View this email in your browser Jesism Essay by Eric Alexander on May 3, 2018 In Bishop Spong’s latest set of theses from his recent book Unbelievable, he offered a comprehensive commentary on the core traditional Christian ideas that have encompassed Christianity for much of its post-Constantinian era. After discussing the topic of “God” in Thesis #1 (which Fred Plummer wrote about last week), Bishop Spong went on to look at “Jesus [as] the Christ” in Thesis # 2, and that is what I will discuss in this installment. With that said however, I don’t plan to write a book report. Instead I want to do what I think is the true essence of where Bishop Spong wants the evolution of his newsletter to go, and I want to share a view of how I think we might relate to Jesus in a 21st century environment that has ventured beyond unique incarnation and substitutionary atonement. Over the past couple of years I have been talking about a concept called Jesism. It’s not meant to be a replacement for Christianity, nor is it a new religion, sect, or label; but rather it is an inclusive philosophical, mythic, and mystical paradigm by which we can relate to Jesus in a modern environment of ubiquitous education, communication, and information. It’s a perspective that describes a liberating alternative to many of today’s mainstream expressions of Christianity, which tend to focus on strict agreement to prescribed sets of creeds and biblical interpretations, and are often co-opted with far-right wing politics and religious fundamentalism. It is a distinct progressive Christian based idea to make clear what so many of us stand for, and it is applicable to Christians and post-Christians (or Christian alumni as Bishop Spong might say) alike. In this essay I want to share a bit more about this idea of Jesism as a new paradigm with you, and solicit your feedback in the comments. And remember, I’m not asking anyone to give up Christianity or adopt this new title of Jesism. This is no sales pitch. I am simply sharing a mindset by which to discuss some potentialities for where the Jesus movement is headed, in light of Bishop Spong and other’s leadings. However, if you want to call yourself a Jesist, in addition to or instead of Christian, that is fine too. It can be a fun term to use in a variety of situations. For a bit of backstory, you may wonder why we should even bother with such an idea. For starters, Jesus is probably the most notable figure in the history of the western world. And there seems to be a Jesus fabric within many of us that we just can’t erase — nor do many of us want to. Having been raised around Jesus, and having an overall positive vision of the Church, many progressive type Christians, including myself and Bishop Spong, continue to see a nucleus worth maintaining. And there are millions of people around the world who are in that same camp. They like (or even love) Jesus, or were raised in a Christian tradition that is part of the fabric of who they are. However, they just can no longer exist within today’s standard Christian culture without a step-function change of perspective It is my belief that with the onset of such easily accessible modern biblical scholarship and global communication fueled by the internet, there is no way for the Christianity of yesteryear to continue as it once did. The type of faith that discourages questioning and exploration simply will not prevail as in era’s past. The ultimate question is whether those of us on the leading edge can (or should) guide the reconstruction, or just let it die on the vine in the grasp of the fundamentalists? I use the word reconstruction very intentionally in the prior paragraph. This idea I am referring to as Jesism is not a deconstruction movement. It does not revolve around proving that the Bible isn’t literal or inerrant. Scholars such as Spong, Crossan, and Borg have done a phenomenal job at conveying those points to the masses. Instead it assumes a growing mass of people who are already educated and in-the-know about these things. And it is assuming that many of those people still hold a fondness for the teachings and example of Jesus, as well as the potential of the Church. This Jesism concept I speak of (which is pronounced Jēs-ism like Jēsus) was imagined with a similar naming etymology to the construction of the term Buddhism, which is based around the teachings and example of the Buddha, and is pronounced Bood-ism. And like Buddhism, it can be applied as an over-arching philosophy, practice, and path that can be integrated into one’s existing institution or community. It is for those who may have a connection or upbrining within the Jesus tradition, but who also value inclusivity, science, scholarship, exploration, and any other practice or philosophical elements that better inform our reality and help us live a better quality of life. And like Buddhism, it uses the popular name (Jesus / Buddha) instead of the given name of the historical person it was fashioned after (Yeshua of Nazareth / Siddhartha Gautama). With this in mind, a Jesist might be dogmatic or non-dogmatic, and could range from being more focused on a historical Jesus, or viewing the enduring message within a more mythically interpreted context, or “cosmic Christ” as some say. It is a fresh paradigm for how we can understand and follow Jesus if that is something we wish to do. Similar to Buddhism, those who practice Jesism vary greatly in application, with a strong emphasis on inclusivity and allowing space for individual interpretation. In other words, as Bishop Spong suggests, litmus test creeds and doctrines will no longer be how those who are interested in Jesus from a progressive point of view do things going forward. Jesism also readily acknowledges that the world doesn’t don’t need another “ism” to sort out. Jesism exists merely as a paradigm shift, or an idea of sorts, for those who may have a positive connection with Jesus in one way or another. A Jesist would not need to stop calling themself a Christian or progressive Christian, or even agnostic, panentheist, or a-theist. One could happily attend a church of any denomination and change nothing about that routine. Jesism would only indicate a more deliberate faith paradigm that over-arches it. Following are nine core concepts which carve this idea of Jesism out further in a more distinct manner. They will not be referred to as theses, but instead I am simply referring to them as “guidelines” of what I think a growing number of Jesus followers of tomorrow might resonate with. I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments. 1) The core of Jesism, both theologically and socially, revolves around the responses of Jesus when his followers asked him their biggest questions; such as “what is the greatest commandment,” and Jesus responded with “Love God, and Love others as you would want to be loved” (Matthew 22:36-40). Similarly, during his ministry Jesus articulated only one new commandment, when during the last supper he told his followers: “a new commandment I give to you, love others as I have loved you” (John 13:34). Therefore, love of our creator, and having compassion for others, ourselves, and all of creation is the core tenet of this Jesism framework. 2) Jesism is an intentionally alternative paradigm to the literalized and creed-based conservative Christian model that many practice today. Particularly, some of those theological explanations from the councils of Constantine, and modern-day fundamentalist evangelicals. It doesn’t replace liberal or progressive Christianity, it simply adds a framework to distinguish the more fluid ideas more readily. 3) Jesism is in no way in competition with most other spiritual paths or “ism’s.” Someone who appreciates Jesism could share and explore the best teachings from a multitude of beneficial paths – understanding that no path is complete, and every path has the potential for corruption and fundamentalism if attempted to be made exclusive. Jesists would not be threatened or afraid to explore and embrace beneficial practices and insights from other religions or customs. Jesism is often most relevant to those who have a cultural paradigm within a Jesus based tradition, and who continue to value the Bible and the Church in some way. It is a way to relate to Jesus in our new age. 4) Jesism is closely aligned with other eastern spirituality and philosophies as it regards the beneficial practices of mindfulness, non-attachment, simplicity, gratitude, and joy. Jesus and his followers encouraged meditation by name (Phil 4:8) and Jesus took frequent times away from the action to pray and meditate quietly (Matthew 6: 5-8). He was a promoter of a simple life, unattached to material possessions (Matthew 6:19) or worry about the future (Matthew 6:25-34). And the earliest followers of Jesus began a beneficial tradition of peace and joy despite life’s challenges (1 Thess 5:15-19). These teachings often go ignored by mainstream Christianity and its primary creeds, but many eastern and new thought traditions have offered deep insight into these areas, which most “Jesists” are happy to draw from. 5) Jesism focuses on social justice and helping address sociological ills. Much like the life of Jesus, it does not only focus on transcendence or an escape from suffering, but directly embraces the opportunities for advancement in the world, and seeks an overflowing spirit that supports, embraces, and advocates for others in need, especially those in the greatest need (Luke 10:25-37). Additionally, when Jesus was asked how one could find life, he told the parable of the good Samaritan, which suggested that people in positive spiritual alignment would help others even when it should seem inconvenient or difficult. 6) Jesism does not support a number of social platforms that are championed by many of today’s mainstream Christians, such as being anti-gay, ignoring climate justice, and denying the pursuit of science. Nor does it support systems that encourage massive wealth concentration at the top, mass militarization, mass armament, and mass incarceration, or blanket deportation. Jesism focuses on loving others and being open, affirming, forgiving, and inclusive; and valuing equality, education, and scholarship. 7) Jesism requires no specific literalized beliefs or creeds about God, Jesus, or the Bible. During his ministry, Jesus spoke of God but did not attempt to define God, or argue that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. He also never focused on a requirement to believe literally in a virgin birth, physical resurrection, or eventual return; therefore Jesism also does not put the focus on those elements. 8) Jesism doesn’t focus on specific miracles, but rather views all of life as a miracle. Just as Jesus did not try to define these concepts, neither do most Jesists. Jesism encourages honest and genuine exploration of the mystical elements of life, with a degree of faith and humility. 9) Jesism highlights the teachings of non-duality, non-exclusive incarnation, and the “Kingdom of God.“ It is recorded in Luke 17 that Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is within you.” John 10 records Jesus as saying “the Father and I are one.” But Jesus didn’t just think that God was just one with him, or just his personal literal father. He acknowledged God as everyone’s father equally. The level of divinity in Jesus was the level of divinity in all of us, although certainly levels of actualization and alignment with Source will vary. When Jesus was asked by his followers how to pray, he didn’t start it with my father, but instead he said our Father (Matthew 6:9). That prayer is often called The Our Father for that reason. Jesus related to God in completely equal ways to the others he was with, and he said his followers could do greater things than him (John 14:12). This is the very idea of the Christos, which Christianity was based on in the first place. Those nine concepts are some of the core ideas within this outlook I’m referring to as Jesism. They attempt to formulate how we might comprehend Jesus in this new age, which Bishop Spong so eloquently describes. Whether one adopts the name of “Jesism” or not, those are some ideas which I think may be a natural path going forward for many around the Jesus tradition. My experience is that without clarifying statements, such as the 8 Points of Progressive Christianity, and even Spong's earlier 12 Theses, it will become increasingly difficult for reasonable Christian-centric people to distinguish themselves within a Jesus based movement. As subscribers to Progressing Spirit, I know that you are among the most advanced and well versed in this conversation, so I am interested to hear your thoughts in the comments. I will endeavor to respond to every comment. Peace, Eric Alexander Click here to read online and to share your thoughts 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 and is author of Teaching Kids Life IS Good. Question & Answer Q: By Owen Foster I have a lot of respect for the non-literal interpretation of the New and Old Testament, but there are certain parts that I cannot see any metaphorical value in. My stumbling blocks are these: 1. What is the metaphorical message given by the genealogy found in genesis and in the gospels? It is the former that precisely gives young earth creationists their earth age. 2. What is the metaphorical value of the various horrific laws laid down in Deuteronomy or Leviticus? I can’t see a non-literal interpretation of telling us to destroy people who have sex if a woman is on her period. Feel free to reword these questions, but please do try to answer. I am searching for Christ but there are so many stumbling blocks. My recovery from atheism is being hindered by Christians who either tiptoe around these issues or tell me to worship an evil tyrant. A: By Fred Plumer Well Owen you are on your way to a more clear understanding of the Bible, what it is and what it is not. First let’s look at your question, number 1. I hope my answer explains a lot about the rest of the Bible. First, one has to remember that the majority of the Bible was not actually written. And the parts that were written down by the original authors, particularly in the New Testament, were been translated, numerous times, redacted and were hand-picked by scribes with their own explanations. What you read in these “metaphorical messages” did not start out as written stories. These are most likely stories that were first told by the ancient people whose relatives lived in the Mesopotamian Valley. Most scholars understand that “humans” were first formed in Africa roughly 200,000 years ago. But these were, in large part, groups or tribes who lived off the land and were what we would call today “hunters and gathers.” Where religion existed, in those days, it was in large part matriarchically. Somewhere around 10,000 to 8,000 the people who migrated to the Mesopotamian Valley began to organize into communities. And for the first time humans began to domesticate their animals and crops, live in separate houses or huddles, and gather as a community to make laws. It was a long process but one of the changes that occurred over the millennium was a transition to more patriarchal gods. All along this roughly 6000 year journey we are on, the people were telling stories. Many of these stories ended up in the Bible, if you understand their significance. For example there is the story of Cain and Abel. What was Cain’s punishment for killing his brother? He had to toil in the fields. This is, in part, right out of the conflict between the hunters and gathers and the people who decided that they were going to organize and farm. The Midrash of this story (point of the story) is, he who kills, kills his brother or sister. Another example is the flood story. If you know anything about the Mesopotamian Valley, you know that it was known for its huge flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers until several dams were built in the mid-seventies. But these early settlers looked for the most fertile ground to make their stand and of course, it was in the plains where these tremendous floods had been and would be again and again. Thus it is not difficult to understand where the flood story came from. This is why, floods from God appear in so many of the different religious stories today. Now when you read the early OT stories, remember that these are not stories that were written down as they happened. They were stories told probably over community fires by possibly, an honored grandmother, who wanted to explain to a child why her mother has to go through so much pain to have a baby. These are created stories that attempt to explain why people have to die or why we are punished when we do something bad. This is why these ancient people believed in a three tier world. These were never intended to be factual. Factual was not a word that they would have understood. This is one of the reasons I have to chuckle when someone tells me that the earth is 6,000 years old. As you pointed out, this is done by the fundamentalist and some evangelicals by taking the ages of the people, starting in the Genesis stories, and carrying it through the entire Bible of the made up people, and possibly some real ones. Then they add up all of their ages to figure out how old the earth “really is.” This is why we find people who supposedly lived extraordinary long years when all of our scientific data tells us that the average age for these ancient people was between 30 and 40 years. It was an honor to live a long life and this is why, for example, Adam is supposed to have lived to be 930 years old and had his first child at 130 years old. His son lived to be 912 years. These are the kind of beliefs that keep some “Christians” from accepting the truth. That is why they are still looking for the ark and denying that prehistorical animals like dinosaurs actually existed. And yes, many of them still believe the earth is flat. Regarding the laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, question number 2, I believe you are a little off here but with the right idea. This are not metaphorical but rather some pretty harsh laws the some early Jewish people believed they had to follow when they were wandering tribes. However, the Leviticus laws were actually written in large part, for the honored Leviticus priest. They were considered a cleansing so that they would be pure. Remember these were ancient times and were much harsher times when they were written. Jesus would not have lived as long as he did if his community had been following these laws. Ninety percent of Jewish people do not treat these rules as something of importance today. Only the most conservative Jews would even consider them relevant. As far as your movement into Christianity, none of this should slow or hinder your progress. You just have to stop listening to fundamentalist and some evangelical Christians and listen more to the wonderful stories of the very human Jesus, who fought for the rights of the poor, who stood up to authorities, who gave the ultimate sacrifice, who loved people of all persuasions, who lived as a caring mystic, and who truly believed he was doing God’s work. What was His work? Live your life fully, with compassion and love. Focus on his positives and truly live more freely. It is not a bad place to be. ~ Fred C. Plumer Click here to read and share online About the Author In 1986 Rev. Plumer was called to the Irvine United Congregational Church in Irvine, CA to lead a UCC new start church, where he remained until he retired in 2004. The church became known throughout the denomination as one of the more exciting and progressive mid-size congregations in the nation. He served on the Board of Directors of the Southern California Conference of the United Church of Christ (UCC) for five years, and chaired the Commission for Church Development and Evangelism for three of those years. In 2006 Fred was elected President of ProgressiveChristianity.org (originally called The Center for Progressive Christianity - TCPC) when it’s founder Jim Adams retired. As a member of the Executive Council for TCPC he wrote The Study Guide for The 8 Points by which we define: Progressive Christianity. He has had several articles published on church development, building faith communities and redefining the purpose of the enlightened Christian Church. His book Drink from the Well is an anthology from speeches, articles in eBulletins, and numerous publications that define the progressive Christianity movement as it evolves to meet new challenges in a rapidly changing world. Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited A New Dark Age Begins Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong on July 27, 2005 Several years ago, in a column about the harassment, removal and silencing of Roman Catholic scholars like Hans Kung, Leonardo Boff, Charles Curran and Edward Schillebeeckx by that church, I referred to the leader of this “Inquisitional” mentality, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as “the pit bull of the Vatican.” Little did I realize that this church’s leadership would elect this man Pope and install him as Benedict XVI. That action sent a signal throughout the world that we are entering a new “Dark Age.” On many fronts this mentality, which has been building inside religion for at least forty years, has finally broken into our full awareness. We saw it in a document published a few years ago, written by the same Cardinal Ratzinger, in which the Vatican declared there to be only one true religion, namely Christianity, and only one true expression of Christianity, namely the Roman Catholic Church. The gentle Pope John XXIII (1958-1963), who opened that church to the accents of the 20th Century, must have turned in his grave. Ratzinger’s document went on to counsel Roman Catholic ecumenical representatives never to refer to other Christian bodies as “sister” churches for that implied some tacit recognition of their legitimacy. This attitude, the hallmark of authoritarian anti-intellectualism that historically has produced religious wars and persecution, is now installed in the Papacy itself. It signals the dimming of reason and suggests that Catholic Christianity has returned to the mindset of the Inquisition. Rome is not alone. A Danish Lutheran bishop has recently removed one of its most creative clergy, Pastor Thorkild Grosboell, from his parish near Copenhagen by charging him with heresy. To charge one with heresy implies that the charging authority possesses the truth of God. Another Danish bishop, seeing this as a public relations disaster, sought to smooth over the conflict by offering Pastor Grosboell another chance to resume his ministry, but only after a public interrogation in which the bishop read parts of the Creed developed in the fourth century and demanded that Pastor Grosboell declare, with a “yes” or “no” answer that he believes that these words have captured the eternal truth of God. That is “Dark Age” theology. We see the same mentality almost every day when various evangelical spokespersons, such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or R. Albert Mohler go on national television to express their opinion that the words of Scripture are the inerrant word of God. Their comments are frequently in the service of opposing evolution. All of these gentlemen either ignore the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship or they are not aware of it. Their rhetoric does little more than give aid and comfort to uninformed members of local school boards in the less well educated and less cosmopolitan parts of our nation who thrive on a lack of knowledge and who want to carry us back intellectually to the 1920’s, so that once again we might put learning on trial and convict it as we did in the Scopes Trial in Tennessee. One wonders when the historicity of Adam and Eve might begin to be defended again by the current ecclesiastical mentality. The Bible is so often used to perfume both ignorance and prejudice. If one had any doubt about this developing religious darkness, an op-ed piece that appeared on July 7, 2005 in the New York Times removed any lingering questions. This article, written by the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schoenborn, suggested that evolution was “not compatible with Catholic doctrine.” This author, no secondary figure in the Roman Catholic Church, served as the editor of the official 1992 Catechism of that Church. Earlier in his career this man had actually defended the literal historicity of the Book of Genesis. Adam and Eve here we come! Though the Vatican did not officially authorize this editorial, it is well known that Cardinal Schoenborn and Benedict XVI are very close friends and in that Church such events are never unplanned or accidental. Cardinal Schoenborn’s argument was intriguing as he first tried to undermine John Paul II’s words spoken in 1996 that “Evolution is more than a theory.” Secondly, he sought to drive a wedge between what he called the Theory of Evolution articulated by Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution that is held by those he called “The Neo-Darwinians.” According to the Cardinal, the distinction was that evolution “in the sense of a common ancestry might be true,” but evolution as “an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection is not.” Perhaps he does not recognize that the full title of Charles Darwin’s 1859 book was “The Origin of the Species by Natural Selection.” The implication was that anything that disagrees with or challenges the true faith of the Catholic Church could not be truth ipso facto. That is the typical claim found in all imperialistic religious systems. Clearly an alliance is emerging between the Vatican and the “creationist” wing of Protestant fundamentalism. Evolution, let it be said clearly, is no longer a debatable theory. DNA evidence has made it very clear that all of life is deeply and historically interconnected. Medical science assumes the truth of evolution in all that it does. The vast majority of the scientific world no longer salutes the primitive idea that a supernatural deity who lives above the sky has guided evolution to the glorious end of humankind and that it will go no further. Yet frightened religious leaders now interpret that to be an assault on their image of God. These leaders are unable or unwilling to embrace the fact that God for most Christians is a human creation that got frozen in a pre-modern form. The religious anxiety of our day stems from the fact that this definition of God is dying. Conservative Roman Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants appear to know that in the depths of their souls and so they seek to use authority in the task of divine artificial respiration. Former Christians also appear to know that much more consciously. That is why the fastest growing religious movement in the western world is the Church Alumni Association. The crisis to which these data point is real. I, for one, am not interested in being a part of a Christian Church that has to defend its faith against the insights of new knowledge. Any God who has to be protected from new truth cannot possibly be God. If the only alternative to the traditional view of God, that portrayed the deity as a supernatural theistic Being who invades the world periodically in miraculous ways to accomplish the divine purpose, is to say that there is no God, then I find that a healthier solution. That, however, is not the only alternative. I seek the God beyond the gods of men and women, beyond the gods of church and religious systems. I seek the God who is not bound by those antiquated creeds and dogmas that were hammered out in a world that no longer exists. If Cardinal Schoenborn wants to assert that anything that conflicts with Catholic doctrine cannot be true, or if Protestants insist that all truth is ultimately defined by the inerrant words of a 3000 year old book, then we are back to the time when the Christian Church condemned Galileo. Christianity lost that battle and it will lose this one as it marches headlong into the marginalized existence that leads to an inevitable death. What the fundamentalists, both Catholic and Protestant, do not appear to embrace is that evolution by natural selection is only the tip of the iceberg that threatens their narrowly defined religious system. Once the Darwinian principle of evolving life is fully understood, the old idea of an original creation that is both good and finished is doomed. The post-Darwinian scientific world almost unanimously views creation as an ongoing, unfinished process. Therefore the suggestion that there ever was a “fall into sin,” becomes nonsense, and the doctrine of ‘original sin’ collapses. The story of Jesus as God’s invasion of the world to rescue us from this fall becomes inoperative. One cannot fall from a perfection one never had. One cannot be rescued from a fall that never happened. One cannot be restored to a status one has never possessed. Inevitably, as this theological house of cards falls, we become aware that the traditional way of understanding baptism as the washing away the sin of the fall, or the Eucharist as a reenactment of the moment when the divine rescue was accomplished on the cross also become meaningless. The idea that salvation was accomplished in the shedding of Jesus’ blood becomes barbaric. Neither Cardinal Schoenborn nor the Protestant “creationists” appear to understand any of these implications in their shallow analysis of Darwinian thought. It is a sad day for enlightened people when the leaders of major parts of the Christian Church seek to reassert Catholic authority or scriptural certainty by herding us back into the ignorance of yesterday. The Christian Church has a choice to make. It will either engage the thought of the contemporary world or it will die. The early signs are that this Pope and the Church he represents have decided to cast their lot with the mindless fundamentalism, which is today the public voice of Protestant Christianity. This means that they are willing to allow their children to be shielded from truth and insight because the God they worship is simply too small to be God for the 21st century. A Christian Church ushering in a new Dark Age has no future. This frightening specter becomes very real when we recognize that this is the kind of Christianity encouraged by members of the Bush administration. They too are engaged in an assault on both intelligence and learning. They deny global warming, they oppose stem cell research, they are closed-mindedness about end of life issues, they express uninformed negativity about homosexual persons and they attempt to blur the line between church and state. The clouds are darkening. The fundamentalists are now allied with the Vatican and the present administration has given this mentality credibility by embracing it. Is it any wonder that I fear for the Christianity that has long nurtured me and for the country that I love. ~ John Shelby Spong Announcements Fox Institute for Creation Spirituality Summer Intensive 1: Sacred Space, Sacred Community Fox Institute for Creation Spirituality has a five-day intensive coming up June 11-15thin Boulder, Colorada that is especially designed for clergy. It is entitled, “Sacred Space, Sacred Community” with Reverend Sid Hall, DMin and Bruce Sanguin, MDiv. This intensive, featuring two dynamic and experienced clergy, will explore integrating Creation Spirituality components into spiritual communities and will look closely at worship as the organizing communal activity to build a creation-centered community for the 21st Century. We look forward to it being a nourishing and inspiring time for clergy and other community leaders. Click here for more information/registration. Copyright © 2018 ProgressiveChristianity.org, All rights reserved.