| | | | View this email in your browser | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Requiem For Roe V. Wade | | | | | | | | | | Essay by Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers May 19, 2022 Progressives seem shocked that Roe v Wade has essentially been overturned, given a first draft leaked and then published by Politico.  Written by Samuel Alito, the words are unmistakable:  “We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.  Roe and Casey must be overturned, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.”  All the assurances that this is not the final draft and things could change have about as much credibility as did the words of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett when they assured us that they revere stare decisis, or settled law, and that they have no personal or political agenda when it comes to a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.  The integrity of the high court is now profoundly compromised.  What’s more, if the standard is what the Constitution does not mention, just think what else may be on the line.  I fear same-sex marriage will be next.  By the way, women are not mentioned in the Constitution. Sadly, none of this surprises me.  I have been telling my congregation, my family, and my friends for years that this day was coming.  My own mother, who died just a few months ago at 92, refused to believe that overturning Roe was possible.   Perhaps it is a blessing that she did not live to see it.  But the truth is, this has been the singular obsession of Republicans and the Christian Right for half a century now.  They have out-worked, out-preached, and out-organized the rest of us, all with the fervent certainty that God was on their side, that life begins at conception, and that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is murder.  Harry Emerson Fosdick once preached his famous sermon, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?”  That question has now been answered.  They did. They have turned the church into a weeping, self-centered spectacle of gushing gratitude for the cosmic bargain that is the blood atonement (“He did this for me!”), moved into affluent, all-white suburbs to please a Jesus who hung out across the tracks with the last and the least, and claimed that “character counts” while voting overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, the most morally corrupt man ever to be president of the United States.  Why?  Because when it comes to a contest between power and virtue, power will make the true believer ignore virtue, unless it is their opponent who lacks it.  Trump promised to nominate justices who would overturn Roe.  He did.  They delivered.  Now there is rejoicing in mega-churches everywhere.  Precious babies will be saved, the preachers will thunder.  As for their mothers?  Well, they are God’s handmaidens, and after all, there are “consequences” to the moral choices that women make.  Much less so the choices that men make. In Oklahoma, bills have already been introduced which copy the Texas “heartbeat” law, and make abortion illegal after six weeks, when most women don’t even know they are pregnant.  The rest of us will be deputized, so we can turn in our neighbors instead of loving them.  As for rape and incest, there are no exceptions, except for a “health emergency” in the mother.  That is, if you can find a doctor willing to make this diagnosis when abortion is a crime.   An Oklahoma lawmaker said recently, “We don’t want to punish the baby for the sins of the father.”  When the reporter asked him, “But what about the mother?” he seemed unable to answer.  That silence speaks volumes. Let’s be honest about the fear that is now driving the culture wars and have brought us to the precipice of losing our democracy.  White men on the right fear they are losing everything to the brown and black barbarians at the gate.  When abortion became a constitutional right half a century ago, and birth control became widely available to women, a seismic shift rumbled deep in the male psyche.  Women now had agency to prevent pregnancy, and the right to end one.  So, what was to stop them from making their own decisions about sex now that the fear of pregnancy was greatly reduced?  In other words, men lost a large measure of control over women, and that emasculated them. So just imagine this.  A 14-year-old in Oklahoma could be raped by her stepfather and then forced to bear his child.  What do you think will happen to that girl, and what are the prospects for that child?  Women are forced into sex in myriad ways, including by the “heads” of their households, and now they will have no choice but to bear children they did not want and often cannot afford.  When Republicans are asked whether they plan to greatly expand social services to help deal with the consequences of millions of unwanted children, they are silent again, stammering out something about how all children will be loved and supported once we all take personal responsibility for our decisions and accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior. Since abortion is the unyielding moral dilemma of our time, a pluralistic society that was founded on the separation of church and state should err on the side of choice, not on the side of eliminating choice.  That is, because there are people with equally strong but diametrically opposed beliefs about when life begins and whether women ought to have control over their own bodies, our best approach is not to codify one choice while eliminating the other.  Simply put, if you don’t believe in abortion under any circumstances, then don’t have one.  Likewise, if you don’t believe in gay marriage, then refrain from marrying a gay person.  Just say no. This is the tragedy of faith as absolute certainty and moral self-righteousness.  Jesus had a few things to say about this.  “A brood of vipers” comes to mind.  Years ago, during what was called Operation Rescue, Wichita, Kansas because the epicenter of the antiabortion movement.  I attended a rally once to represent prochoice clergy.  When a Catholic priest saw me in my collar, he looked at me with utter disgust and mouthed, “Shame on you.”  But the shame does not belong to those who would trust women to make this choice, but to those who presume that there is anyone else who should ever make it.  Not now.  Not ever.  One thing is certain.  We know what the future looks like because we have been there.  Rich women will always have access to abortion, while poor women will drive through the night.  Under the weight of shame and with no resources to pursues legal remedies in a timely way, the moral autonomy of women will suffer its biggest setback in our lifetimes.  My three granddaughters will grow up in a state without abortion rights, and the message will be clear:  this state does not trust you to make this decision.  In a place where everybody says they love Jesus but would have anyone who looked or acted like him arrested immediately, one thing will be conspicuously absent:  the moral imagination.  We have no right to make this decision for women whose lives we know nothing about. Fear is the enemy of the moral life.  It is now the weapon of choice in American society.  Never has the adage been more clear or relevant:  If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.  Lord have mercy—for the suffering this will bring.         ~ Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers Read online here About the Author Rev. Dr. Robin R. Meyers is retired senior minister of Mayflower Congregational UCC Church, Oklahoma City, Distinguished Professor of Social Justice Emeritus in the Philosophy Department at Oklahoma City University, where he still teaches.  He is 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.”  More information is at RobinMeyers.com | | | | | | | | Question & Answer   Q: By Garfin Why are there so many Christian denominations or sects and different Bible versions? Ex: 73 Catholic versions and 66 Protestant versions. A: By Dr. Carl Krieg   Dear Garfin, Thanks for your question. Let’s begin with the plenitude of versions of the Bible by remembering that there was no original version of anything. The earliest fragments from which persons tried to create full documents date from centuries after the events they purport to describe, and come from different locations. Strange as it may seem, there were no church councils that decreed which documents were authentic and authoritative. Given this process, it should not surprise us that different editors and churches in different places would come up with different translations. The variety is compounded by the fact that as the centuries went by, different social/cultural influences would impact new translators. The King James version, for example, is written in Olde English. Some modern English versions attempt to be more colloquial and relevant. Unfortunately, sometimes the attempt to be relevant strays from the original intent, and that is reason enough to use a version that represents the conclusions of collaborative scholars who dedicate their life to approaching an “original” as best they can. With respect to the multiplicity of denominations, there are indeed many interpretations of who Jesus was and what he did, and that variety is found in the New Testament itself. Paul’s letters, the earliest writings in the New Testament, clearly reveal that different theologies had arisen in those earliest communities that Paul himself had founded. Different people had different and often contrasting ideas, and even Paul had difficulty accepting that fact. Furthermore, as the first century moved along, cultural influences changed the whole tenor of the Christian community. The starkest example of this change pertains to the issues of equality, and of submission to authority. The family of friends gathered by Jesus was a microcosm of the way God willed life to be, a life of equality between men and women, with caring and sharing between all. This family stood in total contrast to the oppressive patriarchy and patronage of Roman culture. At the end of the first century, this prophetic living of the new life had completely disappeared in the church of the Pastoral Epistles, especially 1 Timothy, and had been replaced by a system that demanded submission to the emperor, the slave owner, and the male. There is no doubt in my mind that it was the rich and powerful of society that implemented this total reversal of the gospel message.  After the first century, the palace intrigue continued, and one controversy followed another, culminating in the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, the two defining christological decisions that have determined Christian thinking ever since. The point to remember is that up to this point, there was no orthodox belief, only a variety of opinion, and those who lost the debate were declared heretics, even though the loss may have been due more to political influence than right thinking.  There is another question, however, not verbalized, but pervasive, and that is the question concerning the search for truth. Given the multiplicity of both Bible translations and Christian denominations that interpret those translations, is there anything that is “true” compared to all else that is “false”? This is a difficult question. On the one hand, both individuals and groups come from a particular point of view and need to relate their interpretation of theology to who they are and where they are. The lesson here is that we must keep open minds and listen to what others have to say. Each denomination/sect has a point of view that completes the blindness of others. On the other hand, there are some persons and events that we can denounce with force and clarity, saying “this is wrong”. Hitler was wrong. Genocide is wrong. There are some basic truths that transcend one’s relative place in space and time.The difficulty is in identifying and differentiating the two. ~ Dr. Carl Krieg Read and share online here About the Author Dr. Carl Krieg received his BA from Dartmouth College, MDiv from Union Theological Seminary in NYC and PhD from the University of Chicago Divinity School. He is the author of What to Believe? the Questions of Christian Faith and The Void and the Vision. As professor and pastor, Dr. Krieg has taught innumerable classes and led many discussion groups. He lives with his wife Margaret in Norwich, VT. | | | | | | | | 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,  Podme | | | | | | | | | Bishop John Shelby Spong Revisited Is an Interfaith Future a Possibility in Our World? Essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong June 21, 2012 Recently I was part of an intensive two-day “think tank” experience on “The Future of Interfaith Cooperation,” which asked the question as to whether the religious violence that marks so much of our world can ever be overcome and be replaced with interfaith understanding and cooperation.  This “think tank” was sponsored by the Chautauqua Institution located in Western New York about an hour south of Buffalo.  For those of you not familiar with this institution, let me give you some background that will reveal their interest  in this particular subject. The Chautauqua Institution is a vacation community made up of both owners and renters that draws into its planned programs some 170,000 people each summer.  Chautauqua began in 1874 as a Methodist training camp, but it has grown since then into being one of the most impressive intellectual and interdisciplinary centers in America. Over the years to its grounds have come speakers drawn from the ranks of American presidents and presidential candidates, U.S. senators, Supreme Court Justices, Cabinet Secretaries, novelists, scientists, poets and even entertainment celebrities.  Every morning there is a public lecture in the amphitheatre by someone at the top of his or her field followed by questions from the assembled audience that numbers as many as 5,000 a day.  In years past, I have attended lectures here given by the poet John Ciardi, the scientist Buckminster Fuller of geodesic dome fame, the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, the best known commentator on world religion in our generation, Karen Armstrong, as well as a host of best-selling novelists, noted historians and top tier scientists.  The conversation at meals and on the campus is rich because new ground is always being broken and lives are always processing and interacting with new ideas. At 2:00 pm each day in an open space called the Hall of Philosophy, which with special chairs added across the spacious lawn can accommodate over 2000 people, there is a “religion” lecture given by top theologians, biblical scholars and even critics of religion.   Frequently the religion lecture will interact with the lecture given in the morning, making the dialogue rich indeed.  Though this center began with quite specifically Christian roots, over the years a significant Jewish population has come as both owners and renters, giving the community a quality that is always missing in a monochromatic world.  Recently, Muslem, Hindu and Buddhist people have begun to discover this place.  During the nine individual weeks of the summer program, as many as 7,500 people will be on the grounds at a time. To complete the daily experience, in the evening, once again in the large amphitheatre, there is an event that will draw people not just from the Chautauqua community but from a wide orbit of Western New York and Western Pennsylvania.  This event might be a Broadway play, a symphony, an opera or a ballet.  It might feature famous acrobats, popular vocalists and even Country and Western stars.  I have met there entertainers like the flutist James Galway and Margaret Hamilton, who played the wicked witch in the “Wizard of Oz” with Judy Garland.  I have also met Alan Alda, the star of M.A.S.H., who played Hawkeye, Jim Lehrer the long time anchor of the PBS newshour and many others.  It is a very rich intellectual diet. The religious aspect of Chautauqua life has always been central, but it has also been directed by those willing to walk the frontier of religious thought, drawn by the intellectual power of this community.  The pressure to explore the interfaith area comes from the increasing religious pluralism that already marks this community and from the anticipation that this trend is not likely to diminish any time soon.  How various religious traditions can live together in mutual respect is a question that is also increasingly being asked in world at large.  It is driven by the fact that the vast distances that once marked our world are shrinking rapidly caused by such things as increasing air travel, by the instant communications of the Internet and quite frankly by the fact of the destructive tensions that always seem to mark those places where competing religious convictions have collided in the past and still collide today.  One thinks of the violent anti-Semitism that has been part of the Christian West since the first century of Christian history.  Reaching a crescendo in the Holocaust of 20th century Germany, it was presaged and predicted by such historical events as the Inquisition and the expulsion from or the ghettorization of the Jews in almost every nation in Christian Europe.  It was present in the call for the burning of synagogues by no less a Christian figure than the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther, and by the acquiescence to the Nazi agenda by both Pope Pius XII and the German Lutheran Church in the 1930’s and 1940’s. In the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, collisions between Christianity and Islam shaped world history and created the Crusades.  Led by the Vatican, the Crusades were aimed at the destruction of the Muslims and their removal from Christian holy places. Islam was defined by Christians as evil and its members as “infidels.”  In the first years of the 21st century, that hostility was reversed.  The anger, long brewing in the victims of the Crusades, has helped to fuel the fury of the Islamic fundamentalist movement. Members of a branch of this movement known as Al Qaeda, saw themselves as vindicating Islam and its “one true God, Allah” against the “infidels” of the West in their attacks on September 11, 2001. Interfaith awareness was enhanced for most Americans during the Vietnam War when this nation found itself confronting a Buddhist culture and we watched as Buddhist monks immolated themselves in the streets of Saigon in protest against the war.  Later in the two wars in Iraq, the people of the West suddenly confronted the heretofore little known division of the Sunnis and the Shia in Islam that added a dimension of civil war to those conflicts.  Why that was such a shocking surprise is hard to understand since for 400 years we have watched Ireland being torn apart by violent, hate-filled and destructive religious bitterness between Protestants and Catholics. For these reasons the need for interfaith dialogue and cooperation has been growing for some time.  This is what motivated the leaders at Chautauqua to convene this “think tank.”  They are aware of the bitter history of religious wars and religious hatred.  They are also aware that the seeds of intolerance are present in every religious tradition. They began to ask whether an interfaith future for our world was possible if it were intentionally encouraged. The leaders of the Chautauqua community, specifically Thomas Becker, president, and Joan Brown Campbell, the head of the Department of Religion, decided to assemble the “think tank” to see if the Chautauqua Institution could make a contribution to an era of genuine religious peace and good will in an increasingly interrelated and deeply pluralistic religious world. To this interfaith gathering were invited Catholic and Protestant professors and pastors, Muslims imams and academics, national interfaith leaders, Buddhist monks and nuns, Hindu scholars, rabbis and Jewish academics, as well as representatives from the National Council of Churches of Christ in America. They also tapped the resources present in various colleges and universities that already deal with multi-faith realities.  Some journalists were also in attendance.  The gathering opened with great hope, but it did not take long to see that good will, high hopes and even cross-cultural friendships are not enough to bridge the religion gap. Interfaith dialogue cannot occur as long as any single religious perspective claims for itself a corner on ultimate truth. No one can say or think “My religion is the only true religion,” “My church is the only true church” or assert that one religion alone controls the access to God.  Yet at some point, no matter how camouflaged or perfumed, in some form those claims are made by almost every religious system, and it is powerfully present in the thinking of almost all forms of Christianity.  These attitudes were certainly articulated at this meeting. Those advocating this point of view felt this discomfort, but found themselves caught between the twin terrors of total relativity and triumphalism. They tried to remove the offense with pious words, calling for love and forgiveness and even suggesting that while ultimate truth is claimed in their faith tradition, that truth is never fully understood.  So flexibility in understanding is allowed, but only to the degree that the ultimate truth they claim for themselves has not yet been fully worked out.  This provided a facade of openness that attempted to escape relativity on one side and triumphalism on the other.  It was an argument that represented a stretch for those who presented it, but it also showed how difficult developing interfaith cooperation really is.  If the doctrine of the Incarnation, for example, is the lynchpin that protects Christianity from meaningless relativity, there is no way that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus will ever be more than tolerated partners in a meaningless interfaith dialogue, while the secret agenda will remain to convert everyone else to another’s religious “truth.” Until these difficulties are recognized and dealt with, no progress toward an interfaith future seems possible. We are left to enjoy friendships and to articulate unrealistic hopes. Unless we find a new way to relate to the world’s religious pluralism we will have only the two choices of the acceptance of continuing religious violence or of watching benignly as all religious systems as we now know them die.  Unity might be found in our common humanity, but that does not appear to be possible unless we can develop a common religious understanding. I think there is another possibility to these two fairly dreadful and certainly stark options.  This possibility will, however, require that religious people think differently from the way we have been taught to think before.  I will try to spell that possibility out next week in this column. ~  John Shelby Spong | | | | | | | | Announcements   InterSpiritual Wisdom Online: May 22nd - July 2nd, 2022 InterSpirituality encourages people from different spiritual traditions to come together, to enter into a deep dialogue of sound and silence, and to articulate the practices and experiences that are the foundations of their respective traditions.  READ ON ... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |