- OE - lists.wedgeblade.net

Re: [Oe List ...] ORID—A “Life” Method
by WILLIAM SALMON 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

RE: Jack's comments below! The danger is skipping the Reflective level questions is that we move to quickly into the Interpretive. The experience I've had using the Art Form Conversation Method is that the Reflective questions much be planned out in a lot of detail; and I confess that I am the greatest of sinners when it comes to serious planning. > On October 24, 2017 at 11:34 AM Seth Longacre via OE <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: > > Oh, I was just going to say the same thing. The reflective really felt missing. > > Seth T. Longacre > Carlsbad, CA > > "No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices” Edward R. Murrow > > ———-O0ooo— > ———–(——)— > ————)–-/—- > ————(_/- > —-ooo0O—- > —-(——)—- > —–\-–(– > ——\_)- > > > > > > On 24 Oct, 2017, at 10:24 , Jack Gilles via OE <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net > wrote: > > > > Randy, > > > > Her `R`question seems to be interpretive to me. I think it is hard for most people to see the necessity of the Reflective level. People don’t know how to process emotional responses or associative events. > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 2017, at 10:00, Randy Williams via OE <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net > wrote: > > > > > > Colleagues, > > > > > > In her new book Who Do We Choose To Be: Facing Reality, Claiming Leadership, Restoring Sanity, Margaret Wheatley has her own articulation of ORID in four questions which she calls an After Action Review. They are: > > > > > > O—What just happened? > > > R—Why do you think it happened? > > > I—What can we learn from this? > > > D—How will we apply these learnings? > > > > > > We have always said that our methods are “life” methods,. Therefore, we didn’t create them, we discovered them. Each time I come across something like this from Wheatley it confirms that they are indeed “life” methods. > > > > > > I’ve seen other variations of ORID—for example from Peter Senge, in Catholic social theory, and even from my old professor of church history, Albert Outler. His articulation was, for me, the most memorable, in just three, not four, short questions: What? So What? Now What? > > > > > > As some of you who also sat with him will recall, Outler was not always so concise. > > > > > > Randy > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OE mailing list > > > OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net > > > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OE mailing list > > OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net > > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OE mailing list > OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net >

1 0

Re: [Oe List ...] ORID—A “Life” Method
by WILLIAM SALMON 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

RE: Jack's comment below-- The experience I've had in using the Art Form Conversation method is that unless the "Reflective" questions are used, we face the same problem of moving too quickly to the Interpretive. Learning to ask the "associative" and/or "objective emotional" followed by the "personal emotional" questions is a real trick that need to be planned out with care. I wish I was better at it. I remember Kaye Hays could lead a conversation down a merry path driving the conversation deeper and deeper by pushing so damn hard on the Reflective questions. Once as a trainee, I copied her questions down word-for-word--I wonder if I can unearth that piece of legerdemain. Ah, well. Inner Peace, Bill Salmon > On October 24, 2017 at 11:34 AM Seth Longacre via OE <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: > > Oh, I was just going to say the same thing. The reflective really felt missing. > > Seth T. Longacre > Carlsbad, CA > > "No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices” Edward R. Murrow > > ———-O0ooo— > ———–(——)— > ————)–-/—- > ————(_/- > —-ooo0O—- > —-(——)—- > —–\-–(– > ——\_)- > > > > > > On 24 Oct, 2017, at 10:24 , Jack Gilles via OE <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net > wrote: > > > > Randy, > > > > Her `R`question seems to be interpretive to me. I think it is hard for most people to see the necessity of the Reflective level. People don’t know how to process emotional responses or associative events. > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 2017, at 10:00, Randy Williams via OE <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net mailto:oe@lists.wedgeblade.net > wrote: > > > > > > Colleagues, > > > > > > In her new book Who Do We Choose To Be: Facing Reality, Claiming Leadership, Restoring Sanity, Margaret Wheatley has her own articulation of ORID in four questions which she calls an After Action Review. They are: > > > > > > O—What just happened? > > > R—Why do you think it happened? > > > I—What can we learn from this? > > > D—How will we apply these learnings? > > > > > > We have always said that our methods are “life” methods,. Therefore, we didn’t create them, we discovered them. Each time I come across something like this from Wheatley it confirms that they are indeed “life” methods. > > > > > > I’ve seen other variations of ORID—for example from Peter Senge, in Catholic social theory, and even from my old professor of church history, Albert Outler. His articulation was, for me, the most memorable, in just three, not four, short questions: What? So What? Now What? > > > > > > As some of you who also sat with him will recall, Outler was not always so concise. > > > > > > Randy > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OE mailing list > > > OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net > > > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OE mailing list > > OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net > > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OE mailing list > OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net >

1 0

Re: [Oe List ...] ORID—A “Life” Method
by Zoe Barley 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

1 0

ORID—A “Life” Method
by Randy Williams 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

Colleagues, In her new book Who Do We Choose To Be: Facing Reality, Claiming Leadership, Restoring Sanity, Margaret Wheatley has her own articulation of ORID in four questions which she calls an After Action Review. They are: O—What just happened? R—Why do you think it happened? I—What can we learn from this? D—How will we apply these learnings? We have always said that our methods are “life” methods,. Therefore, we didn’t create them, we discovered them. Each time I come across something like this from Wheatley it confirms that they are indeed “life” methods. I’ve seen other variations of ORID—for example from Peter Senge, in Catholic social theory, and even from my old professor of church history, Albert Outler. His articulation was, for me, the most memorable, in just three, not four, short questions: What? So What? Now What? As some of you who also sat with him will recall, Outler was not always so concise. Randy

8 13

More on the Church
by John Epps 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

The most recognized path taken on the quest for meaning is religion. The stories, songs, and symbols all point to that dimension of reality that lies just beneath the surface and elicits a profound sense of awe in practitioners. It provides stories that make sense of the inexplicable features of life and promotes an authentic lifestyle. It was a normal day at church. As people were gathering and chatting, the organist and choir provided a quiet, meditation-inducing prelude. We were there seeking the profound meaning promised by the gothic structure, the stained-glass windows, the lighted candles, the altar with its seasonal drapes, and the empty cross. All were there to remind us of the noble history, mythology, and values the Church stands for. An announcement reminded us that these facilities require money for maintenance and staff, bringing home the practical measures required for upkeep and for program implementation. The practical side as well as the profound dimension of this religious institution were quite clearly on display. Then came the processional hymn with the robed choir and pastor coming down the aisle to loud and grand music filled with “Alleluia’s.” At its finale, there was a moment of congregational silence when we were left musing on the rhythmic complexity, the chordal progressions, the poetry, and the skillful performance of an amazing piece of music. While I was caught up in the technicalities of orchestrating this appropriately majestic introduction to an act of worship, a small voice emerged from the momentary quiet. A little girl sitting behind me shouted “Yeeaah!” with all the boisterous gusto of a primary school cheerleader. She got it right.

1 0

On Pioneers
by Randy Williams 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

I ran across this in the appendix of Meg Wheatley’s new book, Who Do We Choose To Be. It’s from a piece by Sir John Glubb on”The Six Ages of a Civilization’s Growth and Collapse.” The 1st age is the Age of Pioneers. “New pioneers or conquerors are usually poor, hardy, enterprising, and aggressive. They seem to appear from nowhere, surprising the dominant civilization. They possess fearless initiative, energy, and courage. The decaying empire that they overthrow is wealthy but defensive-minded. Pioneers are practical and experimental; action is their solution to every problem. They have strong virtues: optimism, confidence, devotion to duty, a sense of honor, shared purpose, and a strict moral code.” This gives me a new appreciation for the word. I wonder if HRN might have thought this to be an apt description for today of what he thought to be the “church” dynamic. Randy

7 7

movie conversation
by W. J. 22 Oct '17

22 Oct '17

Sometimes, even after we're been put out to pasture, the old guard is called upon to teach our tried and true old stuff to a new crowd.So here's my latest simplified take on how to structure a movie conversation--boiled down from the Golden Pathways, but with a few updates ("Where did you see transformation in the movie?").Turns out there wasn't anything this simple in the archives that I could find.So tonight I'm facilitating a planning/screening group that will develop a film discussion series for a local church.Given that it's a UMC--with all the angst and cultural warfare that's been swamping us--the topic will be 'human sexuality.'Next Wednesday we kick off the series with a screening of An Act of Love.Here's the key conversation questions I came up with (for Methodists who are moved to show the film): What for you was the key human issue in the film? (get a variety of answers from across the group) What triggered the underlying conflict in this church?What was this conflict really about? (push for deeper insights here) How was the conflict handled or not handled by the conference leadership? How did you respond emotionally to the film?What emotions did you notice?Did you feel sleepy? wide awake? distracted? uncomfortable? upset? bored? relaxed? on the edge of your seat? or what?What in the film made you feel that way? Where did you notice the group's emotional response? How would you be a reconciling presence in Frank Shaefer's church?Imagine that you are the bishop. As a minister of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18), what would you say to the members of this church who were opposed to Frank Shaefer?As a bishop, how would you honor a rule in the Discipline with which you fundamentally disagree? (incongruence/paradox/double bind) Where did you see transformation in the film?Where did you see hope in the film?Where did you see Divine Activity (or the work of the Holy Spirit) happening in the film?What do you see as Frank Shaefer's true calling? What did he discover about God's intention for him? What have you realized about your true calling?What has deepened your understanding of your true calling? | | | | | | | | | | | An Act of Love Film "An Act of Love" (2015) is an award-winning documentary about Rev. Frank Schaefer and the divisions in... | | | | Marshall

4 5

Re: [Oe List ...] The Church as Pioneer
by David Flowers 20 Oct '17

20 Oct '17

The Church as Pioneer Hi everyone! I've been teaching leadership studies in some pretty diverse classrooms the last few years and, to make a long story short, have come to see the imagery associated with the term "pioneer", in my classrooms, as part of a distinctly Western and North American paradigm in particular. Which then evokes images and notions of expansionism and colonialism (often Patriarchal). Don't get me wrong - I love H.R. Niebuhr's paper but ... am recently ruminating on how this pioneer imagery/story might not work for a Global/intersectional Church in community. The Church dynamic is the 1st to respond - and is called for adaptive and creative - human-centered - christ-centered - responses to human suffering (and a suffering biosphere, for that matter) but - our Western history of pioneers doesn't quite speak to who we are or who the Church is - for me. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:10 PM, <oe-request(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: > Send OE mailing list submissions to > oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > oe-request(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > oe-owner(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of OE digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [Dialogue] 10/12/17: Spong/Vosper: REFORMERS, ALL; Spong > revisited (James Wiegel) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:54:46 +0000 (UTC) > From: James Wiegel <jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com> > To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net>, > oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net, jlepps39 <jlepps39(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] [Dialogue] 10/12/17: Spong/Vosper: > REFORMERS, ALL; Spong revisited > Message-ID: <1783080715.144293.1508190886443(a)mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > TheChurch's responsibility to God for human societies doubtless varies > with itsown and the nations' changing positions, but it may be described in > a generalfashion by reference to the apostolic, the pastoral and the > pioneeringfunctions of the Christian community. > > ?Apostolicresponsibility?The Church is by nature andcommandment an > apostolic community which exists for the sake of announcing theGospel to > all nations and of making them disciples of Christ.? > > Theshepherd of the lost?? > > The Church discharges itsresponsibility to God for society in carrying out > its pastoral as well as itsapostolic functions. It responds to > Christ-in-God by being a shepherd of thesheep, a seeker of the lost, the > friend of publicans and sinners, of the poorand broken-hearted.? > > The Church as social pioneer?? > > Finally, the social responsibility of the Church needs to be described as > that of the pioneer.?The Church is that part of the human community which > responds first to God-in-Christ and Christ-in-God.?It is the sensitive and > responsive part in every society and mankind as a whole.?It is that group > which hears the Word of God, which sees His judgments, which has the vision > of the resurrection.?In its relations with God it is the pioneer part of > society that responds to God on behalf of the whole society, some?what, we > may say, as science is the pioneer in responding to pattern or rationality > in experience and as artists are the pioneers in responding to beauty.? > > > > > Jim Wiegel ? > > ?That which consumes me is not man, nor the earth, nor the heavens, but > the flame which consumes man, earth, and sky." ?Nikos Kazantzakis > > 401 North Beverly Way,Tolleson, Arizona 85353 > 623-363-3277 > > jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com > > www.partnersinparticipation.com > > > On Friday, October 13, 2017, 11:38:13 PM MST, jlepps39 < > jlepps39(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jim et al. > I believe Neibuhr's other 2 categories were prophet and priest. > John from Paris. > > > Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > -------- Original message --------From: James Wiegel via Dialogue < > dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: 10/13/17 23:49 (GMT+01:00) To: > dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net, oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net Cc: James Wiegel < > jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] [Oe List ...] 10/12/17: > Spong/Vosper: REFORMERS, ALL; Spong revisited > As always, thanks, Ellie for passing these on . . .? This one seems a cry > for Niebuhr's 3rd social responsibility of the church, the social pioneer.? > Yea.? What about the other 2 -- the part of the paper we skipped over to > get to that last page . . . > Jim Wiegel ? > > ?That which consumes me is not man, nor the earth, nor the heavens, but > the flame which consumes man, earth, and sky." ?Nikos Kazantzakis > > 401 North Beverly Way,Tolleson, Arizona 85353 > 623-363-3277 > > jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com > > www.partnersinparticipation.com > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2017, 7:31:46 AM MST, Ellie Stock via OE < > oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: > > > > | > | > | > | | > > | > > > | > | | > | > ?????Homepage????????My Profile????????Essay Archive???????Message > Boards???????Calendar > | > > | > | > | > | > REFORMERS, ALL > > By Rev. Gretta Vosper > ?We?ve been anticipating the celebration of the 500th anniversary of the > Protestant Reformation for some time. Now that the month is upon us, it > seems more like a private birthday party than something worthy of global > attention. In truth, I suppose it is. With the global number of Reform > Tradition Protestants diminishing, the celebration of the dramatic and > cataclysmic leave-taking that was our birth seems of little interest to any > but those enchanted by the history of such things and the few others taking > advantage of the liturgical and party possibilities offered up by the > date.The Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues of the past few decades > culminated in the document From Conflict to Communion, published in 2013. > Within it, Five Ecumenical Imperatives are laid out, providing a base from > which the two traditions could ramp up together for a joint celebration of > the Reformation, a healing of the centuries old rift between them. Shoving > a new foundation of respect under the violence and > rancour of the past, the Catholic and Lutheran ecumenists have demanded > a new and generous spirit from their adherents: choose unity over disunity; > start from a place of agreement rather than focusing on easily spotted > differences. They seem simple and wise choices. If only we had managed to > get to this place four hundred and ninety-five years earlier. So much > hatred, horror, and bloodshed may have been avoided.There is no doubt that > our great faith traditions have provided the human family much that has > been of benefit. Perhaps their most important work was built of the > evolutionary advantage provided humans by what we might nowadays call > ?group think?. Religion gave us a bigger and stronger clan than family. > Members would die for us just as quickly as we would die for them; we were > no longer alone but had the safety of our religious affiliates to add > strength to our prejudices and personal desires. And those prejudices and > personal desires were, in turn, further refined by our re > ligious beliefs. Put in such a way, it is easy to see how, in the early > 16th century, neighbours could turn against one another to the point of > death, uncovering allegiances that damned an individual or family to the > ultimate exclusion from God?s grace and forgiveness for all of eternity. > Taking leave of an institution with that much power was a risky thing to > do. The rhetoric continues to be chilling to this day.Bishop Spong has > presented visionary work on what a new reformation might look like, what it > might provide humanity in the third millennium, and how we might get there. > His forthcoming book will take that work further, providing much more than > the meticulously negotiated but necessarily simplistic Lutheran Catholic > Imperatives. I expect this book will crown the past four decades of his > leadership in this progressive Christian landscape, a terrain still > tragically unknown to so many.CHOICEAt any point in time, a range of > possibilities lie before us. We make the best decision > s we can, given the information we have at the time. Decades later, we > sometimes realize that a single choice resulted in a myriad of other > choices, each circumscribed by the first, and all resulting in a reality > that, had it been clear to us from the beginning, we may have refused. We > cannot see what the future brings and we are very poor at extrapolating our > possibilities out much further than our immediate creature needs. And so we > end up in situations, relationships, jobs, communities, social structures, > or a whole world we may not have chosen had we been able to see the > extrapolated implications of our every choice.But you don?t need to keep > going in the same direction just because that is the direction you happen > to be going. You certainly can and many do. But others, either because of a > sudden reorientation of their perspective or because they were just born > without a personal comfort zone, refuse to just keep on keeping on. To > them, the cost is too high. In fact, it is idioc > y.Enter, the Reformer. Many are the times I?ve heard Martin Luther > compared to Jesus in the work they both undertook. They didn?t start > dramatically; reformers rarely do. It may have been a conversation here or > a private rant there. It may have begun in whispers and only risen to an > audible level over many months or even years. It may have been with or > without design, beginning with a broad, unfocused list of laments or > emerging from the womb, so to speak, with a well-honed mission. But both > Luther and Jesus, at some point in time, and very likely supported by the > gifts of countless unnamed others who listened, shared, cajoled, and > criticized, noticed that the faith traditions they cherished had veered in > directions that were unacceptable to them. Choices made by those in > leadership developed norms for the practices, thinking, attitudes, and > prejudices embraced within the tradition, each chosen from the creative > potentialities of time and place. For most believers, all was accepted > as it was received.But for Reformers, what is normal for the masses is > anathema to them. Both Jesus and Luther honoured their traditions. Though > we long assumed Jesus was Christian, we now know he wasn?t; he was a Jew. > Luther learned the only acceptable religion of his day, a Rome-centred > Catholicism. They were steeped in their traditional religions, born into > and formed by them. Like everyone around them, they were supposed to fit > in. Their education, far above the level of the average believer, was > supposed to further hone their beliefs. It was not supposed to expose the > little hypocrisies and gross abuses that had been so artfully woven into > the everyday business of religion. Once noticed, however, the normal way of > doing things became unacceptable. There were no options for Jesus or Luther > but those that would bring about catastrophic change in their religious > traditions. Even as others fought to maintain the status quo, forcing > banishment or conspiring toward more final solutio > ns, the Reformers laid out and presented their arguments. And the world > changed.LEGACYWe stand on the shoulders of great men and women. Countless > Reformers dared challenge the norms of their day ? religious, political, > economic, and social. And they did it at great cost. We are grateful to > them for their struggles, for their lives, for their blood, and for the > first discomfort noticed that set them on their course. They created the > world in which we live, the freedoms we cherish, the perspectives we are > welcome to embrace or refuse, the right to make our own decisions, whether > wise or foolish. They set in course the possibilities from which we have > chosen our new realities and so have become, with them, co-creators of the > world we know.They also, however, created gross disparities and abuses that > yet plague humanity and the planet: the economic enslavement of whole > nations for the provision of privileges assumed by others; the legal > jargons that entrap indigenous peoples in politica > lly ritualized battles for sovereignty; the lines that set out who is > worthy of the right to choose their own lifestyle and who is not; the > notion that humanity is separate and above the natural world rather than > enfolded within and vulnerable to it; the entertainments by which we > anaesthetize ourselves to the truths that quake around us; the cruelties > endured by herded, caged, and crated animals so we might pleasure our taste > buds and sooth our sun-scarred skin. And we, in making our choices, remain > co-creators, complicit in a litany of normals that, had we the heart of > Jesus or Luther or the millions of unnamed men and women who have poured > their lives out in the pursuit of justice and compassion and the building > up of love in the world, would make every one of us a Reformer.There is a > legacy in the Reformation that I believe belongs in the middle of our work, > calling out the power brokers, the hegemonists, the deceivers. Ours is not > the work of complacency or settling for imperat > ives that take decades to conjure only because it takes that long to > soothe the sensitivities of those still wielding ecclesial powers that make > no difference to the challenges facing our world. Our reforms must be much > bolder, our work in the world more creative than what those beyond our > walls believe is all we do. It may be that humanity is facing the greatest > crises of its too-brief history as it reels with the challenges of global > warming and climate change, exponential population growth, and resource > depletion. There may be no future moment for us to step up. Now may be all > there is. Literally.Change is our very birthplace. It is our right and > responsibility as heirs of the Reformers, to stare down every comfortable > ?normal? that sings its siren song and refuse to be enchanted by it. It is > our right and responsibility to count up every ease and privilege we enjoy > and educate ourselves about its source ? what makes it possible? Who pays > for our pleasures and how? And when we fi > nd that ?normal? is built on the subjugation of others ? our tea, our > chocolate, our party-ready shrimp rings ? work to redistribute or limit > those pleasures until all have access to shelter, security, food, clean > water, and the joy of planning for their children?s futures.ECLESIA AS > REFORMERBut change is costly and few have the strength or fortitude to > bring about its grander accomplishments. That?s why those usually > identified with the most highly evolved faith in James Fowler?s Stages of > Faith, a Universalizing Faith, are so few, so well known, and all > assassinated: Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. We aren?t that strong, > most of us. We might start out heartily, but we then draw up far short of > our goals, beaten by our own fears, our own comforts, our own weakness. We > may be legion but we are ordinary, too.Throughout the New Testament, the > word translated to ?church? is originally ecclesia. It?s a poor > translation. Rather than ?church?, it shared the idea of government. In G > reece, the ecclesia was the council of elect elders who governed the > city. It?s use in the early Christian writings was a radical refusal to > live according to the rules of the day by a ragtag group of people who > believed they had a better way. They believed they were called to a bolder > and more perfect reflection of the dignity of humanity as they had seen it > represented in or inspired by a heretical Jew who?d once moved among them > and left a residual and radical idea of what community should look > like.Perhaps it is not we, frail and human as we are, but our ecclesia that > can set out upon the sea of change and call us forward. Perhaps we can use > the New Testament ideal of an alternative ecclesia to set the standards, > the ideals, the vision by which the corrective to human destruction of the > earth might be realized. Perhaps my United Church of Canada and your United > Church of Christ, United Methodist, or Disciples of Christ could be called > to this greater and most urgent vision that > lies in the roots of all our Christian traditions. Perhaps the > sacramental traditions, Reformed and Roman, might step up together in this > celebratory year and cry out the words that need to be heard by all, > challenging us to notice that normal isn?t acceptable, even if it is the > culmination of all our choices. We need our religious institutions to be > the ecclesia they were called to be, to be great for us and challenge us to > be the reform we want to see in the world. Perhaps this is the year for our > ecclesial institutions to step into the role of the Reformer and built a > vision we can work toward. Isn?t this the nature of the gospel call, that > our ability to notice provides us the challenge to change for the better, > to take and make good news and not simply welcome it?Like most, I?ve been > largely indifferent to the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. It seemed > to esoteric, to trivial in the face of what challenges us today. But > perhaps it is exactly the opposite. Perhaps, like Jes > us and Luther before us, it is time to challenge the traditions by which > we have been formed. We would challenge them to reawaken to the purposes > set out in their deep, deep roots: to bring the people together, to be the > assembly of Christians and call us all to the frightfully challenging tasks > ahead of us. To be sacrificial in their work, giving everything even if it > leads to death.Or perhaps the Reformation anniversary is, more personally, > a reminder that to each of us that we are a people born of cataclysmic > change and inheritors of its demand: notice what lies all about you, what > humanity?s choices have led to, what a continued trajectory might mean. > Notice, and then stand up and make your stand.~ Rev. Gretta Vosper > > About the AuthorThe Rev. Gretta Vosper is a United Church of Canada > minister who is an atheist. Her best-selling books include With or Without > God: Why The Way We Live is More Important Than What We Believe, and Amen: > What Prayer Can Mean in a World Beyond Belief. She has also published three > books of poetry and prayers.Read the essay online here. | > > > | > Question & Answer > ?Lesley from Minnesota, writes: > ? > Question: > What are your views about so many Christians being in favor of gun > ownership? Doesn?t that completely contradict the Jesus of peace we read > about in the Bible?? > Answer: By Eric Alexander > ?Thanks for your question Lesley. This is a timely question for me as I > was in Las Vegas during the recent shootings. Being so close to an event > like that made this issue feel even more urgent than it already did to > me.What made the Las Vegas shooting so interesting to me is that it > involved a large group of mostly white conservative casualties. It made a > large demographic of people suspend their NRA sponsored talking points and > deal with the reality of the situation in their own hearts and minds. And I > should note here that I enjoy a good skeet shoot as much as the next guy, > but that is not the issue at hand here.I think it?s an absolute perversion > of the U.S. 2nd amendment to allow nearly anyone who can fog a mirror to > have a cache of assault rifles. In my mind, there is no way America?s > founding fathers intended that. And even if they did, they may not have > imagined what the world would come to hundreds of years later. People say > ?guns don?t kill people, people kill people? and I > say fine ?let?s not put the guns that kill people in the hands of those > people that kill people?? There are many sensible steps we can take to find > a more sustainable footing here.The bottom line is that many Christians are > not all that interested in Yeshua of Nazareth. Rather they follow a Jesus > who has been morphed into a pawn of radical right-wing political agendas. I > don?t think there is any way a disciple of Jesus, or someone who was > brimming with love, compassion, and forgiveness in their hearts, would feel > a need to accumulate military grade weapons and thousands of rounds of > ammo. Disparate militias have no place in 21st century American politics, > especially in a nation with over 325,000,000 people.No hunter alive needs > to take more than one shot per second to put dinner on the table. And even > though full automatic weapons are now illegal in many cases, it is quite > easy to master or manipulate a semi-automatic weapon to inflict mass > destruction.We need more stable progressiv > e voices countering the NRA arguments within Christian circles. And as a > side note, this was a key reason why I started the Progressive Christianity > and Politics group on Facebook a couple years ago. It is now over 2000 > members strong and we are propagating progressive principles out to > compassionate and thoughtful people all across the world. If you or anyone > else reading this would like to join, please feel free to register at > www.JoinPCP.com~Eric AlexanderRead and Share online hereAbout the > AuthorEric Alexander is an author, speaker, and entrepreneur. He is a board > member at ProgressiveChristianity.org, and is the founder of Jesism, > Christian Evolution, and the Progressive Christianity and Politics group on > Facebook. Eric holds a Master of Theology from Saint Leo University and > studied negotiations at Harvard Law School, and is the author of?Teaching > Kids Life IS Good.________________________________________________ > Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited > The Bible, Corporal Punishment and Human Guilt - Part 2 > ?The physical abuse of children under the guise of "proper discipline" has > been practiced in western history so frequently as to be thought of as > normative. It has had the approval of those recognized sources of cultural > value - tradition, Bible, Church, School and family. It found expression in > popular novels written by such noteworthy authors as Charles Dickens and > Mark Twain in the 19th century and by no less a person than the 20th > century's ultra-conservative political pundit, William F. Buckley. When > some of these novels were turned into motion pictures, the corporal > punishment scenes were quite graphic.In the schools of western history, > which were normally church-related parochial or church-influenced public > schools, corporal punishment was regularly employed until quite recently, > certainly within my lifetime. Almost always this discipline was > administered with parental approval. In boarding schools of the 19th and > early 20th centuries this disciplinary activity sometimes had a > bout it a quality of a ritualistic act and even came to be thought of as > a kind of "liturgical observance." That is, the act of discipline was > carried out at a time-certain. It was scheduled on a particular day for all > offenders during a specified period of time for which the school staff > prepared the instruments to be used, such as a bunch of bound switches or a > freshly prepared cane. It was followed through in a prescribed, unchanging > and traditional manner.The intended victim or victims would have to wait in > fearful anticipation until the proper moment when the price of their > misbehavior was exacted. The disciplinary act clearly defined boundaries > and made all aware of where authority resided.In my own experience, as a > public school boy growing up in the Southern Bible Belt, corporal > punishment was employed, but much less ritualistically. It was administered > on the spot whenever it was deemed essential to control the classroom and > as a response to a particular act of misbehavior. > Yet it also followed a set form that we all recognized. It was not used > frequently. I recall that in my seventh grade class, which was the last > time I knew it to take place, only two of my classmates were subjected to > this discipline during the entire year. The fact, however, that I can still > recall both instances some sixty years later, indicates that each of these > occasions made an indelible, albeit not a positive impression, upon my > young mind. Most of us who were not the actual recipients of the punishment > were in fact intimidated by it.The offending student, in both cases, a boy > 12-13 years old, would be asked to accompany the teacher who had ruler in > hand, to the room adjacent to the principal's office, which was reserved > solely for this purpose. That room also happened to be next door to our > classroom, so even though we could not observe the act of discipline, we > could not fail to hear it. The students remaining in the classroom sat in > silence during the period of time it to > ok the teacher and the pupil to reach the required location and to assume > the proper positions for discipline. Then the noise of the ruler landing on > its target resounded. No cries were ever heard because proving that "he > could take it" preserved the pupil's last shred of dignity. Finally the > blows would cease and in a few minutes the chastened student would return > to the class, followed by the teacher, still gripping her ruler. The > student would take his seat saying something about it "not hurting at all," > a brave attempt to reestablish his place in the social fabric of the class. > The teacher would then use this episode as a teaching moment by warning the > other students that a similar fate awaited each of them if their behavior > made it necessary. It seemed to me that it took the disciplined child a day > or so to absorb the humiliation before he began to ease back into the life > of his school community. The ever-present threat that the ruler would be > employed again, however, instilled > apprehension, fear and developed something of a herd instinct among us > all. Instead of enhancing life, it seemed only to bruise a fragile ego. It > certainly taught by example that physical force was a proper way to deal > with those who are smaller and weaker. It surely issued in a more > controllable classroom, but it was never, in my opinion, a pathway into > maturity.It is interesting to note who, besides children, have been > subjected to corporal punishment in the history of our Judeo-Christian > world. There were basically four types of adults on whom corporal > punishment was deemed to be appropriate discipline, at least during some > part of our history. The one thing each of these four groups of people had > in common was that they were thought to be deserving of the status of a > child.The first category was adult prisoners. Those who had violated the > rules of the society in such a way as to be judged a threat that must be > removed, jailed and punished. I suppose the reasoning process was si > mple. If physical punishment made school children more pliable and > obedient, to say nothing of being easier to control, then why should the > same tactic not be used on those adults who consistently disrupted the well > being of society's life? So the right to use corporal punishment was > written into the penal codes of most Western, and by implication, Christian > nations.The public whipping post was a regular feature in the criminal > justice system in nations like Great Britain and the United States until > the 20th century. The last state to make it illegal in America was > Delaware. It is still employed to this day in Singapore and in several > Muslim nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The familiar jail diet of > "bread and water" was just another form of corporal punishment; that is, > the punishment of the body.By extension from the penal codes physical > discipline was used in situations where control was deemed essential to > survival. It was a standard practice, for example, on the ships of > the colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries when the whole world > was shrunk to the dimensions of an individual boat, with the captain > exercising the decision making responsibility for discipline, indeed > sometimes for life and death, with no further appeal. Physical discipline > was also employed on the Lewis and Clark expedition across the Continental > United States on their journey to the Pacific Ocean, opening the West. The > diaries from that journey describe what they thought were its salutary > effects.The second class of adults to be treated in this physically abusive > manner during our history was the slave population. Christians must never > forget that the institution of slavery was accepted as normal, even in the > New Testament. Paul directs a runaway slave named Onesimus to return to his > master Philemon, not with the request for his freedom, but with the request > that he be treated kindly. In the Epistle to the Colossians (3:22), slaves > are ordered to "obey in everything thos > e who are your earthly masters" and masters are urged to "treat your > slave justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a master in Heaven > (4:1)." With no rights accruing to the slaves, who were defined as > sub-human and therefore childlike, it followed that disobedience was to be > punished in slaves in the same manner that it was deemed to be appropriate > in children. It is worth noting that even the popes have historically been > slaveholders.No one denies that slaves were lashed in the United States for > everything from disobedience to running away. The master had the right to > do to his property whatever he wished. When slavery ended following the > Civil War, these tactics of intimidation continued to be employed against > powerless blacks in the South by quasi-religious organizations like the Ku > Klux Klan. It is not as large a step as people now think to move from the > corporal punishment of a slave or former slave with the bare back absorbing > the lash while the victim was tied to a tree > , to the ultimate act of corporal punishment called lynching, where the > victim was hanged from the tree. Violence is always violence. The degree of > violence is the only difference. What the inmate or prisoner and the slave > had in common was that neither had power and no vestige of adulthood > accrued to their status so they could be treated like children who had no > rights. If it was the proper thing to do to powerless children, it must be > appropriate for powerless adults. That was the reasoning. Violence is never > contained. It always seeks new victims. Corporal punishment was and is > legalized violence.Corporal punishment has been used on two other types of > adults in our history: women and people in religious orders. To their story > we will turn next week.~ John Shelby Spong > Originally published June 23, 2004 | > > > | > Announcements > ? > 5th Annual Climate and Creation Stewardship Summit > > The 5th Annual Climate and Creation Stewardship Summit will be?Saturday, > October 28?from?9:30 am ? 4:30 pm? in Hamden, CT.? > > The focus of this summit is on water, both on land and the oceans. It will > consists of speakers, panels and workshops on different aspects of our > current climate change crisis and other critical environmental issues ... > ?Click here for more information/registration | > > | > > | > | > | > | > | > | > > | > | > | > > | > > | > > > | > > > > > > > > > | > | > | > > | > > _______________________________________________ > OE mailing list > OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net > >

15 20

10/19/17, Spong/Michael Dowd:The Way Home for the Prodigal Species; Vosper; Spong revisited
by Ellie Stock 19 Oct '17

19 Oct '17

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR The Way Home for the Prodigal Species The Rev. Michael Dowd “Human society is inextricably part of a global biotic community, and in that community human dominance has had and is having self-destructive consequences.” ~ William R. Catton, Jr. “The most difficult transition to make is from an anthropocentric to a bio-centric norm of progress. If there is to be any true progress, then the entire life community must progress. Any progress of the human at the expense of the larger life community must ultimately lead to a diminishment of human life itself.” ~ Thomas Berry * * * Here is a short story. The theme: how human-centeredness alienated us from primary reality (Gᴏᴅ) and how ecology — the interdisciplinary study of the way, the truth, and the life of the living biosphere — can lead us home. We begin by taking stock of our species’ situation. After centuries of profligate living, we have exceeded what ecologists call the carrying capacity of the biosphere. We have extracted more resources and exuded more wastes than Nature can sustainably provide and process. Overshoot is the ecological term for our species’ predicament, and nothing in heaven or on Earth can spare us from the troubles ahead. We know this because Reality has revealed it through evidence. By dishonoring material grace limits, we have made a Great Reckoning inevitable. In the words of Robert Louis Stevenson, “Sooner or later we all sit down to a banquet of consequences.” The Great Reckoning will be experienced as bad news by most of us alive this century. It is, however, soul nourishing to remember that a roll-back of the human imprint on Earth’s ecologies will be good news for other species — and eventually for ours, too. That turn will be the Great Homecoming. After squandering a multi-billion-year inheritance, the prodigal species will come home to Reality, humbly returning to the community of life of which we are part and upon which we depend. The vital — indeed, essential — key to this turn is that we will have learned to measure progress and success in bio-centric and eco-centric (Reality/Gᴏᴅ-centered) terms. Our descent into species narcissism will be a harsh memory, a clear warning, while stories of collective repentance and atonement become the bright new myths. Reality Is GOD “The most profound insight in the history of humankind is that we should seek to live in accord with reality. Indeed, living in harmony with reality may be accepted as a formal definition of wisdom. If we live at odds with reality (foolishly), we will be doomed. But if we live in proper relationship with reality (wisely), we shall be saved. Humans everywhere, and at all times, have had at least a tacit understanding of this fundamental principle. What we are less in agreement about is how we should think about reality and what we should do to bring ourselves into harmony with it.” ~ Loyal Rue “Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn’t go away.” ~ Philip K. Dick * * * Words create worlds and worldviews shape human behavior, individually and collectively. Sometimes a single word or redefinition of an existing one can help usher in a new concept or paradigm that shifts how we see and experience reality. The new way of seeing solves problems the previous paradigm couldn’t because it transcends and includes the older way of seeing. I suggest that Gᴏᴅ (small caps) or perhaps Godde (pronounced God, yet spelled the Old English, gender-neutral way, as some Roman Catholic nuns and others already do) may offer just such a reframe and fresh way of perceiving reality. Divinity, of course, is the Universe+, Time and Nature+, the Biosphere+. Plus what? Plus, at the very least, an authoritative voice! Plus whatever transcendent beliefs about ultimate reality a person may already hold. After all, any God who merely transcends time and nature is less than a God who includes (i.e., is revealed or incarnate within) time and nature. Worse, a transcendent-only notion of the divine has over the past 500 years resulted in an Earth bereft of respect, bereft of honor, bereft of devotion — and therefore inevitably stripped and assaulted. Imaging Gᴏᴅ, or primary reality, as unnatural rather than undeniable has led us to overshoot Earth’s carrying capacity, or grace limits, and thereby betray future generations. A limited and ultimately impotent notion of the divine is directly responsible, I suggest, for the demonic, anti-future economic system that now dominates human affairs. Demonic economic system? Yes, but I’ll say more about that shortly. I first need to emphasize that the issue of what we call, and how we regard, primary reality (i.e., everything that is necessary for our existence and wellbeing) is far from trivial. The name we choose influences, and possibly even determines, whether or not our way of life will be sustainable. The I-It, “Man, Conqueror of Nature,” relationship we have forged in recent centuries clearly is not. In contrast, I-Thou relating to primary reality fosters a mutually enhancing human–Earth relationship. As Thomas Berry was fond of saying, “The environment is not our surroundings, it’s our source.” Our name (or names) for primary reality — our living creator, sustainer, and end — dictates the health or sickness of our relationship to that which brought us into existence, nourishes and supports us, and receives us when we die. Naming may also determine whether we live in a pro-future or anti-future way, and whether we can even distinguish good and evil. “God,” of course, means different things to different people in different traditions. By offering nuanced spellings — Gᴏᴅ or Godde — the meaning I intend is this: Reality with a personality, not a person outside reality. What is gained by spelling Gᴏᴅ with small capital letters or by going back to a spelling left behind some 600 years ago? Just this: an opportunity for each of us to nurture a personal relationship to the Nature part of Nature+, not just the + or transcendent aspect. Consider the words of James Hillman, one of the more influential psychologists of the past half-century: “Loving is a way of knowing and for love to know, it must personify. Personifying is thus the heart’s mode of knowing. It is not a lesser, primitive way of apprehending, but a finer one. To enter myth we must personify. To personify carries us into myth.” Nothing, I would argue, is more consequential than how we think of primary reality. Why? Because it matters, ultimately, whether our relationship to the biosphere is characterized by humility or hubris! As renowned systems thinker Gregory Bateson warned decades ago: “If you put God outside and set him vis-a-vis his creation, and if you have the idea that you are created in his image, you will logically and naturally see yourself as outside and against the things around you. And as you claim all mind to yourself, you will see the world around you as mindless and therefore not entitled to moral or ethical consideration. The environment will seem to be yours to exploit. Your survival unit will be you and your people against the environment of other social units, other races, and the brutes and vegetables. If this is your estimate of your relation to nature and you have an advanced technology, your likelihood of survival will be that of a snowball in hell. You will die either of the toxic by-products of your own hate or simply of overpopulation and overgrazing.” Anthropocentrism Is Idolatry “The world we live in is an honorable world. To refuse this deepest instinct of our being, to deny honor where honor is due, to withdraw reverence from divine manifestation, is to place ourselves on a head-on collision course with the ultimate forces of the universe. This question of honor must be dealt with before any other question. We miss both the intrinsic nature and the magnitude of the issue if we place our response to the crises of our planet on any other basis. It is not ultimately a political or economic or scientific or psychological issue. It is ultimately a question of honor. Only the sense of the violated honor of Earth and the need to restore this honor can evoke the understanding and energy needed to carry out the renewal of the planet in any effective manner. ” ~ Thomas Berry * * * The core of my message is simple and can be expressed in both secular and religious ways. In secular language it sounds like this: Primary reality is primary; human-centeredness is self-terminating. Said religiously: Ecology is the heart of theology; anthropocentrism is idolatry. Idolatry is nothing so trivial as bowing down to statues or worshipping the wrong god. Idolatry is maintaining an unreal notion of Gᴏᴅ, one not inclusive of — indeed, synonymous with — that which is necessarily and inescapably real. In contrast, an eco-theological or ecosophia perspective encourages lifeways that respect the integrity of the soil, forests, water, and life that in turn give us life. We naturally live as a blessing to posterity. Human-centeredness is idolatry because it excludes all but a smidgen of reality from matters of ultimate concern. It fosters hubris rather than humility. Anthropocentrism is idolatry because it makes the entire universe little more than a stage upon which the human drama plays out. Therein lies the danger. Surely, one reason the ancients warned so vociferously against idolatry is because human-centeredness is an insanity our kind cannot survive; it is inherently anti-future. As Edward Goldsmith details in The Way: An Ecological Worldview, every sustainable culture that we know of held three things in common: (1) they related to primary reality in a humble, indeed mythic, I-Thou way; (2) they treated the Biosphere+ as the source of all benefits and thus the source of all real and lasting wealth; and (3) they embraced as a sacred responsibility preservation of the health and wellbeing of the body of life and “critical order of the cosmos.” In other words, Gᴏᴅ first! permeated every aspect of culture. The way home for the prodigal species is to return to this deep and profound intimacy with the living world+. Why Good People Engage in Great Evil “For the present to have meaning, it must see the past as legacy and the future as bequest. What makes societies great is not conquest or consumption but their dedication to something grander then themselves.” ~ William Ophuls “We are talking only to ourselves. We are not talking to the rivers. We are not listening to the wind and the climate. Most of the disasters that are happening now are a consequence of that spiritual autism.” ~ Thomas Berry When we trivialize primary reality as an otherworldly clockmaker (Creator) outside a clockwork cosmos (Creation), we contribute — albeit unintentionally — to our species’ demise. When Gᴏᴅ is either dead or otherworldly, doing evil is almost guaranteed. It is not just immoral, it is evil to irreparably harm the future for short-term personal or institutional gain. Yet we have a global economic system, supported by governments on every continent and accepted by adherents of every faith, ensuring that it is not only legal to betray posterity; it’s profitable - highly profitable. This is precisely what history teaches: when religion fails, greed reigns and economics becomes demonic. Good and evil is discerned, at the very least, by this: how the actions of an individual or group impact the larger community and how those impacts ripple into the future. At the extremes, that which consistently leads to personal wholeness, social coherence, and ecological integrity is good, and that which harms or endangers personal wholeness, social coherence, and ecological integrity is evil. Granted, shades of gray take up a large swath in between — but if we lose the scale, we lose our bearings. Unsustainable, after all, is just a bland and deceptive word for evil. Our global, industrial-growth economy rewards the few at the expense of the many, measures progress by how fast resources can be turned into waste, and seduces billions to betray the future just by pursuing ‘the good life’. Is this not collective madness? Is this not, in truth, demonic? Let us now repent of our human-centeredness and return to Gᴏᴅ. The Great Work of our time is to do whatever it takes to bring forth an economic system that embodies the wisdom of ecology. First and foremost we must shed our addiction to fossil fuels. Rebuilding topsoil, restoring forests, recovering wetlands — returning to balance becomes our sacred duty. The Great Work is a time for letting go of extravagances, for re-localizing, and for rekindling the simple joys of living within the grace limits of this planet. We are the prodigal species, and this is our way home. ~ The Rev. Michael Dowd Read the essay online here. About the Author The Rev. Michael Dowd is a bestselling evolutionary storyteller, eco-theologian, and pro-future evangelist whose work has been featured in The New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Newsweek, Discover, and on television nationally, including CNN, ABC News, and even FOX News. His book, Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World, was endorsed by 6 Nobel Prize-winning scientists, noted skeptics and atheists, and by dozens of religious leaders across the theological spectrum. Michael and his science writer, evolutionary educator, and fellow climate activist wife, Connie Barlow, have spoken to more than 2,200 groups throughout North America since April 2002. A former pastor and sustainable communities organizer, Rev. Dowd has delivered two TEDx talks and a program at the United Nations. His commitment to the legacy-work of his colleagues has resulted in two online conversation series: “The Advent of Evolutionary Christianity,” and “The Future Is Calling Us to Greatness,” and recording nearly 1,500 hours of, what he calls, “deep sustainability scripture.” Dowd’s passion for proclaiming a pro-science message of inspiration — what he calls “the gospel of right relationship to Reality” — has earned him the moniker Rev. Reality, as he speaks prophetically in secular and religious settings about our sacred responsibility to future generations. Videos of his most popular sermons and longer programs can be found here. His and Connie’s 2017-18 itinerary can be found here. Question & Answer Fred from Canberra, Australia writes: Question: What titles do I use for God when I pray? Does prayer do any good? Answer: By Rev. Gretta Vosper Dear Fred, My son, many years ago, came from school with an assignment he was required to complete. The creative writing project asked for one hundred different ways to say “said” other than, of course, “said.” At first glance, it seemed a daunting task but within minutes, the lines were filled and the list compiled. The truth is that, although mostly oblivious to the fact, those of us who read fiction are exposed to many, many different ways an author indicates that someone has just “said” something. The hours and hours of bedtime story reading his dad had shared with him had embedded those many words in his vocabulary already. So, when writing my first book With or Without God: Why the Way We Live is More Important than What We Believe, I challenged myself to come up with one hundred words that could be used instead of the word “god”. I didn’t want to suggest that the concept of god had any power to act in the world, but included words that could be interpreted by the reader in whatever way was helpful; that is, with or without agency. I encourage you to do the same. There may be words that are quick to come: “grace”, “courage”, “love”. And there may be words that require more thought. For me, the word “god” lays out a broad terrain that cannot be limited by a single person’s perspective. I understand god to be a concept rather than a being, a word I once used to convey an amalgam of our best and highest ideals. I now no longer use the word as it too readily invites ideas of the supernatural, of blessing or judgment, of a privileged or capricious intervention, depending on whether the hearer’s own life has weighed out on the side of privilege or blight. My understanding of god necessarily impacts on the concept of prayer, a topic I go into in depth in my second book, Amen: What Prayer Can Mean in a World Beyond Belief. Whether the person engaged in the act of prayer believes in a supernatural deity or force or the benevolence of the universe, we are the only answer we’ve got to the challenges facing our world. Some will work toward solutions compelled by the god in whom they believe. Others will work toward solutions compelled by theirs own sense of compassion and responsibility. Goodness comes into the world through our own hands, voices, and actions. I believe prayer is a very important component to a balanced and engaged life though I do not believe there is a god listening to us. We listen to ourselves. We sort out what is happening in our lives. We honour the beauty we’ve encountered, express gratitude and awe. We trouble ourselves toward making a difference wherever we are able. We sit within the reality of our lives and explore them. Even believing that no deity exists who cares a whit for us, we can enrich our lives by the daily practice of prayer or, as I prefer to call it – again, to avoid confusion - meditation. Using the four broad categories around which much Christian liturgy is built, we can craft a daily ritual that invites us to perceive awe (adoration), reflect critically on our relationships with our own self, others, and the planet (confession), recognize how fortunate we are even in the midst of adversity (thanksgiving), and lament that we and those we love still suffer want, pain, sorrow (supplication). Traditional prayer grew up around human need, not the other way around. Acknowledging each of these aspects of our lives is an important facet of well-being. There are many practices that can be powerful additions to one’s life and take the place of meditative prayer. Some prefer to journal, finding their own way to solutions by writing them out. I write poetry and often only understand what I was saying to myself hours or days after getting a poem out onto the page. Some find vocal music, chant, drumming or tonal vibrations help to balance their attentions and calm their minds. Mindfulness has proven to be an incredibly helpful way to tend to one’s mind and well-being. I encourage you to look for what works for you, trying this or that, rejecting what doesn’t “feel” right and leaning in toward what resonates with you. ~ 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. ________________________________________________ Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited The Bible, Corporal Punishment and Human Guilt - Part 3 In the most deeply patriarchal part of our male-dominant Western history, women were also considered to be fit subjects for corporal punishment at the hands of their husbands. This exercise of power was carried out with the full approval of both State and Church. In that day a husband could beat his wife whenever the husband deemed it necessary. She was, if not his property like a slave, at best his ward with no more status than a dependent child. Physical abuse of one's spouse is not unknown today, but it is now called "domestic violence" and is recognized as a crime for which both arrest and incarceration are deemed appropriate. That, however, has not always been the case. Reading a book written by Suzannah Fonay Wemple, a medieval historian, was the first time I was made aware that one of the primary functions of nunneries in the early Middle Ages was to be a safe haven to which abused women could retreat. Not even the power of the male in a rigidly patriarchal society could invade the domain of the Mother Superior! Modern people, whose sense of history is rather short, blink in disbelief when reading of the accepted domestic violence during this period of history. Perhaps they need to be reminded that the word 'obey,' as a part of the bride's sacred vows to her husband, was in almost every wedding ceremony in every part of the Christian Church until early in the 20th century. The word 'obey' is a word that implies dependent submission to the authority of the one who requires it, and it carries with it the implicit threat that the failure to obey will bring upon the disobedient one the power of the authority. Society in that day deemed physical discipline the necessary means of enforcement. The word 'obey' was not removed from the wedding ceremony in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer until 1928. It was mandated for the bride alone, since it was inconceivable that the groom would take a vow of obedience. Because the 1662 Prayer Book of the Church of England is still in use in both England and throughout the nations that once constituted the British Empire, the word 'obey' is still, to this day, required of the bride in many English speaking marriage ceremonies. Wherever it is used, wherever obedience is assumed to be appropriate, the subservient person is deemed to be dependent, childlike and by implication an appropriate recipient for discipline. There is no question that the definition of a woman, as a dependent child subject to her husband's authority, is one of those legacies from the Christian past that had to be challenged first and dismantled second before women could be free. Perhaps that helps to explain why it was that the conservative parts of the Christian Church resisted so deeply the women's liberation movement with its goal of the total emancipation of women. In the Catholic tradition women are still treated as second-class citizens. The embarrassment of this attitude in a world, where consciousness has been raised on this issue, has resulted in some rather convoluted rationalizations that hint at an ecclesiastical version of the old racist slogan "separate but equal" as this Church seeks to defend present anti-female practices. In the evangelical wing of Protestant Christianity Pat Robertson accused "women's lib" movements of being "home breaking, family violating, godless and lesbian assaults on traditional values." At every stage along the way, from the suffrage movement that won for women the right to vote in 1920, to the battle to make birth control and abortion legal, the Christian Church has been a vigorous opponent. Only in an ecclesiastical setting would it ever have been deemed appropriate for an all male group of clerics, mostly in the middle or post-menopausal years of life, to sit in solemn assembly, dressed in vestments called 'frocks,' to pontificate in the name of a God called 'Father,' about what a woman can do that is moral with her own body. The Women's Liberation Movement has sought to free women and their bodies from such domination by males, a domination that at one stage in our history gave men the right to punish physically the bodies of women. That movement declared that women are not children, that women are not dependent or subservient and that women are not designed to be submissive to men or to anyone else. The power to define oneself as adult, competent and independent became the ticket out of a world where discipline and physical abuse were considered to be appropriate patterns of interpersonal behavior. Other adults who were subjected to corporal punishment during the days of Christian history were members of religious orders. Once again, the justification for that violence was found in the vows of the religious life in which obedience joined poverty and chastity as sacred obligations. Obedience lends itself to the creation of a childlike and dependent person, who is subject to the discipline of his or her superiors. That understanding of human life has led to the abuse of the bodies of those in religious orders in some form of corporal punishment. When that understanding is combined with the religious sense of universal human sinfulness, then physical discipline offers a 'therapy' for an evil situation. If God's revealed word in the Bible called for such discipline to be administered to children and to those under authority as an act of love, and if this discipline was regarded both as a virtue and a sacred obligation owed to one's religious superior, then all arguments against it were stifled. So corporal punishment has often marked the relationship of the religious superior to the monk, nun or penitent. Sometimes this punishment of the body was ordered by the superior, but was self-inflicted by the penitent. It made the penitent feel more noble, more virtuous. In the 14th century in response to the bubonic plague, known popularly as 'the Black Death,' a movement arose among Christians who called themselves 'the Flagellants." They walked through the streets of the cities of Europe sometimes in numbers 10,000 strong, lashing themselves with whips in an act of public penitence. It was an age in which people knew nothing about viruses, germs or bacteria that might bring sickness. They only knew that they were living through a fearful period of history in which up to one fourth of the adult population of Europe was to die in this epidemic. The common explanation for this devastation was that God was angry with the people for some real or imagined sin. The hope of the Flagellants was that by brutally lashing their own bodies with whips they could punish themselves so severely that God would withdraw the divine punishment of the plague from their families. It was a strange practice based on a faulty, but deeply believed, premise; namely, that punishing their bodies would somehow win for them divine approval. The idea was that if they punished themselves, God would not have to do it. Yet this practice grew out of and reflected that belief so deeply in the Western Christian world, that God was a punishing deity and those who were disciplined by God deserved it because of their sinfulness. That was long ago we tend to say, until we read a more contemporary writer like Karen Armstrong. This brilliant woman who has authored such best selling titles as A History of God, and The Battle for God spent the first years of her adulthood in a convent in England, leaving as recently as the late 1960s. In her autobiography she described her experience as a Sister going to confession. On occasions, as her penance, she would be given a small whip and told to go to a private place and there to lash herself for her sins, if she deemed that appropriate. There is ample reason to suggest that corporal punishment was practiced in the religious life and that disciplining the body physically was taught by the Church to be an act pleasing to God, since the body was normally judged in religious circles to be sinful. The path followed in our own religious history started with a definition of human life as fallen or sinful. Step two would involve developing the practice of combining that definition with the appropriateness of punishing the sinful body physically. Step three was to validate the practice by pointing to a text in a book called the "word of God," that would demonstrate God's approval of these tactics. Step four was to expand the definition of the child to include all the powerless and thus child-like adults: prisoners whose behavior had caused society to strip from them adult rights and to relate to them as those in need of punishment; slaves who had no rights at all and who by law and custom were required to be obedient to their masters; women, regarded as inferior, not fully human adults, who were childlike and dependent and incapable of maturity so they had to pledge to be obedient to their husbands; and finally religious figures who lived under the authority of their superiors and who believed themselves deserving of physical discipline because of their own sins or in order to force God to withdraw the divine wrath which was believed to be causing their suffering. Next week I will seek to lift that portrait of God into full consciousness so that it might be banished along with the terrible texts from the "Word of God" that have been used to justify abusive behavior for far too long. ~ John Shelby Spong Originally published June 30, 2004 Announcements Rev. Matthew Wright: “Reclaiming Wisdom: How Christianity Is Evolving in the Third Millennium.” First Congregational United Church of Christ of Hendersonville, NC - Friday October 20th Friday, October 20th, at 7pm with “How We Lost Our Wisdom: Recovering the Christian Contemplative Path and Reclaiming Jesus as Wisdom Teacher.” On Saturday, October 21st, 10 am the topic is “The Gospels of Thomas and Mary: Restoring Wisdom Texts and Teaching.” At 1 pm is “Christianity in a Second Axial Age: Teilhard de Chardin and Raimon Panikkar as Prophets of an Evolving Path.” On Sunday, October 22nd, Rev. Wright will speak at the 9 am Adult Forum and 10:30 amWorship Service, both in the Sanctuary. Click here for more information

1 0

Re: [Oe List ...] [Dialogue] 10/12/17: Spong/Vosper: REFORMERS, ALL; Spong revisited
by jlepps39 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Jim et al. I believe Neibuhr's other 2 categories were prophet and priest. John from Paris. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message --------From: James Wiegel via Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Date: 10/13/17 23:49 (GMT+01:00) To: dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net, oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net Cc: James Wiegel <jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] [Oe List ...] 10/12/17: Spong/Vosper: REFORMERS, ALL; Spong revisited As always, thanks, Ellie for passing these on . . . This one seems a cry for Niebuhr's 3rd social responsibility of the church, the social pioneer. Yea. What about the other 2 -- the part of the paper we skipped over to get to that last page . . . Jim Wiegel “That which consumes me is not man, nor the earth, nor the heavens, but the flame which consumes man, earth, and sky." Nikos Kazantzakis 401 North Beverly Way,Tolleson, Arizona 85353623-363-3277jfwiegel(a)yahoo.comwww.partnersinparticipation.com On Thursday, October 12, 2017, 7:31:46 AM MST, Ellie Stock via OE <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: Homepage My Profile Essay Archive Message Boards Calendar REFORMERS, ALL By Rev. Gretta Vosper We’ve been anticipating the celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation for some time. Now that the month is upon us, it seems more like a private birthday party than something worthy of global attention. In truth, I suppose it is. With the global number of Reform Tradition Protestants diminishing, the celebration of the dramatic and cataclysmic leave-taking that was our birth seems of little interest to any but those enchanted by the history of such things and the few others taking advantage of the liturgical and party possibilities offered up by the date. The Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues of the past few decades culminated in the document From Conflict to Communion, published in 2013. Within it, Five Ecumenical Imperatives are laid out, providing a base from which the two traditions could ramp up together for a joint celebration of the Reformation, a healing of the centuries old rift between them. Shoving a new foundation of respect under the violence and rancour of the past, the Catholic and Lutheran ecumenists have demanded a new and generous spirit from their adherents: choose unity over disunity; start from a place of agreement rather than focusing on easily spotted differences. They seem simple and wise choices. If only we had managed to get to this place four hundred and ninety-five years earlier. So much hatred, horror, and bloodshed may have been avoided. There is no doubt that our great faith traditions have provided the human family much that has been of benefit. Perhaps their most important work was built of the evolutionary advantage provided humans by what we might nowadays call “group think”. Religion gave us a bigger and stronger clan than family. Members would die for us just as quickly as we would die for them; we were no longer alone but had the safety of our religious affiliates to add strength to our prejudices and personal desires. And those prejudices and personal desires were, in turn, further refined by our religious beliefs. Put in such a way, it is easy to see how, in the early 16th century, neighbours could turn against one another to the point of death, uncovering allegiances that damned an individual or family to the ultimate exclusion from God’s grace and forgiveness for all of eternity. Taking leave of an institution with that much power was a risky thing to do. The rhetoric continues to be chilling to this day. Bishop Spong has presented visionary work on what a new reformation might look like, what it might provide humanity in the third millennium, and how we might get there. His forthcoming book will take that work further, providing much more than the meticulously negotiated but necessarily simplistic Lutheran Catholic Imperatives. I expect this book will crown the past four decades of his leadership in this progressive Christian landscape, a terrain still tragically unknown to so many. CHOICE At any point in time, a range of possibilities lie before us. We make the best decisions we can, given the information we have at the time. Decades later, we sometimes realize that a single choice resulted in a myriad of other choices, each circumscribed by the first, and all resulting in a reality that, had it been clear to us from the beginning, we may have refused. We cannot see what the future brings and we are very poor at extrapolating our possibilities out much further than our immediate creature needs. And so we end up in situations, relationships, jobs, communities, social structures, or a whole world we may not have chosen had we been able to see the extrapolated implications of our every choice. But you don’t need to keep going in the same direction just because that is the direction you happen to be going. You certainly can and many do. But others, either because of a sudden reorientation of their perspective or because they were just born without a personal comfort zone, refuse to just keep on keeping on. To them, the cost is too high. In fact, it is idiocy. Enter, the Reformer. Many are the times I’ve heard Martin Luther compared to Jesus in the work they both undertook. They didn’t start dramatically; reformers rarely do. It may have been a conversation here or a private rant there. It may have begun in whispers and only risen to an audible level over many months or even years. It may have been with or without design, beginning with a broad, unfocused list of laments or emerging from the womb, so to speak, with a well-honed mission. But both Luther and Jesus, at some point in time, and very likely supported by the gifts of countless unnamed others who listened, shared, cajoled, and criticized, noticed that the faith traditions they cherished had veered in directions that were unacceptable to them. Choices made by those in leadership developed norms for the practices, thinking, attitudes, and prejudices embraced within the tradition, each chosen from the creative potentialities of time and place. For most believers, all was accepted as it was received. But for Reformers, what is normal for the masses is anathema to them. Both Jesus and Luther honoured their traditions. Though we long assumed Jesus was Christian, we now know he wasn’t; he was a Jew. Luther learned the only acceptable religion of his day, a Rome-centred Catholicism. They were steeped in their traditional religions, born into and formed by them. Like everyone around them, they were supposed to fit in. Their education, far above the level of the average believer, was supposed to further hone their beliefs. It was not supposed to expose the little hypocrisies and gross abuses that had been so artfully woven into the everyday business of religion. Once noticed, however, the normal way of doing things became unacceptable. There were no options for Jesus or Luther but those that would bring about catastrophic change in their religious traditions. Even as others fought to maintain the status quo, forcing banishment or conspiring toward more final solutions, the Reformers laid out and presented their arguments. And the world changed. LEGACY We stand on the shoulders of great men and women. Countless Reformers dared challenge the norms of their day – religious, political, economic, and social. And they did it at great cost. We are grateful to them for their struggles, for their lives, for their blood, and for the first discomfort noticed that set them on their course. They created the world in which we live, the freedoms we cherish, the perspectives we are welcome to embrace or refuse, the right to make our own decisions, whether wise or foolish. They set in course the possibilities from which we have chosen our new realities and so have become, with them, co-creators of the world we know. They also, however, created gross disparities and abuses that yet plague humanity and the planet: the economic enslavement of whole nations for the provision of privileges assumed by others; the legal jargons that entrap indigenous peoples in politically ritualized battles for sovereignty; the lines that set out who is worthy of the right to choose their own lifestyle and who is not; the notion that humanity is separate and above the natural world rather than enfolded within and vulnerable to it; the entertainments by which we anaesthetize ourselves to the truths that quake around us; the cruelties endured by herded, caged, and crated animals so we might pleasure our taste buds and sooth our sun-scarred skin. And we, in making our choices, remain co-creators, complicit in a litany of normals that, had we the heart of Jesus or Luther or the millions of unnamed men and women who have poured their lives out in the pursuit of justice and compassion and the building up of love in the world, would make every one of us a Reformer. There is a legacy in the Reformation that I believe belongs in the middle of our work, calling out the power brokers, the hegemonists, the deceivers. Ours is not the work of complacency or settling for imperatives that take decades to conjure only because it takes that long to soothe the sensitivities of those still wielding ecclesial powers that make no difference to the challenges facing our world. Our reforms must be much bolder, our work in the world more creative than what those beyond our walls believe is all we do. It may be that humanity is facing the greatest crises of its too-brief history as it reels with the challenges of global warming and climate change, exponential population growth, and resource depletion. There may be no future moment for us to step up. Now may be all there is. Literally. Change is our very birthplace. It is our right and responsibility as heirs of the Reformers, to stare down every comfortable “normal” that sings its siren song and refuse to be enchanted by it. It is our right and responsibility to count up every ease and privilege we enjoy and educate ourselves about its source – what makes it possible? Who pays for our pleasures and how? And when we find that “normal” is built on the subjugation of others – our tea, our chocolate, our party-ready shrimp rings – work to redistribute or limit those pleasures until all have access to shelter, security, food, clean water, and the joy of planning for their children’s futures. ECLESIA AS REFORMER But change is costly and few have the strength or fortitude to bring about its grander accomplishments. That’s why those usually identified with the most highly evolved faith in James Fowler’s Stages of Faith, a Universalizing Faith, are so few, so well known, and all assassinated: Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. We aren’t that strong, most of us. We might start out heartily, but we then draw up far short of our goals, beaten by our own fears, our own comforts, our own weakness. We may be legion but we are ordinary, too. Throughout the New Testament, the word translated to “church” is originally ecclesia. It’s a poor translation. Rather than “church”, it shared the idea of government. In Greece, the ecclesia was the council of elect elders who governed the city. It’s use in the early Christian writings was a radical refusal to live according to the rules of the day by a ragtag group of people who believed they had a better way. They believed they were called to a bolder and more perfect reflection of the dignity of humanity as they had seen it represented in or inspired by a heretical Jew who’d once moved among them and left a residual and radical idea of what community should look like. Perhaps it is not we, frail and human as we are, but our ecclesia that can set out upon the sea of change and call us forward. Perhaps we can use the New Testament ideal of an alternative ecclesia to set the standards, the ideals, the vision by which the corrective to human destruction of the earth might be realized. Perhaps my United Church of Canada and your United Church of Christ, United Methodist, or Disciples of Christ could be called to this greater and most urgent vision that lies in the roots of all our Christian traditions. Perhaps the sacramental traditions, Reformed and Roman, might step up together in this celebratory year and cry out the words that need to be heard by all, challenging us to notice that normal isn’t acceptable, even if it is the culmination of all our choices. We need our religious institutions to be the ecclesia they were called to be, to be great for us and challenge us to be the reform we want to see in the world. Perhaps this is the year for our ecclesial institutions to step into the role of the Reformer and built a vision we can work toward. Isn’t this the nature of the gospel call, that our ability to notice provides us the challenge to change for the better, to take and make good news and not simply welcome it? Like most, I’ve been largely indifferent to the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. It seemed to esoteric, to trivial in the face of what challenges us today. But perhaps it is exactly the opposite. Perhaps, like Jesus and Luther before us, it is time to challenge the traditions by which we have been formed. We would challenge them to reawaken to the purposes set out in their deep, deep roots: to bring the people together, to be the assembly of Christians and call us all to the frightfully challenging tasks ahead of us. To be sacrificial in their work, giving everything even if it leads to death. Or perhaps the Reformation anniversary is, more personally, a reminder that to each of us that we are a people born of cataclysmic change and inheritors of its demand: notice what lies all about you, what humanity’s choices have led to, what a continued trajectory might mean. Notice, and then stand up and make your stand. ~ Rev. Gretta Vosper About the Author The Rev. Gretta Vosper is a United Church of Canada minister who is an atheist. Her best-selling books include With or Without God: Why The Way We Live is More Important Than What We Believe, and Amen: What Prayer Can Mean in a World Beyond Belief. She has also published three books of poetry and prayers. Read the essay online here. Question & Answer Lesley from Minnesota, writes: Question: What are your views about so many Christians being in favor of gun ownership? Doesn’t that completely contradict the Jesus of peace we read about in the Bible? Answer: By Eric Alexander Thanks for your question Lesley. This is a timely question for me as I was in Las Vegas during the recent shootings. Being so close to an event like that made this issue feel even more urgent than it already did to me. What made the Las Vegas shooting so interesting to me is that it involved a large group of mostly white conservative casualties. It made a large demographic of people suspend their NRA sponsored talking points and deal with the reality of the situation in their own hearts and minds. And I should note here that I enjoy a good skeet shoot as much as the next guy, but that is not the issue at hand here. I think it’s an absolute perversion of the U.S. 2nd amendment to allow nearly anyone who can fog a mirror to have a cache of assault rifles. In my mind, there is no way America’s founding fathers intended that. And even if they did, they may not have imagined what the world would come to hundreds of years later. People say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and I say fine “let’s not put the guns that kill people in the hands of those people that kill people…” There are many sensible steps we can take to find a more sustainable footing here. The bottom line is that many Christians are not all that interested in Yeshua of Nazareth. Rather they follow a Jesus who has been morphed into a pawn of radical right-wing political agendas. I don’t think there is any way a disciple of Jesus, or someone who was brimming with love, compassion, and forgiveness in their hearts, would feel a need to accumulate military grade weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo. Disparate militias have no place in 21st century American politics, especially in a nation with over 325,000,000 people. No hunter alive needs to take more than one shot per second to put dinner on the table. And even though full automatic weapons are now illegal in many cases, it is quite easy to master or manipulate a semi-automatic weapon to inflict mass destruction. We need more stable progressive voices countering the NRA arguments within Christian circles. And as a side note, this was a key reason why I started the Progressive Christianity and Politics group on Facebook a couple years ago. It is now over 2000 members strong and we are propagating progressive principles out to compassionate and thoughtful people all across the world. If you or anyone else reading this would like to join, please feel free to register at www.JoinPCP.com ~Eric Alexander Read and Share online here About the Author Eric Alexander is an author, speaker, and entrepreneur. He is a board member at ProgressiveChristianity.org, and is the founder of Jesism, Christian Evolution, and the Progressive Christianity and Politics group on Facebook. Eric holds a Master of Theology from Saint Leo University and studied negotiations at Harvard Law School, and is the author of Teaching Kids Life IS Good. ________________________________________________ Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited The Bible, Corporal Punishment and Human Guilt - Part 2 The physical abuse of children under the guise of "proper discipline" has been practiced in western history so frequently as to be thought of as normative. It has had the approval of those recognized sources of cultural value - tradition, Bible, Church, School and family. It found expression in popular novels written by such noteworthy authors as Charles Dickens and Mark Twain in the 19th century and by no less a person than the 20th century's ultra-conservative political pundit, William F. Buckley. When some of these novels were turned into motion pictures, the corporal punishment scenes were quite graphic. In the schools of western history, which were normally church-related parochial or church-influenced public schools, corporal punishment was regularly employed until quite recently, certainly within my lifetime. Almost always this discipline was administered with parental approval. In boarding schools of the 19th and early 20th centuries this disciplinary activity sometimes had about it a quality of a ritualistic act and even came to be thought of as a kind of "liturgical observance." That is, the act of discipline was carried out at a time-certain. It was scheduled on a particular day for all offenders during a specified period of time for which the school staff prepared the instruments to be used, such as a bunch of bound switches or a freshly prepared cane. It was followed through in a prescribed, unchanging and traditional manner. The intended victim or victims would have to wait in fearful anticipation until the proper moment when the price of their misbehavior was exacted. The disciplinary act clearly defined boundaries and made all aware of where authority resided. In my own experience, as a public school boy growing up in the Southern Bible Belt, corporal punishment was employed, but much less ritualistically. It was administered on the spot whenever it was deemed essential to control the classroom and as a response to a particular act of misbehavior. Yet it also followed a set form that we all recognized. It was not used frequently. I recall that in my seventh grade class, which was the last time I knew it to take place, only two of my classmates were subjected to this discipline during the entire year. The fact, however, that I can still recall both instances some sixty years later, indicates that each of these occasions made an indelible, albeit not a positive impression, upon my young mind. Most of us who were not the actual recipients of the punishment were in fact intimidated by it. The offending student, in both cases, a boy 12-13 years old, would be asked to accompany the teacher who had ruler in hand, to the room adjacent to the principal's office, which was reserved solely for this purpose. That room also happened to be next door to our classroom, so even though we could not observe the act of discipline, we could not fail to hear it. The students remaining in the classroom sat in silence during the period of time it took the teacher and the pupil to reach the required location and to assume the proper positions for discipline. Then the noise of the ruler landing on its target resounded. No cries were ever heard because proving that "he could take it" preserved the pupil's last shred of dignity. Finally the blows would cease and in a few minutes the chastened student would return to the class, followed by the teacher, still gripping her ruler. The student would take his seat saying something about it "not hurting at all," a brave attempt to reestablish his place in the social fabric of the class. The teacher would then use this episode as a teaching moment by warning the other students that a similar fate awaited each of them if their behavior made it necessary. It seemed to me that it took the disciplined child a day or so to absorb the humiliation before he began to ease back into the life of his school community. The ever-present threat that the ruler would be employed again, however, instilled apprehension, fear and developed something of a herd instinct among us all. Instead of enhancing life, it seemed only to bruise a fragile ego. It certainly taught by example that physical force was a proper way to deal with those who are smaller and weaker. It surely issued in a more controllable classroom, but it was never, in my opinion, a pathway into maturity. It is interesting to note who, besides children, have been subjected to corporal punishment in the history of our Judeo-Christian world. There were basically four types of adults on whom corporal punishment was deemed to be appropriate discipline, at least during some part of our history. The one thing each of these four groups of people had in common was that they were thought to be deserving of the status of a child. The first category was adult prisoners. Those who had violated the rules of the society in such a way as to be judged a threat that must be removed, jailed and punished. I suppose the reasoning process was simple. If physical punishment made school children more pliable and obedient, to say nothing of being easier to control, then why should the same tactic not be used on those adults who consistently disrupted the well being of society's life? So the right to use corporal punishment was written into the penal codes of most Western, and by implication, Christian nations. The public whipping post was a regular feature in the criminal justice system in nations like Great Britain and the United States until the 20th century. The last state to make it illegal in America was Delaware. It is still employed to this day in Singapore and in several Muslim nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The familiar jail diet of "bread and water" was just another form of corporal punishment; that is, the punishment of the body. By extension from the penal codes physical discipline was used in situations where control was deemed essential to survival. It was a standard practice, for example, on the ships of the colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries when the whole world was shrunk to the dimensions of an individual boat, with the captain exercising the decision making responsibility for discipline, indeed sometimes for life and death, with no further appeal. Physical discipline was also employed on the Lewis and Clark expedition across the Continental United States on their journey to the Pacific Ocean, opening the West. The diaries from that journey describe what they thought were its salutary effects. The second class of adults to be treated in this physically abusive manner during our history was the slave population. Christians must never forget that the institution of slavery was accepted as normal, even in the New Testament. Paul directs a runaway slave named Onesimus to return to his master Philemon, not with the request for his freedom, but with the request that he be treated kindly. In the Epistle to the Colossians (3:22), slaves are ordered to "obey in everything those who are your earthly masters" and masters are urged to "treat your slave justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a master in Heaven (4:1)." With no rights accruing to the slaves, who were defined as sub-human and therefore childlike, it followed that disobedience was to be punished in slaves in the same manner that it was deemed to be appropriate in children. It is worth noting that even the popes have historically been slaveholders. No one denies that slaves were lashed in the United States for everything from disobedience to running away. The master had the right to do to his property whatever he wished. When slavery ended following the Civil War, these tactics of intimidation continued to be employed against powerless blacks in the South by quasi-religious organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. It is not as large a step as people now think to move from the corporal punishment of a slave or former slave with the bare back absorbing the lash while the victim was tied to a tree, to the ultimate act of corporal punishment called lynching, where the victim was hanged from the tree. Violence is always violence. The degree of violence is the only difference. What the inmate or prisoner and the slave had in common was that neither had power and no vestige of adulthood accrued to their status so they could be treated like children who had no rights. If it was the proper thing to do to powerless children, it must be appropriate for powerless adults. That was the reasoning. Violence is never contained. It always seeks new victims. Corporal punishment was and is legalized violence. Corporal punishment has been used on two other types of adults in our history: women and people in religious orders. To their story we will turn next week. ~ John Shelby Spong Originally published June 23, 2004 Announcements 5th Annual Climate and Creation Stewardship Summit The 5th Annual Climate and Creation Stewardship Summit will be Saturday, October 28 from 9:30 am – 4:30 pm in Hamden, CT. The focus of this summit is on water, both on land and the oceans. It will consists of speakers, panels and workshops on different aspects of our current climate change crisis and other critical environmental issues ... Click here for more information/registration _______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net

2 1