- OE - lists.wedgeblade.net

Re: [Oe List ...] [Dialogue] Naomi Klein book and Leap movement
by Rod Rippel 29 May '18

29 May '18

Randy, et.al., Check out “ON TYRANNY” by Timothy Snyder. ‘20 Lessons from the 20th Century. Rod From: Randy Williams via OE Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 9:41 AM To: Colleague Dialogue Cc: Randy Williams ; oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] [Dialogue] Naomi Klein book and Leap movement Ellie, I read the book. To get the full impact of Trump’s “shock politics,” read also her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Randy On May 29, 2018, at 11:34 AM, Ellie Stock via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: Hi Folks, Maybe someone has written about this before and I missed it, but just wanted to check... I just finished reading Naomi Klein's 2017 book No Is No Enough, Resisting Trump's Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need, the focus of which is that resistance to the critical issues we face today, while necessary, is not enough and needs to be addressed by a powerful positive holistic vision created and supported by a movement comprised of a broad coalition of diverse grassroots groups. Proposed action cannot be slow incremental change but must take a Leap and move rapidly and comprehensively as happened in prep for WWII and other times of radical transformative change. Much of her work has been done in Canada with groups that have come together to create "The Leap Manifesto, A Call for a Canada Based on Caring for the Earth and One Another." If you replace "Canada" with "The U.S." in the document, the issues are basically the same.. A sentence toward the end of the document reads: We call for town hall meetings across the country where residents can gather to democratically define what a genuine leap to the next economy means in their communities." Hmmm, that sounds familiar... So, just wondering if colleagues in Canada (or the US) are connected with this. Any comments on the book? Ellie elliestock(a)aol.com _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

Naomi Klein book and Leap movement
by Ellie Stock 29 May '18

29 May '18

Hi Folks, Maybe someone has written about this before and I missed it, but just wanted to check... I just finished reading Naomi Klein's 2017 book No Is No Enough, Resisting Trump's Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need, the focus of which is that resistance to the critical issues we face today, while necessary, is not enough and needs to be addressed by a powerful positive holistic vision created and supported by a movement comprised of a broad coalition of diverse grassroots groups. Proposed action cannot be slow incremental change but must take a Leap and move rapidly and comprehensively as happened in prep for WWII and other times of radical transformative change. Much of her work has been done in Canada with groups that have come together to create "The Leap Manifesto, A Call for a Canada Based on Caring for the Earth and One Another." If you replace "Canada" with "The U.S." in the document, the issues are basically the same.. A sentence toward the end of the document reads: We call for town hall meetings across the country where residents can gather to democratically define what a genuine leap to the next economy means in their communities." Hmmm, that sounds familiar... So, just wondering if colleagues in Canada (or the US) are connected with this. Any comments on the book? Ellie elliestock(a)aol.com

2 2

Global Buzz reminder
by ICA International 29 May '18

29 May '18

Reminder for entries This reminder is for the Global Buzz that will be published June 5th. 2018 (Please send your entries at least a day or more ahead) Please send all your entries by regular e-mail to: inform(a)ica-international.org with your entry as an attatchment. Send details of news items, training programmes, your peer to peer connections with other ICAs, any concerns you may have and of any events that are coming up at your location. Your report can be long or short, but remember that all other ICAs would really like to know about the things that matter where you are, and what you are doing as an ICA. Peter, for ICAI Communications Pour les entrées de rappel Ce rappel est à la Global Buzz qui sera publié le 5 juin 2018 (Veuillez envoyer vos entrées au moins une journée à l'avance) Veuillez envoyer toutes vos entrées maintenant par courriel ordinaire à : inform(a)ica-international.org avec votre entrée comme un attatchment. Envoyer les détails des articles de nouvelles, des programmes de formation, vos connexions peer to peer avec d'autres CIAS, de toute préoccupation que vous pourriez avoir et de tous les événements qui sont à venir à votre emplacement. Votre rapport peut être longue ou courte, mais rappelez-vous que toutes les autres CIAS aimerait vraiment savoir à propos de choses qui importe où vous êtes et ce que vous faites comme une ICA. Recordatorio de las entradas Este aviso es para el Global Buzz que se publicarán 5 junio 2018 (Favor de enviar sus entradas al menos con un día de antelación) Por favor envíe todos sus entradas ahora por correo electrónico a: inform(a)ica-international.org con su entrada como un archivo adjunto. Enviar detalles de noticias, programas de capacitación, el peer to peer las conexiones con otros convenios o acuerdos internacionales, las preocupaciones que usted pueda tener y de los eventos que se aproximan en su ubicación. El informe puede ser a corto o largo, pero hay que recordar que todos los demás convenios quisiera saber realmente sobre lo que realmente importa, y lo que están haciendo una ICA.

1 0

"A Confession of Faith in a Time of Crisis:; Movie: "Pope Francis: A Man of His Word"
by Ellie Stock 26 May '18

26 May '18

Hi Folks, Below is a link to "A Confession of Faith in a Time of Crisis" signed on by a number of prominent clergy, including The Most Rev. Michael B. Curry, Presiding Bishop and Primate, The Episcopal Church, who delivered the homily at Prince Harry/Meghan Markle's wedding. There was a vigil last Thursday night in front of the White House where this was read. A Confession of Faith in a Time of Crisis | Christ ... www.christepiscopalchurch.com/dfc/newsdetail_2/3192508 A Confession of Faith in a Time of Crisis. We are living through perilous and polarizing times as a nation, I think the Confession is good. However, a critical omission is any mention of how the soul of humanity and America is also integrally related to the well-being of this sacred Earth and all that is in it. Which brings me to mention... 1) Today is Rachel Carson's birthday. We are much indebted to her for the consciousness of caring for creation she evoked through her scientific research, writing, and witness of her life. 2) Saw the movie "Pope Francis, A Man of his Word" (playing at the Tivoli, for those in St. Louis). thought it was beautiful. Covered many issues, but mention of women priests, abortion or birth control. If you haven't read his Encylical, Laudato Si', On Care for Our Common Home, I encourage you do to so. It is written not just for the Catholic Church but for all humanity to ponder and respond. It can be found and downloaded free at: Download "Laudato Si" | Pope Francis' Encyclical on ... laudatosi.com/watch Read Pope Francis' new encyclical online, in PDF, or in paperback form. Discover the Catholic Church's teaching on ecology, climate change, and care for creation. Hope you have a good Memorial Day Weekend, as we remember all those who sacrificed their lives in order to create a free, just and peaceful nation and world. Ellie :) elliestock(a)aol.com

1 0

Swamp Gravy!!
by Seth Longacre 25 May '18

25 May '18

Holy cow, folks! I’m sitting here, right now, listening to NPR’s Planet Money and it is all about Colquitt and Joy Jinks and Swamp Gravy! Very cool. Bill and Nan Grow, I hope you hear this. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/05/25/613750683/episode-843-swamp-g… <https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/05/25/613750683/episode-843-swamp-g…> Seth T. Longacre Carlsbad, CA "No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices” Edward R. Murrow ———-O0ooo— ———–(——)— ————)–-/—- ————(_/- —-ooo0O—- —-(——)—- —–\-–(– ——\_)-

2 1

Re: [Oe List ...] Fwd: Reclaiming Jesus
by Rod Rippel 25 May '18

25 May '18

Amen and Good News! Thanks for sending. Rod Rippel From: Marianna Bailey via OE Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 5:47 PM To: James Wiegel Cc: Marianna Bailey Subject: [Oe List ...] Fwd: Reclaiming Jesus Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded Message http://reclaimingjesus.org/ In case you haven’t heard about Bishop Curry’s protest in D.C. today, I’m sending you this link to the theses they put on the White House gate. There’s so little good news these days, but this gave me hope.home marianna Bailey Protect Our Environment ~ Vote! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

Fwd: Reclaiming Jesus
by Marianna Bailey 25 May '18

25 May '18

Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded Message > > http://reclaimingjesus.org/ > > In case you haven’t heard about Bishop Curry’s protest in D.C. today, I’m sending you this link to the theses they put on the White House gate. There’s so little good news these days, but this gave me hope.home > > marianna Bailey > Protect Our Environment ~ Vote! > >

2 1

5/17/18, Progressing Spirit: Felton: A Conversation with John Shuck: Part 2 “All Shuck. No Jive.”; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 24 May '18

24 May '18

Missed sending this last week... View this email in your browser A Conversation with John Shuck: Part 2 “All Shuck. No Jive.” Essay by Rev. David Felten on May 17, 2018 What follows is the second part of an interview with the Rev. John Shuck. In this installment, Shuck offers perspectives on the risks of being honest in the “corporate church” and the struggle in dealing with other people’s worldviews when coping with personal tragedy. ___________________________________________________________ David Felten:…The first part of our conversation revolved around the necessity of telling the truth. Would you say you’re an advocate for honesty? John Shuck:…Yes. That’s it. Period. That’s the primary thing. No matter what. Whatever it is. Maybe that sounds simple, like what the Boy Scouts believe. But when it comes down to it, it’s harder than you think. David Felten:…It sounds like you’re affirming what Jack Good asserts in The Dishonest Church – that the dishonesty of clergy is in large part the catalyst for the downfall of the mainline denominations. But it seems that many clergy still feel that it’s more important to maintain a superficial expression of creedal, all-points-approved-doctrine than being honest with the congregation about where they’re at personally, theologically, and spiritually. John Shuck:…Right. The problem is the model of “the corporate church” that Diana Butler Bass talks about. Making sure all the trains run on time. I mean, the typical response I get from fellow clergy is: “I know that but I don’t want to say it, because how’s that going to help the budget?” Frankly, I disagree with the excuse that being honest ultimately hurts the budget. If you’re looking past the immediate generation, I think the very fact that we now have so many non-religious people – and they’re young – is because they’ve had enough of the dishonesty. It doesn’t take ten minutes on the internet to realize that all the things we’ve been talking about, in terms of creeds or whatever, are full of holes. David Felten:…OK, so what message would you want to tell people who are trying to be honest — be they lay people or clergy? John Shuck:…The message I want to share is surprisingly hopeful. Being honest has actually been a great thing. It’s been liberating and, for me, it’s been a matter of spiritual growth. There are many, many people who are looking for that same thing. Whether they’re lay people or clergy, you’re not alone. It kind of reminds me of what it must have been like being gay twenty years ago. David Felten:…Come out of your closets. John Shuck:…Yeah. Come out! The fruit of that is – who knows? We don’t know where it might lead. I think that’s the conservative thing, “knowing” how everything works. What’s it going to look like for us? Well, I don’t know – but it’s going to involve trust. David Felten:…And that’s okay. John Shuck:…Yeah. You’ve got to trust that however it ends up, it’s going to be what it is – and that’s okay. David Felten:…It’s going to be hard for some people to let go of the idea that Jesus had everything planned exactly the way things turned out in his life and is still intervening supernaturally in people’s lives right now. John Shuck:…My experience is that the bible comes alive when it’s released from its supernatural moorings. For instance, I always used to think that the events of Palm Sunday – where Jesus tells people to go find the donkey and if they ask this, then you tell them that – that this fulfilled some kind of supernatural prediction. But now I realize, no. Jesus is just working the system. He’s got an underground thing going. He’s hiding out in Bethany and he can only go into Jerusalem when it’s daytime because the crowds are there. It isn’t a supernatural prediction of events. Jesus has figured out how to make this demonstration work and that’s what this “find me a donkey” dialog is. So, when I started to think about scriptural stories this way – and preach them and teach them – I think they become far more authentic. The responses I’ve received are, “Yeah, this really makes sense now,” where they haven’t before. David Felten:…We just came through Easter and not that I want you to recount your sermon from Sunday, but how do you approach preaching on Easter? John Shuck:…John Shuck: It was very helpful this year that John Dominic Crossan had just come out with his book on Resurrecting Easter. In it, he basically talks about the iconography of Easter and the resurrection from the perspective of the Eastern church. David Felten:…A triumphant Jesus bringing everybody out… John Shuck:……yanking them right out of Hades, right? First, this didn’t happen. You couldn’t have taken a photo of the event. But Crossan says that this image is an advertisement. It’s promoting a way of talking about a movement – of the way that Jesus and Jesus followers can be in the world. It was violence, Roman state-sanctioned violence that put him to death. And so, he comes out with the wounds on his hands, yanking all of humanity, including Adam and Eve, out of death. So, this image, this “advertisement,” is saying “no” to whatever it is that forces us into death, yanking everybody out of death, and says “yes” to the things that Jesus stood for. David Felten:…And he stood for… John Shuck:…Compassion. He stood for justice. He stood for love. He stood for inclusion for everyone. That wins. That’s what this image is saying. David Felten:…But I can hear people saying, “The historical Jesus also embraced a theistic God – and if we don’t have an appreciation for, or a belief in, the God that evidently Jesus did, what’s the point?” John Shuck:…Well, we don’t have any idea what Jesus really believed about anything – and it really wouldn’t matter because he was a product of his century just as we are of ours. Jesus lived in a universe where everyone believed the earth was the center of a three-tiered cosmos and you could go up and you could go down in a literal manner. Whatever the gods were, they did all kinds of stuff: interfered and answered prayers. But that doesn’t work anymore. We have to translate those ideas into today’s language and include what we learn from other sources. I think just being honest with what doesn’t work anymore is important. David Felten:…Are you comfortable saying a word about the death of your son and what role being an atheist played in dealing with that? John Shuck:…Thank you for asking. Zachary died in 2012. He suicided. I’m comfortable saying it, but I oftentimes just don’t know what to say. I don’t know what effect that actually has on my theology. I’m not trying to not say anything, or not not say anything, I just really honestly don’t know sometimes. After Zach died, what bothered me was that it sometimes felt that people were more upset because I was pretty dark in terms of a lot of my writing. Had I lost my faith? That seemed to them worse than losing my son. I said, “No.” That’s an easy answer. But some people felt I needed to find comfort from heaven or whatever and I don’t. I didn’t and I still don’t. I feel that all we’re asked to do is to bear witness in our lives. The witness I wanted to give was that I’ve gone through this experience. Here it is. You can take it, you can leave it, you can have it. If it’s dark for you, you don’t have to watch it. You can turn away. But I’m not just going to cover it up with something “light” in order to make someone else feel more comfortable. David Felten:…As a spiritual leader, that’s such a complex position to be in. Everyone wants to support you, but all you get is the boiler plate clichés. You have to say, “Hang on. That, in fact, is not comforting to me. So, let’s just dial that back.” I mean, you must have had some weird encounters. John Shuck:…Oh, it’s very difficult to know where your role is. Am I always needing to be the minister? Can I sometimes be the one who just simply goes through life here? Very difficult. And lots of stuff within my own self: how can I even call myself a minister if I can’t even do my primary job of raising a son to full adulthood? This is scary stuff, but when I was still in Tennessee, I remember a local church doing one of those haunted houses where they drag you though a “Hell House” kind of thing. Well, the year Zach died, the theme happened to be – and I’m sure it was a coincidence – but it happened to be, “Those who commit suicide go to hell.” David Felten:…Wow. John Shuck:…That was also the culture there. I’d heard that stuff going around in the community: it was because I was this bad believer that this happened to my son. It’s a rough thing. Sometimes you actually take that personally. Part of me is also saying, I lost my son. There’s nothing worse – but there’s an odd sense of courage you get after that. I’m going to do what I need to do and… David Felten:……and be honest. John Shuck:…And be honest with whatever my life is and accept that at any moment things can change drastically. So, at the end, you’ve got to look back and say, are you happy with yourself? David Felten:…So, are you happy being where you are today – a non-theistic, atheist, humanist, pastor? Maybe how it’s freed you? John Shuck:…I would say, yeah. I’ve developed a great admiration for those who go and research and then tell uncomfortable truths. For example, I’m also a member of Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth. I have been for some time. It’s basically based on a theologian, David Ray Griffin, and his work in looking at some of those issues. So, whatever. Go ahead and look at whatever it is out there and seek to be honest about it. I think it’s an incredibly liberating thing. And most importantly, talk about it with your congregation. ~ Rev. David Felten with Rev. John Shuck Click here to read online and to share your thoughts About John Shuck: Once a professional radio announcer at stations in Boise and Seattle, Rev. Shuck has served as a Presbyterian pastor for 25 years. Through his blog, Shuck and Jive, John became known in Northeast Tennessee and Southwest Virginia as the “Radical Reverend.” His popularity (infamy?) lead to the development of his podcast, Religion for Life, which began broadcasting in 2012. Now moved to Oregon, John is the full-time pastor at Southminster Presbyterian Church in Beaverton, Oregon. He currently hosts the radio program/podcast, “The Beloved Community” on KBOO FM in Portland, Oregon. Since 2012, John has interviewed over 250 authors, scholars, and activists about social justice issues, religious scholarship, politics, sex, science, and more. The internet version of The Beloved Community, Progressive Spirit, can be subscribed to on iTunes and Podomatic. Be sure to visit John’s website by clicking HERE About the Author Rev. David M. Felten is a full-time pastor at The Fountains, a United Methodist Church in Fountain Hills, Arizona. David and fellow United Methodist Pastor, Jeff Procter-Murphy, are the creators of the DVD-based discussion series for Progressive Christians, “Living the Questions”. A co-founder of the Arizona Foundation for Contemporary Theology and also a founding member of No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice, David is an outspoken voice for LGBTQ rights both in the church and in the community at large. David is active in the Desert Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church and tries to stay connected to his roots as a musician. You’ll find him playing saxophones in a variety of settings, including appearances with the Fountain Hills Saxophone Quartet. David and his wife Laura, an administrator for a large Arizona public school district, live in Phoenix with their three often adorable children. Question & Answer Q: By Interested Readers Dear Friends: The volume of questions that this column elicits from its readers continues to amaze me. There is no doubt that this column connects with people all over the world who are seeking a new kind of spirituality that combines truth with empowerment. Sadly enough, these letters suggest that this searching, growing process is not welcomed by most institutional church leaders. It appears to threaten their sense of security and certainty. It does and they should welcome it. Is it not incredible to embrace the fact that the church so often appears to be the enemy of those who seek to develop their own spiritual dimensions? In every area of life, growth requires the ability to question, to doubt, and to look at issues from a new perspective. So any attempt to suppress questions is the enemy of growth. Whenever the claim is made by any church that infallibility is its possession, or that its sacred scriptures are the source of the inerrant word of God, or that any church is the true church or any religious system possesses the only way to God, this is a manifestation of the presence of idolatry. That is also the source of the threat that they feel. This column exists to enable questions to be raised, issues to be faced and new insights to be engaged. So your questions are its lifeblood. That is why approximately once a month I devote the entire column to the questions you have raised. At this point I am able to use about one out of every ten I receive. If you would like to pursue some of these issues further, I invite you to post your response, positive or negative, on this web site or enter one of the chat rooms limited to our subscribers and dedicated to the pursuit of religious knowledge. I appreciate this chance to be in dialogue with you through this medium. So read on! ~ John Shelby Spong A: By Bishop John Shelby Spong Margaret from Salem, Oregon asks: Our Roman Catholic Church has invited a visionary to speak to us to increase our faith. This visionary receives messages daily from the Virgin Mary. This disturbs my faith rather than enhancing it. Would you comment? Dear Margaret, Religious nuts are sometimes tolerated when they ought to be in mental hospitals! Sometimes an apparently religious framework will gain for people toleration that their behavior could never otherwise merit or command. Why would God choose this means of communication? Would the message gained through this means be about something as yet unknown? Would the agenda be so self-serving as to assist in enforcing an already believed idea? I think you are right to be disturbed. The priest who invited this man and the bishop who approved the invitation are guilty of being irresponsible charlatans. Superstition and ignorance are not transformed by pious language. That only changes them into being pious superstition and pious ignorance. I do not think that is an improvement. ~John Shelby Spong Todd of Atlanta asks: Do you believe in Christ's Resurrection? If not, what distinguishes you as a Christian vs. something else? Dear Todd, There is no Christianity apart from the resurrection. That is not the question. What you are really asking is, 'What was the Resurrection?' Was it a supernatural transformation of a three-days dead body into a resuscitated living being? It is interesting to me to note that this is not what Paul thought and Paul wrote all of his Epistles between 50 and 64 C.E., long before the story of the resurrection of Jesus achieved a narrative form. It is also noteworthy that in the first Gospel, Mark (70-75 C.E.) the risen Christ never appears. In this Gospel there is only the proclamation of the messenger to the women that Jesus had been raised, that the disciples are to be informed and that Jesus will go before them into Galilee. It is not until the 9th decade of the Common Era that resurrection, understood as resuscitation to life in this world, entered the Christian tradition. That occurred in the writing of Matthew (80 to 85), who says that the women met the risen Jesus in the garden and there they grasped his feet. The implication is clear that these feet were physical. It is interesting that when Mark related this same episode a decade earlier, the women did not see the risen Christ in the garden. Scholars know that Matthew had Mark in front of him when he wrote, so we know that Matthew has deliberately changed Mark at this point. Luke, who also had Mark in front of him when he wrote, agrees with Mark and disagrees with Matthew stating that the women did not see the risen Christ at the tomb. That means the Bible registers a 2-1 vote against Matthew's story being authentic. If you take that disputed Matthean account out of the debate, then only in the later Gospels of Luke (88-92) and John (95-100) does the definition of the Easter experience, as a resuscitated body, become the meaning of the resurrection. These data surprise people who have only heard the Easter story told simplistically for most of their lives. In my book entitled Resurrection: Myth or Reality? A Bishop Rethinks the Origins of Christianity I took over 300 pages to dissect the meaning of Easter with what I hope is scholarly precision. I think Easter is real. I do not think that Easter originally had a thing to do with a deceased body walking out of a tomb alive. What it does mean is far more profound than that. But that is as far as a question and answer format will allow me to go. I hope this much intrigues you to pursue the subject much more deeply than your defensive sounding question suggests that you have done thus far. ~John Shelby Spong Chuck from Northfield, Minnesota asks: Why is Christianity growing in its fundamentalist forms and dying where it tries to engage the thought of the present world? Dear Chuck, Statistics can lead to fascinating conclusions. Conservative churches do appear to be growing and the main line churches, or those churches that are open to engaging today's world, do seem to be shrinking. A more accurate statistic, however, is that behind these shifts Christianity itself is a declining reality in the 21st century in every developed nation of the world. Increasingly, modern, educated people abandon the church because its message no longer makes sense to them. Those who remain become more and more narrowly focused on a smaller and smaller piece of reality. They claim certainty and thus attract those in search of security. That is their primary appeal. Some of them have also developed positive public relation campaigns to promote growth Where churches engage reality and confront the thought processes of the modern world, they can no longer talk in terms of the traditional religious language of miracles, divine intervention, answered prayers and Jesus as the sacrifice that paid for their sins. They become more certain about what they do not believe than they are about what they do believe. Negative messages are never appealing. That is why the main line churches are dying. Certainty and security are, however, not gifts that conservative or fundamentalist Christian Churches can finally deliver even when they traffic in them. So eventually reality will puncture these fantasies. An organization in New York City called "Fundamentalists Anonymous" once existed to assist those who had been Protestant fundamentalists but who had become disillusioned with a certainty that is not real. Others, not dissimilar, refer to themselves as "Recovering Catholics." There are some Christian communities in all denominations, Catholic and Protestant that have begun to define themselves positively not negatively. They stand for openness, for engagement, for breaking boundaries for journeying beyond the familiar signposts into the mystery of God. They are marked by the ability to honor people's questions rather than pretending to have all the answers. These churches are also growing. An international organization called The Center for Progressive Christianity (know in the U.K. as "The Progressive Christianity Network") acts as a central office that links them loosely together. You can contact this organization in the U.S.A. by writing to JADAMS(a)TCPC.org, in the U.K. by writing to info(a)pcnbritain.org.uk, or in Australia by writing to pcnet(a)effectiveliving.org . It might be worth your while. Perhaps one of these congregations is located near you. ~ John Shelby Spong Christine in Leicester, UK asks: What do you mean when you say that we can no longer envision God in theistic terms? Dear Christine, Theism is the primary way human beings have understood God throughout history. By theism, I mean defining God as "a being, perhaps the supreme being, supernatural in power, external to life, dwelling somewhere beyond the sky and periodically intervening in history to accomplish the divine will." This is the majority but not the exclusive view of God in the Bible. In that Book God is portrayed as controlling the weather to bring about the flood in which only Noah's family was saved and all others were killed. Would those victims feel like worshipping such a God? This theistic God was also said to have killed the first born in every Egyptian household as a prelude to the Exodus. This God was pictured as splitting the Red Sea to allow the Hebrews to escape but then to have closing the Red Sea to drown the Egyptians. Could the Egyptians worship such a God? Can we? Is this not the portrait of a tribal deity that we surely have outgrown? I do not think that atheism is the only alternative to theism. I believe, however, that theism is a very inadequate way to envision the holy. I prefer to think of God as the Source of the life that flows in all of us, as the Source of the love that humanizes us and as the Ground of Being that calls us and empowers us to be all that we can be. These are not theistic images. They are words that are designed to carry us beyond the sterile debate between atheism and theism and into a new way to make sense out of our experiences of the transcendent, the holy, God. I am confident that a radical revision of the way God is conceived is the first essential ingredient in keeping Christianity alive in the future. I welcome you to the New Reformation. ~ John Shelby Spong Craig from Boston, Mass asks: Do you believe that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children or to have children through artificial insemination or surrogate mothers? Dear Craig, There are many dimensions to your question not the least of which is the way homosexuality is still shrouded in irrational fear and ongoing prejudice. What we have to keep our focus on is the goal. Every baby whether conceived naturally or by artificial means, whether raised by his or her parents or by adoptive parents should be guaranteed proper parenting. The fact is that much parenting is ineffective and some parenting is destructive. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that sexual orientation has anything to do with making one a more or less competent parent. Overwhelming data, for example, suggest that a higher percentage of heterosexual people abuse children than do homosexual people. There is surely something to be said for every child having two parents but death, divorce, and pregnancies outside of wedlock make that ideal not universally available. If you pose the question: Would you prefer to see children raised by a heterosexual couple rather than by a homosexual couple, I suspect, given the depth of our cultural homophobia, that a large majority would vote for the heterosexual alternative. But if the question is posed: Would you rather see a child raised by an abusive heterosexual couple or a loving homosexual couple, the answer would be quite different. However, we still live in a free society so prospective parents do not need government approval to conceive. There will always be some risk to children in the fact that they are born. There is no evidence that being a gay or lesbian person adds to that risk. Perhaps my feelings about this emerge out of my own experience. I was raised by my mother, who did not complete the 9th grade, in a single parent family. She was 35 and I was 12 when my father died. My father's alcoholism and early death put the whole family into economic straits that I would not wish on any child. Yet there is no doubt that both of my parents were heterosexual. My point is that good people make good parents. Some of those good people are gay and lesbian, some are heterosexual. I favor encouraging good people who will make good parents to do so. ~ John Shelby Spong Originally published June 4, 2003 Click here to read and share online Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited Theology and Baseball Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong on August 10, 2005 Last month an anonymous member of my class at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, left this unsigned question on my lectern: “How can you be so right about religion and so wrong about baseball?” I did not have the opportunity to address this profound theological concern in the class, so I have decided to do it in this column. First, the context. The Graduate Theological Union is a Consortium of nine seminaries-five Protestant, three Roman Catholic and one Unitarian-physically located adjacent to or near the University of California in Berkeley. Each school retains its own name and denominational affiliation and gives its own degrees. The libraries of these separate institutions, however, were merged in 1962 to create one of the best theological libraries in the nation. Students enrolled in any of the Consortium’s entities may take courses offered at any other as well as at the University of California. The Consortium then formed the Graduate Theological Union to award advanced degrees (PhD and ThD) and to operate a joint summer program. I have been on the faculty of this institution at least five times, primarily responsible for one full week of the summer program. It was a very demanding week since academic standards have to be met in order for students to receive academic credit. My duties included teaching for four hours a day beginning at 8:30 a.m. During my week I gave ten one-hour lectures, presided over ten segments of 45 minutes each devoted to questions, answers, clarifications and discussion and collected, read and graded graduate level papers of some 1500 words from each student who took the course for credit. My class had an enrollment of 100 students, 65 of whom were ordained pastors doing continuing education or working on an advanced degree. The remaining 35 were theologically inquisitive lay people who fell into three categories: professionals in other fields like medicine and engineering eager to integrate theology into their lives; people describing themselves as atheists or agnostics with challenging questions; and those considering ordination and eager to taste the academic world that might be their home should they decide to move in that direction. Engaging these diverse, fertile minds is a privilege, albeit it an intensive one. I learn much from my students about the issues facing the various churches in the western part of our nation. >From one of them I received the question with which I began this column. It came as a response to the fact that each day, as the class was settling in, I did an analysis of the New York Yankees’ victory or defeat the night before. I discovered that while the Yankees are not universally loved, they are the best-known sports franchise in the land. People both admire and resent New York’s power, its wealth and its influence. They are aware that the Yankee owners spend more money on that team than is spent anywhere else in baseball. One Yankee player’s contract has been known to be bigger than the entire budget of other teams. New York’s owner, George Steinbrenner, can and does pay whatever it takes to acquire the best team that money can buy. When they win it is expected. When they lose it always has the feel of an upset, a David slaying Goliath. So, while I grieve, people across the nation rejoice when the Yankees have a difficult year, which is the situation in 2005. I have always been addicted to this game. I was raised a devoted fan of the Charlotte Hornets, a second-tier minor league team owned by the old Washington Senators, that as Charlotte’s parent club, was my favorite big league team. When the Senators were moved to the twin cities of Minnesota, I transferred my affections but they were considerably diminished. When a new team was established in Washington, my affections returned to our nation’s capital. Once again, however, D.C. fan support was lacking and that team soon moved to Arlington, Texas, becoming the Texas Rangers. Having never been enamored with Texas in any area of life, I simply severed my emotional relationship and became a fan without a team. While serving as a young priest in Tarboro, North Carolina, between 1957 and 1965, my enthusiasm for sports led me to become the play-by-play radio announcer for our local high school team, covering football, basketball and baseball. By submitting accounts of these games to our local four-page paper, called The Daily Southerner, I also became the de facto Sports Editor of that journal. Few people outside Tarboro ever read that paper or listened to WCPS-FM, so I felt free to fill my stories and broadcasts with human-interest tidbits about the players, their families and the coaches, all of whom I knew well since many of them attended my church. It was a rather unique role in a town of 7,500 people to be the local Episcopal Rector, the Sports Editor of the daily paper and “the voice of the Tarboro Tigers.” My radio sponsors were “Wink, that sassy drink and Happy Dan the TV Man.” The pay was quite modest, about $100 a season, but the fringe benefits were great. I took my little daughters with me to every game at home and away, sometimes traveling on the team bus. They had the run of the stadium and became partisan Tiger fanatics. I found conflict in my dual roles only once when Tarboro’s left tackle, Alan “Tiny” Baker, a 240-pound behemoth, cracked a vertebra in his neck in a game against the Wilson Cyclones. He was one of my acolytes. I left the booth during the commercial, which we always had ready whenever there was a break in the action, to go down to the field. When the injury appeared to be serious and the ambulance was called, I signed off immediately, startling those back in the Tarboro studio who had to scramble for programming to fill the void. I went with “Tiny” and his parents, Noah and Ophelia, in that ambulance to the local hospital. My role as priest always took priority over my work as broadcaster. When I was elected Bishop of Newark (Northern New Jersey) in 1976, I was a Washington Redskin fan in football but uncommitted in any other sport. However, it was not long before the great Yankee teams that included Thurmond Munson, Reggie Jackson, Ron Guidry and many others captured me lock, stock and barrel. So successful were these teams that I began to think that the only reason we had the other major league cities was to provide the Yankees with someone to play in the World Series. During the long 162 game season each year, I would come in at night from some meeting or Episcopal activity and discover that I could still watch the final two to three innings of the game. Later, when my first wife began to sink into the illness that would lead to her death in 1988, I spent many hours at home alone watching the Yankees. A bond was forged that sometimes, I do admit, reaches the level of the absurd. I cannot believe it even now, when there is no Yankee story in The New York Times during the “hot stove” season of the year. The Giants and the Knicks are fun but they are not theYankees. During the World Series of 2000 when the Yankees played the Mets, I was lecturing in Wales. Discovering that BBC TV’s Channel 5 carried the entire series with the each game beginning at 1:00 a.m. Greenwich time, I saw every pitch. Being up until 6 a.m. each night, however, did make teaching the next day a bit difficult. I hope the members of my class did not notice. Given this background and my own level of compulsion, it was thus a fairly normal routine for me, as the class began, to do a brief analysis of the Yankee game brought to me on my computer the night before. As I extolled Yankee virtues, groans poured forth from these otherwise normal people. Out of those groans the anonymous question undoubtedly emerged. What does Yankee baseball do for me? First of all, it is a pleasant, highly enjoyable diversion. It diverts me from the dreadful war in Iraq, the current political pressure to move this country into a religious past, the public hostility toward gay and lesbian people, the battle over the right to die with dignity and the consuming task of my professional life – namely to rethink the Christian faith in the light of the 21st century’s knowledge. It gives my life a dimension, beyond that of the “the controversial Bishop” which has become a synonym for me in the secular press. It has also graced my life with special moments, like the time that my wife Christine and I were guests of the President of the National league, Leonard Coleman, at the sixth game of the World Series between the Yankees and Atlanta in 1996. We sat in a box seat close enough to the field to be able to touch Charlie Hayes, Yankee third baseman, who caught a pop foul to end the game. That catch made Jimmy Key the victor over Greg Maddox, and crowned the Yankees as World Champions. In that box with us were Joe Black, the former pitcher of the Los Angeles Dodgers and one of that generation of great black athletes who broke baseball’s color line and Christine Todd Whitman, the Republican Governor of New Jersey. The Governor, my wife and I cheered for the Yankees while the President of the National League and Joe Black indulged us despite their affinity with the National League. We stayed in Yankee Stadium long after the final out savoring the moment, taking in the full moon as well the spectacle of Wade Boggs riding backward on a New York policeman’s horse across Yankee Stadium. It was a magical night. Yankee fans, like the Church, have a “Communion of Saints.” Center field belongs to DiMaggio, Mantle and Williams; shortstop to Crosetti, Rizzuto, and Jeter; right field to Heinrich, Jackson and O’Neill; catcher to Dickey, Berra, and Munson; first base to Gehrig, Skowran and Mattingly. Baseball is, however, not a matter of life and death. It is a field of dreams. My anonymous questioner asked how I could be so right about religion and so wrong about baseball? Perhaps this person might examine my hate mail to discover some debate about his or her first premise. To the second premise, however, I plead ‘Not Guilty!’ I stand in awe of baseball’s ability, discipline, effort, team play, vision and competence. I admire this human arena where, far more than I see in Churches, people are judged on merit alone not on race or ethnicity. The important thing is that I know the difference between reality and fantasy. I love them both. ~ John Shelby Spong Announcements Working Together Towards Harmony: Using Our Shared Humanity to Bridge Theological and Idealogical Divides Are you tired of the divisiveness and acrimony that pervades our society? Do you want to learn actual techniques and strategies to counter the trend and create harmony? This 4-week online course brings together ideas from interfaith activists, Nobel peace prize laureates, modern psychologists, and ancient Indian seekers to create a unique recipe for all those who are interested in working towards harmony. Click here for more information/registration

1 0

5/24/18, Progressing Spirit: Vosper: So what happens now?; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 24 May '18

24 May '18

View this email in your browser So what happens now? Essay by Rev. Gretta Vosper on May 24, 2018 For six years, I spent an invigorating half hour (or more) every Tuesday morning sitting across the table from one of Canada’s most outspoken evangelical leaders, Charles McVety. Dedicated microphones were wired up between us and we explored issues on the “Culture Wars” segment of Toronto’s most popular morning talk show. I was often asked by my own supporters, away from the show, how I could bear to have a conversation with Charles whose views were framed with a stalwart biblical literacy and shared with a vehemence that sparked in the space between us. But when the mics were off, we enjoyed a repartee that allowed us to laugh and enjoy one another moments after our flying epithets had done their work and lured the listening public to their telephones. Our host was the brilliant John Oakley who navigated the issues of the day with a deft hand, lifting up whatever tidbit he knew would cause the greatest reaction among his listening public and “light up the board”, so to speak, with callers eager to applaud or call out either Charles or me. At the end of each session, I would not have been able to tell you if John’s perspective aligned with mine or with Charles’; he was an artist in his craft. Though Charles was nimble in the creation of epithets, one of them was used more frequently than others. If you’re able to make the sound “’k” crackle with intensity without sending spit flying from your mouth, you’ll be able to replicate the way in which Charles tossed the term “Christless Christian” at me. As the leader of an evangelical Christian academy with locations in Toronto and in Korea, Charles was devoted to his Christ and decidedly antagonistic to any other idea of what Christ might mean if it wasn’t exactly as he imagined it. But then, I doubt I ever really gave him an understanding of what Christ meant to me; he simply knew that I was a critical thinker and, I suppose, imagined the dissolution of my belief in anything he understood Christ to be in the work of such a thinking process. As I write, Easter lies behind us by a few weeks. Traditionally, across all iterations of the Christian faith and as understood by most of non-Christians, Easter is clearly understood to be the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. What that actually means to any one iteration of Christianity or any one person within it, is considerably less clear. For some people, like Charles, the Easter story means that, after his crucifixion and burial, Jesus was resuscitated and returned to bodily form. For others, it means there was a transformation that took place after Jesus’ death and which, in some inexplicable way, returned Jesus to life in a sort of mystical manner. Others believe that Jesus is momentarily reconstituted in the sacrament of the Eucharist, whole and hanging on the cross, in order to be laden with each week’s accumulation of the peoples’ sins on Saturday night or Sunday morning. Some hold “Jesus” and “Christ” as separate before and after resurrection realities, each entitled to its own exploration and understanding. Still others believe that the biblical witness to resurrection, though it may not point to any physical reality or even mystical apparitions, simply proves that something powerful must have happened, even if we cannot possibly comprehend it. I’m going to go with the last “explanation”, if we might even call it that. More, I think, it is an excuse conjured to provide for the lack of an explanation. It allows us to argue our allegiance to Christianity without having to come up with an answer to one of the most ambiguous claims in human history. It literally excuses us from accountability. Many of my progressive colleagues will sneer at such an assertion, arguing that to reduce the mystery of the resurrection to an excuse is to deny the many splendid contemporary explanations of this mystery, all of which point to a deeper, richer understanding than all the others. Let them sneer. At a homiletics festival in Orlando many years ago, I hurriedly copied down Marcus Borg’s memorized answer to the question, “Who was Jesus?” He’d been preparing for a talk show and was worried that he would have too short a time to share his understandings so he took on the task of creating a concise explanation, laboring over it to bring it to a concise perfection. As it turned out, the host never asked him the question. But not wanting all his work to have come to naught, he shared it with the eager crowd at that year’s festival. Once back home, I typed it out and posted it on a bulletin board at West Hill United Church, the congregation I serve, where it remained for many years. True to Marcus’ acute and rigorous intellect, it deconstructed traditional understandings and offered in their place a number of starting points from which our explorations might take off. In less than forty-five seconds. The man – Borg, not Jesus – was an intellectual miracle himself. [Jesus] was a peasant, which tells us about his social class. Clearly, he was brilliant. His use of language was remarkable and poetic – filled with images and stories. He had a metaphoric mind. He was not an ascetic but world-affirming with a zest for life, and there was a social-political passion to him like a Ghandi or a Martin Luther King. He challenged the domination system of his day. He was a religious ecstatic, a Jewish mystic, if you will, for whom God was an experiential reality, and as such, he was also a healer. And there seems to have been a spiritual presence around him like that reported of St. Francis or the Dali Lama. And I suggest that as a figure of history, he was an ambiguous figure; you could experience him and figure that he was insane, as his family did, or that he was simply eccentric, or that he was a dangerous threat. Or you could conclude that he was filled with the spirit of God.[i] Clearly, Marcus was handing us a gift: the accumulated effort of years of scholarship processed with an intimate appreciation of the power Jesus had wielded over centuries of Christianity. He spoke of Jesus, not of Christ, but it was as though he was inviting each of us to find our own Christs behind a man who, for Marcus, was very human, and very real. And, I expect, most of us left that lecture in awe of Marcus if not also of the human Jesus he described. Too, I think we left grasping to hold onto the many questions Marcus’ description had raised for us, and the challenge of grafting a “post-critical-naivete Jesus” onto the pre-critical understandings held by many members of our diverse congregations. The record of Jesus is scanty and contradictory, the result of decades of oral transmission. It is terribly subject to the overlay of our own personal assumptions and expectations, as Albert Schweitzer warned us it would only ever be. One has only to consider the wealth of the Vatican, Jesus’ most globally-recognized posthumous marketing team, and the man’s arguments against the accumulation of wealth for one’s own purposes to see the ease with which our prejudices have laid Jesus at our own feet rather than the other way around. So what of the resurrected “Christ”? What can we do with that? While at theological college, I worked my way through countless understandings of who or what the Christ was to many Christian apologists – scholars writing to prove Christian claims correct – whose works we were required to engage. Added to that were the many compelling arguments made by more contemporary scholars, including Marcus Borg, that worked their way into my own understanding. In the end, I think I became a classic “something must have happened” believer, perhaps because cobbling together the myriad arguments into a cohesive and substantial whole was simply a feat to which I was intellectually unsuited. Some will undoubtedly say that recognizing that ineptitude is the beginning of understanding; it is only when we leave behind the record and the arguments that we can ever really “experience” Christ. But that argument is, for this rational thinker, equally unsuited to the task; the story needs an anchor, and that anchor, if it is to mean anything at all, must be grounded in what we know to be factually true, how we understand those facts, and where our experience takes us, given that knowledge. I have been soothed in my pursuit, to a remarkable extent, by art historian, Thomas de Wesselow’s arguments in The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Birth of Christianity. I can feel Marcus, Dom Crossan, perhaps even Bishop Spong cringing when I say that, but I leave you to explore it and consider its challenges to our patchwork understandings. Perhaps Thomas is to the resurrection story what Northrop Frye was to biblical studies: a scholar bringing the tools of an entirely different discipline to bear on our most treasured artefacts. For me, the best way for me to express the concept of Christ emerges from my accumulated understanding in the same way that Marcus’ Jesus emerged from his. I cannot extricate one or another source of that understanding; to do so would be like taking one blue piece of glass and using it to explain the incredible impact of the windows at Coventry Cathedral, created from the shards of windows shattered in the bombing attacks during the Second World War. Christ is embedded in me as a compulsion to live out my humanity, in my time and in my way, as humanly and humanely as possible. That sounds repetitive, but years of reflection, reading, and the detritus of life that gathers in the human heart, have left me with those few words. It means sacrificing my own privileges, many of which have accumulated as the result of a globalized Christianity, to the scathing rebuke of those who do not share in those privileges. It is, as many would say, the work of following “the Way” of Jesus, as if we could ever really construct what that way might actually be with any more uniformity than is realized in the quest for the historical Jesus. But I am made unease by these assertions. I suspect you know why. Using the exclusive lexicon of Christianity makes our work meaningless to more and more people. Contrary to the assertions made by Mike Pence that Christianity is on the rise, statistics prove otherwise. And alongside them, mirroring Christianity’s downward trajectory, speed the levels of voluntarism, philanthropy, civic engagement, and the critical mass required to maintain social democracies that see all life as sacred – by which I mean, so significantly crucial to the earth’s story that we cannot risk losing or desecrating it, even and especially if we don’t yet or never do understand it – and so work to engage, protect, and embrace it. We lose more than our congregational health when our numbers decline; we lose any hope of being what liberal and progressive Christianity has modelled as “Christ” in the world. And so, as you know, I eschew the language of traditional Christianity (and liberal, and progressive) and work, instead, to model and inspire others with how it is we might live, loving and celebrating life in its many guises and wrestling with the innumerable challenges that doing so presents. All the while, I remain confident that while it may be the least popular way, it remains the only way to reduce Christianity to its most essential truth – that we must love one another – and tell that story to a new and very precarious world. ~ Rev. Gretta Vosper Click here to read online and to share your thoughts 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. [i] Marcus Borg, Lecture, Homiletics Festival, Orlando, 1998 Question & Answer Q: Via a Chinese server at a neighborhood Chinese restaurant Would you like the menu for Chinese people? A: By Rev. David M. Felten At first, this question may not seem to have any bearing on theology or spirituality – but bear with me. I think it’s a great metaphor for one of the biggest challenges facing Progressive Christianity. Not long ago, I was travelling and stopped in at a neighborhood Chinese Food restaurant in Las Vegas. It was out-of-the-way and quiet. As the server handed me the menu, I asked, “What do you do well here? What would you recommend?” He looked at me as if I’d lost my mind. “Recommend this?!”, pointing at the menu. “I don’t like any of this. I’m from China – and as a Chinese person, I can’t stand any of this Americanized Chinese food: Kung Pao Chicken, General Tso’s Chicken…(he shudders).” “Wow,” I said. “Thanks for your honesty. Can you tell me what you’d recommend out of this food that you can’t stand? Anything here close to what you’d really get in China?” “No, no, no…” he trailed off. Then his face lit up with an idea, “Would you like the menu for Chinese people?” I said, “There’s a separate menu for Chinese people?” A few moments later he returned with a different colored menu emblazoned with Chinese characters. When I opened it, the selections were in Chinese with brief English translations. Among the entrees, I couldn’t find one thing that was the same as the “American” Chinese food menu. I asked again, “Anything you’d recommend from this menu?” My server proceeded to gleefully describe his favorite dishes – one of them “just like they make in Shanghai.” His recommendations were amazing. Who knew that sautéed pickles with string beans and garlic could be so delicious? As I was enjoying my Shanghai dumplings, it dawned on me: this whole “secret-menu-for-the-in-crowd” is exactly what goes on in many of our churches. Most of our “customers” are perfectly happy with the dumbed-down, sugared-up “American” Christianity that is on the menu at most of our conventional churches. They have no idea that there’s a completely separate menu for those who are looking for something more authentic and true to its origins. Isn’t that what we’re trying to do by exposing people to the study of the Historical Jesus? When we engage in studying history and the critical study of the Bible, we’re trying to get back to what following Jesus looked like before the creeds sent Christianity off into a theologically high-fructose, MSG-laced coma. It might taste good in the moment, but it’s not authentic. Plus (stretching the Chinese Food metaphor to the breaking point), you may feel full when you leave the restaurant but are left feeling empty soon afterwards. Anyone who’s eaten with me knows I’m not an insufferable foodie. But I do like to try new things, especially if it connects me with a broader appreciation for cultural differences and the varieties of the human experience. But if you’re like me, you’ve been called an arrogant elitist (and worse!) for simply trying to expose people to the reality that there’s “another menu.” Preferring their familiar sugar-laden Orange Chicken to anything more authentic, they don’t even want to know there’s an alternative menu. But for me, once you know there’s a whole new world of theological flavors and cultural insights available just for the asking, there’s no going back. So, get out there pastors, preachers, and layfolk! If you’re at a church that is stuck clinging to the saccharine “Americanized” theological menu, start putting together an alternative menu. Start with some simple appetizers (that Genesis has two creation stories written by different authors at different times that were never meant to be sequential) and work your way up to the more sophisticated entrees (questioning the physical resurrection, opposing substitutionary atonement, etc.). Ask people the theological equivalent of, “Would you like the menu for Chinese people?” and start walking them through the options. Remind them that this is a menu of choices, not the ultimate determination of one’s eternal salvation. They can stick with the familiar and remain blissfully content with their “Americanized” Christianity OR they can be liberated to begin a theological adventure that will expand their horizons and deepen their experience of the Divine. So, “Would you like the menu for Chinese people?” Open up a new world of honesty, authenticity, and an appreciation for the variety of the human theological experience. ~ Rev. David M. Felten Click here to read and share online About the Author Rev. David M. Felten is a full-time pastor at The Fountains, a United Methodist Church in Fountain Hills, Arizona. David and fellow United Methodist Pastor, Jeff Procter-Murphy, are the creators of the DVD-based discussion series for Progressive Christians, “Living the Questions”. A co-founder of the Arizona Foundation for Contemporary Theology and also a founding member of No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice, David is an outspoken voice for LGBTQ rights both in the church and in the community at large. David is active in the Desert Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church and tries to stay connected to his roots as a musician. You’ll find him playing saxophones in a variety of settings, including appearances with the Fountain Hills Saxophone Quartet. David and his wife Laura, an administrator for a large Arizona public school district, live in Phoenix with their three often adorable children. Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited On Death With Dignity Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong on August 23, 2005 Late last month I joined with other religious leaders, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish, to file an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the State of Oregon in the case of Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General v. the State of Oregon. Specifically, our brief asked the Supreme Court to uphold the decision made by the Ninth Circuit Court in 2004 that ruled that former Attorney General John Ashcroft had acted inappropriately when he intervened to block Oregon’s legal practice of physician-assisted suicide. The State of Oregon created this right for its citizens in two separate referendums, setting assisted suicide inside the framework of tightly controlled guidelines, based entirely on the desires of the patient. Attorney General Ashcroft in initiating his suit has claimed that the federal law known as the Controlled Substances Act gave him the authority to take this action. The State of Oregon responded immediately in a countersuit, accusing him of both the inappropriate use of that act and an improper utilization of federal power. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the State of Oregon. Before John Ashcroft resigned as Attorney General, he appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. That Court agreed to hear the appeal although now Alberto Gonzales, Ashcroft’s successor, is the name attached to the case. The case should be heard this fall in the first session of the Court since the resignation of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The amicus brief, drawn up by the Washington law office of Jones Day, actually quotes me in the latter part of the document. Even more importantly, it quotes from the Task Force on Assisted Suicide adopted in 1996 by the convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark. This report stated the conviction of the majority of the convention’s delegates that physician-assisted dying “can be theologically and ethically justified” when a terminally ill person “makes a voluntary and informed choice after all reasonable means of ameliorating his or her suffering have been exhausted.” A full copy of the report of the Task Force can be read by going to http//www.dioceseofnewark.org/report.html. I still marvel that this report has achieved such influence in the life of our nation. I remember that moment in the life of the Diocese of Newark as if it were yesterday. It was the finest debate over which I presided in all of my 24 years as the bishop of that remarkable community of faith. The convention that received and acted on this report was made up of approximately 600 people: 150 of them were ordained priests, 450 of them were lay people elected by their respective congregations to represent their churches at this diocesan gathering. The task force that drafted the report was co-chaired by the Reverend Dr. Lawrence Falkowski, who, prior to his seeking ordination, had been a professor of political science at Louisiana State University, and Dr. Mary Hager, a professor at a small liberal arts college in New Jersey. It represented a year of intense study by many people. The members of this task force conducted open hearings on this issue in various locations across northern New Jersey. When its final draft was complete, it was distributed widely among all our churches and discussed at gatherings of the people of the diocese in separate congregational meetings as well as in nine pre-convention convocational gatherings. Copies were also handed out to the media, including print, radio, and television in both New York and New Jersey. This issue created great energy, and there was a high level of anticipation prior to the meeting of the decision-making diocesan convention. No one could argue that this report came as a surprise. On the last Friday afternoon in January, the co-chairs introduced the report to the convention with a full presentation to move its adoption. That motion was then referred to an open hearing, which gave every delegate the right to speak for or against it before the report was to be brought to a final vote the following day. It also gave the Task Force members the right to make any last minute changes to the report before the formal vote would be taken. The next day, the resolution was brought from the open hearing and placed on the floor for adoption. The final debate now began in earnest. Individuals spoke movingly and emotionally about their own experiences with loved ones who had been kept alive beyond the point where they had a shred of personal integrity or dignity left. They referred to excessive bills that had to be borne by survivors in what was a hopeless battle simply to prolong not life but existence. It was noted in the debate that these were very modern issues, since a century ago the persons being discussed would have died whether they wanted to or not since neither the technology nor medical expertise to keep them alive existed. The advances in medical science, stretching life expectancy to levels our grandparents could not imagine, were applauded. Some delegates sought to find that point where medical science ceases to expand life and acts only to postpone death, wondering if the former can be cheered and the latter resisted. Those in opposition spoke about the sacredness of life and whether human beings had the right or the capacity to make life-and-death decisions. Many expressed concern about what was called the slippery-slope argument. If this practice were made legal then what would follow? Would greedy heirs hasten the deaths of their parents in order to gain their inheritances earlier? Would doctors, weary of giving care, abdicate their responsibility to save life and become the destroyers of life? Would hospitals and health management organizations seek to enhance their bottom line by dispatching costly patients who had outlived their resources? This debate lasted for three hours. Amendments were offered. They had the effect of making clear what the report was designed to say. The final authority in every end-of-life decision was unequivocally to be that of the patient, in person if possible, by an advance directive if not. It was stated that the person the patient loved and trusted most must be empowered to make the final decision if illness rendered the patient incompetent to decide. Even then the voluntary nature of this decision was stressed. No one should ever be forced to end his or her life without one’s own consent. Steps were taken to guard against a precipitous act that might be regretted later or to allow depression, which so often accompanies sickness, to be the cause of premature death. The medical diagnosis had to be firm that the disease was incurable. This meant that the choice was not about whether one was going to die, but about how and when and under what circumstances death would occur. It was about whether a breathing cadaver is a living being. It was about having a chance to be with those you love most while you can still enjoy their company. It was about shortening the agony of both patient and family alike when the situation was hopeless. It was about death being used as a way of affirming life. It was about whether our Christian faith allows us to make decisions for ourselves as mature people, as co-creators with the God of life. Finally, the debate ended, the question was called, and the vote was taken. More than two-thirds of that assembly of deeply committed Christians said that physician-assisted suicide could be a Christian option under carefully outlined circumstances. A new consciousness was born in that gathering on that day, and it is still growing. It is deeply gratifying for me to see the words of that group — the first assembly of any church in America to vote to accept physician-assisted suicide as a stated value of Christian people — included in this brief before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court will weigh many factors. Its members will address the limits on federal power to overturn state-endorsed procedures, which have been affirmed by a significant majority of that state’s voters. They will determine who has the right to make end-of-life decisions. Is it the patient, the nearest of kin, the physician, the Supreme Court, the insurance companies, or the politicians? Between the 1996 report of the Diocese of Newark and the current appeal to the Supreme Court, this nation has witnessed the Terri Schiavo case, in which politicians sought to overrule Ms. Schiavo’s own directive, her husband, her doctors, and the courts. In that case, a woman, brain-dead for more than a decade, had been kept alive artificially, with a feeding tube inserted into her stomach, while religious leaders and politicians sought to force her husband to violate her stated intentions. Representative Tom DeLay and Senator Bill Frist rushed a bill through Congress for the President to sign after a midnight flight from Crawford, Texas, to Washington. Polls indicated that a vast majority of the people of this nation recoiled at this spectacle. Now this issue will be before the highest court of the land. The Oregon law has been carefully crafted. In that law the potential pitfalls have had strong guards erected against them. Oregon citizens have used these provisions very sparingly since they were made the law of that state. They obviously wanted this law as a legal option even if it were destined to be seldom used. So do I. That is why I have joined this fight before the Supreme Court. I believe both that life is sacred and that death is a natural part of life. I believe that I should have the right, if possible, to determine how and when I die. I believe a good death is a tribute to a good life. If I am told that I have a terminal disease and that the pain can be managed only by the use of drugs that will prohibit my being able to see the smile of my wonderful wife or to know the touch of her hand, then I want the right to end my life in her embrace, saying “I love you” while I still can. I have trusted God and my wife during my life. I must be able to trust both in my death. I hope the Supreme Court will uphold my right to die with dignity. ~ John Shelby Spong Announcements THE WALTER E. ASHLEY MEMORIAL LECTURE SERIES The Rev. Dr. Otis Moss III June 8th & 9th Hendersonville, NC Dr. Moss is part of a new generation of ministers committed to preaching a prophetic message of love and justice, which he believes are inseparable companions that form the foundation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As Senior Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, IL, Dr. Moss has spent the last two decades practicing and preaching a theology that unapologetically calls attention to the problems of mass incarceration, environmental injustice, and economic inequality. Click here for more information ...

2 1

NYTimes.com: Bishop Michael Curry’s Full Sermon From the Royal Wedding
by James Wiegel 20 May '18

20 May '18

From The New York Times: Bishop Michael Curry’s Full Sermon From the Royal Wedding ‘There’s power in love’: Read the words of the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, who spoke at the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/style/bishop-michael-curry-royal-wedding… Jim Wiegel 401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353 Tel. 011-623-936-8671 or 011-623-363-3277 jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com Loneliness does not come from having no people around you. But from being unable to communicate the things that seem important to you. Carl Jung

4 5