Wellbeing Taught by one of the longest-serving poetry editors of a major national literary journal in American history, this online course includes mini-lectures, videos, polls, Q&A, and written exercises and reflections, as well as peer review.Starting April 5th - May 1st: $30. READ ON ... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

1 0

Song video: Let the Earth Breathe
by Ellie Stock 31 Mar '21

31 Mar '21

Hi Folks, Holy Week/Easter/Earth Day-Month Greetings from St Louie! I hope you all are doing well as we hope we are emerging slowly from the coronavirus pandemic and also hope for the effective, efficient and equitable distribution of the vaccine, not only in the US but globally. We still have yet to put the same effort into addressing the environmental/climate change and racism/violence pandemics. Along those themes, I wanted to share with you a link to a song video "Let the Earth Breathe" our daughter, Chenoa (who, now, working in Peru, has also worked in Bolivia, Sri Lanka, and India), and I worked on. Some background. After Carleton, and I "retired" in 2011, we decided we wanted to focus our work on addressing the environment from the Universe Story perspective. In 2012 we decided to host a winter/spring environmental film series in Ferguson to start our effort, which included showing "Journey of the Universe". The last program in May was not a film but the "Awakening the Dreamer" Symposium. It was also part of the ICA 50th Anniversary Event. For that event, I wrote the song "Let the Earth Breathe". Out of that event came a core of people who were interested in pursuing environmental issues and eventually became the Ferguson Eco Team which is still active (and will be re-showing that film April 15). Later that year Chenoa and I made an audio recording of our singing the song together (not professional--mainly just to have a record of it) which I sent out over the ICA list serve and was later included as part of the Ecumenical (Church of Australia) Season of Creation resource curriculum (www.seasonofcreation.org) Since then, it has been used in several services and other events. Over the years, as we have experienced the intersectionality of issues related to the environment, racism, pandemic, economic/social disparities, the song has taken on additional levels of meaning. In 2020 Chenoa and I started working on photos that could accompany it. We finished that in January, and Carleton and I used it for a zoom environmental session (1st of a four part environmental series) we did February 21 with Central Presbyterian Church in Denver, CO, coordinated and facilitated by Sherwood and Eunice Shankland. (Jim and OliveAnn Slotta were also present, commenting on their work related to the Accelerate Environmental Forums they are facilitating in the Denver area). So, below is the link to the song video and attached are the music notation and lyrics. 2.15.21 Let the Earth Breathe.mp4 Grapes and peas, be well, and Holy Week/Easter/Earth Day blessings! Ellie :) elliestock(a)aol.com | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

7 6

2021 ICA Global Schedule of Events
by Karen Snyder 29 Mar '21

29 Mar '21

Did you explore the 2021 ICA Global Schedule of Events during the month of March? Here it is if you wish to see what was offered this month regarding four types of events: studies, conversations, training and global events: https://icaglobalarchives.org/social-research-center-events/. <https://icaglobalarchives.org/social-research-center-events/> Next week the leaders of each of the March events will receive a questionnaire to capture what was learned during the first month of the four-month pilot. The March events will disappear on April 1st. There are already nine events posted for April: two book studies; an exploration of practices for a radical life posture; conversations on religion and image change; and four training events. The plan is to send monthly reminders to check in and sign up for events that appeal to you. You may have noticed that the ICA USA Facebook page is beginning to announce events ten days before they occur. Remember: YOU are invited to: 1. Offer a presentation you are interested in giving; 2. Recommend other people to present; 3. Participate in any of the events and encourage your friends to attend; and 4. Give feedback by emailing: icaglobalschedule(a)gmail.com <mailto:icaglobalschedule@gmail.com>. The Behind the Scenes Team of the 2021 ICA Global Schedule of Events Alan Gammel ~ Virginia Kanyogonya ~ Karen Snyder ~ Sunny Walker

4 4

3/25/2021, Progressing Spirit: Rev Lauren Van Ham: We are Wonder-FULL; Q/A: Gretta Vosper; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 25 Mar '21

25 Mar '21

| | | | View this email in your browser | | | | | | | | | | | | | | We are Wonder-FULL | | | | | | | | | | Essay by Rev. Lauren Van Ham March 25, 2021 In many places around the world, in an effort to address one issue, a list of others are brought into the conversation. We’re seeing this in our approach to education, healthcare, civil service, food and agriculture, and so on. This convergence isn’t surprising and it’s inviting something important from us. And yet, the dominant system continues to try something that isn’t working very well. The phrase used to describe it? Whack-a-mole. Have you played? It’s the amusement park game where, while holding a padded mallet, the player is to watch for the plastic mole, popping out from its hole, and to whack it back down. Just as soon as one mole has been hit, another appears from a different hole – or sometimes two! Depending on the player, the exercise is energizing, overwhelming, maddening; but the overall goal is to keep at it and make those moles stay in their holes. It’s an apt metaphor, no? There is a strange seduction in the story of progress to, “stick with it,” “work hard.” We routinely do these things without considering that there ARE other activities in the amusement park. Recently, I was listening to cosmologist Brian Swimme. He was talking about “neoteny.” Do you know this word? Neoteny, is defined as, “the retention of juvenile features in the adult animal.” Humans have neoteny. In fact, we’re arguably one of very few species who do. Unlike many creatures, even after our reproductive and nutritional needs are met, we have excess curiosity and energy for play, learning, wondering. Isn’t that wonderful?!?? Like many of you, I’m sure, I take delight when scientists wistfully respond to vexing questions with, “We don’t know!” Not knowing doesn’t mean that we stop asking. On the contrary, our neotenic tendencies sustain our ability to keep searching. In short, neoteny - the spiritual state of Wonder – is a saving grace that lives in each of us. Dr. Bayo Akomolafe, philosopher and psychologist wisely asks: “What if the way we respond to the crisis is part of the crisis?” Bayo is wondering. He’s wondering about the Whack-a-Mole approach that pulses in our bodies. It moves us from our beds to our jobs, to the store. We purchase energy bars and move on to our volunteer work and taxes. Admittedly, many of us have found a certain comfort in the busyness, but the pandemic has also shown us that we’re tired… and many of our ideas feel tired, too. Some pockets of society are asking questions that come from a less caffeinated section of the amusement park, where the merry-go-round music is faint and “whack-a-mole” is absent. There might be some tire swings or a field with kites. It’s definitely a place where we feel our neoteny. Dr Akomolafe also says, “The time is urgent, let us slow down.” Slowing down isn’t a new thing for those who follow Jesus or walk other spiritual paths. We’ve repeatedly been taught the importance of Sabbath. Admitting our societal exhaustion also clarifies what has happened: we have co-created and sustained a culture that has increasingly become more transactional than relational. Ouch. We navigate each transaction (at the post office, on the freeway) all while we’re feeling a little tired, a little empty, a little (or a lot) confused about how to live well, how to help others, how to embody a Spirit-filled life. When did the transactional become louder than the relational? Some blame Genesis, interpreting the teachings as God giving humans permission to take from Creation: extraction and transaction. But upon careful review, Genesis places humanity within a living family of relationships. In Genesis 1, verse 3, we read, Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God continues, for a couple days with the, “Let there be” language to create the sky, waters and Earth. And then… the language grows more interesting! In verse 11, God asks Earth to be a co-creative partner when God says, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And on the 5th day, God asks the water to create, too, when God says, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures…” AND God goes back to Earth, inviting Earth to bring forth all the living creatures. And then, in verse 26, God goes all out and says, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness” Do you feel what’s happening here? Call it evolution, call it panentheism or mystery, but with every act of creation, God calls upon Creation itself to birth forth a cascade of Life, calling it Good. And then, in a grand invitation, God calls upon Everything – the first spark of light, the sea, and the life animating every species to collectively birth us, the two-leggeds: “Let US make humankind in OUR image, according to OUR likeness.” We, my friends, are made in the likeness of all of it. One giant act of relatedness! Where is your neoteny in this moment? Do you feel some wonder? I sure do! Divine Creation needed everything before us, in order to arrive at the creative instant where our incarnation became possible. 13.8 billion years of birthing one interdependent relationship after another. Verse 26 goes on to read that God, “let us have dominion” over this living family of Creation, and in Genesis 2, verse 15, we read, “ The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it,” or in some translations, “to guard it.” Biblical scholars would no doubt suggest that “dominion,” holds several meanings in Hebrew and in Greek; but even when looking up “dominion” in the English thesaurus, the word “management,” appears. Economy. Eco = home, and nomics = management. God granted us – in the spirit of relatedness - the management of Creation. This is our BIRTHRIGHT! A clear and beautiful instruction. And yet…. Why, in all of this relatedness, do we feel so disconnected? Depleted? Empty? Because we mistakenly turn that which is divinely relational, into something inhumanely transactional. And, to make this sin livable, we turn our heads and forget our neoteny. Children don’t allow this sort of behavior. We are born into relatedness and unity. It is only over time that we learn transaction and separation. And this is why Jesus’s teaching in Matthew is so helpful: when we become like children, we enter the kin-dom. Feeling our kin-dom is Heaven on Earth! What if the way we respond to the crisis is part of the crisis? Some of us are catching ourselves in transactional patterns, and we’re admitting that we’re over it. Whack-a-mole is an endless, aggressive transaction, not our divine birthright. Our mentors and teachers are the Trees, the Plants, the Water molecules. Our life lessons are the divine task we’ve been given to guard all of them, to become fire-tenders, and water-protectors, and to observe and develop honorable harvesting relationships with the ones who generously offer themselves to us so that we can support their continuation. This is not a quick, transactional process, but rather a relational practice of wonder. When you’re feeling empty, afraid, tired, go in search of your wonder. Do it before you watch the news; follow its instructions as you shop for your next car or discern the best way to invest your money. Consider that the person or thing causing you so much discomfort just might carry the thing you need to find more connection, not less. We are Wonder-FULL. The health of our Creation family relies on your willingness and mine to tend the garden the way children do, in acts of relational kinship. It necessitates slowing down. And that’s ok. Children hate to rush and we make fewer mistakes when we allow ourselves time to wonder and consult with our mentors. What will we learn about vaccines, anti-racism, education, food security, by checking-in first with our teachers? It takes longer, but the reward is far greater than whacking a robotic plastic mole. The time is urgent, let us slow down, and enact Wonder. ~ Rev. Lauren Van Ham Read online here About the Author Rev. Lauren Van Ham was born and raised beneath the big sky of the Midwest. Lauren holds degrees from Carnegie Mellon University, Naropa University and The Chaplaincy Institute. Following her ordination in 1999, Lauren served as an interfaith chaplain in both healthcare (adolescent psychiatry and palliative care), and corporate settings (organizational development and employee wellness). Lauren’s passion for spirituality, art and Earth's teachings have supported her specialization in eco-ministry, grief & loss, and sacred activism. Her essay, "Way of the Eco-Chaplain," appears in the collection, Ways of the Spirit: Voices of Women; and her work with Green Sangha is featured in Renewal, a documentary celebrating the efforts of religious environmental activists from diverse faith traditions across America. Currently, Lauren tends her private spiritual direction and eco-chaplaincy consulting practice; and serves as Climate Action Coordinator for the United Religions Initiative (URI), and as guest faculty for several schools in the San Francisco Bay Area. | | | | | | | | Question & Answer Q: By Evelyn I am an Anglican, but having accepted the concept of a non-theistic God, I feel uncomfortable attending church with all its outdated forms of worship. To leave the church, however, is to lose my "church family" and the human contact, as well as my part in the church's ministries, all essential to the expression of God's love. What shall I do? A: By Rev. Gretta Vosper Dear Evelyn, It is so hard to realize that you are no longer drawn to a community of faith by the faith of the community. When your discomfort makes it hard to attend, it can create loss that goes far beyond the time you would have spent in the pews. My guess is that your question preceded COVID and its restrictions on human contact which, themselves, will have disrupted your relationship with your “church family”. There are many ways to connect online with communities from around the world. I’d invite you to take this opportunity to reach out and see if there is one out there that matches your beliefs and introduces you to people who may not live close to your home but feel much more closely aligned to your perspective. West Hill gathers people from across North America, the UK, and Africa. The world, as they say, is your oyster right now. Many congregations that are meeting virtually, because of their newfound reach, will be remaining online when gathering restrictions are reduced or ended. My next guess is that you have a deep desire to be involved in life-giving ministry. Up until now, that has happened through your church. Many church ministries, outside of worship and Christian education, don’t deal with the language or doctrinal beliefs of the congregation and are undertaken in a more fellowship-oriented manner. If those kinds of ministries remain available to you, stick with them. You don’t need to give up what it is that provides you the opportunity to spread joy and find meaning in the process of doing so. Your friends, with whom you have been doing these things for many years, will welcome the opportunity to be with you. If being with those friends or participating in your ministries is problematic to them, you, or the church, simply turn around and look at the community outside the church doors. There are so many places that need a helping hand from food banks to women’s shelters to garden centres and reading programs. Any one of them would lift your heart and connect you to that great power of love by which so many needs in the world are filled. In the process of finding that new ministry, be open to the new friends to whom it will introduce you. They may not look like what you’re used to, but your heart, next to theirs, will soon beat with a common rhythm. All my best and do keep us up to date on your journey of discovery. ~ Rev. Gretta Vosper Read and share 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. Visit her website here | | | | | | | | Please continue to send us your feedback… we are listening. We aim to give voice to many different perspectives that are relevant and inspiring along this spiritually progressing path. We are not here to tell you what to believe or how to act. We are here to support your journey, to share and learn together.Thank you for being a part of this community - join us on Facebook! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | As a non-profit ProgressiveChristianity.org relies heavily on the good will of donors. We want to continue to bring you the messages of progressive Christians via our Progressing Spirit Newsletter; however, the fact is, the cost of a subscription goes towards paying our authors. We therefore rely your generosity - specifically, if you are in a position to contribute to our efforts, we would be grateful for your donation. Help keep ProgressiveChristianity.org/Progressing Spirit online and going strong - click here to donate today! * Another way to support us is to leave a bequest in your Will and/or Trust designating us a beneficiary. | | | | | | | | Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited The Origins of the New Testament, Part XXXIV: The Raising of Lazarus and the Identity of the Beloved Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong August 19, 2010 We began this study of John with the assertion that the author of this gospel was writing a highly symbolic, interpretive account of Jesus of Nazareth. He created this account some 65-70 years after the events he is describing, which marked the end of Jesus’ earthly life. He tells his readers time and again that his words are not to be treated literally; indeed, he mocks the literalizing tendencies that he finds in the religious community of his day. To bring this theme into an even clearer focus, I turn now to two uniquely Johannine narratives, not even alluded to anywhere else in the Christian tradition, other than in the Fourth Gospel. The first of these is the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead and the second is the series of stories through whom the introduction of the strange and enigmatic figure, known only as “the beloved disciple” or as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” comes into the tradition. In an interesting way these two apparently separate narratives are significantly interconnected. Note first the dramatic place in his drama to which the author of the Fourth Gospel has assigned the story of the raising of Lazarus. It is for John the catalyst that leads directly to the crucifixion. He then both compares and contrasts this Lazarus story with the raising of Jesus from the dead, which will be the grand climax that will conclude his gospel. We begin our probe of this story by raising the question: Is it possible that the author of the Fourth Gospel ever entertained the possibility that there was even a shred of historical data underlying his account of raising Lazarus from the grave? The answer to that question is simple. Not a chance! Consider these facts: Mary and Martha, two sisters who lived in Bethany, have been figures in the Christian memory for quite a while, even starring in the gospel of Luke. Nowhere in that earlier tradition, however, was it recorded that they had a brother named Lazarus. John has clearly created Lazarus for his own literary purposes. Next John describes the raising of Lazarus from the dead as an event that was quite public. Crowds, consisting of both the friends and enemies of Jesus, have gathered to mourn the passing of Lazarus. This was not a miraculous event done in private, the details of which might, in the course of time, be exaggerated. There were eye witnesses galore. The lead-up to this story sets the stage for this event to be the source of great wonder. Jesus, we are told, postponed his journey to Bethany until the news came that Lazarus was actually dead. When he finally does arrive, the burial of Lazarus has been completed since it was the fourth day after his death. Both Martha and Mary express their displeasure by berating Jesus for not coming earlier when, they suggest, he could perhaps have used his powers to save Lazarus and to restore him to health. There is no hint anywhere in the Christian tradition that anyone anywhere had ever heard about this episode before. Embrace what that means. Here is a public event attended by a great crowd in which a man, dead for four days, has already been buried in a cave with a great stone covering its entrance. Jesus, the itinerant preacher, now proceeds to reverse this death even though the corpse was already in the decaying process. To accomplish the miracle this teacher, over the protests of the sisters of the dead man (“already he stinketh,” the King James version has Martha say), orders the stone removed and he calls Lazarus to come forth. The mesmerized crowd then watches as the corpse of Lazarus, bound in the burial bands of cloth that secured both his hands and his feet and into which the burial spice of myrrh had been generously poured, comes staggering out of the cave. Jesus then orders them to “unbind him and let him go.” If this were history, can you imagine how the account of this event could have been so deeply suppressed that no hint of it would have appeared in any Christian circle until John decided to write about it some three generations later? No, the raising of Lazarus is not an event that occurred in history. Then how are we to read this story? What was its origin? There is only one other figure named Lazarus who appears in the New Testament. He is a character in a parable that only Luke records. We call it the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, who is sometimes named Dives. This Lucan parable is about judgment. Lazarus, a beggar at the gate of the rich man, dies. So does the rich man, who apparently never “sees” this beggar. Lazarus is carried into the “bosom of Abraham” and the rich man is removed to the tortures of the condemned. In torment, Dives asks Abraham to send Lazarus with water to ease his thirst. Abraham responds that one cannot get to Dives from where Lazarus is. Then Dives asks him to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers to amend their lives lest they too come to this place of torment. Abraham replies, “They have Moses and the prophets to warn them.” If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, “they will not listen even if one is raised from the dead.” John takes this Lucan parable, historicizes it and demonstrates its truth in the life of Jesus. The raising of Lazarus does not create faith or change behavior; it actually serves to make the crucifixion of Jesus inevitable. The character we call Lazarus is a literary creation of the author of the Fourth Gospel, based on a parable, which John uses to stand as a symbol for those who see God in Jesus, respond to that experience and move from their religious past into the new consciousness that became available in Jesus. Moving on now to look at “the beloved disciple,” we note several other crucial items in this narrative. First, this character called Lazarus is the only person whom the author of the Fourth Gospel says that Jesus loved. The message that comes to Jesus from Mary and Martha, notifying him of their brother’s illness and urging him to come quickly, is this. “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” Next this text says, “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.” Later Jesus is portrayed as weeping as he makes his way to the tomb, causing the crowd to say, “See how he loved him.” If Jesus had a single “beloved disciple,” it is interesting that this gospel never suggests that it could be anyone other than this literary character known as Lazarus. Second, it is also true that the designation of “one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved” does not enter the Johannine narrative until after the story of the raising of Lazarus. Only then is the “beloved disciple” pictured as present at the Last Supper “lying close to the heart of Jesus.” He is the one whom Peter implores to ask Jesus to identify the name of the traitor. We next confront the beloved disciple in John’s text at the foot of the cross and hear the dying Jesus commend his mother to the care of this person. Could the mother of Jesus be a symbol for Judaism, the mother of Christianity, and could the beloved disciple be a symbol of one who sees the meaning of Jesus so deeply that he can carry Jesus’ message into a new context in the Gentile world without losing “his mother” Judaism in the process? Rudolf Bultmann, probably the greatest New Testament scholar in the 20th century, seems to think so and has advanced this possibility in his monumental commentary entitled simply: The Gospel of John. The next time “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is mentioned in this gospel is in the Easter story. There we are told that he comes with Peter to the tomb that Mary Magdalene has reported to be empty, her suspicion being that the grave had been robbed, which would represent the final insult to the memory of Jesus. Peter and “the beloved disciple” run together, Peter the older, the one who is rooted in the tradition of Judaism, runs more slowly. The beloved disciple is younger, the one who will guide the Jesus message into its universal future, so he runs more quickly and arrives at the tomb first. He does not go in, but pauses at the entrance. Judaism must enter the new place before the Christian movement can do so. The new tradition must be built on the old. It cannot be born except out of the old. Religion always evolves by transcending the limits of the past and giving birth to a new consciousness. So Peter, arriving later and presumably out of breath, enters the tomb. He sees the signs. The grave clothes are neatly lying in place exactly where the head, the hands and the feet of the deceased Lord would have been. This resurrection was not to be like that of Lazarus, a resuscitation back to life in this world and still bound by the grave clothes. This was a transformative experience in which death is transcended, limits are crossed and new life is achieved. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” then follows Peter into the tomb. Like Peter, he also sees, but he takes the vital next step — this seeing causes him to believe! They both return home and that evening John’s gospel says that Jesus appeared to them, along with all of the other disciples. This raised Jesus was portrayed as being intensely physical, but at the same time we are told that he entered the house despite the fact that the doors were shut and the windows barred. Once inside, we are told, he breathed on them the life-giving breath of God. It was that same breath that had brought Adam into being at the first creation. This was the new creation and it was the beloved disciple who first steps into it. The beloved disciple is clearly a symbol, not a person. He represents those lives in which the meaning of Jesus leaps the boundaries of yesterday’s religious understanding, by which people have always sought to control the wonder of the being that Jesus came to bring. This beloved disciple is mentioned once more in the Epilogue to John’s gospel. By the time this chapter was written and added to the text of this gospel, the literalizing process had already begun and John’s symbol of the “beloved disciple” is identified with a particular one of the twelve who has clearly died. The theory apparently had developed that this beloved disciple was supposed to live until Jesus’ second coming. So his death had to be explained and the Epilogue seeks to do so. The point is then made that Jesus does come again every time another person enters the new life, the new consciousness that Jesus came to bring. Lazarus and the beloved disciple are one and the same, symbols of those raised to new life, those who in Christ are able to step beyond traditional religious thinking into a new consciousness. ~ John Shelby Spong | | | | | | | | Announcements Good Mother Workshops Learn the protocol for internalizing a Good Mother for your emotional health & well-being. Identify “good emotional food” and “bad emotional food”, healthy emotional digestion, positive attachment, positive mirroring and steps to fiercely protect your Inner Child. April 10th and April 11th – Online both days from 10-4pm Pacific time. Take one day or both days! READ ON ... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

2 1

Obituary of JOHN (JACK) CHESTER WALLACE
by Timothy Wegner 25 Mar '21

25 Mar '21

R. Bruce Williams asked me to post this obituary of his husband, Jack Wallace. Tim

5 4

3/18/2021, Progressing Spirit: Rev. Gretta Vosper: If Not God, Then What?; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 19 Mar '21

19 Mar '21

| | | | View this email in your browser | | | | | | | | | | | | | | If Not God, Then What? | | | | | | | | | | Essay by Rev. Gretta Vosper March 18, 2021 My previous article, “Except for God”, challenges our habitual use of the word “god” in church because of its polymorphous tendencies, taking on a different shape and purpose for each unique individual. Using the word “god” to conjure an all-powerful deity with biblically-proportioned prejudices and condemnations is dramatically different from using the word “god” to call us to a “no matter what” sort of love. I talk about this a lot. About ditching archaic language. About reading more than just the Bible or not reading the Bible at all. About questioning the prevalence of organ and choral music. About pews, though in the time of COVID, we’re not so worried about pews. About how the non-churchy parts of church are the perhaps most important - the things that get you to fall in love with being together. But talking isn’t enough. We all know what air is and how essential it is to our survival. But how many of us would know how to put what elements together in a way that would really let us breathe, even let us thrive? Not many. Our time is short and the task at hand is crucial. The Essence of Church In my second book, Amen[1], I pull the essence of the four basic types of prayer out of their ecclesiastical functions and into the realm of real life. What does prayer strive to do? What deeply human challenges did it evolve to address? Do those challenges still exist or are we, through the course of our history and the advancement of social institutions and our knowledge of the natural world, no longer in need of it? Are its purposes still relevant or have we kept it around simply for its comfortable familiarity? After all, even Pope Francis has argued that the god called God isn’t a magician with a magic wand.[2] Turns out, each of the different functions of prayer meets a specific human need: awe and inspiration; acknowledgement of our own personal failings; realizing and expressing gratitude; finding hope whether from within our own selves or the community beyond us. But addressing those needs doesn’t need to be undertaken on one’s knees or in church, at all. We can do that same examination I exerted upon prayer to the whole of a Sunday service. And, in truth, we can do it with the whole business of church, not just the part that unfolds on Sunday mornings. The questions are the same: What is the essence of church? What does it strive to do? What deeply human challenges did it evolve to address? I think we’ll agree that church meets very human needs and that many of those needs are going unmet in contemporary society. We are herd animals. We gain strength from one another’s presence, even if that presence is only intermittently welcome. We thrive in positive, affirming, intergenerational relationships and we excel within a network of them. Our brains evolved because of them. Human connection is crucial to our development. Only a small fraction of the mirror neurons we need to develop empathy are present at our birth and we have about eight months to develop the rest of them, something that only happens if we’re being nurtured in an empathic environment. If we aren’t, and those neurons don’t develop, things are permanently compromised. We can’t catch up. Whatever our mirror neuron load, we can keep it in tip-top shape. That, however, requires regular, positive, emotionally engaged relationships that reflect our worth as human beings (not as “human whateverwedo”s). And where do we find those relationships? Well, for many of us, we’ve found them in church. That is where we have been nurtured in intergeneration settings as healthy, valued members of society. And because we are, society benefits through our voluntarism, philanthropy, service, political action, and community leadership. We engage in socially pro-active ways when we are valued ourselves. Which is, of course, why this whole endeavour we call church is so important. This is the essence we seek: Church supports and develops people who support and sustain community. And true community makes democracy possible. So church, when it is working well, is a crucible for democracy. I kid you not. Take note. Shifting Church Two years ago, I wrote the following list about what we’d need to lose to be able to open church up to millennials: Theological language, for one. The exclusive use of the Bible for inspiration, for two. The constant reiteration of ancient myths about who Jesus was and what he did… The words of your favorite hymns and choral pieces. All that traditional liturgy, its grandeur, pomp, and ceremony. Almost everything ever accompanied by a pipe organ. A few or a lot of those currently in the pews who are unable to transition the things they lose in the public church gathering to their private spiritual practice. The ease of pick-up and teach lectionary-based Sunday School curricula. And likely lot of other stuff.[3] It is a challenging list. But here’s the worst part: Making all those changes provides no guarantee that you will safely transition. Change one thing and half your community will be hurt and resentful; the other half will be champing at the bit, challenging you to move faster. There is no easy resting place on this journey. Additionally, the whole church endeavour is anathema to almost entire generations so our transition is invisible to them; they aren’t there to see it and you can’t explain it to them. Still, their need for the essence of church – supporting and developing people who support and develop community – is no less urgent than it has been for previous generations or for the concept of democracy. Filling that need will require something entirely new. And starting something that is not seen to be church but that creates the benefits of church is seriously challenging. Church from Scratch About fifteen years ago, just as West Hill began to stretch itself into what would become its future orientation, the Toronto United Church Council decided to “plant” a progressive congregation not far from us. They committed what, for us, seemed an obscenely large budget to getting it up and running and hired a very competent and enthusiastic minister to make the dream come true. Bishop Spong travelled to speak at their inaugural gathering. Some months into the project, the minister and I revealed our jealousies to one another. Mine was that she did not need to contend with the losses that our progressive direction was requiring of our members. Losing favourite hymns, dealing with changes to liturgies, giving up traditions – reread that list – each came with significant pain. Hers was revelatory. She had to create community, something I already had. In the end, creating community proved the harder project and the new congregation closed a few years later. West Hill, despite losing much-loved members who couldn’t bear the liturgical losses and found other churches where those traditions were maintained, continues to thrive. If you have community, you have the magic, if I can call it that. If you don’t, you have to create it. Seeding the Magic A few weeks before COVID arrived on our doorstep, I watched that magic come to life in a large room at a local community centre. Randell Adjei, a spoken word artist with a rough history, had created an organization called R.I.S.E. (Reaching Intelligent Souls Everywhere) Edutainment and is gathering a community together every Monday evening. On the night I attended, there were about two hundred and thirty people there, most of them Black and under thirty. Tables were set up to sell items to raise money for one thing or another. The Toronto Department of Mental Health was present; the day happened to be Black Mental Health Day. They were providing that evening’s meal for which the community would disperse part way through the program. A tall, thin man took the stage. He welcomed the crowd which welcomed him enthusiastically in return. Then he made reference to the special nature of the day – Black Mental Health. He said that he knew lots of those gathered had, or knew someone who had, struggled with mental health issues. And he asked them to share what they did that helped. Then, he handed his microphone into the crowd. I still well up when I think about what happened next. For almost half an hour, the microphone rode from one hand to another through the crowd. People shared what was going on in their lives and in the lives of people they love. Fingers snapped in waves of support as the audience resonated with stories of pain, loss, resilience. The magic flowed from story to story, person to person. When that part of the evening was over, spoken word, musical performances, and storytelling kept the fingers snapping, the heads nodding, the magic flowing. No one left that room without knowing they were significant, important, cherished. So, it me, it’s clear. We ask Randell or someone like him. And then we either make it happen or stand back so people like him, who know their communities and what they need, can make it happen. With our own congregational resources, of course, by which I mean dollars or buildings. Because, you know, saving humanity is going to cost something and I think churches should be honoured to get in on the ground floor. ~ Rev. Gretta Vosper Read 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. Visit her website here. [1] Gretta Vosper, Amen: What Prayer Can Mean in a World beyond Belief, HarperCollins, 2012.[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolu…. Accessed, March 4, 2021,[3] Gretta Vosper, “The Future Church: Over to You” Progressing Spirit, June 6, 2019 | | | | | | | | Question & Answer Q: By Rev. Margaret Am I the only one out here who makes sure my people understand the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper/Communion service has its roots in the Passover story and that the words Jesus spoke would have been the motzi and the hagafen? I am part of a noncredal tradition so we don’t recite the Nicene creed anyway and we offer communion to everyone at every worship service, but why don’t we educate our people to understand our Jewish roots? A: By Rev. Roger Wolsey Dear Rev. Margaret, I hear your desire for helping contemporary Christians to feel close connection to the historical Jesus and his early followers. That’s a beautiful inclination. Along these lines, because Jesus and the first disciples washed each other’s feet before the last supper, certain Christian denominations always involve foot-washing as part of how they conduct the sacrament of Holy Communion. And yet most denominations do not do that, though I’m always moved by these opportunities. I’m not an advocate of Christians seeking to engage in Christian-led seder meals. “The first reason is historical. The Seder ritual, as it is practiced today, did not exist at the time of Jesus. It was only fully developed by the rabbis in the years following the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., in other words, at least two generations after Jesus. Many assume that Jesus, at the Last Supper, conducted what we now know of as a traditional Passover Seder with the Pesakh (pascal) offering of the lamb, matza, bitter herbs, the telling of the tale of the Exodus from Egypt, and other rituals as found in the Jewish Passover Hagada. This is incorrect. To put it bluntly, Jesus certainly celebrated Passover, but neither he nor his disciples ever attended a Seder, any more than they drove a car or used a cell phone.” Yet the reason that matters most is seeking to not be offensive to the overwhelming majority of our Jewish friends. Most Jews tend to experience gentile Christians “doing their own seders” as unwelcome cultural appropriation which tends to Christianize their sacred rituals and they experience it as outsiders “playing Jewish” and diminishing the Jewishness of a Jewish tradition. Moreover, the hamotzi prayer is used on a weekly basis by Jews as part of their weekly Shabbat rituals and many Jews feel that this “steals their thunder” – i.e., takes away the specialness of their weekly ritual which is integral to Jewish identity. See these 3 articles: Why Christians Shouldn’t Do Their Own Seder Meals; Say No to Christian Seders; Christians Shouldn’t Celebrate Seders. And, as the apostle Paul advised (with admitted loose exegesis and proof-texting), “If your brother/sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. …It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall” (Romans 14:15 & 21) and “Food will not bring us close to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block“ (1 Corinthians 8:8-9) That said, it is massively important for gentile Christians to be reminded of the Jewishness of Jesus. Too many western Christians think Jesus was a fellow Christian (though I can posit a case that he was a Christian, in that he attained Christ consciousness and was seeking to help others to experience their own Christ consciousness – but that’s an esoteric, outlier perspective). Consider these resources: 1) “The Jew Named Jesus” by Rebekah Simon-Peter; and 2) “The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus” by Amy-Jill Levine. Interestingly, I have previously argued that “in some ways progressive Christianity is a re-Judaizing of the faith.” By this I mean, however, progressive Christianity embraces a fuller concept of salvation than what it’s been reduced to by evangelicalism (which is wedded to the American ethic of hyper-individualism). Instead of salvation as “believing X, Y, & Z in order to go to heaven when you die,” when Jesus was referring to salvation he was referring to the Hebraic concept of it – meaning “healing, wholeness, fullness, and well-being.” And not just for individual persons, but for the collective. Jewish salvation means well-being and healing of the nation(s), of the peoples. Progressive Christianity calls for a heightened emphasis upon the corporate and collective aspects of salvation which involves embracing the Jewish concept of tikkun olam- “world-repair” involving well-being for all beings which involves social justice and care for the planet. Moreover, progressive Christianity embraces the Jewish practices, traditions, and perspectives of: reading the Bible as story; not considering it inerrant; not interpreting it literally; allowing for paradox; and embracing midrash – wrestling with the text and on-going reinterpretation of it. ~ Rev. Roger Wolsey Read and share online here About the Author Rev. Roger Wolsey is a United Methodist pastor who resides in Grand Junction, CO. Roger is author of Kissing Fish: Christianity for people who don’t like Christianity and blogs for Patheos as The Holy Kiss and serves on the Board of Directors of ProgressiveChristianity.Org. Roger became “a Christian on purpose” during his college years and he experienced a call to ordained ministry two years after college. He values the Wesleyan approach to the faith and, as a certified spiritual director, he seeks to help others grow and mature. Roger enjoys yoga; playing trumpet; motorcycling; and camping with his son. He served as the Director of the Wesley Foundation campus ministry at the University of Colorado in Boulder for 14 years, and has served as pastor of churches in Minnesota, Iowa, and currently serves as the pastor of Fruita UMC in Colorado, and also serves as the "CRM" (Congregational Resource Minister/Church Consultant) for the Utah/Western Colorado District of the Mountain Sky Conference. | | | | | | | | Please continue to send us your feedback… we are listening. We aim to give voice to many different perspectives that are relevant and inspiring along this spiritually progressing path. We are not here to tell you what to believe or how to act. We are here to support your journey, to share and learn together.Thank you for being a part of this community - join us on Facebook! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | As a non-profit ProgressiveChristianity.org relies heavily on the good will of donors. We want to continue to bring individuals and churches the messages of progressive Christians, along with many of the resources and tools needed to further the vision. In the brief time I've had the pleasure of serving as President and, even more recently, as Co-Executive Director at ProgressiveChristianity.org, a formula for why our spiritual community is so robust and enduring has made itself clear. While that formula includes our highly-skilled, dedicated, and caring staff, as well as our list of writers and resource providers, it is very clear to us that the constant that holds it all together is YOU. Every day we see in our communities and in the news, the misshapen mess that some folks have made of Christianity. When we see it, it further encourages us in the need and responsibility to provide the counterpoint of view of a more inclusive, connected, and loving understanding of God. That is certainly one of the main efforts here at ProgressiveChristianity.org. Given the formula that makes this community work, it is clear that YOU are a crucial part of our efforts to continue to do so. We could not be more grateful for the central part you have played in sustaining this spiritual community and source of progressive Christian resources. As a non-profit organization, our growth (both in terms of our offerings and in connecting with other spiritual seekers) is dependent, in large part, on the donations we receive from you. If you are able, we'd be honored if you could make a donation of $25 (or more, if you can) to help us continue our efforts in reaching and resourcing other spiritual seekers, as well as continuing to support you in your spiritual journey. Let me personally thank you in advance for whatever amount you decide you can give to support ProgressiveChristianity.org. PEACE! Rev. Mark Sandlin President and Co-Executive Director ProgressiveChristianity.org Progressing Spirit | | | | | | | | Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited The Origins of The New Testament, Part XXXIII: The Gospel of John Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong August 12, 2010 If I had to give my readers one clue and one clue only that would unlock the Fourth Gospel and allow its honesty and wonder to flow forth, it would be that in reading John one must always keep in mind that the author is not writing history or biography. Indeed, this author is constantly poking fun at anyone who would take his message literally, misunderstand his use of symbols or attempt to literalize the words he has attributed to Jesus. Can any of us imagine for one moment an itinerant prophet named John the Baptist literally saying the first time he meets Jesus, “Behold, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world,” and then claiming for this Jesus the status of a pre-existent divine being? Yet that is what John the Baptist does in the first chapter of John. It is a text that sets a pattern that this gospel writer will follow. What does it mean to name Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world? What does it mean to claim for him a pre-existent status? What experience is this author seeking to communicate? That is the question with which one is confronted in the opening chapter of this book, and that is only the beginning. In the second chapter, we find equally enigmatic words. Here we are told that at a wedding party Jesus actually changes water into wine so that the party can go on! Can any of us imagine a set of circumstances in which that narrative would be taken literally? Medieval alchemists spent centuries trying to turn iron into gold and failed. Given the price of good wine today, perhaps they would have been more successful if they had followed Jesus’ example and tried to turn water into wine. Surely John did not think of this as a literal story and the suggestion later in the story that Jesus’ freshly fermented beverage was so superior to that which was served first that it violated the social norm of the day, which was to serve the “good stuff” first and then when the guests were well drunk to bring out the “screw top gallon bottles.” So we need to ask just what it was that John was seeking to communicate when he opens his second chapter with this story and calls it “the first sign” of Jesus’ public ministry that “manifested forth his glory.” Perhaps this author drops another clue that these words are not to be taken literally when he begins this particular narrative with the words, “On the third day,” since these words would be deeply fraught with meaning in the company of believers to whom these words were addressed. In the next episode described by John, Jesus is in Jerusalem and there he drives the money changers out of the Temple. In the earlier gospels, this story of the cleansing of the temple is the provocative final act that leads directly to the crucifixion. John, however, places it at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Once again the Jewish audience that first reads John’s words would immediately identify this narrative with a reading from the book of Psalms (69:9), which stated that the Messiah would show zeal for the house of God — zeal indeed that would consume him. They also knew that John was using this episode not to describe something that happened, but to make a messianic claim. These readers would have been familiar with the account from the book of Zechariah, which said that when “the day of the Lord” came, “there would no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord of Hosts (14:21).” That was destined to be only the first of many references that John would take from the book of Zechariah, a book that shaped the Jesus story far more than most of us have imagined. Continuing the same theme in chapter three, John has Jesus say to a man named Nicodemus, “unless you are born anew, you cannot see the Kingdom of God. ” Nicodemus is baffled because he hears these words literally and wonders how it is possible for a grown man to be born anew when he is old, “Can I climb back into my mother’s womb and be born a second time?” Literalism makes no sense, but John is not writing a literal story. In the fourth chapter of John, the author has Jesus speaking to a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well about water. The conversation began when he asked the woman to give him a drink from the well. When she demurred and retreated into the boundary that separates Jew from Samaritan, Jesus said to her, “If you knew who it was that is asking you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” The woman looked at him with the blank stare of literalism and said, in effect, “Man, you don’t even have a bucket!” The Jesus of John’s gospel then says, “Whoever drinks of the water I give will never thirst again.” The woman still trapped in the prison of literalism responds, “That is great. Give me your water and I will never have to come again to this well. That would make my life easier.” As if that were not sufficient warning that this book is not to be read literally, John continues his theme when he relates the story of Jesus’ disciples returning and interrupting this private conversation. They then urge Jesus to eat. To this urging, however, John’s Jesus responds by saying, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” The disciples, still blinded by the literalism through which they hear his words, say to one another: “Has anyone brought him food?” The theme of anti-literalism goes on. In the sixth chapter of John, Jesus is made to place his message into Eucharistic language and then to watch as his words are once again heard as if they are meant to be understood literally. Here he says: “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me.” The literal-minded disciples are repelled by what seems to them to be a reference to cannibalism, and they begin to draw back and to cease following him. Time after time, the author of the Fourth Gospel displays the truth that this book is an interpretive book not a literal one. It is a symbolic book, not a historical book or a biographical story. No one can read the Fourth Gospel with literal eyes without missing the essence of his message. Yet, throughout Christian history, this book has been read with literal eyes and this literal misreading has been used to buttress the case for orthodoxy, binding creeds and such rationally incomprehensible ecclesiastical doctrines as the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. One other unique aspect found in John alone is the fact that Jesus time and again is quoted as calling himself by the name, which, according to the book of Exodus, God revealed to Moses as God’s own at the burning bush. Tell them, God said to Moses on that occasion, that “I AM” sent you. So John now has Jesus say, “Before Abraham was, I AM!” When you see the Son of Man lifted up, then you will know I AM.” There is no “he” in that latter statement, despite the fact that the translators add one because they do not understand what this gospel writer is trying to say. At the time of Jesus’ arrest in the dark of night in the Valley of Kidron, John portrays Jesus as approaching the band of soldiers and Temple police led by Judas and asking, “Whom do you seek?” They respond, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus says, “I AM.” Translators once again render that “I am he.” John’s context, however, renders that translation inoperative, for John goes on to state: “When he said I AM, they drew back and fell to the ground.” It was strange behavior for an armed guard confronting an unarmed political prisoner if he had said something as mundane as “I am he.” If, on the other hand John was portraying him as uttering and claiming the divine name as they were about to arrest him, then that would be quite another matter. “I AM” is a key concept in the Fourth Gospel repeated over and over again. John alone has Jesus say such things as: “I am the bread of life; I am the door; I am the way, the truth and the life; I am the vine; I am the good shepherd, and I am the resurrection.” Jesus even asserts through that “I AM” claim that he is the exclusive pathway to God, a statement that has been used throughout Christian history to justify the basest forms of religious imperialism and to fuel the most insensitive kind of missionary evangelism. John’s gospel must not be literalized if it is to be understood. It is a profound, even mystical, interpretation of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, written by a person deeply rooted in Palestinian Judaism and its words are designed to lead John’s readers beyond literal words into a life-giving relationship with God. History reveals what a high price has been paid because Christians have insisted on literalizing the words of this gospel. At the Council of Nicea, a literalized understanding of John was used to justify the new orthodoxy of a man named Athanasius, which was destined to cloak the Christian story in a hierarchical authority system in which it became oppressive, insensitive and anything but life-giving. When the shell of literalism is broken, however, the gospel of John enhances life, expands consciousness and calls us into a new relationship with the one whose deepest claim is to be a doorway into a new experience of that which is transcendent, holy and other. The call of John’s Jesus is not into an engagement with a supernatural being, created in our image, who somehow lives above the sky and who, in the person of Jesus, was thought to have masqueraded as a human being. This is, of course, a caricature but only a little one. John’s gospel is a work to be entered, a message to be breathed, and a doorway into a life to be lived. It was not written to enable us to play religion’s oldest game, “My God is better than your God and I control the doorway into true belief. No one can come to God except through my faith system” I once was repelled by the Fourth Gospel because I related to it as if it were a literal document. When I broke the bondage of that mindset, I found in this gospel a real understanding not just of God and of Jesus, but of life itself. Someday, I hope to spell out that thought in detail. For now, I must content myself to sketching a new vision of this gospel that all can see. ~ John Shelby Spong | | | | | | | | Announcements Wild Christ, Wild Earth, Wild Self: An Online Nature-based Weekend Intensive This experiential, nature-based, immersive weekend is designed to help you remember your primary participation in sacred Earth. This program is for those individuals who sense that their old ways of believing, being, and doing are inadequate for the tasks ahead. Online April 15th - 17th. READ ON ... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

1 0

Link to Miriam MacGillis NEW COSMOLOGY lecture
by Ellie Stock 18 Mar '21

18 Mar '21

Hi Folks, After I sent out the list of available resources, one of which was a DVD/CD of Miriam MacGillis' 2004 Bristol Schumacher lecture: NEW COSMOLOGY: Reveal the Soul of Nature, I learned from Miriam that the lecture is available online. It is a beautiful presentation and pulling together of the New Cosmology. Below is the link. https://cdn.closerconnect.com/dscape/revealing-the-soul-of-nature Miriam was Director of the Genesis Farm where she coordinated the Earth Literacy program based on the works of Teilhard and Thomas Berry and other New Cosmology thinkers. Ellie :)elliestock@aol.com

2 1

Resources/materials available
by Ellie Stock 17 Mar '21

17 Mar '21

Hi Folks, I am clearing out some of our "library" from past studies. Attached is a list of available DVDs/CDs/books. Some of these materials are related to Cosmology/Cosmos/Understanding the Universe/Christianity and Evolution/Earth/The New Cosmology. The Great Courses DVDs/accompanying books are mostly new and come as sets and can't be broken up. Materials are free for the cost of mailing (materials rate). Email me if you are interested or have any questions. Ellie :)elliestock@aol.com

2 1

3/11/2021, Progressing Spirit: The Rev. Roger Wolsey: The Soul of Progressive Christianity; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 11 Mar '21

11 Mar '21

| | | | | | | | | | | | The Soul of Progressive Christianity | | | | | | | | | | Essay by Rev. Roger Wolsey February 21, 2019Lent is a time where we’re invited to engage in deepened soul-searching. I’ve been feeling called to search the soul of progressive Christianity. Progressive Christianity is the post-modern influenced evolution of historic mainline liberal Christianity and is an heir to the Social Gospel movement. It takes the Bible too seriously to interpret much of it literally. It’s a focus on the religion of Jesus more than the religion about him. It embraces the insights of contemporary science; is committed to social justice including good stewardship of the Earth; celebrates the diversity of humanity including various sexes, genders, and sexualities; and doesn’t require belief in various historic doctrines of the Church. Progressive Christianity is in many ways an example of the late Dr. Phyllis Tickle’s observation that Christianity has had a major reform movement every 500 years to help it evolve and be relevant to new times and contexts. And, …progressive Christianity is very white. Before we get to the race issue, let’s remind ourselves of some backstory. Liberal Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity are two sides of the same modern era coin – both essentially arising in response to the relatively simultaneous rise of the historical-critical approach to scripture and to Darwin’s theory of the evolution of the species. In some ways liberal Christianity shared much in common with the so-called “Thomas Jefferson Bible” – his version of the New Testament with the miracles cut out, as well as portions that he felt were redundant, absurd and/or incredulous. Liberal Christianity’s concern with honoring science led it to try to explain the miracles in the Bible with appeals to science; e.g., “well the Red Sea is known to have a weather pattern that shows up occasionally where strong winds can push hard across the surface of the water, so that you could walk across it”, “Jesus could’ve used a special bag of known healing herbs and plant medicines to cure people,” etc. While progressive Christianity fully embraces the insights of science, it is less overly enamored with it and less willing to cede everything to it. Progressive Christianity is more willing to simply accept the Bible as received stories and as spiritual poetry that evokes new ways of understanding things – and not miss the forest for the trees. Moreover, progressive Christianity is less colonial and patriarchal than liberal Christianity was. Progressive Christianity is less modern and more post-modern – willing to accept that God’s fully at work in all other world religions. Progressive Christianity has more consensus that homosexuality isn’t a sin and it’s more willing to embrace paradox and mystery than liberal Christianity. Finally, it’s more eclectic and willing to draw insights, prayers, and practices from the entirety of the Christian – and even non-Christian – traditions. The term progressive Christianity was first coined by Rev. Jim Adams in 1994 upon the creation of The Center for Progressive Christianity (now ProgressiveChristianity.Org) and became more popularly used in the year 2000 upon its use in one of the late Dr. Marcus Borg’s books. Bishop John Shelby Spong was of course part of the rise and evolution of this movement. His 1991 book Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism threw a gauntlet down much in the way that the late Walter Rauschenbush’s “Christianity and the Social Crisis” did in 1907. Bishop Spong was a liberal Christian for most of his career and morphed toward and fully into progressive Christianity in the latter portion. Back to the racial matters. I’ve been engaged in shaping and advocating progressive Christianity overtly since 2007. I’ve attended and spoken at several of the Wild Goose Festivals; as well as the Embrace Festival; the Lion and the Lamb Festival; and Christianity21 conferences. I’ve blogged for Elephant Journal, Huffington Post, and Patheos and am aware of my colleagues and associates in this field – and … most all of them are white. One might be surprised that a movement that is concerned about social justice and expanding rights and liberties to more people isn’t more compelling and attractive to people of color. I’ve come to realize that such surprise and dismay on my part – comes from my place of privilege as a white person. It’s the same “dismay” that many mostly straight, white congregations have when they wonder “We don’t know why more gays, blacks, Hispanics, and young people don’t come here, …our doors are open to everyone!” Passive “openness” isn’t the same thing as intentional outreach, welcome, hospitality, inclusion, and celebration. >From my experience, I’d reckon that the vast majority of congregations that identify as embracing progressive Christianity are comprised of mostly straight, white people over 60 years of age. The same is likely true of the email list of those who subscribe to this Progressing Spirit newsletter. I’ve met many of the people who are part of such churches [and Spong’s so-called “Church Alumni Association”] and they are mostly warm, caring, intelligent, and well-read people. There’s clearly some sort of disconnect. It could be the term “progressive Christianity” is off-putting. It could also be that we’re seen as rejecting too many parts of the faith that many people are truly endeared to. Perhaps, but I suspect it primarily has to do with where many progressive Christian authors and churchgoers put the majority of our time, energy, dollars, presence, and attention. We tend to not reach out to people of color or historically black congregations when we send out our invitations to upcoming guest speaker events that our churches may host. It’s “not on our radars.” We tend to not invite people of color to be the guest speakers at our events. And we tend to not invite people to join us for worship - people of color, or really anyone for that matter. And, when it comes to worship, we tend to have great theology from our pulpits, but rather dry experiences in worship. And there’s a powerful resistance to incorporating contemporary music in many progressive Christian congregations. In fact, I’d hazard to suggest that it’s this lack of inviting and worshipful passion that we tend to convey that is what is most off-putting. We tend to be overly cerebral and less open to vigorous, palpable experiences of the Spirit in our lives or in the lives of others. As a mainline Protestant from Minnesota I can say that we’re fairly aptly considered “God’s frozen chosen.” (Yes, there are certain passionate, vivacious exceptions within our ranks, but I’m trying to make a point here ; ) Moreover, we seem to forget that some of the great innovators in shaping progressive Christianity – were black. I’d submit that the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was in many ways the first progressive Christian (I’ve said that about John Wesley, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Thomas Merton too ; ). If he hadn’t been assassinated in 1968, Dr. King would be 92 today. Our beloved Bishop Spong turns 90 this June. They were contemporaries. These essays in Progressing Spirit aren’t long enough to be academic papers, so I won’t put forth a formal argument to prove anything. Instead, I’m inviting us to engage in some soul-searching. I would like to offer some documents and resources for our consideration - and toward our collective education about how progressive Christianity came to be. As we peruse them, let’s consider how Dr. King’s ideas and writings align with three sets of progressive Christian guidelines and principles: 1. The 8 Points of Progressive Christianity (put forth by ProgressiveChristianity.Org) 2. The Phoenix Affirmations 3. The Working Definition in Kissing Fish: Progressive Christianity is an approach to the Christian faith that is influenced by post-liberalism and postmodernism and: proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, Savior, & Lord; [interpreted differently than mainstream Xty] emphasizes the Way and teachings of Jesus, not merely His person; emphasizes God's immanence not merely God's transcendence; leans toward panentheism rather than supernatural theism; emphasizes salvation here and now instead of primarily in heaven, later; emphasizes being saved for robust, abundant/eternal life over being saved from hell; emphasizes the social/communal aspects of salvation instead of merely the personal; stresses social justice as integral to Christian discipleship; takes the Bible seriously but not necessarily literally, embracing a more interpretive, metaphorical understanding; emphasizes orthopraxy more than orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas; does not consider homosexuality to be sinful; and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God (is non-exclusive) Documents re: MLK’s Progressive Views, Ideas, & Values: A. 880 Inspiring quotes by MLK B. Tillich’s influence on MLK C. MLK’s Progressive Christian Faith D. MLK’s PhD Thesis re: Tillich & Weiman E. Love & Justice in MLK F. MLK’s Theology of Social Action G. MLK drawing from Hinduism And these short pieces written by conservative Christians who don’t care for MLK: H. Was MLK a Christian? I. King was a Liberal Christian Finally, Rev. Dr. King was one of the founding members of the Progressive National Baptist Convention. See also that denomination’s website. I think you may well agree with me that Dr. King was either way ahead of his time, or that he was a person of his time who was already living out an expression of the Christian faith that takes the Bible seriously but not literally – inviting people to read themselves into the great stories of liberation; embraces the prophetic call to social justice, recognizes the inter-sectionality of various issues and dynamics; offers a generous and universalizing orthodoxy that honors how the Divine is at work in many religious and spiritual traditions in order to amass a collaborative coalition of kindred spirits; and inspires masses of people to envision a better world, a beloved community, and live it into being. Sounds like progressive Christianity. It could be that if we progressive Christians were to take the writings of brother Martin (as well as Frederick Douglass, Howard Thurman, James Baldwin, Fred Shuttlesworth, Bayard Rustin, Ralph Abernathy, Joseph Lowery, and Vincent Harding) more seriously, and to center them as obvious stepping stones – and cornerstones - in our formation, it’d both do us, mostly white, progressive Christians some (a lot) of good - and help our black peers realize we’re doing our work and finally recognizing and celebrating black contributions in our movement. This is part of the reparations work that white folk need to be doing – and in this case, similar to the work of admitting how so many white blues and rock singers appropriated (stole) the songs from the creative genius of the black musicians who wrote them. Progressive Christians who are white would also do well to notice where we live, and why we live there. My hunch is that a sizeable preponderance (perhaps even the majority) of white people who identify as progressive Christians a) are over 50 years of age; b) have a higher than average income; c) live in predominantly white communities (or at least neighborhoods); d) attend largely white congregations; e) if they’re part of a congregation, it’s one that doesn’t significantly embrace contemporary music; f) have fewer black friends (someone who we call or visit with more than four times a year) than the fingers on one hand (if that many); and g) haven’t invited anyone to experience a worship service with them in years (including online). In the midst of the trial for the officer who killed George Floyd, and in the midst of the Black Lives Matter movement that necessarily continues – may we take to heart (not just to head) what faith in action really means and what orthopraxy really involves. May we engage in some needed soul-searching and experience ongoing metanoia - repentance and transformation - as we seek to help the cause of progressive Christianity be a blessing to the world. Not to survive as a movement known by that name that somehow works to ensure its own institutional longevity. But, rather, as a helpful ministry that seeks to truly help all of God’s people meaningfully, transformatively, and passionately embrace who and Whose they really are. ~ Rev. Roger Wolsey p.s. We would also do well to become aware of Rev. Carlton Pearson – a black mega-church preacher who expressed his doubts about the existence of hell, and came to embrace universal salvation (in 1994 & 2002 respectively). And also learning about the fine work of Rev. Irene Monroe; Rev. Dr. Velda Love; Rev. Dr. Jaqueline Lewis and Toni Reynolds. Read online here About the Author Rev. Roger Wolsey is a United Methodist pastor who resides in Grand Junction, CO. Roger is author of Kissing Fish: Christianity for people who don’t like Christianity and blogs for Patheos as The Holy Kiss and serves on the Board of Directors of ProgressiveChristianity.Org. Roger became “a Christian on purpose” during his college years and he experienced a call to ordained ministry two years after college. He values the Wesleyan approach to the faith and, as a certified spiritual director, he seeks to help others grow and mature. Roger enjoys yoga; playing trumpet; motorcycling; and camping with his son. He served as the Director of the Wesley Foundation campus ministry at the University of Colorado in Boulder for 14 years, and has served as pastor of churches in Minnesota, Iowa, and currently serves as the pastor of Fruita UMC in Colorado, and also serves as the "CRM" (Congregational Resource Minister/Church Consultant) for the Utah/Western Colorado District of the Mountain Sky Conference. | | | | | | | | Question & Answer Q: By Judy * In general, what is the Progressive Christian understanding of the word "grace"? * Specifically, what is the grace referred to in the 5th point of Progressive Christianity, which says that Progressive Christians "Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning with an open mind and open heart, than in absolutes or dogma." A: By Rev. Mark Sandlin Dear Judy, When it comes to religion, “grace” is a bit of a loaded term. That is to say, it tends to come with a lot of baggage. Because of that, it is frequently difficult to tell precisely what any given person means by it when they use it. Are they speaking theologically, biblically, colloquially, or from some other point of view? Even then, each one comes with multiple, differing understandings. I actually became a minister, in part, because of how I heard a Presbyterian minister define “grace.” He said (to the best of my memory), “Grace is that thing that pulls you through the darkness to the other side.” To me, that sounded like a warm and fuzzy bit of hocus-pocus. I mean, it didn't really say much and it certainly didn't get me any closer to an understanding of grace. I liked the fact that it moved away from the roots of the word which are tied back to the concept of receiving a gift that is unearned and undeserved. In some ways, his new-to-me definition was kind of saying that grace is not that, but knowing what something is and what it isn't are far from the same thing. At that point in time I was the IT Director for a medium size retail company and, as luck would have it I had to travel alone for six hours that day to fix a networking issue at one of our stores. I spent the entire six hours thinking about what my definition of grace would be. I ended up with something like this: Grace is a gift from God not because of our deserving of it or right to it, but rather, in spite of either. Not perfect, but it got me hooked on thinking more theologically. The reality is, “grace” means a lot of things to a lot of people and there simply is no definitive Progressive Christian Dictionary for looking up what the general Progressive Christian understanding of it is. I can, though, tell you how I currently understand it. Grace is a gift. It is a gift that opens you up toward love and fulfillment. There is no deserving or not deserving it. It just happens. It just is. For me that's what it means in our 5th point of Progressive Christianity. Learning to live in the questions rather than clinging on to the dogma, is a gift that opens us up toward love and fulfillment. There is no deserving or not deserving it. It just happens. It just is.~ Rev. Mark Sandlin Read and share online here About the Author Rev. Mark Sandlin is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) from the South. He currently serves at Presbyterian Church of the Covenant. Mark also serves as the President and Co-executive Director of ProgressiveChristianity.org. He is a co-founder of The Christian Left. His blog, has been named as one of the “Top Ten Christian Blogs.” Mark received The Associated Church Press’ Award of Excellence in 2012. Follow Mark on Facebook and Twitter @marksandlin. | | | | | | | | Please continue to send us your feedback… we are listening. We aim to give voice to many different perspectives that are relevant and inspiring along this spiritually progressing path. We are not here to tell you what to believe or how to act. We are here to support your journey, to share and learn together.Thank you for being a part of this community - join us on Facebook! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Have you ever noticed how often we, as progressive Christians, have to define ourselves in negative terms; in terms of what we don’t believe rather than what we do? We don’t believe that you have to check your brains at the door of the church. We don’t take the Bible literally. We don’t tell people they are going to hell. We don’t exclude LGBTQ+ people. We have unfortunately had to respond in this way to counter what many people assume to be true about Christianity. One of the things that I appreciate the most about ProgressiveChristianity.org is that it helps progressive Christians to define our faith in positive terms, particularly through the 8 Points of Progressive Christianity. As the pastor of a progressive congregation that strives to be truly inclusive and intellectually honest, I am constantly amazed at how many people have never experienced this type of Christianity. There are so many people who have left Christianity behind, simply because the loudest voices have defined the faith in a harmful way. ProgressiveChristianity.org enables congregations and progressive people of faith to articulate their faith boldly and to counter the dominant narrative of an exclusive and often hateful faith. When you support ProgressiveChristianity.org, you help to amplify our voice so that we can transform the way that people see Christianity, the Church, and faith. Thank you so much for your generosity. Rev. Dr. Caleb J. Lines, Co-Executive Director Progressing Spirit and ProgressiveChristianity.org Help keep ProgressiveChristianity.org/Progressing Spirit online and going strong - click here to donate today! * Another way to support us is to leave a bequest in your Will and/or Trust designating us a beneficiary. | | | | | | | | Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited The Origins of the New Testament, Part XXXII: Introducing the Johannine Material Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong August 5, 2010The last series of books that I will consider to complete our study of the Bible’s origins is referred to as “The Johannine Literature.” It consists of five books: the Gospel of John, the three epistles, I, II and III John, and the Revelation of John. There was a time when people generally assumed that these five books were the products of the same author. That point of view has long been abandoned in academic circles. There are connections that bind the Johannine material together to be sure. I John and the Gospel of John are quite similar in content, style and word usage, sufficient to cause some scholars to assume common authorship. Others suggest that the author of the first epistle of John was writing a treatise on the gospel from which he quoted liberally and that this accounts for the similarities. There are more questions about II and III John, the texts of which claim as their author one who was known as “The Elder.” Almost no one today believes that the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John are products of the same person. There appears to have been a school of Christian thought near the end of the first century organized around a man known as John the Elder, who himself may have been a disciple of John Zebedee, which opens us to the possibility that these five books are the products of different members of that Johannine School. If that is so, it would account for the similarity found in these works as well as for the obvious differences. Although one can only be speculative about first century authors, this proposition makes more sense to me than anything else and I have adopted it until further study offers a better possibility. Without doubt the crown jewel of the Johannine literature in the Bible is the Gospel of John, frequently called the “Fourth Gospel” in academic circles. It is clearly the last of the gospels to be written. It is dramatically different from the first three, Mark, Matthew and Luke, which are known as the “synoptic gospels” and are deeply interdependent and bound together. John’s gospel, however, has exercised a disproportionate influence on the development of the Christian creeds and the doctrines that define “orthodoxy” in the western Christian Church. It is probably the favorite of most people who sit in the pews of our churches if they had to choose a favorite. It contains many passages with which church people are familiar. The Prologue, a hymn of praise to the “Logos,” translated as “word” in most English Bibles, has been the most frequently used part of the New Testament in Christian liturgies. Passages from John are the assigned reading in almost every Christian funeral — “In my Father’s house are many mansions” being the most familiar funeral line. The Fourth Gospel has created unforgettable characters that dot the landscape of the Christian imagination. One thinks of doubting Thomas, the Samaritan woman by the well, Lazarus who was raised from the dead, Mary Magdalene, alone and weeping at the tomb on Easter Day, Nicodemus who comes to Jesus by night, and the man born blind who is the hero of a long and detailed narrative. All of these figures are made vivid in our imaginations through the literary genius of the author of the Fourth Gospel. With the exception of Mary Magdalene, they are not mentioned in any other gospel, and she stands out in John in a way quite different from the synoptic accounts. Was the author of the Fourth Gospel familiar with the earlier gospels? Certainly there was a common body of tradition from which each of the gospel writers drew. We know that both Matthew and Luke incorporated great portions of Mark into their work. John certainly reveals a familiarity with the story line followed by the synoptics. All four gospels begin with the story of the adult Jesus in the presence of the figure of John the Baptist. In Mark, Matthew and Luke, John actually baptizes Jesus. John introduces John the Baptist in the proper place, but then only has him point to Jesus as the one who must increase as he decreases, but John never baptizes Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. All of the gospels conclude their narratives with a triumphal entry that we associate today with the Palm Sunday procession. The passion story of each has the account of a betrayal, arrest, crucifixion and resurrection. In Mark, Matthew and Luke, however, the only time Jesus journeyed from Galilee to Jerusalem was at the time of the crucifixion, while in John Jesus goes back and forth between Galilee and Jerusalem on several occasions. Mark, Matthew and Luke treat the public ministry of Jesus as something that is told over a one-year period. John suggests that the public ministry of Jesus was up to three years in duration. We can find references that appear to point to a rather specific connection between Mark and Luke and the Fourth Gospel that suggests a possible dependence on these two as sources for John’s writing, but that is harder to do with Matthew. Yet despite all these similarities and connections, there are some very real differences between John and the other three gospels. There is no story in John of Jesus’ miraculous or “virgin birth.” On two occasions, in chapters 1 and 5, John’s gospel refers to Jesus as “the son of Joseph.” Jesus delivers no parables in John. The teaching of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel comes in long, somewhat convoluted theological discourses. John records no agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, but rather has Jesus walk resolutely toward his crucifixion, which he expects to be his moment of glorification. The “High Priestly prayer” in John, chapter 17, appears to be John’s version of Jesus’ prayer “Let this cup pass from me” found in the synoptics. There is no account of the Last Supper in John; instead we read the story of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples. John denies that the Last Supper was the Passover, while the earlier three gospels claimed that it was. John is the only gospel writer who places the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross to watch the crucifixion. She is simply not present in the other gospels, a fact that renders most of Mel Gibson’s motion picture, “The Passion of Christ,” to be almost biblically illiterate and that also calls into question the accuracy of most of the piety of the ages that revolve around the Virgin Mary. Miracles present in the three synoptic gospels are turned into “signs” in John. The resurrection of Jesus in John is quite physical, sufficient to have Thomas be invited to touch the print of the nails in Jesus’ hands and feet and to thrust his hand into the wound in Jesus’ side, a wound that only John describes. In these details John is closer to Luke, whose resurrected Jesus asked the disciples to handle him because ghosts do not have flesh. This put John, however, into opposition with Paul, Mark and possibly Matthew, all of whom suggest that the risen Christ represents a new dimension of life and even of consciousness that transcends the realm of the physical. Indeed, the differences between the Fourth Gospel and the earlier three are so significant that a harmonization of the gospel tradition into a single theology of Jesus is almost impossible. In common language, Mark presents us with a fully human Jesus upon whom God’s Spirit was poured at his baptism, making him a God-infused, but still human life, while John suggests that Jesus was the pre-existent word of God, enfleshed in the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Mark can cry from the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” The Jesus of John ends his life with the pronouncement, “It is finished,” which replicates the original creation story and portrays Jesus as the author of the New Creation. For John, Jesus is never separated from God: “The Father and I are one,” John’s Jesus says. When the Fellows at the Jesus Seminar were doing their work aimed at determining the authenticity of the words of Jesus recorded in the four gospels, they came to and published their conclusion, that only 16% of the words attributed to Jesus in the entire gospel tradition were actually spoken by him, which of course means that 84% were not. It is of interest to note that none of the words attributed to Jesus by John were deemed to be in the 16% that they claimed represented the authentic words of the Jesus of history. Yet, even if that judgment is correct (and as one fellow in the Jesus Seminar, I find no reason to argue with that conclusion) I still concur in the opinion that John’s gospel captures the essence of the Jesus experience more profoundly than any other part of the New Testament. That experience, however, simply cannot be contained within the boundaries of literalized human words. So I think of John as the least literal, but the most profoundly true of the four canonical gospel writers. I will return to this claim in subsequent columns to put more flesh on its bare bones. I doubt if there is any biblical book about which we could say that we have in the present, surviving text of that book the exact words the original author actually wrote. Things hand copied over a number of centuries lend themselves to the probability of having words edited, added and even deleted. The Gospel of John is no different. There are three textual conclusions about John that have gained wide, almost universal support. One is that chapters five and six need to be reversed. In their present order, they make no contextual sense. The second is that the beautiful story in chapter eight of Jesus standing between the woman taken in the act of adultery and her accusers is not and never was part of the original text of John’s gospel. The third is that chapter 21 is an appendix, an epilogue that was added later to the gospel and was not part of the original. I assume the truth of these three textual insights. With this introduction, I will turn now to look at John’s gospel then I will move on to John’s epistles and finally I will close this study with a look at the book the Revelation of John So stay tuned. ~ John Shelby Spong | | | | | | | | Announcements Humanity 360: Environmental Concerns That Affect Us All – and What we can do with it. Start Date: March 15, 2021 - Cost: $30 - 4 weeks Our ultimate goal is to awaken each participant to a sense of agency and self-determination. An understanding of how each issue can be addressed through action and engagement and how this in turn leads to a greater inner sense of fulfillment and purpose. READ ON ... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | #yiv9005829089 p{margin:10px 0;padding:0;}#yiv9005829089 table{border-collapse:collapse;}#yiv9005829089 h1, #yiv9005829089 h2, #yiv9005829089 h3, #yiv9005829089 h4, #yiv9005829089 h5, #yiv9005829089 h6{display:block;margin:0;padding:0;}#yiv9005829089 img, #yiv9005829089 a img{border:0;height:auto;outline:none;text-decoration:none;}#yiv9005829089 body, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089bodyTable, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089bodyCell{min-height:100%;margin:0;padding:0;width:100%;}#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnPreviewText{display:none !important;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089outlook a{padding:0;}#yiv9005829089 img{}#yiv9005829089 table{}#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089ReadMsgBody{width:100%;}#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089ExternalClass{width:100%;}#yiv9005829089 p, #yiv9005829089 a, #yiv9005829089 li, #yiv9005829089 td, #yiv9005829089 blockquote{}#yiv9005829089 a .filtered99999 , #yiv9005829089 a .filtered99999 {color:inherit;cursor:default;text-decoration:none;}#yiv9005829089 p, #yiv9005829089 a, #yiv9005829089 li, #yiv9005829089 td, #yiv9005829089 body, #yiv9005829089 table, #yiv9005829089 blockquote{}#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089ExternalClass, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089ExternalClass p, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089ExternalClass td, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089ExternalClass div, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089ExternalClass span, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089ExternalClass font{line-height:100%;}#yiv9005829089 a .filtered99999 {color:inherit !important;text-decoration:none !important;font-size:inherit !important;font-family:inherit !important;font-weight:inherit !important;line-height:inherit !important;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089bodyCell{padding:10px;}#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089templateContainer{max-width:600px !important;border:5px solid #363232;}#yiv9005829089 a.yiv9005829089mcnButton{display:block;}#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImage, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnRetinaImage{vertical-align:bottom;}#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent{}#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent img{height:auto !important;}#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnDividerBlock{table-layout:fixed !important;}#yiv9005829089 body, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089bodyTable{}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089bodyCell{border-top:0;}#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089templateContainer{border:5px solid #363232;}#yiv9005829089 h1{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:26px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv9005829089 h2{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:22px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv9005829089 h3{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:20px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv9005829089 h4{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;line-height:125%;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templatePreheader{background-color:#FAFAFA;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:0;padding-top:9px;padding-bottom:9px;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templatePreheader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templatePreheader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p{color:#656565;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templatePreheader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent a, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templatePreheader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p a{color:#656565;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateHeader{background-color:#FFFFFF;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:0;padding-top:9px;padding-bottom:0;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateHeader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateHeader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:16px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateHeader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent a, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateHeader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p a{color:#007C89;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateBody{background-color:#FFFFFF;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:2px solid #EAEAEA;padding-top:0;padding-bottom:9px;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateBody .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateBody .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p{color:#202020;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:16px;line-height:150%;text-align:left;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateBody .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent a, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateBody .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p a{color:#007C89;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateFooter{background-color:#FAFAFA;background-image:none;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:center;background-size:cover;border-top:0;border-bottom:0;padding-top:9px;padding-bottom:9px;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateFooter .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateFooter .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p{color:#656565;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;line-height:150%;text-align:center;}#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateFooter .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent a, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateFooter .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p a{color:#656565;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:underline;}@media only screen and (min-width:768px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089templateContainer{width:600px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 body, #yiv9005829089 table, #yiv9005829089 td, #yiv9005829089 p, #yiv9005829089 a, #yiv9005829089 li, #yiv9005829089 blockquote{}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 body{width:100% !important;min-width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnRetinaImage{max-width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImage{width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnCartContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionTopContent, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnRecContentContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionBottomContent, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnTextContentContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnBoxedTextContentContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageGroupContentContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionLeftTextContentContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionRightTextContentContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionLeftImageContentContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionRightImageContentContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageCardLeftTextContentContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageCardRightTextContentContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageCardLeftImageContentContainer, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageCardRightImageContentContainer{max-width:100% !important;width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnBoxedTextContentContainer{min-width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageGroupContent{padding:9px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionLeftContentOuter .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionRightContentOuter .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent{padding-top:9px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageCardTopImageContent, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionBottomContent:last-child .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionBottomImageContent, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionBlockInner .yiv9005829089mcnCaptionTopContent:last-child .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent{padding-top:18px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageCardBottomImageContent{padding-bottom:9px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageGroupBlockInner{padding-top:0 !important;padding-bottom:0 !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageGroupBlockOuter{padding-top:9px !important;padding-bottom:9px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnBoxedTextContentColumn{padding-right:18px !important;padding-left:18px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageCardLeftImageContent, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnImageCardRightImageContent{padding-right:18px !important;padding-bottom:0 !important;padding-left:18px !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcpreview-image-uploader{display:none !important;width:100% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 h1{font-size:22px !important;line-height:125% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 h2{font-size:20px !important;line-height:125% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 h3{font-size:18px !important;line-height:125% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 h4{font-size:16px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent, #yiv9005829089 .yiv9005829089mcnBoxedTextContentContainer .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p{font-size:14px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templatePreheader{display:block !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templatePreheader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templatePreheader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p{font-size:12px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateHeader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateHeader .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p{font-size:16px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateBody .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateBody .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p{font-size:14px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){#yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateFooter .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent, #yiv9005829089 #yiv9005829089templateFooter .yiv9005829089mcnTextContent p{font-size:12px !important;line-height:150% !important;}}

1 0

Tragic Investment
by Terry Bergdall 10 Mar '21

10 Mar '21

As many of you know, the ICA Global Research Network is offering numerous opportunities for participation in upcoming book studies, podcasts, and discussions, etc. I would like to call your attention in particular to the four part series on James Addington’s book, TRAGIC INVESTMENT, that will commence on April 6, 2021. The series will delve into many relevant questions like: • How do we repair the damage done to communities as a result of our racial history? • Is racial oppression related to our ability to respond to ecological challenges? Addington suggests that racism harms us all, and he pays particular attention to the subtle ways white people are damaged. He also suggests that race sabotages the nation’s capacity to negotiate the challenges the future poses. Explore how overcoming racism and shaping a sustainable, resilient society are bound together in Tragic Investment. To register, simply send an email to < inaRja(a)comcast.net <mailto:inaRja@comcast.net>>. For more information, see https://icaglobalarchives.org/social-research-center-events/ <https://icaglobalarchives.org/social-research-center-events/> Best wishes to all around the world, Terry Bergdall

1 0