And what did Mathew tell you about this?? Jim Wiegel “We are all time travelers journeying into the future. But let us make that future a place we want to visit. “ Stephen Hawking
On Sep 2, 2022, at 5:11 AM, Randy Williams <randycw1938@gmail.com> wrote:
James, I was so put off by the lead question that I read no further. Instead, I went to my bookcase and pulled down my copy of “Original Blessing” by Matthew Fox. Randy
On Sep 2, 2022, at 6:59 AM, James Wiegel via Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
I read through this issue of Progressing Spirit *—thanks, Ellie, for sending these along,
I am pretty much dis-affiliated from any church community these days, even so the conversation back and forth got to my gizzard. So I got up early, showered and shaved and tried to write out some “points” based, in part in my experience working on church renewal with the Ecumenical Institute.
[Dialogue] 9/01/2022, Progressing Spirit: Rev. David M. Felton: “OK, Guru-boy. If There’s No Original Sin and Hell, Why Be a Christian?”' Spong revisited
My reflections: Sounds like there are 2 adolescents arguing. Both seem dealing with the world of ideas Is this idea true? Is that one? As I read it seems a lot to do with United Methodism in the context of the US Christianity, I think, is not a set of ideas (this would include the big encyclopedia of ideas called “the Bible”). It is a movement an historical movement. This movement was sparked in Jerusalem in the days following the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth in which his followers in the midst of great upheaval “saw through” into the deeps of life that produced in them great courage and a fiery compassion to tell the world what had happened (to them). Those who heard them were either offended or captured both by the message and the quality of fellow hood or community they formed. This back and forth brings vaguely to my mind the struggles back and forth between ‘Peter” and “Paul”. — do you have to be circumcised?, etc. This movement has devoted itself, over time, to 4 quite distinct and not easily combinable roles: getting clarity on “the Word” you all still seem to be wrestling with what exactly the revelation was . . . Being the glue of society — crafting ways of operating at all levels of society that can sustain and cohere human beings; and the opposite — being the prophet and priest calling into question the operating modes of society (and of the church itself) in the light of the contemporary activity of God and being mission, innovating, responding to the unfolding activity of God in the light of history. In some way, each of these requires its own “theologizing”. And these are not easily compatible. Both sides seem caught in defensive positions — mostly interested in establishing the “rightness” of their position over against the other This and more is complicated by our use of electronic means of communication with all its gifts and limits and, most importantly our collective (relative) incompetence using it beyond about a 6th grade level of conversation.
Jim Wiegel “We are all time travelers journeying into the future. But let us make that future a place we want to visit. “ Stephen Hawking
On Sep 1, 2022, at 8:54 AM, Ellie Stock via Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:
View this email in your browser
“OK, Guru-boy. If There’s No Original Sin and Hell, Why Be a Christian?”
Essay by Rev. David M. Felten September 1, 2022
Earlier this summer, I was called out as a heretic and accused of “sitting on Satan’s lap” courtesy of the Institute for Religion and Democracy (the fundamentalist think tank behind the schisms of many of our mainline denominations). The “Juicy Ecumenism” article (read it HERE) has sparked numerous pearl-clutching responses from various corners of Christendom (if you read the article, make sure to read the comments at the bottom – priceless!).
One of those was an email from someone who (after a brief Google search) I suspect is the preacher at a large fundamentalist church in Colorado. I could be wrong, but the condescending tone of the email sounded like he’s a pro with something to prove.
At any rate, below is my response with his numerous questions inserted along the way. With the hope that my answers will be encouraging to others exploring this evolving path of Progressive Christianity, here goes!
Hey Jason,
Thanks for reaching out. The way you phrase your questions leads me to believe that you’re a practitioner of the conventional Christianity most Americans have grown up with. But surprise! Over the last 100+ years, there’s been a whole ‘nother Christianity out there that has actively co-existed alongside the more familiar conventional/fundamentalist Christianity. You get glimpses of this alternative Christianity whenever you see Christians lending their support and lives to efforts like women’s voting and reproductive rights, the Civil Rights movement, anti-war and anti-poverty efforts, climate change action, and currently, the rights of our LGBTQ+ neighbors.
In short, you’ll recognize this alternative anywhere Christians are striving to practice the Gospel “of” Jesus – where conventional/fundamentalist Christians tend to obsess over a Gospel “about” Jesus. As author Kurt Struckmeyer asks in his excellent book, A Conspiracy of Kindness, are you going to selfishly focus on believing the right stuff to win God’s acceptance and an E-ticket to Heaven or are you going to get out there and do what Jesus did, caring for the widow, orphan, and strangers among us?
With that context, let me address your questions one at a time:
1) If original sin and hell doesn’t (sic) exist, then why do we need Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection to save us from our sins?
Ahhh, that’s the biggie for conventional/fundamentalist Christians, isn’t it? It’s all about ME, ME, ME, a fixation on MY eternal life, and an obsession with (mostly others’) compliance with a moralistic purity culture — often to the exclusion of the very real needs and struggles of real people.
So, let’s start off by clearly stating that there is no “if” in whether Original Sin & Hell exist. They don’t — at least according to the Bible. If you want the details, check out my recent sermons debunking both myths here: ORIGINAL SIN and HELL. At the heart of each of these doctrines (as conventional/fundamentalist Christians understand them today) is a thousand years of propaganda by theologians and churches who are trying to answer the same questions you pose (in classic formulaic language). You ask, “Why do we NEED Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection to SAVE US from our SINS?”
Short answer? You don’t. Remember, Original Sin is nowhere in the Bible. Jesus never heard of it and would be appalled that his legacy has been so corrupted by those who claim to be his followers. Original Sin was straight up dreamt up by Augustine. Then it was developed by others to give meaning to a death they otherwise didn’t have enough theological imagination to understand. Since they were incapable of seeing Jesus’ death as an example for humanity to follow (to stay faithful to one’s convictions even in the face of injustice, brutality, and ignorance), they created what became multiple convoluted theories of atonement, including the substitutionary, satisfaction, ransom, and victory theories (see a handy summary HERE ). All of these revolve around a sensational cosmic drama about an all-loving but thin-skinned God who can’t wait to torture people in Hell for being the otherwise innocent descendants of some ancient fictitious character.
Jesus’ example of obedience to death was just not enough for them. They needed a business model that essentially scared people into committing themselves not to JESUS, but to the CHURCH. So, they concocted a spiritual crisis (Original Sin) the resolution of which could only be provided by the church and then threatened the non-compliant with torture in Hell.
So, your premise of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection being all about saving us from our sins is simply a red herring contrived by those looking to manipulate simple-minded people into an allegiance with a church that has for centuries prioritized power and influence over the gullible over actually doing the harder thing: doing what Jesus taught us to do.
The disdain oozing from your next question reeks of that particular brand of “gotcha” arrogance I get from conventional/fundamentalist Christians all the time. It makes me tired. But let’s continue.
2) Does that make Christ-followers of your kind just members of another guru-based way of love everyone, forsake rules and truth, and then achieve karma, as in an Easter (sic) religion?
Re: “Christ-followers of your kind.” I actually refer to myself as a Jesus-follower and not a “Christ-follower.” I tend to focus my life and values on the example and teachings of the pre-Easter Jesus (instead of the more theologically fraught intricacies of the post-Easter Christ).
Re: “another guru-based way of love everyone, forsake rules and truth, and then achieve karma.” Wow. Contempt much? As far as “guru-based ways” goes, yeah. “Guru” is just a Sanskrit word for “spiritual teacher” — a fitting title for Jesus. And as far as a “way of loving everyone,” I think Jesus taught exactly that.
Re: “forsake rules and truth” I have to ask: what is it about the conventional/fundamentalist mindset that is so worried about others not following “rules” and “truth”? I’m assuming these “rules” include everything from wedging children into unhealthy purity culture pledges to anti-science stances on the origins of the universe to prohibiting women from being in leadership in the church. As for “truth,” you assume that it is so “truthy” that I obviously should know what it is. I’m guessing this is a situation where embracing “truth” involves believing in unbelievable things (like Original Sin, Hell, the virgin birth and Jesus’ physical resurrection). Or maybe it’s about “believing in the ‘good news’” or some other litmus test. My experience is that what many conventional/fundamentalist Christians hold to as “truth” is so problematic Biblically and theologically as to be worthless. So, in the absence of any clarification as to what you think this “truth” is, I guess you’ll have to put me down in the forsaker column.
Re: “and then achieve Karma” If you’re going to use vocabulary from another religion in a way that you think cleverly demeans someone else, at least have the decency to know what the concept is and not show your ignorance in using it. You don’t “achieve” karma. I think you mean Nirvana.
Re: “as in an Easter (sic) religion?” Is your typo a Freudian slip? Cuz, yeah. What Christians of “my kind” practice is indeed an Easter religion — without the expectation that an Easter faith is grounded in belief in the supernatural. As far as what you MEANT to say (“as in an Eastern religion”), I hate to break it to you, but Christianity IS an “Eastern” religion. And Jesus was Jewish. Just sayin’.
As you ask, “Is the Body of Christ, the Church, just another self-help group or club, in that case?”, I’m sure you’re not meaning to discredit self-help groups (are you?). You’re instead totally missing the reality that there are countless followers of Jesus out in the world who have leveled-up from the simplistic Gospel “about” Jesus (and all its attendant theological tomfoolery) and have taken on the challenge of living out the Gospel “of” Jesus. Far from being about self-help, these folks are doing the hard work of transforming the world to reflect the vision that Jesus had for the Kingdom. You may not acknowledge them as part of what you understand as “the Church,” but that’s OK. Most of them have long-since left “the Church” to be on about living out the Gospel more faithfully.
You finish with “Please let me know. I struggle to understand how you, as a pastor, can preach the Bible and let us know about truth. I would appreciate hearing your basis on why one might be a Christian.”
Again, I think you’d need to clarify what you mean as “truth” for me to answer your question. I’m left to assume that you mean something about beating my parishioners into submission with accusations of their sinfulness from birth so they’ll be inspired to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior (thus overcoming both Original Sin and the fires of Hell). If so, that’s not my truth or the truth of the Bible (Reminder: Original Sin and American-style Hell aren’t in the Bible).
So, you ask, if it’s not to avoid the punishment of Hell, why be a Christian? The answer is simple: because I’m convinced that Jesus’ life and teachings are worth spending a life-time emulating. To shape one’s actions and beliefs motivated only by fear of punishment is what toddlers do. To shape one’s actions and beliefs motivated by the conviction that you are called to participate in making the world a better place, without guarantee of favor or reward, are the kinds of things adults do. You practice lovingkindness, you do justice, and walk humbly with God, not because of the promise of reward or threat of punishment, but because it’s the right thing to do.
I may not be a very good Christian (as conventional/fundamentalist Christians count goodness) but I’m still a follower of Jesus. I’ll leave it to others to keep peddling outdated and misleading doctrines that misrepresent his teachings. As for me and “my kind,” we’ll happily keep striving to live into the Gospel “of” Jesus without stooping to scare tactics like Original Sin or Hell.
I hope the above has been helpful. Thanks for your email.
~ Rev. David M. Felten @dubiousrev
Read online here
About the Author Rev. David M. Felten is a full-time pastor at The Fountains, a United Methodist Church in Fountain Hills, Arizona. David and fellow United Methodist Pastor, Jeff Procter-Murphy, are the creators of the DVD-based discussion series for Progressive Christians, “Living the Questions” and authors of Living the Questions: The Wisdom of Progressive Christianity. A co-founder of Catalyst Arizona and also a founding member of No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice, David is an outspoken voice for LGBTQ rights both in the church and in the community at large. David is active in the Desert Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church and tries to stay connected to his roots as a musician. You’ll find him playing saxophones in a variety of settings, including appearances with the Fountain Hills Saxophone Quartet. David is the proud father of three reliably remarkable human beings. Visit his website here. Question & Answer
Q: By A Reader
How is it best to gently question the behavior of a new pastor who seems to be fundamentalist in her thinking and does not like to be questioned?
A: By Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers
Dear Reader, The best time to do this is before the new pastor is hired, of course. Ideally, all candidates should be given a chance to clearly explain their theology in both written statements and in search committee questions and answers.
Making sure that a new pastor’s theology fits with the mission and makeup of that congregation is crucial. If, after the pastor is hired, however, it seems not to fit, or was perhaps misrepresented, then the issue should be raised with the appropriate governing board. It may be that most people are satisfied with the pastor’s theology “as advertised.” But if there are numerous parishioners who feel a disconnect, then the pastor herself should be called into conversation about it. This would give her a chance to clarify her theology, as well as to hear concerns about it. She may have misunderstood what the congregation was looking for, or the congregation may be misunderstanding her—so respectful dialogue is always the first step.
If the pastor is truly unable to be questioned about it, that is a more serious problem. Nothing is more important in church than intellectual honesty about what the pastor believes, or what people in the pews want and need. This is not to say that pastors should pretend to believe whatever it is that their people want to hear. Rather, it is crucial that everyone is clear about this pastor’s theology to begin with, and whether her covenant with this particular congregation can be fruitful. ~ Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers
Read and share online here
About the Author Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers is pastor of First Congregational Church UCC, Norman, Oklahoma, and retired senior minister of Mayflower Congregational UCC church, Oklahoma City. He is currently a Professor of Public Speaking and Distinguished Professor of Social Justice Emeritus in the Philosophy Department at Oklahoma City University. He is a fellow of the Westar Institute and the author of eight books on religion and American culture, the most recent of which is, Saving God from Religion: A Minister’s Search for Faith in a Skeptical Age. A feature-length documentary chronicles his work on behalf of Progressive Christianity in Oklahoma (americanhereticsthefilm.com) and more information is at RobinMeyers.com. Please continue to send us your feedback… we are listening. We aim to give voice to many different perspectives that are relevant and inspiring along this spiritually progressing path. We are not here to tell you what to believe or how to act. We are here to support your journey, to share and learn together. Thank you for being a part of this community - join us on Facebook!
As a non-profit ProgressiveChristianity.org/Progressing Spirit rely heavily on the good will of our donors to help us continue to bring individuals and churches the messages of progressive Christians, Weekly Newsletters, along with the many other resources we provide.
For years, the majority of our fundraising came at the end of the year. Looking at various ways to create a more reasonable amount of cash flow we decided rather than having a BIG ask at the end of each year, our more frequent asks give folks a chance to contribute when their funds are more flexible. We think that's a win for everyone.
We also want to highlight the opportunity to become a sustaining supporter. If you are looking for the best way to help us continue to provide progressive Christian resources, become a sustaining supporter by choosing Recurring Donation.
Help keep ProgressiveChristianity.org online and going strong - click here to donate today!
* Another way to support us is to leave a bequest in your Will and/or Trust designating us a beneficiary.
Don't miss the next Episode of PC.org's Executive Directors Mark and Caleb on: The Moonshine Jesus Show - every Monday at 4:30pm Eastern Time – watch live on Facebook,, YouTube, Twitter, Podbean
This Week's Featured Author
Rev. Mark Sandlin Progressive Prayers for Progressive People
This collection of prayers comes from a decidedly progressive Christian point of view. They are more about changing us and changing the world than about changing God’s mind and getting a particular set of actions from God.
The prayers address everything from understandings of God to matters of justice to life in general. It’s a wonderful addition to your daily spiritual practices or to your list of resources for worship services or other gatherings. Read More ... Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited
The Birth of Jesus, Part V. Matthew’s Original Story. The Prologue and Tamar, the Incestuous One
Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong December 13, 2012
Matthew is the gospel writer (82-85) who first introduced the story of Jesus’ miraculous or virgin birth into the tradition. He did so with the seventeen most boring verses in the entire Bible! (See Matt. 1:1-17) These verses are Matthew’s version of the genealogy of Jesus, but we refer to them the “who begat whom” verses. Yet in these incredibly boring verses, I am convinced that we can discover clues that will reveal both why the virgin birth story was developed in the first place and why it seems to be of such importance to the author of this second gospel to be written.
First, some comments on the genealogy in general. Matthew began his description of the line that he claimed produced Jesus with Abraham, the traditional father of the Jewish nation. Matthew was himself a deeply committed Jewish writer, probably a scribe, and he was writing for a traditional Jewish faith community. He was, therefore, very interested in grounding the Jesus story in the very DNA of Jewish life and history. So he made Abraham, the first pivotal person in Jewish history, the first pivotal person in Jesus’ lineage. David, who originated the royal family that ruled some portion of the Hebrew nation for between 400 and 500 years, became his second pillar in Jesus’ ancestry. The next historical marker in Jesus background that is reflected in this genealogy was what is called the Exile. The citizens of Judah, first in 596 BCE and finally in 586 BCE, after being defeated by the Babylonians, were marched into the land of their conquerors to spend the period of Jewish history, known as the Babylonian captivity, as an underclass of laborers. This Exile lasted for two to three generations and was the time in history when the life of the Jewish nation quite literally hung by a thread. The last period covered by Matthew’s genealogy was from the Exile to the birth of Jesus.
Matthew suggested that each of these epochs in Jewish history had been fourteen generations long. That is the point in which every shred of literal accuracy, which people like to attribute to this gospel, begins to break down. Abraham, if he lived at all, would be dated around the year 1850 BCE. David became king of the nation, first in Hebron, about the year 1000 and seven years later in Jerusalem, his newly-conquered capitol. So, between Abraham and David, there are some 850 years. If a generation is considered to be 20 years, which actually might be far too long in that time when life expectancy did not exceed 40 years, there would have been 42 generations between Abraham and David. The time from King David to the Exile would be 400 years plus or some 20 generations. The time from the Exile to the birth of Jesus would have been around 600 years or some 30 generations. So Matthew’s scheme for dividing Jewish history into the stages that he wishes to describe breaks down quickly. To achieve his 14 generation mathematical symmetry Matthew literally had to omit the names of some of the kings in Judah who reigned between David and the Exile who are actually described in the Hebrew Bible.
The next problem that gives a biblical commentator pause with this genealogy, which goes from Abraham to David to Joseph to demonstrate Jesus’ royal lineage as a son of David, is that when he arrives at the virgin birth story, his narrative completely denies the role of paternity to Joseph in the life of Jesus. The Virgin Birth story says that Joseph, the presumed male agent in conception, was replaced by the Holy Spirit. So this elaborate effort to ground Jesus in the life of the Jewish people is compromised by the account of his miraculous birth. Literalism wobbles visibly.
Another unusual detail in what Matthew portrays as the lineage of Jesus is that he included the names of four women in the genealogy. In this patriarchal world that was quite unusual. Women were not thought then to be equal partners in the procreation process. In that day no one knew that women produced an egg cell and were biologically co-creators of every baby that had ever been born.
Women were rather thought of only as nurturing wombs, into which the males placed the seeds of life that women simply brought to maturity. Yet Matthew included four women in this genealogy. They were not mythical women either, for the story of each of these women can be found chronicled in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures. Their stories were known, but even if they had not been known, anyone could go to the Bible and read them. The other fascinating thing about these women was that by the standards of that day, each of them was considered and defined as a “morally compromised woman.” Please listen to the drama being presented here. In this 17 verse genealogy with which Matthew introduced the story of the Virgin Birth, he made the claim that four of the women who were in the line that produced Jesus of Nazareth, were what his generation would have called unclean or scandalous women. What do you imagine was Matthew’s purpose in opening his story this way?
The first of these “shady ladies” was Tamar and her story can be found in Genesis, chapter 38. She was the wife of Er, the first born son of the patriarch Judah. Judah had two other sons, Onan and Shelah, a fact that becomes important as the story unfolds. This chapter tells us that Er was “wicked in the sight of the Lord and the Lord slew him.” (Gen. 38:7). Under the law that governed widows in Hebrew history, it thus became the duty of Onan, the next oldest son, to marry the wife of his deceased brother in order “to raise up offspring for your brother.” (Gen. 38:8). Onan objected and practiced a primitive kind of birth control that came to be called “Onanism.” This act displeased God, according to this story, and so we are told that God also killed Onan. Now it became Shelah’s turn to marry his brother’s widow, but Shelah was only a boy, about five years of age and, having seen what happened to his two older brothers when they were married to Tamar, he was eager to avoid this fate.
So Judah violated the code of behavior and the demands of the Torah and sent Tamar back to her family of origin, to live under her father’s protection. In this patriarchal society, Tamar was now “damaged goods” and she would no longer be thought of as “marriageable.” Judah, seeking to perfume his behavior, promised to send for her when Shelah grew up.
Some time passed during which Shelah did grow up, but Tamar was forgotten. Next, we are told, Judah’s wife died and now he was a widower. After a period of time for mourning, Judah returned to his business as the owner of large flocks of sheep and planned a trip to Timnah to talk with his sheep shearers. When Tamar learned of this intended visit, she removed her widow’s clothing, put on a veil and the clothes of a prostitute and positioned herself at the entrance of her town which was on the road to Timnah and where Judah would have to pass by inevitably.
He did. Judah saw her and assuming, as she intended him to do, that she was a prostitute, he turned aside to make a contract with her. They bargained for a price and it was agreed that her payment for “services rendered” would be a “kid from my flocks,” which would be sent to her the next day. Wise to the ways of the world, Tamar, still veiled, required that Judah give her something of value, something that she would return when his payment of the lamb was received. They settled on Judah’s signet ring, the cord that was wrapped around his waist and his staff. The two of them then went off to have their tryst, after which Judah went on his way and Tamar went back to her father’s home and once more put on the garments of her widowhood.
The next day, Judah, true to his word, sent one of his servants with the lamb to redeem his property. This servant, however, could not find the woman. He inquired of the people of the village as to the identity of the prostitute, who solicited business at the gates of this village. They denied that anyone had ever done that in their town. The servant returned and reported to Judah his failure to locate this woman. Judah, not willing to the subject of ridicule, decided to forgo any further effort to recover his ring, cord and staff, charging them off as “losses from a business deal,” and a number of months passed. Then Judah heard the local gossip that Tamar, his daughter-in-law was pregnant and would soon produce a “child by harlotry.” Judah was incensed at this news and now, exercising his authority over this woman he had earlier rejected, ordered her to be brought out and burned at the stake. As she was being led to her place of execution, she sent word to Judah, her father-in-law, saying, “I am with child by the man to whom these belong” and she included his signet ring, his cord and his staff. Judah recognized them as his own and publicly repented. “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah,” he said. Because sex with one’s daughter-in-law in that day was considered to be incest, Judah did not “lie with her again.” (Gen. 38:26), but he did provide for her care and after she gave birth, married her and brought her into his harem. Tamar became the mother of twins whom she named Perez and Zerah. That is the story.
Matthew, by using the name Tamar, incorporated her story into the genealogy of Jesus. He was saying through this device that the line that produced Jesus went through Judah to Perez to the son of Perez, whose name was Hezron. Here, Matthew was asserting that the Christ Child had an ancestor who was guilty of incest. It is an interesting way to open a narrative about the Virgin Birth!
That, however, is only the first of the women to whom Matthew alludes in this genealogy. The other three are equally as fascinating and provocative. We will turn to each of them in detail as this series unfolds. ~ John Shelby Spong Announcements
A Life of Awe and Wonder Online - September 5th - 2th
In this four-week journey into the wondrous, we will scout some very noteworthy elicitors of marvel that are available to everyone. Most importantly, we will seek out the particular orientation of the heart that finds awe and wonder everywhere it looks. READ ON ...
Copyright © 2021 ProgressiveChristianity.org, a 501(3)c. All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: 4810 Pt. Fosdick Dr. #80, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 253-507-8678 - contact@progressivechristianity.org You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net