The Delphi Study Group...

Comment to Congregation

2011-11-21T19:11:00.001-05:00

A few weeks ago a local Pastor (here in Clearwater, FL) made the following comment to his congregation during a Sunday morning worship service: “The ministry is the only profession where we send our brightest young men and women off to study at the Masters and Doctorial level, and when they come back to us we don’t allow them to tell us what they learned.”

Most of you—I believe—will understand what the good Pastor was inferring. For those who may be puzzled by the Pastors comment, let me explain; The Christian doctrine seminary students learn is NOT the Christian doctrine that you and I have been taught since childhood. The doctrine taught in most seminaries today is an academic understanding of the Christian religion that has developed over the past 250-300 years. It reflects our current knowledge of the cosmos, the human mind and the natural laws of the world in which we live. In my book, GIVING VOICE TO THE SILENT PULPIT, I refer to this as Academic Christianity. In many ways it is diametrically opposed to the doctrine you and I were taught as children and what we hear on a weekly basis from the pulpit of our local church. This I refer to as Popular Christianity.

The differences between these two adaptations of the Christian faith are so divergent that a young Pastor, fresh out of seminary, would likely never reveal his/her new knowledge to a pastoral search committee for fear of being immediately rejected for any potential ministerial position. Why? Because most Christians—the people in the pews—expect to hear nothing from the pulpit but the doctrine they grew up with. The same doctrine our forefathers (and foremothers) believed and taught them in their younger years. They are devoted to those basic ancient beliefs. They have invested too much of their mental security in those values to allow new knowledge to invade their ‘cocoon of religious comfort.’

And so . . . our newly educated Pastor, in order to secure a job, must acquiesce to the presumed desires of the multitudes and preach only the ancient, outdated, obsolete and basically irrelevant Popular doctrine of the past.

The victims in this charade: -

· The people in the pews—who are denied an intellectually honest understanding of their faith.

· The Pastors—who must, daily, perjure themselves in pastoral contact with their parishioners.

· Society at large—which is deprived of intellectual growth and maturity.

The winners: -

· Those who would use religion to impose their particular brand of social ethics on others.

· Those, around the world who, today, use the ‘word’ or ‘will’ of God to terrorize, murder and oppress others in the name of religion.

If the church is to survive this duality in doctrine, honesty must prevail.

Learn more about this struggle between Popular and Academic Christianity (including ten side-by-side examples) in my new book—GIVING VOICE TO THE SILENT PULPIT.

More information at http://www.barryblood.com/

Shalom,
Barry e

Giving Voice to the Silent Pulpit

2011-05-17T09:00:00.002-04:00

I was not a religious fanatic by any means, but the church and all that it represented, was very important to me in my formative years—as it was, I believe, for most young people of that era. As I grew into adulthood, I began to take on, what I considered to be, my share of responsibilities in the church. I served as an usher, sang in the choir, and served on various boards and committees. At one point I became trained as a Lay Minister and served as a substitute preacher from time to time. I guess I would be called an active Christian.

However, in 1993, at age fifty-eight, my understanding of the Christian belief system began to change. This change was prompted by a life altering experience, which is reveled in chapter 1 of this book. The change was not something that happened overnight; rather, it took several years of study and investigation. Years during which I found myself hoping I was wrong about what I was discovering. But in the end I realized I was not wrong. Today I am still a Christian, but a Christian with a much deeper and more honest and mature understanding of what Christianity is about. A great deal of what I mean by “a much more honest and mature understanding “ will be dealt with, in detail, in the book.

I anticipate that this book will, to a degree, cause you, the reader, some of the same pain and stress that I felt in the early stages of my investigation and discovery. Do not despair. In the end, I am convinced you will become aware of a much richer and far more rewarding understanding of the Christian faith, than you have ever before experienced.

In my opinion, if the Christian church is to live on, as a force for good in human society, the greater depth of knowledge that is exposed herein, will of necessity, become the norm in Christian education among the laity.

Please remember as you read . . . this is not a book in which I make known my opinion on religious teachings. Rather it is a book in which I report, with straightforward honesty, information about Christianity and Christian doctrine that is unknown to a vast majority of the laymen and laywomen of the faith.

I will be reporting the results of many years of study. Some of my findings will certainly invade the reader’s comfort zone. For this, I make no apology. Knowledge can sometimes be painful, but ignorance also has a price. I will not maliciously tear down sacred beliefs. I will merely report what the past two and one half centuries of Biblical scholarship has reveled and how it has changed the church’s understanding of Christian doctrine.

The church has a responsibility to keep the laity informed of new knowledge, but has chosen not to do so. Instead, the church has, more often than not, chosen to deny, rebuff, or simply remain silent about new knowledge that would counter ancient beliefs. Today the gap between what is preached from the pulpit and what the clergy and hierarchy of the church know has become problematical.
This problem can only be solved by exposing the church’s hidden secrets. To my way of thinking, there is no choice—the church must turn to a more honest doctrine or perish. Perhaps together you and I can start to solve this problem. This book is my attempt to get that ball rolling.

More information at, http://barryblood.com/

Available from publisher: Wipf and Stock, Eugene, OR

barry e

Why We Believe

2011-03-01T09:38:00.004-05:00

I have just finished the book SUPERSENSE - Why We Believe in the Unbelievable by Bruce M. Hood. Thought you might enjoy the following excerpt regarding belief in the supernatural . . .

Psychologists have come to the conclusion that there are at least two different systems operating when it comes to thinking and reasoning. One system is believed to be evolutionarily more ancient in terms of human development; it has been called intuitive, natural, automatic, heuristic, and implicit. It is the system we think is operating in young children before they reach school age. The second system is one that is believed to be more recent in human evolution; it permits logical reasoning but is limited by executive functions . . . This second reasoning system has been called conceptual-logical, analytical-rational, deliberative-effortful-intentional-systematic, and explicit. It emerges much later in development and underpins the capacity of the child to perform logical, rational problem-solving. When we reason about the world using these two systems, they may sometimes work in competition with each other.
One might assume that those prone to the supersense and belief in the paranormal (or supernatural) are lacking in rational thought processes, but that would be too simplistic. Studies reveal that the two systems of thinking, the intuitive and the rational, coexist in the same individuals. There are, in effect, two different ways of interpreting the world. In fact, when we measure reliance on intuition, no relationship has been found with intelligence. Intuitive people are not more stupid. They are, however, more prone to supernatural belief . . . The supersense lingers in the back of our minds, influencing our behaviors and thoughts, and our mood may play a triggering role. This explains why perfectly rational, highly educated individuals can still hold supernatural beliefs.

barry e

A Special Report...

2010-11-24T15:55:00.017-05:00

This past Sunday Chris and I attended worship service at, Pilgrims in the Park in Bryan, TX.

Pilgrims in the Park is an open air church service conducted, administered and financed by the seventy year young Rev. Lenni Lissberger, for "all wayfarers on life's journey". Services are held under a picnic shelter each Sunday in Neal Park, a small public park on the west side of Byran, TX.

Rev. Lenni prepares lunch for her parishioners every week. This week she brought sandwiches, boiled eggs. cookies, coffee and orange juice. She pays for the food and supplies out of her own pocket. The parishioners are very grateful.

There were roughly thirty people in attendance this Sunday. All but four or five were homeless folks.

On the front of the worship bulletin - which Rev. Linne also prepares and prints each week - are there words...

Regardless how much money you have in your pocket,

Regardless of where you spent the night,

Regardless what language you speak,

Regardless of the color of your skin,

Regardless of who you love,

Regardless of whether

you have a family,

or we become

your family,

You are welcome here!

There was hymn singing and praying. There was a time for greeting each other and a time for scripture reading. Rev. Lenni gave a short inspirational talk. Several of the congregants helped in the service. One read the scripture, another handed out bulletins, several participated by expressing their sorrows and thanksgivings during the community prayer. Most all were homeless, down on their luck and destitute, but one could sense that they really cared about each other's welfare.

After the service, several people, without being ask, packed up the coffee jugs and other things, folded the table and loaded everything neatly in the back of Rev. Lenni's car. Next week when she arrives there will be several there to help unload and set everything up again.

I don't know that I have ever witnessed more honest and selfless expressions of the teachings of Jesus - to love one another, to show compassion, to include those on the margins of society - than I did that morning. The people who attend worship service at Pilgrims in the Park are very special people... And the Rev. Lenni Lissberger, who makes it happen, week after week, is a very special human being.

Shalom,

barry e

The move from Polytheism to Monotheism

2010-06-29T09:14:00.005-04:00

In all my studies of religion I had never thought to ask the question, “What motivated humans to move from polytheism to monotheism.” The question and the answer came to me while reading Robert Wright’s book, The Evolution of God, (Little, Brown and Company, 2009). Five hundred sixty seven pages crammed full of interesting information, much of which I have read in other sources, but the section regarding the move from ‘poly’ to ‘mono’ was so new and informative, I thought I would share it with you. So, here it is in short, capsule form…

When King Hammurabi came to power in Babylon, near the beginning of the second millennium BCE, all of Mesopotamia was polytheistic. There were dozens of gods worshiped throughout the country. Hammurabi’s base was Babylon and the god of Babylon was Marduk.

Hammurabi had aspirations of ruling all of Mesopotamia, but he died before that could happen. In the ensuing centuries, however, Babylon did rule all of Mesopotamia and Marduk eventually became the head of the Mesopotamian pantheon.

In a move of major theological development, the champions of Marduk began to demote the other gods of the pantheon from being Murduk’s subordinates to being mere aspects of him. i.e. Adad, once known as the god of rain was now, “Murduk of rain.” Nabu, the god of accounting became, “Marduk of accounting.”

Among other things, there was a very practical political reason for this move. Each of the gods of the pantheon wielded a certain amount of political power. Each had priests, temples and followers. By consolidating the powers of these lesser gods into Marduk’s realm, the political power of would be opposition was nullified. Wright states it like this; “For Babylonians who wanted to suffuse all of Mesopotamia in multicultural amity and understanding, what better social cement than a single god that encompasses all gods?”

Later, in the fourteenth century BCE an eccentric pharaoh known as Amenhotep IV came to power in Egypt. This new young pharaoh was quite ambitious and eager to seize control. He elevated his favorite god, Aten, from being a garden-variety deity to “he who decrees life”; he who “created the earth”; he who “built himself by himself.”

But Amenhotep IV was not interested in the slow absorption of other gods into his god Aten, as had taken place with Marduk. Instead he had the names and the temples of all other gods erased from the face of the earth and their priesthoods dissolved. Aten stood alone at the top of the heap in a monotheistic fashion. But Aten eventually fell from grace and was replaced by other gods and other pharaohs.

Some claim that Aten nonetheless changed the world forever. Sigmund Freud, in his book Moses and Monotheism, suggests that Moses was in Egypt during Aten’s reign and then carried this idea of monotheism to Canaan, where it would launch Judeo-Christian civilization.

While most Jews and Christians think of the Torah and the Bible as referring to a single God, close study shows that the early Israelites worshipped many gods. The Israelites were polytheistic, just as most of the rest of the world at that time. There are many references to this fact in the Bible. Wright does a masterful job of explaining this and how the Kings of the day used the movement from ‘poly’ to ‘mono’ in much the same way as Amenhotep IV did, to attempt to expand their power.

...Toward the end of the seventh dentury BCE, this opportunity was seized by the most important king in the theological history of Israel… His name was Josiah and he assumed the throne around 640 BCE. … Josiah wasn’t adverse to a little thuggery... For starters, Josiah had priests take from Yahweh’s temple and burn “all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah” and for “all the hosts of heaven” (which in this case means defied celestial bodies). He removed horses used is sun worship form the entrance to the temple and “burned the chariots of the sun with fire.” He wiped out the shrines built for “Astarte the abomination of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the abonination of the Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites” – and, as a kind of exclamation point, covered these sites with human bones. Josiah also banned mediums, sorcerers, household gods, idols, and miscellaneous other “abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem.”(2 Kings 23:5,20)
He tore down all the “high places” or alters across Judah where other gods were worshiped. But the alters were not his only target. He “deposed” the priests associated with these gods, including those who “made offerings to Baal, to the sun, the moon, and the constellations.” In the former northern kingdom he “slaughtered on the alters all the priests of the high places who were there, and burned human bones on them. Then he returned to Jerusalem.” This presumably made for a more powerful Jerusalem, for all sources of divine authority and political power were now gone. Josiah had ‘centralized the cult,” as scholars but it.

This move from ‘poly’ to ‘mono’ seemed to have stuck for what would later become the three Abrahamic religions. Josiah seems to be the person in history who was most instrumental in making that happen (brutal but effective). Was his motive religious or politics? Hum!

Interesting...

barry e

From: Sigmund Freud (1932) - A Philosophy of Life

2010-05-11T14:16:00.006-04:00

While the different religions wrangle with one another as to which of them is in possession of the truth, in our view the truth of religion may be altogether disregarded.

Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. But it cannot achieve its end. Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the times in which they originated, the ignorant childhood days of the human race.

Its consolations deserve no trust. Experience teaches us that the world is not a nursery. The ethical commands, to which religion seeks to lend its weight, require some other foundation instead, for human society cannot do without them, and it is dangerous to link up obedience to them with religious belief.

If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition as a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.

Sigmund Freud

Shalom,
barrye

The Invisible Velvet Curtain (it actually exists)

2010-03-10T09:27:00.008-05:00

The Rev. Father Donald Cupitt, Anglican priest and Christian author, calls it a painted veil….I have often called it an Invisible Velvet Curtain that hangs between the pulpit and the pews of most all Christian churches.

An Invisible Velvet Curtain that separates ‘Popular Christianity’…. (the domain of the people-in-the-pews), from ‘Academic Christianity’…. (which is the domain of the church hierarchy from the pulpit to the Pope)

For the past six years, the Delphi Study Group (a.k.a. the Sojourners class) has been studying this Academic understanding of Christianity. We have been studying what students are taught in seminaries and religion classes in colleges and universities around the world.

Our studies have brought us in contact with many of today’s church leaders, historians, pastors, bishops, professors, biblical scholars and theologians. We have studied their writings, …listened to their lectures both in person and on the computer. …. We even took a semester of classes on the Old Testament from Yale University, via the internet.

We have come to appreciate many of the differences between these two understandings of Christianity. Some of these differences are somewhat shocking, some even traumatic…. But all of them are interesting.

We have discovered that these two belief systems (Popular vs. Professional or Academic) are so different in their respective views of Christian doctrine that if stripped of their Christian identity, and viewed separately,… most people would not recognize them as elements of the same religion.

Yet we have also discovered that while there are many differences between Popular and Academic Christianity, one point remains the same…. The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth….. to love one another, to care for the disadvantaged, to seek justice for all people.

The Church as a whole is moving toward a fuller understanding of Academic Christianity…More and more Christians are beginning to see over, under and around the Invisible Velvet Curtain…its a long slow process… but as it happens, the teachings of Jesus…. (as opposed to the teachings about Jesus)…. will become more and more the center of our faith journey.

barry e

Everything changes

2010-01-08T11:28:00.006-05:00

Actress Marlene Dietrich was a popular film star in the 1930’s 40’s and 50’s. She made a movie in 1936 called The Garden of Allah. She had a favorite cameraman on the movie set that (she thought) seemed to take all her shots with just the right lighting, just the right angles to bring out her best features.

Some twenty years later on yet another movie set, she came across that same cameraman and insisted that the director allow him do all the film shots of her.

One afternoon after viewing the film of that day’s shooting, Ms Dietrich confided in the cameraman, “I don’t know,” she said, “they just don’t seem the same as they did before, they look different for some reason.”

To wit: the cameraman replied, quite discreetly… “Well you know Marlene darling, my camera is twenty years older..”

Whether the difference was the age of the camera or the age of the actress is immaterial… the point here is that everything changes over time.

If things did not change, we might still be communicating with our friends and relatives up North by use of the ‘pony express.’

If things did not change, we might exit our local mall some morning to find a parking lot full of horses and buggies…and perhaps an ample supply of fertilizer for our rose gardens.

Everything changes over time… even religion. If religion did not change over time, we might still be sacrificing our first born children to the gods on a blood soaked alter.

If religion did not change we might still believe that God resided just a few hundred feet up in the air, just beyond the blue canopy that hangs over the earth.

Even our concept of who or what god is… changes over time.

3500 years ago people believed in many gods, even a few goddesses as well… Each god or goddess had control over a particular element of nature.

3000 years ago the world went through what is called the First Axial Period, where some, perhaps most, religions began to combine the powers of all their gods and goddesses into one supreme God. This change, even in the relatively small Hebrew nation, took several hundred years to facilitate.

This new supreme God of the Hebrews had but one primary purpose… to watch over and protect the Hebrew nation. That supreme God – known by the name Yahweh – was the tribal God of the Hebrews… and the Hebrews only.

2000 years ago that concept of God changed again when the Christians made the God Yahweh into a personal God for all people, Jew and Gentile alike. A supernatural God residing ‘up there’ or ‘out there’ that is all powerful, all seeing, all knowing.

Today we are in the midst of yet another ecclesiastical change. One that began some 200-300 years ago. A change that moves the concept of God from that of a supernatural being, ‘up there’ or ‘out there’…. to a god ‘within.’… A change that moves the concept of God from the creator of life, to the essence of life itself.

Not all Christians comprehend or are in agreement with this concept, and so the struggle to understand goes on… perhaps for another 100 – 200 years. The hierarchy of the Church is aware of the change, but the reality of it has not yet ‘trickled down’ to the people-in-the-pews.

This is the nature of all religions, and all of life. For thousands of years, as humans have gained wisdom and knowledge, everything around us has changed.

That which does not change… becomes obsolete... irrelevant.

barry e

Being an Honest Believer

2009-12-18T09:26:00.004-05:00

The following is an excerpt from Bishop John Shelby Spong’s book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die. I believe it speaks to the feelings of many who read this blog……

Many of us can continue to be believers only if we are able to be honest believers. We want to be people of faith, not people drugged on the narcotic of religion. We are not able to endure the mental lobotomy that one suspects is the fate of those who project themselves as the unquestioning religious citizens of our age. We do not want to be among those who fear that if we think about what we say about God, either our minds will close down or our faith will explode. We are not drawn to those increasingly defensive religious answers of our generation. Nor are we willing to pretend that these ancient words still have power and meaning for us if they do not. We wonder if it is still possible to be a believer and a citizen of our century at the same time.

….I am convinced that the future of the Christian faith rests not on reasserting those words of antiquity, but on our ability to refashion the symbols by which Christianity is to be understood in our time.

Bishop Spong

Shalom,
barry e

It was said of him....

2009-10-22T09:44:00.004-04:00

It was said of him, that he was born of a virgin…It was said that he was the Son of God… that he performed miracles,…. that he died to save us from our sins…These things were said and written about Quirinius of Rome in the year 500 BC…

These same things were also written about, Hesus of the Celtic Druids 830 BC… likewise, Indra of Tibet 720 BC, and Attis of Phrygia 1200 BC, Alexander the Great about 400 BC, and Caesar Augustus …. And of course Jesus of Nazareth in the book we call Matthew, written about 80 AD.

I’m not telling you any deep dark secret… this information is taught in Christian and secular colleges and Christian seminaries around the world.

Such things were written about hundreds and hundreds of Kings and Rulers and religious icons throughout ancient history… These are well documented historical writings, found on tablets and scrolls preserved today in museums everywhere.

Were these events written of because they were actual historical events? Hundreds of virgin births?… Hundreds of saviors? …

Scholars and Historians, both Christian and secular, tell us they were written to say, “This was an extraordinary person,”…They were written to say, “remember this person”, “In this person we have seen something special, we have seen the Holy, in this person we have experienced the divine.” …

Does it matter that these things did not literally happen in the life of Quirinius of Rome or Indra of Tibet …or any of the hundreds of others?…Millions of Christians, might claim that it DOES matter, to them, in the case of Jesus of Nazareth…

For me what matters is that these post-Easter exaltations of Jesus have done what they were intended to do. They have caused us to remember…. For me what is important is that you and I do remember and practice and strive to live the pre-Easter teachings of Jesus… To love one another, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us… to seek justice and inclusiveness for all human beings.

...barry e

Please visit my book site - Christian beliefs - GIVING VOICE TO THE SILENT PULPIT

Bishop Spong Q&A

2009-09-16T14:50:00.003-04:00

Shirley Krogstad from Hendersonville, North Carolina, writes:If you had to name one "belief" of yours that has evolved or grown the most over the last ten years, what would it be?

Dear Shirley,

Since my whole belief system is deeply interrelated that is not an easy question to answer. I like the story told about an elderly bishop who remarked, "The older I get, the more deeply I believe but the less beliefs I have." That is exactly what I feel.

To answer your question more specifically, however, I believe it would be the way I think about God. God is no longer a person, a being or an entity to me. God is rather a presence in whom, to use words attributed to St. Paul, "I live and move and have my being." The "old man in the sky" was the first image to go, then the heavenly judge who kept record books and finally the father figure who desired praise and whose mercy I implored. The invasive, external heavenly deity faded and new images began to intrude themselves into my consciousness.

The interesting thing to me was that while these old images were fading, the God intensity within me remained steady and steadfast. Today I am a God-intoxicated person, but my definition of God is anything but crisp and well defined. I struggle to find words big enough to use when I try to talk about God. God to me is now more of an experience of transcendence, or perhaps the source of life, the source of love and the ground of all being. An experience to me is vastly different from a being who might be described externally. People hear these concepts sometimes as simply words. I hear them, however as a call to transcend all human limits and all human boundaries. God to me is a call to live fully, to love wastefully and to be all that I can be.
A redefined Jesus still stands at the center of my God experience. He is not the one sent to be my savior, redeemer or rescuer. Jesus is not to God what Clark Kent is to Superman, a deity masquerading as a human being. He is rather a God presence through whom I am empowered to be open to the life, love and being that flows through me.

I now call myself a mystic because in my understanding of God I have gone beyond words into a kind of wordless wonder, awe and mystery. This is not where I was a decade ago. I doubt if it will be where I am a decade from now, but it is where I am today and it represents the evolving, growing frontier of where I was ten years ago.

Thanks for asking.
– John Shelby Spong

Shalom,
barry e

Imagine for a moment...

2009-09-04T11:56:00.006-04:00

Imagine for a moment that there were no religious writings. That such things as the Bible, the Torah, the Koran and other religious writings did not exist. Imagine that mans knowledge of the ancient world came exclusively from history books.

Then imagine that we, the people of the 21st century, were to decide that it was time to sit down and write an epic of our world and of the human race.

Ponder that thought, an epic of the human race, as seen exclusively through the eyes and the worldview of the people of the 21st century…. An epic that would try to explain, as best we could, the origin of the earth, the universe and life on this planet.

Knowing what we do about the cosmos and the formation of galaxies, planets and stars, do you think for one moment we would postulate the idea that a supernatural being of some sort, standing out on the edge of space, creating all that exists?

Knowing what we do about biology and the functions of the human body, do you think for one moment we would suggest that a supernatural being (of some sort) impregnated a young virgin and she gave birth to the son of this supernatural being?

Do you think we would suggest that this supernatural being, by virtue of its omnipotent power, controls the weather? That it speaks to people from the clouds, causes disease to punish, cures disease to reward?

If we were to write the history of the universe, the earth and life on earth from the point of view of an intelligent adult of the 21st century, do you think for even a nano-second we would hypothesize such nonsense?

And yet millions of otherwise honest, well-meaning, intelligent people believe these things to be literally true.

What does this say about the maturity of the human mind? What does it say about the power of the Church to control human thought patterns?

The Church can and should be an agent for change and truth in the world and it should start by becoming intellectually honest about it doctrines and dogma.

barry e

Please visit my book site - Christian beliefs - GIVING VOICE TO THE SILENT PULPIT

Hungering for Truth

2009-08-02T09:35:00.005-04:00

The following article recently appeared in the St. Petersburg (FL) Time. I find it disturbing that the writer – Norma W. – and thousands of others like her, must live outside their religion and cannot communicate intellectually with their families, because the Church continues to withhold the truth of the church doctrine from the people-in-the-pews.
---------------------------------------
I lost my religion in Religion Class. We were a religious family – at least in name. Nobody I knew would have dared admit out loud that they didn’t believe in God. So after misplacing my faith, I kept quiet.
I could hardly believe the loss myself. I kept returning to the place faith had been, prodding it like a sore tooth. How could this happen? I’d gone to Sunday school and church my entire life. I even went to church camp. I knelt every night as a child and asked God to bless a long list of relatives while glancing nervously at the prayer over my bed: “If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take.” I wasn’t afraid for my soul. It was the dying part that scared me. Who knew you could be snatched away while you slept?
In college, before taking the required Religion Class, I’d been devout enough to debate my aunt (who was also my English professor) about angels. We were reading Milton and she said when we die, we become angels. I said angels were another thing altogether, and the reason Milton put man above them was that we had the choice of being good or not. If we chose good, we were placed higher than the angels, who were heavenly beings and – except for the fallen ones – by nature good.
After she called our minister to check on this, she phoned my mother to say I was right. But, not wanting to show favoritism, she gave me a B in the class, which did not affect my belief in God, but definitely soured my belief in her.
To graduate from my Methodist college, you had to take a year of religion: one semester of Old Testament and one of New.
It was not the college’s intention to undermine our faith, but religion was taught as history. Who were those tribes? How did they come to worship one God, and how did the books we call the Bible get written and put together? This is where it happened – in the first semester among the begats.
I discovered that the Bible had come together over hundreds of years, written by different men in different times. Our textbook Bible contained the Apocrypha, the books that were once part of the Bible, but through one dispute or another had been cast out. To me, they sounded just as plausible as the official parts.
Doubt crept in like a poison, or maybe it was faith leaking out.
All I know is, during those months, as I read my chapters, took notes and wrote papers, belief gave way to logic. God – at least the God I was kneeling to in church – was a construct, put together over centuries, codified, fought over, killed for, and what did we really know? Nothing, except we needed this story, needed to believe our soul went somewhere and that we didn’t blink out like light bulbs at the end.
I knew better than admit doubt. I continued to kneel in church and bow my head for grace during family meals. Was everybody pretending? At dinner, I opened my eyes a crack and peeked around. My sisters certainly looked pious enough. I never ask them what they believed for fear they’d ask me in return. If I told them the truth, they would shake their heads and say they’d miss me when they were in heaven with the angels and I was burning below.
I graduated, left home without admitting my faithlessness, and quit going to church. Now and then I can feel doubt pinching at my atheism, but I repress it. When you’ve tasted the forbidden fruit, there’s no going back to innocence, and no point being wistful about what you’ve lost.---------------------------------------
Such a tragic story, one that is being played out thousands of times a day, all around the world. And who is at fault?- The Church.. By refusing to be honest with their constituents and would-be-constituents, they are driving away the very people they are trying to attract.

A minister friend of mine recently confided in me that at the annual conference of his church denomination he had had conversations with several of his colleagues regarding this problem. All admitted the problem exists but none are willing to ‘rock the boat’ or do anything about it.

So while the Universities, Colleges and Seminaries teach a modern, intellectually honest religion, the Church continues to preach an ancient folklore and superstition that is irrelevant to the 21st century worldview.

If nothing is done, and the trend continues, Christianity will soon find itself on the fringes of society, among the ignorant and uninformed.

Such a pity. The church… dying from its own lack of integrity.

barry e - 2009

An Ocean of God: The Interconnectedness of All Being

2009-06-27T11:02:00.006-04:00

Excerpt from;
An Ocean of God: The Interconnectedness of All Being
By Rabbi Lawrence Kushner

It was almost ten years ago that one of my sons brought home what was then a new and sophisticated computer game. “It’s called ‘virtual reality,’ Dad,” He explained. “You play it by entering it. You must imagine that you are actually inside it You ask yourself, “What would I do if I really lived in this world?”

The game was called Myst. (They’ve since come out with a sequel called Riven.) You pop in the CD, look at the screen, and find yourself on an island. There’s a dock, a forest, buildings. Stairway. The graphics and sound effects are impressive and convincing. There is no manual, no instructions, no rules. You “go” places by aiming a little pointing finger and clicking. You can look up and down, turn around, climb stairs, wander all around the place. Where ever your curiosity leads you, there are things to discover and remember. There are machines you can operate, a library full of books you can actually open and read. Devotees say the game is properly played over weeks and months. (It’s been almost a decade and I still haven’t finished.)

And the purpose of it all? Why, of course: to figure out what you’re doing there. But to do that, you must first figure out how the place works.

What fascinates me here is not yet another sophisticated and clever way to waste time in front of the computer screen. (I can do that with Solitaire and FreeCell.) It is the concept of a game whose purpose is for the player to discover the purpose. Virtual reality, schmirtual reality, this ain’t no game. What’s going on here? Why am I here? What are the rules?

Upon hearing about this. A friend who is a professor of English suggested that it seemed a lot like childhood. I’d go further. It may be a lot like adulthood, too. We all find ourselves in “this world” and “object” seems to be to figure out what we’re doing here. Unfortunately, the way most things are connected to one another is not immediately apparent.

After all, meaning is a matter of connections. If something is connected to absolutely nothing – symbolically, linguistically, physically, psychologically – it is literally meaningless. And, if something is connected to everyone and everything, it would be supremely meaningful. I suppose it would be God: The One through whom everything is connected to everything else, the Source of all meaning. Religious traditions are the collected “rules of the game.” They presume to tell us how the world works. And if you “play by them,” you are rewarded (hopefully before it is time to leave) with an understanding of why you are here – with what is otherwise known as the meaning of life.

----------

Bishop Spong Q&A 6/18/09

2009-06-18T13:06:00.005-04:00

Jody Jones from Cedar Park, Texas, asks:

I recently attended your three lectures in Austin, Texas. You are an important person in my growth. I was raised as a fundamentalist, and you allowed me to begin and continue my journey. You mentioned prayer, and defined the prayers of most as "adult letters to Santa Claus." I must admit that it is an excellent definition. My question is this: What does prayer look like you to today? Thank you for continuing to educate.

Dear Jody,

I don't like to use the word prayer, because it is culturally translated as one person approaching the theistic God above the sky with a request. The word itself has become bankrupt and not capable of redemption.

Instead, I think of prayer as communing with the holy, that which is transcendental, the power of life, the consciousness of the divine, the Ground of Being or perhaps the source of love. I do not commune with God in order to seek divine favor or to engage in religious flattery that people call praise. I commune to discover God within me and to be more open to that presence. I do not separate prayer from life. I do not think prayer is something I do, so much as it is something I am.

Public worship has elements of liturgical prayer in it and I engage in public worship every Sunday. I believe the purpose of liturgy is to open us to the presence of the holy in the gathered community. I resent having medieval patterns of liturgy imposed on me, as if somehow plainsong music and priestly chanting creates holiness. To me it only creates irrelevant liturgy. I have written on prayer many times. I experience more in prayer than I can describe in words. That is as far as I can go.

I hope this helps.

– John Shelby Spong

--------------

Bishop Spong Q&A - Petitionary Prayer

2009-05-27T09:07:00.005-04:00

Elmo Hoffman, via the Internet, writes:

I have read much of your work and met you once at Stetson University in Deland, Florida, at a pastor's conference. It was the same venue where I also met Marcus Borg. I am a retired civil trial lawyer and a late-life seminary graduate, now an ordained Disciples of Christ minister, although before seminary I was a lifelong Presbyterian (USA) from the same time frame and section of North Carolina as you. My question, which gives me a great deal of trouble, is: What is your basic understanding of petitionary prayer? I believe you have said, "A God who would save the life of one prayed-for cancer-stricken child and not another would be a monster." This makes sense but gives me a great deal of trouble in considering petitionary prayer. (I have read your book Honest Prayer — I find no answer to this problem there.)
Dear Elmo,

Thank you for your comments and for your question. Your question on petitionary prayer is almost always the first question that comes up wherever I go to lecture. People can talk about their understanding of God until the cows come home, but nothing really changes until they translate their understanding of God into their prayers. More than anything else, our prayers define our understanding of God. So to talk about prayer, we have to define who the God is to whom we pray. To say it differently, "Who do we think is listening?"

Most people, quite unconsciously, approach the subject of prayer with a very traditional concept of God quite operative in their minds. This God is a personal being, endowed with supernatural power, who lives somewhere outside this world, usually conceptualized as "above the sky." While that definition has had a long history among human beings, it is a definition of God that has been rendered meaningless by the advance of human knowledge. This means that for most of us the activity of prayer does not take seriously the fact that we live in a vast universe, and that we have not yet come to grips with the fact that there is no supernatural, parental deity above the sky, keeping the divine record books on human behavior up to date and ready at any moment to intervene in human history to answer prayers. When we do embrace this fact then prayer, as normally understood, becomes an increasingly impossible idea and inevitably a declining practice. To get people to embrace this point clearly, I have suggested that the popular prayers of most people is little more than adult letters written to a Santa Claus God.

There are then two choices. One says that the God in whom I always believed is no more, so I will become an atheist. People make this decision daily. It is an easy way out.

The other says that the way I have always thought of God has become inoperative, so there must be something wrong with my definition. This stance serves to plunge us deeply into a new way of thinking about God, and that is when prayer itself begins to be redefined. Can God, for example, be conceived of not as supernatural person, but as a force present in me and flowing through me? Then perhaps prayer can be transformed into meditation and petitionary prayer becomes a call to action. The spiritual life is then transformed from the activity of a child seeking the approval of a supernatural being to being a simultaneous journey into self-discovery and into the mystery of God. It also feeds my sense of growing into oneness with the source of all life and love and with what my mentor, Paul Tillich, called the Ground of All Being. It would take a book to fill in the blank places in this quick analysis, but these are the things that today feed my ever deepening discovery of the meaning of prayer.

– John Shelby Spong

-------------

A note from Cliff

2009-05-13T08:44:00.004-04:00

Barry,
I have been stimulated by your blog and our Sunday morning discussions to write the following. As I was writing it, I found that one thing led to another, and therefore, it has become wordy and probably too pedantic. Nevertheless, I offer it to you.
Cliff
According to the 2nd story of creation (Genesis 2), God created man (adham) out of the ground (adamah) and breathed into his nostrils "the breath of life" ("Ruach," also known as "Spirit"). Of course, this was this author's way of trying not only to make sense of how life came upon the earth, but how human life is special and different from other forms of life. These stories are not meant to be understood literally, but taken as stories to help explain the mystery of life. Since that writing, however, we have continued to use the word "Spirit" as a power that is outside the natural order. Yet, breath is a part of the natural order. Ruach, however is something more than air; it is the breath that makes us human. This was to say that human life was more than the life of a goat or the life of a tree. Human life for this author was special, so the problem for him/her/them is to tell the story so that the special nature of humans is emphasized. The problem is that it says nothing to identify the “name” of the “one” who gives life to humans. We might infer that since humans possess Ruach, humans contain the nature of the divine. This is the same specialness that is conveyed by the author/s of the first creation story where it says that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." Here again it is not the author's intention to identify the Creator, but simply to state that men and women are created beings. Humans are a part of nature, but are special, i.e., created in the image of one who is supreme. It is an attempt to teach others something of the mystery of life. This leads me to understand God as being as close to us as our breath.

God is unknowable. Yet, when the authors looked around them and saw that humans were somehow more than plants and animals, they attempted to understand this mystery and help others to do the same. Humans have the capability of thought, of reason, of developing language, of creating tools. The thinking of the day said, humans must somehow be associated/connected with a "being" which is outside of creation. Since there was a school of thought that said, there are many gods that live outside of creation, the "being" which created humans must be a god, but not simply a god, but THE GOD, which is over and above all gods and creation. This may have been an attempt to refute the notion that there are multiple gods that rule the creation, hence, the beginning of the notion that there is one and only one God.

The point that I am trying to make here is that the characters in the Bible stories strain to understand the breath of life, Ruach. They were not satisfied with old thinking. All through the Bible we discover people who are on the cutting edge of thought and action. This straining to learn and to become more than we already are, has led to the quest for scientists to continually learn more about the universe.

Moses, for instance, wants to name the entity that breathed life into humans. The author/s of the story of Moses want to emphasize that the one whom they have named "God" or “LORD” is THE SUPREME BEING, (not a scientific theory, but a statement of faith and hope) so the authors created a story whereby Moses, a great leader of the Hebrew people, encounters a "being” i.e., one unlike any other being, who communicates with him" in a burning bush which is not consumed. Of course this is fantastic. It is meant to be awesome. (It also elevates Moses to a position of authority.) When Moses asks the "being" in the burning bush his/her/its name, the only answer Moses receives is, "Say to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:13 ff.). "I AM" can be translated, "BEING," which also might be interpreted as "the breath of life" or "Ruach," or Spirit. In my words, “The Ultimate Spirit of life has sent me to you.”

It is also interesting that Paul Tillich attempts to find a name for God. He calls God, "The Ground of Being" or in Hebrew, the Adamah (ground) of Ruach (the breath of life.)

The Biblical writers wanted a "name" for "The Breath of Life." Thousands of years later we still want to find a "name" for the "breath of life!" The writers of the biblical books called the "breath of life" by many names: Yahweh, Spirit, LORD, Elohim, El-Shaddai, Adonai, G-d, Creator, and several others, I am sure. The name “God” became so sacred that the Hebrews were prohibited from uttering or writing it. The early church leaders called The Breath of Life by the names of Father, King, Holy Spirit, and Shepherd. The Gospel of John calls God the “Word” or Logos,” which is the force that precedes the known world. Many of the names by which we know the Breath of Life are descriptive rather than an attempt to name God. We say that God is light; God is love. Even the Trinitarian formula, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, is meant to be descriptive rather than an attempt to name God. Unfortunately, those who have been called to be leaders and spokes-persons for believers, have had other axes to grind, therefore, they have proclaimed that anyone who believes in these things will inherit eternal life; all others are lost until such time as they come to believe, a notion which must be actively rejected, for this is legalism of the highest order.

What does all of this have to say to us? This is my answer or as a preacher, my sermon: The Bible is not an authoritative set of rules, which says, "Obey" or go to hell. The Bible for me contains stories that help to teach us to grow in our understanding of all that there is to comprehend. The intellectual quest to know our creator/God/Breath of Life/Yahweh/ Elohim/Shepherd/Father is a quest that has its roots in our beginnings as modern human beings, and it is not wrong to try to discover a name that is descriptive for Ultimate Being. Most of our names will be description, rather than identification, because the one we seek to discover is unknowable by intellect alone. For me, this says, "Continue trying to find a suitable descriptive name for "The Breath of Life." It says, "Continue searching for a name that is meaningful for us, just as those who came before us searched for a name that was meaningful for them.” The implication of this is that humans must not be passive spectators but active explorers, who seek to discover all that there is in creation. The ability to do that makes us unlike anything else in all of creation. What a gift!

-----------------

Spirit of the Living God

2009-04-27T10:17:00.005-04:00

This past Sunday our discussion group was studying Chapter Ten of Lloyd Geering’s book, ‘Christianity without God’. Chapter Ten is titled ‘Why Christianity must become non-theistic’.

Geering states, near the beginning of the Chapter, “If we think of God as ‘a superhuman person regarded as having power over nature and human fortunes’, we are using a descriptive definition. But if we take ‘God’ to refer to the highest values which motivate us, then we are using a functional definition.”

Someone mentioned the confusion this causes when we use the word ‘God’ to refer to two different things (definitions). It often becomes difficult to discern which ‘God’ the speaker or writer is referring to. Several people agreed, adding that even if one knows that the speaker is referring to the functional definition, confusion is created because of the ‘baggage’ surrounding the word ‘God’; caused by several thousand years of using the descriptive definition.

We discussed the desire to refer to the functional definition with a new or different term but this would, admittedly, cause great consternation and anxiety among those Christians who are not ready, willing or able to move away from the descriptive definition. The word ‘Ruach’ (the Hebrew word for spirit or breath of life) was mentioned. Ruach might be used to refer to “the highest values which motivate us”, i.e. love, compassion, tolerance, inclusiveness, justice. Expressed is this way, ‘the Ruach of life’, might give rise to an utterance of our new meaning for the word ‘God’.

Still, for those not disposed to advancing the intellectual integrity of the Church, this would seem unnecessary, even blasphemes.

Later, during the morning worship service, the congregation sang the familiar old hymn, ‘Spirit of the Living God’….

Spirit of the Living God, fall afresh on me,
Spirit of the Living God, fall afresh on me.
Melt me, mold me, fill me, use me.
Spirit of the Living God, fall afresh on me.
As I sang the words of this song, my thoughts went back to our group discussion, and I began to ask myself.... “ When we refer to the functional definition of ‘God’ as love, compassion, tolerance, inclusiveness, and justice… are we not referring to how we as humans ought interact with each other in living out our lives? Is it not a manifestation of the Ultimate expression of life itself?” And in this context are we not speaking of the ‘Spirit of a Living God’?

This thinking does not solve the confusion factor mentioned earlier, but perhaps it could serve to help those who are concerned about the baggage surrounding the word ‘God’ when used in the functional context.

I’ll let you decide…..

barry e

Dedication to Reality

2009-04-23T08:47:00.007-04:00

Excerpt from 'The Road Less Traveled' - M. Scott Peck

….The third tool of discipline or technique of dealing with the pain of problem solving, which must be continually be employed if our lives are to be healthy and our spirits are to grow, is dedication to the truth. Superficially, this should be obvious, For truth is reality. That which is false is unreal. The more clearly we see the reality of the world, the better equipped we are to deal with the world. The less clearly we see the reality of the world – the more our minds are befuddled by falsehood, misperceptions and illusions – the less able we will be to determine correct courses of action and make wise decisions. Our view of reality is like a map with which to navigate the terrain of life. If the map is true and accurate, we will generally know where we are, and if we have decided where we want to go, we will generally know how to get there. If the map is false and inaccurate, we generally will be lost.

While this is obvious, it is something that most people to a greater or lesser degree choose to ignore. They ignore it because our route to reality is not easy. First of all, we are not born with maps; we have to make them, and the making requires effort. The more effort we make to appreciate and perceive reality, the larger and more accurate our maps will be. But many do not want to make this effort. Some stop making it by the end of adolescence. Their maps are small and sketchy, their views of the world narrow and misleading. By the end of middle age most people have given up the effort. They feel certain that their maps are complete and their Weltanschauung (worldview) is correct (indeed even sacrosanct), and they are no longer interested in new information. It is as if they are tired. Only a relative and fortunate few continue until the moment of death exploring the mystery of reality, ever enlarging and refining and redefining their understanding of the world and what is true.

But the biggest problem of map-making is not that we have to start from scratch, but that if our maps are to be accurate we have to continually revise them. The world itself is constantly changing. Glaciers come, glaciers go. Cultures come, cultures go. There is too little technology, there is too much technology. Even more dramatically, the vantage point from which we view the world is constantly and quite rapidly changing. When we are children we are dependent, powerless. As adults we may be powerful. Yet in illness or an infirm old age we may become powerless and dependent again. When we have children to care for, the world looks different from when we have none; when we are raising infants, the world seems different from when we are raising adolescents. When we are poor, the world looks different from when we are rich. We are daily bombarded with new information as to the nature of reality. If we are to incorporate this information, we must continually revise our maps, and sometimes when enough new information has accumulated, we must make very major revisions. The process of making revisions, particularly major revisions, is painful, sometimes excruciatingly painful. And herein lies the major source of many of the ills of mankind.

What happens when one has striven long and hard to develop a working view of the world, a seemingly useful, workable map, and then is confronted with new information suggesting that that view is wrong and the map needs to be largely redrawn? The painful effort required seems frightening, almost overwhelming. What we do more often than not, and usually unconsciously, is to ignore the new information. Often this act of ignoring is much more than passive. We may denounce the new information as false, dangerous, heretical, the work of the devil. We may actually crusade against it, and even attempt to manipulate the world so as to make it conform to our view of reality. Rather than try to change the map, an individual may try to destroy the new reality. Sadly, such a person may expend much more energy ultimately in defending an outmoded view of the world, than would have been required to revise and correct it in the first place.

- M. Scott Peck

--------------------

Bishop Spong Q&A

2009-03-24T09:17:00.006-04:00

Stephen Argent of Sussex, United Kingdom, writes:

Thank you for the stimulation of your published works and weekly newsletter. My question concerns the pastoral care of those Christians who do not have the intellectual capacity or strength of character to tolerate the ambiguity of your message. Rightly or wrongly their "simple" faith sustains them and many would be fatally undermined should they be confronted by doubts concerning such issues as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. Is it right to leave their views unchallenged, or should gentle sensitivity necessitate a less direct approach? I am aware that I will appear patronizing in posing this question, but from your own pastoral experience how have you dealt with this matter?

Dear Stephen,

Your question is a frequent one, but in my opinion it reveals things under the surface that I believe need to be faced.

First, is your concern really for those whose "simple" faith is being disturbed by developing knowledge? Frequently I find this question asked by one who is himself disturbed, but projects it on to others.

Second, are you really suggesting that truth should be compromised for the sake of those who might not be able to understand? Does that not make religion a bit of an opiate for the people?

Third, if truth is to be compromised in the realm of the church for the sake of those who might not understand or for those you call simple believers, has not the church become totalitarian? Is that not an example of control by giving people security when they cannot deal with truth? Is such a formula followed in any other discipline of human knowledge? Is religion somehow virtuous when it does what would be deplored in any other human arena?

Fourth, the pursuit of truth in religion is never imposed on people by force. That is not the nature of liberal education. The only people who seem to me to impose specific religious answers on anyone are those evangelical Protestants or conservative Catholics who believe that they possess the unchanging truth of God.

Fifth, the task of the Christian is to love "the least of these" our brothers and sisters. Seeking to protect them from uncomfortable truth is not just patronizing as your letter suggests, it is both demeaning and dehumanizing.

Finally, one of my professors once said, "Any God who can be killed ought to be killed." To which I would add, any faith that can be undermined should be undermined. A God or a faith that needs you or me to prop it up has already died long ago. You do not need to defend a living God. Only dead gods seem to require that.

– John Shelby Spong

-----------------

Legitimate reporting or Religious bias?

2009-03-17T08:55:00.007-04:00

This letter was written to the Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff, January 17, 1990, in response to a story that run on New Year’s Eve about a tragic multi-vehicle accident in the fog. Many lives were Lost. It was written by Mr. Dan Barker, former Baptist minister and evangelist.
I read with dismay your front page December 31 stories about the tragic pile-up on I-40. Who would not be saddened by such a horror?

I was surprised, however, by what appears to be an unnecessary intrusion of religious bias into the related story, “Family thankful to survive horror.” It is not inappropriate for a reporter to quote the religious beliefs of interviewees, or to mention religion if it is relevant to the story, as long as it is objective and balanced. Sweitzer’s piece, however, seems to cross the line from reporting to Christian cheerleading.

The Singletons prayed before leaving on their trip, and it is their belief that this prayer kept them alive. They are entitled to this belief, but Sweitzer says they “know who saved them.” He gives the complete irrelevant report that “Singleton’s wife talked earnestly to one trucker and he became a born again Christian on the spot.” Assuming that this is a good thing, Assuming that your readers would know what is a born again Christian, and doing nothing to move the story. If the trucker had converted to Islam during the tragety, would that have been deemed relevant?

The praise and thanksgiving should go to the school districts that helped with buses, to the Flagstaff police and fire departments who saved lives, to the expert medical care of the Flagstaff Medical Center, and to the humanitarian efforts of the Red Cross. These are human, secular groups that put compassion into action. It is understandable that individuals will turn to their faith for comfort in times of distress, but using an occasion to thank and recognize a deity is ludicrous.

Why would a deity allow such an accident? Were those who were killed and injured undeserving of protection? Did the victims not pray hard enough that day? When the accident first started too occur, when the first vehicle went out of control, did did the watchful deity say, “Okay, here we go! Let’s see. Car #6 swerve this way because you haven’t prayed all week. Truck #4 can totally flip out of control because the driver missed church last week. Oh look! Van #3 has occupants who prayed this morning; OK smash the van but not too hard, they can probably scramble out and up the hill to observe how I punish the atheist in the station wagon, and let’s see. Yes! I’ll crush the mother, father, and sister, but let the one little girl live for a few hours.” And so on.

Who would love such a monster?

Did it occur to the Singletons. Or the reporter. That if they had not spent time praying that morning before leaving on their trip. Their car might have been a mile or two farther up the road (depending on how long they prayed), avoiding the accident altogether?

Let’s ask the injured (we can’t talk to the fatalities) if any of them prayed that morning. It was the Sabbath, after all. How many of them are (were) deeply religious people? What kind of message does this insensitive story send to those less fortunate?

One of the survivors of the crash of flight 232 in Iowa is an atheist and secular humanist, Peter Wernick. He credits his survival with the heroic human efforts of the pilots and with luck. Many Christians died in that crash. Let’s hear the Singleton’s story. But let’s be careful to avoid ‘Bible-belt journalism” in the reporting.

Dan Barker

------------------

The Gapless God

2009-03-10T10:18:00.011-04:00

Jim Burklo is the Associate Dean of Religious Life at the University of Southern California. He serves on the board of The Center for Progressive Christianity.

Recently, at the University of Southern California, I've found myself engaged in conversations about the nature, or super-nature, of God. A few weeks ago, I attended a talk for the evangelical Christian club at our medical school. (The title of the talk was "Why I Am Not an Atheist" - which, sure enough, raised the hackles of our atheist medical students, one of whom showed up to complain. "How would our Muslim students feel," the student asked, "if the title of this talk was 'Why I Am Not a Muslim'?" A really good question....) The speaker proceeded to give the usual arguments, unscientific and illogical, but invoking science and logic, for the existence of a supernatural God. You can look up all these arguments on the internet. The argument from time, Pascal's wager, the argument from morality. If any of them were convincing, then we'd all be convinced... but they aren't, and we're not.

At the question and answer period, I said, "As a progressive Christian, I have found a way to experience God without having to go through this exercise of trying to prove the existence of God. I don't need to believe in a supernatural God to be Christian, so this effort to account for such a God through science and logic isn't necessary. Your arguments fail because they are tautological: effectively they depend on the initial assumption that there is a supernatural God outside the universe who created it and tinkers with it from outside, so it is no wonder that they circle back to that conclusion."

I have yet to meet anyone who became a Christian or came to believe in a supernatural God as a result of any of these propositions. I've met many hundreds of people who became evangelical or fundamentalist Christians because they came into contact with Christians whom they admired and with whom they wanted to belong. They accepted the supernaturalist doctrines of these Christian groups because that was the price of admission. Seeing later that there were serious logical and scientific challenges to supernaturalism, some of them sought out arguments based on science or logic to give support for their beliefs. But not once have I met a person who started down the Christian path on the strength of these explanations.

A few nights ago our Office of Religious Life hosted a stage performance of "Dangerous Descent", written by Colin Cox, at USC. It's a dramatization of the debates between evolutionary biologists and proponents of the "intelligent design" version of Christian creationism. It pits 'scientism', a stridently atheistic expression of the evolutionary biology position, against the supernaturalistic Christian account of the emergence of life on earth. The play made no reference to the progressive Christian movement, which does not posit a conflict between Darwin and faith. But despite and perhaps because of its polemical nature, the play was a good conversation-starter for the audience after the performance. The actors, the playwright, an evolutionary biologist at USC, and myself were the panel initiating the after-show discussion. Of the hundred-odd students and staff who attended, it appeared that a handful were proponents of the 'intelligent design' perspective.

One of them spoke up and said that there was no way that the complexity of certain features of life could be accounted for by a process of random mutation, so an intelligent Creator must have formed those features. I answered: "You are completely entitled to your religious belief. But in order for your idea to be scientific, you have to explain how God did what you say he did." 'Intelligent design' does not and cannot offer such explanations. 'Intelligent design' rests on the idea that God is supernatural. But to explain the processes by which God creates would suggest that God's acts are part of the realm of nature. This would deny the supernaturalism, and thus the existence, of God.

Michael Dowd, author of "Thank God for Evolution!", is the nation's foremost "evangelist" for celebrating the compatibility of sound science and good religion. In a recent blog, Michael points out the consequences of the biblically literalistic defense of supernaturalism. "Is it any wonder that young people are leaving religion by the millions, if this is the 'good news' they are offered? Is it any wonder that the new atheists continue to ride bestseller lists if religion is equated with such 'supernaturalism'?"

All the arguments for 'intelligent design' are appeals to belief in the "God of the gaps", a supernatural deity whose existence is supposed to account for the existence of things that science can't yet explain. In the "Dangerous Descent" play, the actor advocating for 'intelligent design' constantly complains whenever the actor advocating for evolutionary biology says 'not yet'. But science is all about seeking out explanations for that which has 'not yet' been understood. All that has so far been discovered was once 'not yet' explained. Science thrives on the quest to close the very 'gaps' that supernaturalist Christians invoke as evidence of the existence of their God. The "God of the gaps" has been in retreat for centuries now, as each gap is filled by new discoveries.

But there is a gapless God: the One who is one with the process of evolution and ongoing creation. The One who is one with nature. The One who is a verb that moves from within, rather than a noun that stands outside the universe and gives directions. The One who is existence itself, and thus whose existence is pointless to prove. The One whose presence we feel in prayer and worship, the One who is the essence of the awe we feel when we consider the natural marvels that surround us. The God we know in the glow of wonderment, as we consider both our knowledge and our ignorance of how the universe works.

Jim Burklo

----------------

Excerpt from The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan

2009-03-02T11:03:00.007-05:00

I am sometimes accused of sounding arrogant and perhaps dismissive when I debate religious topics with some of my ‘believing’ friends. These few paragraphs by Carl Sagan seem to be written just for me….perhaps they will have meaning for you as well.... barry e
In a life short and uncertain, it seems heartless to do anything that might deprive people of the consolation of faith when science cannot remedy their anguish. Those who cannot bear the burden of science are free to ignore its precepts. But we cannot have science in bits and pieces, applying it where we feel safe and ignoring it where we feel threatened – again, because we are not wise enough to do so. Except by sealing the brain off into separate airtight compartments, how is it possible to fly in airplanes, listen to the radio or take antibiotics while holding that the Earth is around 10,000 years old or that all Sagittarians are gregarious and affable?

Have I ever heard a skeptic wax superior and contemptuous? Certainly. I’ve even heard, to my retrospective dismay, that unpleasant tome in my own voice. There are human imperfections on both sides of this issue. Even when it’s applied sensitively, scientific skepticism may come across as arrogant, dogmatic, heartless, and dismissive of the feelings and deeply held beliefs of others. And it must be said, some scientists and dedicated skeptics apply this tool as a blunt instrument, with little finesse. Sometimes it looks as if the skeptical conclusion came first, that contentions were dismissed before , not after, the evidence was examined. All of us cherish our beliefs. They are to a degree, self-defining. When someone comes along who challenges our belief system as insufficiently well-based – or who, like Socrates, merely asks embarrassing questions that we haven’t thought of, or demonstrates that we’ve swept key underlying assumptions under the rug – it becomes much more than a search for knowledge. It feels like a personal assault.

The scientist who first proposed to consecrate doubt as a prime virtue of the inquiring mind made it clear that it was a tool and not an end in itself. Rene Descartes wrote, …
I did not imitate the skeptics who doubt only for doubting’s sake, and pretend to be always undecided; on the contrary, my whole intention was to arrive at a certainty, and to dig away the drift and the sand until I reached the rock or the clay beneath.
In the way that skepticism is sometimes applied to issues of public concern, there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact that, deluded or not supporters of superstition and pseudoscience are human beings with real feelings, who like the skeptics are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.

Clearly there are limits to the uses of skepticism. There is some cost-benefit analysis which must be applied, and if the comfort, consolation and hope delivered by mysticism and superstition is high, and the dangers of belief comparatively low, should we not keep our misgivings to ourselves? But the issue is tricky. Imagine that you enter a big-city taxicab and the moment you get settled in, the driver begins a harangue about the supposed iniquities and inferiorities of another ethnic group. Is your best course to keep quiet, bearing in mind that silence conveys assent?

Or is it your moral responsibility to argue with him, to express outrage, even to leave the cab – because you know that every silent assent will encourage him next time, and every vigorous dissent will cause him next time to think twice? Likewise if we offer to much silent assent about mysticism and superstition – even when it seems to be doing a little good – we encourage a general climate in which skepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom.

-------------------

Bishop Spong Q&A 2/19/2009

2009-02-23T08:51:00.002-05:00

Rick, via the Internet, writes:

You mentioned that there are two sets of the Ten Commandments, and that one of them includes the injunction against boiling a kid in its mother's milk. I believe you said this version was in Deuteronomy. But I looked up the Deuteronomy version, chapter 5, verses 6-21, and I find no reference to boiling. In fact this recitation of the Ten Commandments appears to be in complete agreement with the recitation in Exodus, chapter 20, verses 3-17. Would you please explain where I would find the Ten Commandments recitation that includes the boiling the kid reference you described? Thanks.

Dear Rick,

You must have misheard. I said there are three versions of the Ten Commandments. The oldest one is Exodus 34, the second is Exodus 20 and the last is Deuteronomy 5. It is in Exodus 34 that you will find the injunction about "boiling a kid in its mother's milk." This version is almost totally cultic.

If you look again at Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, you will discover that there is not "complete agreement" as you suggest. The primary difference is in the commandment about the Sabbath. Deuteronomy suggests that the Sabbath was to be observed because they had once been slaves in Egypt and even slaves must have a day of rest. In Exodus 20, the original Sabbath Day commandment has been edited to claim that God, resting from the work of creation on the Sabbath, was the reason for its continued observance. That addition to the original fourth commandment was from the quill of the priestly writers in the Babylonian exile (roughly from 596 to 450 BCE, depending on which return from exile was the last one), who also wrote the seven day creation story at the same time.

That creation story did not exist when Deuteronomy was written. So the versions of the Ten Commandments are really four: the primitive Exodus 34 version from the "J" writer in the 10th century BCE; the familiar one from Exodus 20, which is originally from the "E" writer in the 9th century BCE but was substantially edited by the "P" writer in the 6th century BCE; and the Deuteronomy 5 version, which is from the 7th century BCE and from the hand of the Deuteronomic writer. The biblical writers accounted for these several versions by suggesting that because Moses broke the tablets, God had to redo them and God did not redo them in the same way.

The fact is that these rules, like all covenant rules, emerged through the life of the nation of Israel and probably always had several versions. That is not a problem unless you are a fundamentalist.

– John Shelby Spong

A response to last weeks article

2009-02-17T13:35:00.003-05:00

My younger brother (he’s 70, I’m 72) wrote a reply to last week’s entry about freethinking Muslims. I thought you might be interested in reading it. For the past several years he has traveled the mid-East, consulting with universities in Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Oman. He has worked with individual universities and with groups of universities on a variety of projects.

That's an encouraging article, and I applaud the openness and visibility of their statement. The good news is that there are many muslims who think that way. In fact, there are many more who believe that way than dare to make such a public declaration. the fact that some do helps the others. In the long run, I believe this position will win out and Islam will join the modern world. However, I do think it will be a long time coming.

Right now we have a few Arab countries that are trying to move this way - Jordan, UAE, Qatar, and to a lesser extent Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain. And you have mixtures of things going on that highlight some of the issues, such as Saudi Arabia under the fundamentalist theocratic control of the Mahabis and simultaneously building strong universities and bringing in top scholars. Oil money provides a great buffering for rulers in times of transition and it slows the pace of change in a case like Saudi Arabia while it allows change to move more swiftly in a case like Kuwait.

With the enormous strengthening of higher education in the middle east coupled with the impossibility of totally controlling information in this internet age, things will be changing at different paces in different countries. However, the transition will not be easy or without conflict. Good examples of countries with conflict are Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt. As any threatened group does, the Islamists (followers of Islam who want to establish theocratic governments) become more fanatically fundamental when their traditions, and especially their power, weaken. We can only hope for more examples of enlightened muslims speaking out as in the statement you sent. And we need more examples of the benefits of secular democracy. The current economic situation hurts perceptions ("See the greed of secularism and what it brings."). The election of Obama was a very strong positive signal ("See that democracy is real and works."). In time more of the Arab leaders such as in Jordan and Qatar will push for democracy, and in other countries the people will demand more freedom from autocrats whether their rulers or their clerics.

In the meantime I suggest we applaud, support, and befriend muslims who take such clear stands for secular societies. They often come under intense pressure from within their muslim community.

M-----

Encouraging news from the Islamic World?

2009-02-10T10:10:00.003-05:00

Our study group has often questioned whether there were ‘freethinkers’ in other religions, as there are within Christianity. This past Sunday we read a statement from the Internet that leads us to believe there are! Below is a proclamation form a Muslim group that gives an example.

Institution for the Secularization of Islamic Society

Mission: We believe that Islamic society has been held back by an unwillingness to subject its beliefs, laws and practices to critical examination, by a lack of respect for the rights of the individual, and by an unwillingness to tolerate alternative viewpoints or to engage in constructive dialogue.The Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society (ISIS) has been formed to promote the ideas of rationalism, secularism, democracy and human rights within Islamic society.ISIS promotes freedom of expression, freedom of thought and belief, freedom of intellectual and scientific inquiry, freedom of conscience and religion – including the freedom to change one’s religion or belief - and freedom from religion: the freedom not to believe in any deity.

Statement of Principles

1. We share the ideals of a democratic society, and a secular state that does not endorse any religion, religious institution, or any religious dogma. The basis for its authority is in man-made law, not in religious doctrine or in divine revelation. In a theocracy of the type that Islamic fundamentalists wish to establish, sovereignty belongs to god, but in a democracy sovereignty belongs to the people. We therefore favor the firm separation of religion and state: without such a separation there can be no freedom from tyranny, and such a separation is the sine qua non for a secular state.

2. We believe in the primacy of the rule of law: a common civil code under which all men and women have equal protection of their rights and freedoms.

3. We endorse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights without qualification. We are particularly concerned to promote and protect the rights of women and those with minority beliefs: all should be equal before the law.

4. We are dedicated to combating fanaticism, intolerance, violent fundamentalism, and terrorism by showing the intellectual inadequacy of the fanatics’ programmes, the historical inaccuracy of their claims, the philosophical poverty of their arguments, and the totalitarian nature of their thought.We defend the right of free inquiry, and the free expression of ideas. We therefore reserve the right to examine the historical foundations of Islam, and to explain the rise and fall of Islam by the normal mechanisms of human history.

Additional info: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis

A Violinist in the Metro

2009-02-04T09:32:00.003-05:00

Here is a thought provoking article I found in a church newsletter this week. Hope you enjoy it... barry e

A man sat at a metro station in Washington, DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that thousands of people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.

Three minutes went by and a middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule.

A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping continued to walk.

A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late to work.

The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother dragging him along, but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.

In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing the silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

No one knew this but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written with a violin worth 3.5 million dollars.

Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua sold out a theater in Boston and the seats averaged $100.

This is a true story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?

One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be:

If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written… how many other things are we missing?

-- author unknown

Defining morals and morality

2009-01-27T09:27:00.002-05:00

From the book "The Final Superstition" - by Joseph L. Daleiden

To define a principle as a “God given right” is an attempt to universalize the principle to be applicable to all times and circumstances. It also, in effect, removes the principle from examination and validation in terms of its impact on human welfare. The danger here is that when an authoritative religion is vested with the infallible authority to determine what constitutes a moral right or moral obligation, it will structure the rules of morality to serve the interests of the religious institution itself before the interests of humankind. When morality becomes controlled and defined by an elite, whether an authoritarian state or religion, it is structured primarily to serve those in power.

Humankind probably devised some rudimentary moral laws long before it created organized religions. William James recognized that moral behavior could be explained by purely natural means: “instinct and utility between them can safely be trusted to carry on the social business of punishment and praise.” James may have been overly simplistic and optimistic in this view, but he was on the right track.\

According to Paul Beattie, the origins of morality can be traced primarily to the role model of the family. Parenthood, which originally was largely instinctive, by virtue of the nurturing of infants and care of young children, provided a role model, not in terms of what was taught, but in the relationships involved. Seeing the benefits of mutual dependence and harmony existing in successful families generated the idea that society could benefit if this selfless relationship could be extended to the “family of man.”

Social custom was the device used to transmit moral codes which stood the test of time. Customs prevent each individual from acting in a socially destructive way and facilitate the transmission of values from one generation to the next. While customs are not fluid, they are sufficiently plastic to permit remolding if the needs of the day demand it. Religion, on the other hand, rigidly formalizes moral structures, thus inhibiting further evolution.

Nevertheless, sociobiologists such as E. O. Wilson caution that it would be wrong to reject all moral values and rules of religion out of hand, since the real origin of those values is not a mystical God or religious institution per se, but rather the genetically transmitted disposition to altruism (or at least reciprocity). Therefore religions can be of some benefit if they effectively reinforce certain moral values even if the theological basis for accepting those values is erroneous. Still, each moral value and rule must be periodically reviewed for appropriateness and relevance, and this is where religions usually fail.

Bishop Spong's Q&A

2009-01-12T10:03:00.003-05:00

Joan from Highlands, North Carolina, writes:

Do you believe in heaven and hell, the blissful heaven and the burning hell? And do you believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior?

Dear Joan,

Answering your two questions is impossible until some terms are defined and some explanations are given. When you define heaven as "the blissful heaven" and hell as "the burning hell," you reveal an evangelical mindset that asserts a particular understanding that you are requesting that I either affirm or deny. It is to bind the discussion to your frame of reference. That immediately suggests that you do not want real answers, you want affirmation. I cannot give you that nor would I be interested in doing so.

With that background, however, let me proceed to respond. I think it would be fair to say that I do not believe in a blissful heaven or a burning hell as evangelicals define those terms. 0You define heaven and hell as places of reward and punishment where God evens out life here on Earth. I regard that as primitive, childlike thinking that transforms God into a parent figure who delights in rewarding goodness and punishing sinfulness. This portrays God as a supernatural, judging figure and it violates everything I believe about both God and human life.

If anyone pursues goodness in the hope of gaining rewards or avoiding punishment, that person has not escaped the basic self-centeredness of human life and it becomes obvious that such a person is motivated primarily by self-interest. The Christian life is ultimately revealed in the power to live for others, to give ourselves away. It is not motivated by bliss or torment. Both of those images are little more than human wish fulfillment.

The fiery pits of hell are not an essential part of the Christian story. If one would take Matthew's gospel and especially the book of Revelation out of the Bible, most of the references to hell as a fiery place of torment would disappear. That is a quite foreign theme to Paul, Mark, Luke and John. Evangelicals never study the Bible deeply enough to make this distinction. They basically talk about a book they do not understand.

When you ask about "believing in Jesus Christ as your personal savior" you are using stylized evangelical language. That language has no appeal at all for me. To assert the role of savior for Jesus implies a definition of human life as sinful, fallen and helpless. It assumes the ancient myth that proclaimed that we were created perfect only to fall into sin from which we need to be rescued. It was a popular definition before people understood about our evolutionary background. We have been evolving toward humanity for billions of years.

Our problem is not that we have fallen from some pristine perfection into a sinful state from which we need to be saved, it is that we need to be empowered to become something that we have never been, namely fully human beings. So the idea that I need a savior to save me from a fall that never happened and to restore me to a status that I never possessed is in our time all but nonsensical. It is because we do not understand the nature of human life that we do not understand the Jesus role. I see in Jesus the power of love that empowers us to be more deeply and fully human and so I do not know how to translate your questions.

Sorry, but the old evangelical language that you use is badly dated and I believe quite distorting to my understanding of what Christianity is all about.

– John Shelby Spong

The Karl Marx Quote

2009-01-02T10:16:00.003-05:00

Karl Marx is perhaps the most eloquent and thought provoking nonbeliever of all time, and perhaps his “religion is the opium of the masses” is still the best one-liner in the business.

But as famous as that zinger is, it’s too bad that most people have never read the sentences that come before and after it. Marx was a whole lot more sympathetic to religious faith than most people give him credit for. He saw religion as a source of solace that should only be abolished until the sources of people’s pain—an unfair economic system—had been eradicated.

“Religious suffering, ” he wrote in 1844, “is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

Marx wasn’t just another hater of religion as a childish fantasy or a retreat from rationality. He saw faith as a symptom and not the disease, and he was interested in faith not in terms of right and wrong but because of what it told him about the human condition.

Bishop Spong Q&A 12/2008

2008-12-19T08:45:00.001-05:00

William from Newmarket, Ontario, writes:

If the roots of the Christ story are indeed in Egyptian mythology (according to Tom Harpur's book The Pagan Christ) or the continuation of Jewish Epic History (according to your Jesus for the Non-Religious) then who were the writers of the gospels? How did they acquire the expertise to make such a complex adaptation and what drove them, in spite of the risk of persecution, to adapt these myths to the person of Jesus of Nazareth, either as if this person was an historical figure, or if he never existed?

Dear William,

The writers of the gospels were Jewish people who represented the second or third Christian generation. They wrote in Greek, not Aramaic, which was the language Jesus and his disciples spoke. The gospels — at least the first three: Mark, Matthew and Luke — are the products of the Synagogue, which had shaped the Jesus story dramatically over the 40-70 year period that transpired between the crucifixion and the gospel writing tradition.

I disagree with Tom Harpur's thesis, for I do not think Egyptian mythology can shape the Jesus story in as short a period of time as existed. I note that Paul writes in Galatians, a book that is usually dated in the early 50's, that he had conversed with Peter and other "pillars" of the Christian movement within four to nine years of his conversion, which scholars date one to six years after the crucifixion. Mythology needs more time than that to develop.

People need to embrace the fact that the Jesus story was kept alive, recalled and celebrated in the Synagogue, for that is where the followers of Jesus worshiped every Sabbath. The Synagogue and the Christian Church did not separate until 88 C.E.

I am quite sure Jesus of Nazareth was a person of history in whom and through whom Jewish people believed that they had experienced the presence of the holy God. It was in that experience that Christianity was born. The earliest articulation of that faith came from Paul who wrote, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to God."

How we tell the world of the meaning of that experience is still what Christianity is all about.

– John Shelby Spong

On Faith & Beliefs

2008-12-09T10:14:00.004-05:00

(A paraphrase of Lloyd Geering)

Once we distinguish between faith and the holding of certain beliefs Christian faith can be seen in quite a new light. The very act of discarding worn-out beliefs, far from demonstrating a lack of faith, may in fact be just the opposite. It may open the door for genuine faith to operate again. Indeed, the modern doubter who rejects the Biblical description of God in the interest of truth may be manifesting more faith than the traditional theist.

The assertion that one needs to believe a particular set of doctrines in order to have faith is an invitation not to faith but to credulity(gullibility). There is a world of difference between child-like faith and childish credulity (gullibility).

In a remarkable little book, The Faith to Doubt, M. Holmes Hartshorne wrote,

People today are not in need of assurances about the truth of doubtful beliefs. They need the courage to doubt. They need the faith by which to reject their idols. The churches cannot preach to this age if they stand outside of it, living in the illusory security of yesterday’s beliefs. These lie about us broken, and we cannot by taking thought raise them from the dead.

Doubt is not the enemy of faith but its ally, as the enemy of false beliefs. All beliefs should be continually subjected to doubt and critical examination and, when found to be false or inadequate, they should be discarded.

Quote from Joseph Campbell – ‘An Open Life’

2008-11-20T09:38:00.002-05:00

What the Eastern teachers are telling us is that the important thing is not what happened thousands of years ago when the Buddha was born or when Jesus was crucified: what’s important is what’s happening in you now. And what’s important is not your membership in a religious community: it’s what that membership is doing to your psyche.

The divine lives within you. Our Western religions tend to put the divine outside the earthly world and in God, in heaven. But the whole sense of the Oriental is that the kingdom of heaven is within you. Who is in heaven? God is. Where’s God? God’s within you. And what is God? God is a personification of that world-creative energy and mystery which is beyond thinking and beyond naming.

We think not only that our God has been named and known, but that he’s given us a whole set of rules. But this system of rules is not from God, it’s from man, and the rules are man’s clues as to how to get to the realization of God. …

A Response to 'The Shaping of the Lord's Prayer'

2008-11-20T09:33:00.001-05:00

From Cliff L., Retired UCC Minister....

Barry, regarding your article about the changes in the "Lord's Prayer," it is unfortunate that we cannot get back to the person known as Jesus of Nazareth. We cannot know exactly what he said. We can only know what others said about him. Many have tried to isolate the sayings and the activities of Jesus, but have failed.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer was one of the first and foremost to begin this search in his 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus' (1906). The Bible literalists insist that Jesus actually said the things that the Bible says he said, but no serious scholar of the Bible would hold to that view, I think.

This means that the "Lord's Prayer" is a misnomer. Jesus may have prayed similar words, but we have no tape recording of his actual sayings. This, of course, has implications for worship. If we are to be honest, do we keep saying, "Let's pray the words Jesus taught us to pray?" Perhaps the best we can do is to pray as Jesus "might have prayed" or "the words ascribed to Jesus."

Worship is and ought to be always changing to reflect our understanding of our faith.

The Shaping of the Lord’s Prayer

2008-11-11T09:29:00.003-05:00

“Let us now pray the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples, saying…..Our Father, who art in heaven….”.

With this (or a similar) preamble, on any given Sunday morning, millions of Christians around the world are prompted to recite the Lord’s Prayer. But is it true that the prayer we pray today is the prayer Jesus taught?

Answer: Absolutely not! The words of the Lord’s prayer have actually been changed many times by many people.

Here is a litany of some of the dramatic changes that have shaped the verbiage of the Lord’s Prayer over the past two millennium…

Biblical historians mostly agree (?) that Jesus probably spoke several one sentence prayers during his years of ministry….

“Your name be revered.”
“Let your basileia (kingdom) come.”
“Give us the bread we need for today.”
“Forgive us our debts to the extent we forgive those who are in debt to us.”
“Please don’t subject us to test after test.”

Of course, none of these things were written down at the time they occurred.

Some forty years later, in about the year 75 c.e., the writer(s) of the book we call Matthew wrote these words….

“Our Father in the heavens, your name is revered. Let your kingdom come. Enact your will on earth ,as you have in heaven. Give us the bread we need for today. Forgive us our debts to the extent we forgive those in debt to us. And please don’t subject us to test after test, but rescue us from the evil one.”

Several years later, in the early 80’s, the writer(s) of Luke wrote….

“Father, your name be revered. Let your kingdom come. Give us the bread we need day by day. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone in debt to us. And please don’t subject us to test after test.”

Then, somewhere between 100-150 c.e. a Christian document known as the Didache records these words….

“Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: for Thine is the power, and the glory, forever.”

From another church document (anon.) supposedly authored sometime in the third century, we find ….

“Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debt, to the extent we have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one, for Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.”

Today, the words that are recited have a more modern sound….

"Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.* And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen."

· * In some churches an alternate, “…forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” is used.

So, perhaps the intent, but certainly not the words of Jesus are ensconced in what we recite today as the Lord’s prayer.

Just and interesting bit of history. Enjoy…

barry e

Honesty First

2008-10-31T12:13:00.004-04:00

Many of you will remember the cartoon character named Pogo Possum... Pogo was the creation of cartoonist Walt Kelly... Pogo is remembered for many wise sayings, but perhaps the most quoted of his axioms is this one; “We have met the enemy, and he is us!” This is what is referred to as a ‘circular declaration’. WE have met the ENEMY and they are US!

The 14th century Christian theologian Eckhart von Hochheim, referred to by most writers as simply Meister Eckhart wrote a somewhat circular declaration when he wrote these words; “The eye with which I see God, and the eye with which God sees me… are one and the same eye.”

If I were to be so bold as to paraphrase Meister Eckhart in the language of Pogo Possum, it might sound like this; “We have met God, and He is us!”

Some might hear this statement and cry, blasphemy!… Others will hear it and simply ignore it, not realizing the depth of its wisdom…. Still others, in growing numbers, will hear and understand the implied message that “God and humankind are one.”

Certainly the statement, “We have meet God and He is us,” is a considerable departure from the description of the Biblical Deity, and one that requires a great deal of study and dialogue to understand.

This is, however,- in my opinion – the first point of departure that must be taken from ‘Popular’ Christianity, if we are to ever reach a more intellectually honest state of ‘Progressive’ Christianity.

Those who would skirt this most important issue in order to safeguard the comfort level of those who think they cannot deal with the loss of their “Father who art in heaven”, are simply being dishonest with both themselves AND those they profess to protect.

An honest understanding of the concept of god is an absolute requirement if we are to preserve the future of the Christian faith.

That’s what I think….. but I could be wrong !

barry e

Paul and the Doctrine of Atonement

2008-10-27T12:47:00.002-04:00

Have you ever thought you would like to travel backward in time and experience some particular event or happening from the past?

I can think of several that would interest me…. Religiously speaking, I think I would like to go back to the day Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth was received by that little group of followers. We really don’t know how little or big the group was. It could have been six people or it could have been sixty. We just don’t know.

The year was somewhere around 56AD.On that day, the people gathered either in the synagogue or perhaps someone’s home, or in some public place to have one of their number read this letter, just received, from this self-proclaimed itinerant preacher named Paul.

I have stood in the ruins of those homes in Corinth. I have walked up the steps of the synagogue there. I stood in the public meeting place and listened to part of the letter from Paul being read, ….but this was in 2005.

The church at Corinth was having problems. Apparently discipline problems among its members. Paul was writing to attempt to get them to ‘straighten up’.

I’ll not read the entire letter, just one sentence from chapter five where he writes, “For our Passover feast is ready, now that Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.”

Had I been there, that day in 56AD, I think I would have spoken up at that point and said to the reader…”Wait, wait… read that part again, please.”

“For our Passover feast is ready, now that Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.”

I may have listened in silence to the rest of the letter, but then I would have hurried to my home and searched for a piece of parchment and I would have penned a letter to be carried back to Paul (he had written from Ephesus).

I would have written something like;

“Dear Sir….We just finished the reading of your letter. Thank you for your concern for the people of this area. It is very kind of you. However, I have one question for you…. By what authority have you called this man Jesus, ‘our Passover lamb’? ….Where did you come by the idea that he was sacrificed for us?”

You see, on those simple statements, hinges the entire church doctrine of Atonement and Salvation. …Paul said it, the people accepted it, apparently without question, and for the ensuing two thousand years, it has dominated the doctrine of the Christian church ….

By what authority?… what special knowledge?…. what evidence?

The answers, of course, are …None …..none …..and none !…. No authority,… no special knowledge,… and no evidence.

Where could Paul have gotten such a story? Did he make it up? Did he have a dream? Did this thought come to him through meditation/prayer? Did he base it on his interpretation of some portion of ancient scripture? We are not given a clear indication of any of these. Yet the church has followed this vague line of self delusional thinking ever since.

I wish I could have had the opportunity to query Paul about that statement and the other similar statements he made to the Galatians, the Thessalonians, the Romans, the Ephesians and others.

Perhaps Paul, knowing that many nations and many religions of that era had deemed certain of their heroes ‘Savior’, it would be quite alright for him to promote Jesus to the same status. If he could get people to believe such a thing it would certainly strengthen his cause as well.

Paul wrote nothing of the teachings of Jesus, only that he died for the salvation of all humankind.

By what authority did he declare these things to be true?….By what special knowledge?…. What evidence?

Unfortunately the answers seem to be,…None…. None…. and none.

Copyright © Barry E Blood 2008

Pondering the Meaning of Life

2008-10-20T12:42:00.001-04:00

Excerpt from an essay titled ‘Religion and Respect’ by Simon Blackburn, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge (England)

There are two directions in which people look for the meaning of life. One is beyond life itself; this is the transcendent and ontological option. We are to fix our gaze and our hopes on another world, another way of being, that is free of the mess and sorrow, the meaningless motions and events of present life. We are to transcend the small, squalid, contingent, finite, animal nature of earthly existence. Our insignificance in this cosmos is compounded only by assurance of significance in a wider scheme of things. There is hope in another world. And if this is hard to believe, spiritual disciplines of contemplation and prayer are there to help us. Others who have made the journey, wise men and mystics, inspire us with their reports, telling us of glimpses of the world beyond.

In this picture, the source of meaning transcends the ordinary mundane world of our bounded lives and bounded visions. The literature, art, music, and practices of religion are then thought to give voice to this attitude to meaning. This is, of course, onto-religion, since the attitudes are possible only if we believe in a world beyond.

But there is another option for meaning, and for our interpretation of religious art, which is to look only within life itself. This is the immanent option. It is content with the everyday. There is sufficient meaning for human beings in the human world – the world of familiar, and even humdrum, doings and experiences. In the immanent option, the smile of the baby, the grace of the dancer, the sound of voices, the movement of a lover, give meaning to life. For some. it is activity and achievement: gaining the summit of the mountain, crossing the finish line first, finding the cure, or writing the poem.

These things last only their short time, but that does not deny them meaning. A smile does not need to go on forever in order to mean what it does. There is nothing beyond or apart from the processes of life. Furthermore, there is no one goal to which all these processes tend, but we can find something precious, value and meaning, in the processes themselves. There is no such thing as the meaning of life, but there can be many meanings within a life.

Bicyclist saved by helmet—and God’s love

2008-10-08T09:28:00.002-04:00

(This personal story came to me from a reader of this blog... He tells me he sustained several broken ribs and a broken (four places) collar bone.)

My bicycle and I were picking up speed. It was a little after two on Saturday afternoon, August 23. I was on Business Loop I-196, just past Paw Paw Drive, heading back to Zeeland. Suddenly my front wheel found its way into a two-inch gap between the asphalt shoulder and the concrete of the traffic lane.

The next thing I knew I was in the fetal position on the concrete of the traffic lane, unable to move back to the relative safety of the shoulder. But I was alive. A miracle? Had God spared me for some reason only God knew? Problem was that the God in my life doesn’t do things like that. So I figured I was alive because I had the God-given good sense to wear a helmet. Yet I still felt pretty much alone.

Then I heard someone yell, “Call 911!” and other voices nearer by saying things like, “Don’t move him” and “Don’t take his helmet off.” I could see dozens of feet and legs gathered around me. I thanked them, to which one replied something like, “We saw you fall, Of course we stopped. We couldn’t just leave you here.” Suddenly I wasn’t alone. God was there, in their care and concern. I mustered the strength to lift my head to see their faces. I thanked them again; again they assured me thanks were unnecessary. And again I saw in their faces the face of God.

I wasn’t alone. Nearest to me were a young Hispanic couple and their twin toddlers. As the husband saw my wife being escorted to the scene, he went to her and, not an English speaker, mimed that I had flown over my handlebars and landed on my head. Then (and here was God again) he tented his fingers, tipped his head, and said, “We pray.” Soon the equally caring medics arrived. On the gurney heading for the ambulance, I could see that the people who had come to my aid had parked their cars in such a way as to shield me from oncoming traffic. Another act of God’s love!

God’s love continued to show itself through the concern of the health care professionals, my wife and other relatives, people of my church and other friends. I am now more convinced than ever that our best prayers of intercession are acts of love. When others care, it is God among us. We are not alone.

Terry VandeWater
Zeeland, MI

Hope you are feeling better soon Terry........ barry e

Bishop Spong's Q&A 1/10/08

2008-10-02T10:05:00.000-04:00

Shari Miller of Denver, Colorado, writes: Why is the current Catholic Church position on transsexualism so dreadful, so lacking in compassion?

Dear Shari,

The Catholic Church, like most religious bodies, is in an inner struggle between the values of yesterday and the rising consciousness of a changing world. Because that church is also autocratic and allows so little dissent, it is very difficult for them ever to change their thinking until new truth is so established in the world at large that their position becomes embarrassing. It was not until December of 1991 that the Vatican announced that they now believed that Galileo was correct. This was only 50 years after human beings had launched space explorations, which were based on Galileo's insights. Similarly this is why their stated opinions on birth control, the role of women and homosexuality are, as you say, so lacking in compassion and dreadful.

On the other hand their attitudes toward capital punishment, war and the need to care for the poor are sometimes far more advanced than what one finds in Protestant fundamentalism.
No one can fully escape the culture and ideas that form a particular age. The rise in human consciousness toward such things as war, the role of women and homosexuality is never implemented at once by all. It grows, beginning with a single protest, until it becomes a heresy, then a movement and finally a reformation. It then becomes a new orthodoxy equally resistant to change.

You serve the Church well when you raise uncomfortable questions. I hope you will continue to do so.

–John Shelby Spong

Miscommunications and Integrity

2008-09-25T08:37:00.001-04:00

(Arthur G Broadhurst, former UCC minister, now living in Palm Coast, Florida.)

It is precisely this difficulty with saying what we mean in a way that is clear, honest and helpful that made it impossible for me to remain in a parish ministry. Parishioners and I spoke a different language, which is to say that the meanings of the words that are most crucial to Christianity are no longer meaningful. Every conversation became an occasion of miscommunication. It became impossible to use words like god, creation, resurrection, and salvation in my conversations with church people without miscommunication, knowing that what I said was misunderstood or was heard in a way different than I intended.

Religious professionals sometimes avoid the problem of miscommunication by ignoring differences in meaning or not calling attention to them, but I was not comfortable with keeping private meanings for these important but troublesome words and could not continue to use them with the knowledge that by using them without reinterpreting them I was giving the impression that I used them in the same sense they were understood (or misunderstood) by lay persons. This raised an issue of integrity for me that I could not get around.

Some of my theological school classmates and ministerial colleagues had less trouble with this issue than I did, thinking it better to adopt the admonition given to physicians as a guiding principle—‘do no harm.’ In this case, the presumed harm was to undermine the religious faith of some parishioners, and therefore (as I concluded anyway) to ignore the implications of their theological education and to carry on with the life of the parish as if their theological education was an interesting but irrelevant side trip in their educational journey.

Unfortunately, perhaps due to a conscience much too sensitive, I was not able to ignore those implications. I believed then and still believe that serious harm has been done to our understanding of Christian faith by ignoring the intellectual challenges to Christianity posed by modern secular culture. By failing to deal with the challenge of modernity in a constructive manner and by failing to translate the meaning of Christian faith into the language and culture of our secular world, we have diminished its value and relevancy to many thoughtful people in our generation and that has been a considerable disservice to the integrity and viability of Christianity.

Our failure to reinterpret Christianity as it was received from an earlier generation into language that was understandable and relevant to our modern world left us with an archaic and irrelevant Christianity that could easily be ignored. The practical effects of failing to deal with the related questions of meaning and relevancy worked to diminish the appeal and the intellectual vigor of Christianity. The brightest minds of our generation increasingly began to feel that Christianity is not so much wrong as irrelevant because it reflects a world view that is incomprehensible to the 21st Century.

One obvious effect of the failure to reinterpret Christianity for the modern world can be seen in the precipitous decline of mainline protestant denominations since the 1960s and in the related but counterintuitive rapid growth and influence of the evangelical and fundamentalist churches throughout the 1980s and 1990s not just in the United States but also in the developing nations of the world.

Fundamentalism thrives as an escapist reaction to the intellectual challenge of modernity by providing simplistic but emotionally satisfying answers to difficult theological, existential and human questions. It gained its foothold through the decline of the classical and humanistic liberal arts education which in turn results from the failure of public education, and it flourishes through an incomprehensible intellectual schizophrenia in which the 19th Century theological world view of fundamentalism is held by those who live in our modern scientific world, apparently oblivious of the logical inconsistency of these conflicting outlooks.

http://christianhumanist.net/default.aspx

More Excerpts

2008-09-12T09:47:00.001-04:00

Here are a couple more excerpts from the book, 'Shackles of the Supernatural' by William J. Fielding...

Dogma – the mainstay and bulwark of supernaturalism – in the very nature of itself is unchangeable. Revealed religion, having been handed down direct from God, is therefore not subject to question, to say nothing of improvement or modification. From the orthodox standpoint, the slightest hesitation in swallowing the whole story is heresy. And since the distant day of the first revelation, the world has run red with the blood of heretics.

Of course, the orthodox are entirely consistent in their stand that if revelation is the word of God it is therefore final, irrevocable, unquestionable. The trouble is that there is no virtue in consistency, per se. As a matter of fact, it is all to often a set of blinkers deliberately adjusted by the subject himself to prevent him from seeing any light, or anything but the object upon which he has focused his attention. Compare that attitude with that of the skeptic who insists upon looking into and examining all phases of a question – and re-examining them; accepting no conclusions as absolute final and irrevocable, leaving open for further light and understanding any problem worthy of the name. Here you have the difference between the theologian and the scientist, the difference between the closed mind and the open mind.

What are the results to the individual of the acceptance of the concepts of dogma? He has been taught that the tenets of his religion, say Christianity, are absolute Truths. If the revelations set forth in his Bible are absolute, infallible truths, and as a Christian, he believes them to be so, then it is perfectly logical for him to stop thinking on all questions relating to human conduct and motives which by direct statement and implication the Bible covers. The phrase “stop thinking” is perhaps not the proper one, because if a truly faithful adherent of his religion, he has never started to think on these important questions.

Religious concepts represent a development over a long period of time of the emotional response to fear-arousing stimuli and mysterious natural phenomena – the whole set-up based on fear of the unknown. This system finally became institutionalized, creating traditions as it went along, and used as a means of exploitation by the privileged caste (religious orders) which administered it for the aggrandizement of themselves and the prevailing ruling groups.

Food for Thought...

2008-09-05T09:57:00.003-04:00

An excerpt from the book, ‘Shackles of the Supernatural’ by William J. Fielding

Only those who have had a conventional religious upbringing and have found the incomparably fuller life that is opened up in rejecting supernatural belief, can appreciate the contrast. Those hampered by the limitations that come from allegiance to a creed, feel or profess to feel, that the Freethinker, Agnostic or Atheist is missing something from which they derive great consolation. This attitude, of course, has been inculcated with the creed of which it is part and parcel. The primitive slave was similarly taught to cherish the retraining virtue of his chains.

It should be apparent that adherence to dogma and creed inhibits the free-functioning of the faculties. It naturally follows that when these hindrances are discarded, the mental horizon is extended, cerebral energy with its inevitable emotional accompaniment is not wasted in pursuing a will-o’-the wisp, and the opportunities for intellectual achievement, emotional fulfillment and peace of mind are increased beyond measure.

Bishop Spong's Q&A 9/5/08

2008-09-05T09:57:00.001-04:00

Doris Christoph, via the Internet, writes:

Having read two of your books, I finally have answers to several questions that have troubled me for years. But now I have some new ones, two of them of immediate importance:

1. My very fundamental Seventh Day Adventist Church: How do I fit in when I no longer fit in?2. Prayer: How do I now pray? To whom? About what? For what? How do I express my gratitude, my sorrows, my joys?

Though I feel that a great burden has left me now that I feel you have given me permission to understand God and Jesus in the light that I have seen in the distance for a long time but was too afraid to reach for, I also feel very much an outsider and alone. How do I deal with this?

Dear Doris,

Thank you for your letter. I assure you that in the Christian life there is no such thing as a time when questions will cease and you will arrive at answers that will endure forever. Christianity is a journey, not a religious system into which all truth can be fitted.

To your questions, only you can decide whether you can continue your pilgrimage inside the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Normally I encourage people to remain in their households of faith as change agents. However, that is based on the assumption that a particular household of faith is open to change. Churches are frequently security systems and change will destroy them, not transform them. This is particularly true for those parts of the Christian Church that are built around a single issue or a single ethnic group. Such churches are themselves not likely to survive.

In terms of prayer, this format is not nearly large enough to address those concerns. First you need to develop an understanding of God other than the supernatural parent figure who lives above the sky and is waiting to come to your aid. Christian prayer is not an adult letter to Santa Claus. Second, you need to understand the nature of the world in which you and I are living. It is not a world of miracle, magic and divine intervention, but a world of order, natural law and precise mathematical formulas that enables us to predict with total accuracy the tides, the time of sunrise and sunset and even eclipses of the sun and moon. We can send spacecraft to the moon and to the planets as far out as Jupiter because we know the laws by which such things as motion and gravity operate. Prayer must take place in that kind of world.

There are many books that might help you in this phase of your journey. I have written on this subject twice, once in a book entitled Honest Prayer that has recently been republished by St. Johann Press (315 Schraalenburgh Road, Haworth, NJ 07641) and the second is A New Christianity for a New World, published by Harper-Collins. Maybe one or both of them would help.

Enjoy your quest for truth.
John Shelby Spong

Who Will Be Among The Millions This Year?

2008-08-12T13:15:00.002-04:00

Dr. Jason Long

I believe that the decision to denounce the faith and leave the comfortable confines of Christianity has a strong correlation with a combination of two factors: high levels of intelligence and low levels of exposure. From my anecdotal observations, I’ve noticed that individuals who leave Christianity are either fairly intelligent or received relatively less conditioning from their parents.

Once I made this discovery, I noticed that those who had both of the aforementioned qualities left at an exceedingly early age, while those who had only one quality left the religion in their late teens or early adulthood. Christians probably won’t deny that a strong influence persuades a person to remain active in church. Likewise, it’s only logical to conclude that a lack of the same influence increases the chances a person will leave the faith.

The intelligence element to my hypothesis, on the other hand, is surely insulting and certainly difficult for Christians to swallow. Even so, I strongly feel that a line exists where a certain level of intelligence and a certain level of influence reach equilibrium.

As I just mentioned, an intelligent person with a low level of Christian influence has the best chance of leaving the religion at a young age, whereas an unintelligent person with a high level of influence is almost certain to remain within the church for life. The interesting scenario created with this hypothesis is that an intelligent person with a high level of influence would have two competitive forces at work.

One would seemingly free the individual from bunk religious thought while the other would presumably fight to keep the individual within the faith. Since there are more people who stay within the church than those who leave, we can reasonably assume that the influence is a stronger factor than the intelligence.

Similarly, an unintelligent person with a low level of influence has no competitive internal forces at work. Consequently, this individual wouldn’t develop groundbreaking theories on the existence of God or have external influences pressuring them to believe one way or another.

...how best can we facilitate that education?

2008-07-15T13:50:00.002-04:00

In an age where space stations and satellites traverse the vast expanses of the universe, an increasing number of Christians are having difficulty accepting the Biblical definition of God as a being ‘up there’ or ‘out there.’ Common knowledge, in the twenty first century, tells the average person, that believe in a sky-god is simply a bankrupt idea of the ancient past.

As a result, more and more Christians are leaving the church and fewer and fewer are being enticed to join. Why should anyone want to sing praises to, or otherwise worship and bow down to a make-believe, imagined father figure who somehow resides above the ‘blue canopy’ of the sky, when common sense tell them that such an idea is nonsensical? Every time a congregation is led to perform such a simple act as reciting the ‘Lords Prayer’… “Our Father, who art in Heaven”, the Church is affirming the intellectual dishonesty of its doctrine and drives another nail in it’s own proverbial coffin.

We need a new definition of what god is and what role such a god can/should play in our life.

Many, if not most, clergy and church hierarchy have known for decades that there is a problem regarding the intellectual honesty (dishonesty) of the church doctrine and dogma, but, to my knowledge, nothing significant has (is) being done about it. A majority of churches ignore or dismiss the need to address the issue all together.

We Christians who believe that an intellectually honest church is needed in our society, are becoming more and more frustrated by the inaction of our church leaders regarding this situation. It seems to be the ‘elephant in the room’ that no one will admit to, or is willing to talk about. I have had some Clergy suggest to me that perhaps we should simply “let the church die a natural death.” That to me is an unpalatable suggestion.

Bishop John Shelby Spong has suggested that change will not come until the laity become educated enough in such matters that they demand change from the church. If that is the case, ...how best can we facilitate that education?

UNDERSTANDING DELUSION

2008-07-02T08:56:00.003-04:00

Except from the web site ; http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

This is a bit long, but it is very informative....

Here are several examples that can help you to understand how religion works in our world today.

Example 1

Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:

There is a man who lives at the North Pole.

He lives there with his wife and a bunch of elves.

During the year, he and the elves build toys.

Then, on Christmas Eve, he loads up a sack with all the toys.

He puts the sack in his sleigh.

He hitches up eight (or possibly nine) flying reindeer.

He then flies from house to house, landing on the rooftops of each one.

He gets out with his sack and climbs down the chimney.

He leaves toys for the children of the household.

He climbs back up the chimney, gets back in his sleigh, and flies to the next house.

He does this all around the world in one night.

Then he flies back to the North Pole to repeat the cycle next year.

This, of course, is the story of Santa Claus.

But let's say that I am an adult, and I am your friend, and I reveal to you that I believe that this story is true. I believe it with all my heart. And I try to talk about it with you and convert you to believe it as I do.

What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so.

Why do you think that I am delusional? It is because you know that Santa is imaginary. The story is a total fairy tale. No matter how much I talk to you about Santa, you are not going to believe that Santa is real. Flying reindeer, for example, are make-believe. The dictionary defines delusion as, "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." That definition fits perfectly.

Since you are my friend, you might try to help me realize that my belief in Santa is delusional.

The way that you would try to shake me from my delusion is to ask me some questions. For example, you might say to me:

"But how can the sleigh carry enough toys for everyone in the world?" I say to you that the sleigh is magical. It has the ability to do this intrinsically.

"How does Santa get into houses and apartments that don't have chimneys?" I say that Santa can make chimneys appear, as shown to all of us in the movie The Santa Clause.

"How does Santa get down the chimney if there's a fire in the fireplace?" I say that Santa has a special flame-resistant suit, and it cleans itself too.

"Why doesn't the security system detect Santa?" Santa is invisible to security systems.

"How can Santa travel fast enough to visit every child in one night?" Santa is timeless.

"How can Santa know whether every child has been bad or good?" Santa is omniscient.

"Why are the toys distributed so unevenly? Why does Santa deliver more toys to rich kids, even if they are bad, than he ever gives to poor kids?" There is no way for us to understand the mysteries of Santa because we are mere mortals, but Santa has his reasons. For example, perhaps poor children would be unable to handle a flood of expensive electronic toys. How would they afford the batteries? So Santa spares them this burden.

These are all quite logical questions that you have asked. I have answered all of them for you. I am wondering why you can't see what I see, and you are wondering how I can be so insane.

Why didn't my answers satisfy you? Why do you still know that I am delusional? It is because my answers have done nothing but confirm my delusion. My answers are ridiculous. In order to answer your questions, I invented, completely out of thin air, a magical sleigh, a magical self-cleaning suit, magical chimneys, "timelessness" and magical invisibility. You don't believe my answers because you know that I am making this stuff up. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Now let me show you another example...

Example 2

Imagine that I tell you the following story:

I was in my room one night.

Suddenly, my room became exceedingly bright.

Next thing I know there is an angel in my room.

He tells me an amazing story.

He says that there is a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in New York.
On them are the books of a lost race of Jewish people who inhabited North America.

These plates bear inscriptions in the foreign language of these people.

Eventually the angel leads me to the plates and lets me take them home.

Even though the plates are in a foreign language, the angel helps me to decipher and translate them.

Then the plates are taken up into heaven, never to be seen again.

I have the book that I translated from the plates. It tells of amazing things -- an entire civilization of Jewish people living here in the United States 2,000 years ago.
And the resurrected Jesus came and visited these people!

I also showed the golden plates to a number of real people who are my eye witnesses, and I have their signed attestations that they did, in fact, see and touch the plates before the plates were taken up into heaven.

Now, what would you say to me about this story? Even though I do have a book, in English, that tells the story of this lost Jewish civilization, and even though I do have the signed attestations, what do you think? This story sounds delusional, doesn't it?

You would ask some obvious questions. For example, at the very simplest level, you might ask, "Where are the ruins and artifacts from this Jewish civilization in America?" The book transcribed from the plates talks about millions of Jewish people doing all kinds of things in America. They have horses and oxen and chariots and armor and large cities. What happened to all of this? I answer simply: it is all out there, but we have not found it yet. "Not one city? Not one chariot wheel? Not one helmet?" you ask. No, we haven't found a single bit of evidence, but it is out there somewhere. You ask me dozens of questions like this, and I have answers for them all.

Most people would assume that I am delusional if I told them this story. They would assume that there were no plates and no angel, and that I had written the book myself. Most people would ignore the attestations -- having people attest to it means nothing, really. I could have paid the attesters off, or I could have fabricated them. Most people would reject my story without question.

What's interesting is that there are millions of people who actually do believe this story of the angel and the plates and the book and the Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago. Those millions of people are members of the Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The person who told this incredible story was a man named Joseph Smith, and he lived in the United States in the early 1800s. He told his story, and recorded what he "translated from the plates", in the Book of Mormon.

If you meet a Mormon and ask them about this story, they can spend hours talking to you about it. They can answer every question you have. Yet the 5.99 billion of us who are not Mormons can see with total clarity that the Mormons are delusional. It is as simple as that. You and I both know with 100% certainty that the Mormon story is no different from the story of Santa. And we are correct in our assessment. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Example 3

Imagine that I tell you this story:

A man was sitting in a cave minding his own business.

A very bright flash of light appeared.

A voice spoke out one word: "Read!" The man felt like he was being squeezed to death. This happened several times.

Then the man asked, "What should I read?"

The voice said, "Read in the name of your Lord who created humans from a clinging [zygote]. Read for your Lord is the most generous. He taught people by the pen what they didn't know before."

The man ran home to his wife.

While running home, he saw the huge face of an angel in the sky. The angel told the man that he was to be the messenger of God. The angel also identified himself as Gabriel.
At home that night, the angel appeared to the man in his dreams.

Gabriel appeared to the man over and over again. Sometimes it was in dreams, sometimes during the day as "revelations in his heart," sometimes preceded by a painful ringing in his ears (and then the verses would flow from Gabriel right out of the man), and sometimes Gabriel would appear in the flesh and speak. Scribes wrote down everything the man said.

Then, one night about 11 years after the first encounter with Gabriel, Gabriel appeared to the man with a magical horse. The man got on the horse, and the horse took him to Jerusalem. Then the winged horse took the man up to the seven layers of heaven. The man was able to actually see heaven and meet and talk with people there. Then Gabriel brought the man back to earth.

The man proved that he had actually been to Jerusalem on the winged horse by accurately answering questions about buildings and landmarks there.

The man continued receiving the revelations from Gabriel for 23 years, and then they stopped.

All of the revelations were recorded by the scribes in a book which we still have today.

[Source: "Understanding Islam" by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha press, 2002]

What do you make of this story? If you have never heard the story before, you may find it to be nonsensical in the same way that you feel about the stories of the golden plates and Santa. You would especially feel that way once you read the book that was supposedly transcribed from Gabriel, because much of it is opaque. The dreams, the horse, the angel, the ascension, and the appearances of the angel in the flesh -- you would dismiss them all because it is all imaginary.

But you need to be careful. This story is the foundation of the Muslim religion, practiced by more than a billion people around the world. The man is named Mohammed, and the book is the Koran (also spelled Qur'an or Qur'aan). This is the sacred story of the Koran's creation and the revelation of Allah to mankind.

Despite the fact that a billion Muslims profess some level of belief in this story, people outside the Muslim faith consider the story to be imaginary. No one believes this story because this story is a fairy tale. They consider the Koran to be a book written by a man and nothing more. A winged horse that flew to heaven? That is imaginary -- as imaginary as flying reindeer.

If you are a Christian, please take a moment right now to look back at the Mormon and Muslim stories. Why is it so easy for you to look at these stories and see that they are imaginary fairy tales? How do you know, with complete certainty, that Mormons and Muslims are delusional?

You know these things for the same reason you know that Santa is imaginary. There is no evidence for any of it. The stories involve magical things like angels and winged horses, hallucinations, dreams. Horses cannot fly -- we all know that. And even if they could, where would the horse fly to? The vacuum of space? Or is the horse somehow "dematerialized" and then "rematerialized" in heaven? If so, those processes are made up too. Every bit of it is imaginary. We all know that.

An unbiased observer can see how imaginary these three stories are. In addition, Muslims can see that Mormons are delusional, Mormons can see that Muslims are delusional, and Christians can see that both Mormons and Muslims are delusional.

One final example

Now let me tell you one final story:

God inseminated a virgin named Mary, in order to bring his son incarnate into our world.

Mary and her fiancé, Joseph, had to travel to Bethlehem to register for the census. There Mary gave birth to the Son of God.

God put a star in the sky to guide people to the baby.

In a dream God told Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Then God stood by and watched as Herod killed thousands and thousands of babies in Israel in an attempt to kill Jesus.

As a man, God's son claimed that he was God incarnate: "I am the way, the truth and the life," he said.

This man performed many miracles. He healed lots of sick people. He turned water into wine. These miracles prove that he is God.

But he was eventually given the death sentence and killed by crucifixion.

His body was placed in a tomb.

But three days later, the tomb was empty.

And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds (so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places.

Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the father almighty, never to be seen again.

Today you can have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. You can pray to this man and he will answer your prayers. He will cure your diseases, rescue you from emergencies, help you make important business and family decisions, comfort you in times of worry and grief, etc.
This man will also give you eternal life, and if you are good he has a place for you in heaven after you die.

The reason we know all this is because, after the man died, four people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote accounts of the man's life. Their written attestations are proof of the veracity of this story.

This, of course, is the story of Jesus. Do you believe this story? If you are a Christian, you probably do. I could ask you questions for hours and you will have answers for every one of them, in just the same way that I had answers for all of the Santa questions that my friend asked me in Example 1. You cannot understand how anyone could question any of it, because it is so obvious to you.

Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.

How do the four billion non-Christians know, with complete certainty, that the Christian story is imaginary? Because the Christian story is just like the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on. People outside the Christian faith look at the Christian story and note these facts:

The miracles are supposed to "prove" that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today. They all involved faith healings and magic tricks.

Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today.

Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyze prayer and find that prayers are never answered.

The book where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make their attestations does exist, but, predictably, it is chock full of problems and contradictions.

And so on.

In other words, the Christian story is a fairly tale, just like the other three examples we have examined.

Now, look at what is happening inside your mind at this moment. I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the Christian story is imaginary. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-Christians would be happy to confirm for you that the Christian story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing Christian, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak. Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story, but when it comes to the Christian story, which is just as imaginary, you are not?
Try, just for a moment, to look at Christianity with the same amount of healthy skepticism that you used when approaching the stories of Santa, Joseph Smith and Mohammed. Use your common sense to ask some very simple questions of yourself:

Is there any physical evidence that Jesus existed? - No. He left no trace. His body "ascended into heaven." He wrote nothing down. None of his "miracles" left any permanent evidence. There is, literally, nothing.

Is there any reason to believe that Jesus actually performed these miracles, or that he rose from the dead, or that he ascended into heaven? - There is no more of a reason to believe this than there is to believe that Joseph Smith found the golden plates hidden in New York, or that Mohammed rode on a magical winged horse to heaven. Probably less of a reason, given that the record of Jesus' life is 2,000 years old, while that of Joseph Smith is less than 200 years old.
You mean to tell me that I am supposed to believe this story of Jesus, and there is no proof or evidence to go by beyond a few attestations in the New Testament of the Bible? - Yes, you are supposed to believe it. You are supposed to take it on "faith."

No one (besides little kids) believes in Santa Claus. No one outside the Mormon church believes Joseph Smith's story. No one outside the Muslim faith believes the story of Mohammed and Gabriel and the winged horse. No one outside the Christian faith believes in Jesus' divinity, miracles, resurrection, etc.

Therefore, the question I would ask you to consider right now is simple: Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense? For example:
Christians know that when the Egyptians built gigantic pyramids and mummified the bodies of their pharaohs, that it was a total waste of time -- otherwise Christians would build pyramids.
Christians know that when the Aztecs carved the heart out of a virgin and ate it, that it accomplished nothing -- otherwise Christians would kill virgins.

Christians know that when Muslims face Mecca to pray, that it is pointless -- otherwise Christians would face Mecca when they pray.

Christians know that when Jews keep meat and dairy products separate, that they are wasting their time -- otherwise the cheeseburger would not be an American obsession.
Yet, when Christians look at their own religion, they are for some reason blind. Why? And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Christian story is true. Your rational mind knows that with certainty, and so do four billion others.

A simple experiment

If you are a Christian who believes in the power of prayer, here is a very simple experiment that will show you something very interesting about your faith.
Take a coin out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Ra:

Dear Ra, almighty sun god, I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Ra's name I pray, Amen.

Now flip the coin. Chances are that you won't get past the fifth or sixth flip and the coin will land tails.

What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Ra is imaginary. We prayed to Ra, and Ra did nothing. We can prove that Ra is imaginary (at least in the sense of prayer-answering ability) by using statistical analysis.

If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Ra each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. Ra has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray.

Even if we find a thousand of Ra's most faithful believers and ask them to do the praying/flipping, the results will be the same. Therefore, as rational people, we conclude that Ra is imaginary. We look at Ra in the same way that we look at Leprechauns, Mermaids, Santa and so on. We know that people who believe in Ra are delusional.

Now I want you to try the experiment again, but this time I want you to pray to Jesus Christ instead of Ra. Pray sincerely to Jesus like this:

Dear Jesus, I know that you exist and I know that you hear and answer prayers as you promise in the Bible. I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.

Now flip the coin. Once again, after the fifth or sixth flip, the coin will land tails.

If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Jesus each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. It is not like there are two laws of probability -- one for Christians who pray and the other for non-Christians. There is only one law of probability because prayers have zero effect. Jesus has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray. We can prove that conclusively using statistical analysis.

If you are a Christian, watch what is happening inside your mind right now. The data is absolutely identical in both experiments. With Ra you looked at the data rationally and concluded that Ra is imaginary. But with Jesus... something else will happen. In your mind, you are already coming up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why Jesus did not answer your prayers:

It is not his will
He doesn't have time
I didn't pray the right way
I am not worthy
I do not have enough faith
I cannot test the Lord like this
It is not part of Jesus' plan for me
And on and on and on...

One rationalization that you may find yourself developing is particularly interesting. You may say to yourself: “Well, of course Jesus doesn’t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible, Jesus does not ever say, "don't pray to me about coin tosses." Jesus clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he puts no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.

If you are a Christian who is offended by the notion of praying about a coin toss, then let's try this instead. Get down on your knees right now and pray as follows:

"Dear Jesus, son of God, the almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. Please hear our heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer and fulfill your promises in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19, Mark 9:23, Luke 1:37, James 5:15-16 and many other places. We pray knowing that when you answer this prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. In your name we pray, Amen."

Will every case of cancer be gone tomorrow? Of course not. If you are a believer, you can create dozens of rationalizations for this unanswered prayer. But that does not change the reality of the situation.

You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers. The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because the power of Jesus is imaginary. We can find dozens of pieces of evidence to demonstrate that the Christian story is imaginary

What this simple experiment shows us is fascinating. When we pray to Ra and nothing happens over thousands of trials, we look at the data rationally and we conclude that Ra is imaginary. But when you pray to Jesus and nothing happens, you do not reach the same conclusion. Instead, you try to rationalize all the reasons why Jesus did not answer your prayers. ask yourself this simple question... Why the difference?....Why do you as a believer behave in such a completely irrational way?

Roman Catholic priest, Vincent Donovan in his book “Christianity Rediscovered”

2008-06-13T08:07:00.003-04:00

Never accept and be content with unanalyzed assumptions, assumptions about work, about the people, about the church or Christianity. Never be afraid to ask questions about the work we have inherited or the work we are doing.

There is no question that should not be ask or that is outlawed.

The day we are completely satisfied with what we have been doing, the day we have found the perfect, unchangeable system of work, the perfect answer, never in need of being corrected again, on that day we will know that we are wrong, that we have made the greatest mistake of all.

Bishop Spong's Q&A 6/11/08

2008-06-13T08:07:00.001-04:00

Dale Mason, from Cromwell College at the University of Queensland, writes:

What store or value do you put into or get from:

The Gospel of Mary (the mother of Jesus)The Gospel of Mary MagdaleneThe Gospel of JudasThe Gospel of Thomas

Can we open them to new meaning? Can we attribute to them the status of Scripture? Can they contribute to or enhance the mission of the Christian Church, which in your terms is to make us truly human?

Dear Dale,

The gospels to which you refer are not of equal value, so your question cannot be answered generally. All of them are later works that were not incorporated into the official canon of Scripture for a variety of reasons, not all of which we will ever know. Perhaps it was because they were later in history. Perhaps it was that they were not judged as authentic. Perhaps they were caught up in early church struggles and wound up on the losing side.

The thing we gain from them is a vision of early Christian history that is different from the orthodox view with which most of us were raised. It also confirms the recent scholarship that has successfully challenged ecclesiastical propaganda, that in the beginning of the Christian era there was not a single Christianity, but a variety of Christianities that were competing with one another. The gospels to which you refer reflect that early variety.

The Gospel of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is not thought of very highly. I am always suspicious of "lost" gospels and can find very little about it except in circles of Catholic piety. Surely it is not authentic and we have no record of the mother of Jesus writing anything and surely she was not alive when this second century work was written.

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene has been treated in a book by Karen King of the Harvard Divinity School, who found great meaning in that work.

The Gospel of Judas has been treated in a book by Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina, who is one of the great scholars in early church history.

The Gospel of Thomas is treated with great respect by the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, who actually elevated it into the Canon in the book edited by Robert Funk called The Five Gospels. Elaine Pagels at Princeton has done what I regard as the best work on the Gospel of Thomas in her book Beyond Belief.

I commend all of them to you for your study. Having said that, however, I do not feel any great desire to take much time to study these late sources, since I do not believe that they contain much that is worthy of serious scholarly attention. The Gospel of Thomas would be the only exception to this statement. I am not nearly as impressed with these works as some of my colleagues seem to be. Time will tell who is correct. I am willing to be convinced, but that has not yet happened.

- John Shelby Spong

Bishop Spong's Q&A

2008-06-05T10:34:00.003-04:00

Larry Hester from Denver, Colorado, writes:

You recently suggested that the split in Christianity today is between those who assert yesterday's religious explanations and those who find no meaning in yesterday's religious explanations and give up on religion altogether. If that is so, is Christopher Hitchens' book, God Is Not Great, a message from the religiously disillusioned? If so how do those religious people who defend the past deal with that book?

Dear Larry,

If I understand your question correctly, let me begin with three declarative statements: 1. Religion must always be questioned 2. Theism can be abandoned without abandoning God 3. Christopher Hitchens' book is a real asset to the current debate. Now just let me put some flesh on each of those statements.

Since human beings are creatures of both time and space, and since we know from the work of Albert Einstein that time and space are relative categories that expand and contract in relation to each other, then we must conclude that any statement made by anyone, who is bound by time and space, will never be absolute. There are no propositional statements, secular or religious, that are exempt from this principle. Words reduce all human experiences to relativity. That is why every religious formula must be questioned; that is why no word of any book is inerrant; that is why no proclamation of any ecclesiastical leader is infallible; and finally, that is why no religious system or institution can ever claim to possess the true faith. Religion is a journey into the mystery of God. It is not a system of beliefs and creeds and when it becomes that, it always becomes idolatrous and begins to die.

Theism is not God. It is a human definition of God that assumes that God is a being, perhaps the "Supreme Being," supernatural in power, dwelling outside the world (usually thought of as above the sky), who periodically invades the world in miraculous ways to answer human prayers or to effect the divine will.

It is my sense that this definition of God has been mortally wounded by the successive blows of Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein, just to name a few. I do not believe, however, that this means that God has been mortally wounded even if the theistic definition of God has been.

Suppose God is not defined as "a being," but is simply experienced as a power, a presence. Then describing that experience is quite different from claiming to know who or what God is. Then the question is, "Are we delusional or is this experience real?" I think God is real and I believe we are in the process of defining our God experience in a new way that will replace the dying theistic definition of the past.

Finally, Christopher Hitchens' book, God Is Not Great, is a description of the theistic God of the past who is dying. The theistic God certainly appears in the Bible and is guilty of many things that are genuinely immoral, like killing the firstborn male in every Egyptian household, stopping the sun in the sky to allow more time for Joshua to slaughter the Amorites and ordering genocide against the Amalekites through the prophet Samuel. Christians need to remember that it has been the theistic God who has been responsible for the development of such things as anti-Semitism, the Inquisition, and the oppression of people of color, women and homosexual persons. This deity has also been perceived as justifying war, fighting crusades and creating slavery. Let us agree with Christopher Hitchens that this God is not great. We need to challenge Christopher Hitchens' assumption, however, that this is the only way we can think about or conceptualize God.

I think of the God experience as the power of life, love and being flowing through the universe and coming to consciousness in human self-awareness alone. I therefore feel that by living fully, loving wastefully and being all that I can be I can make the God experience visible. I also believe that it is my Christian vocation to build a world where all people have a better chance to live, love and to be. It is when I do these two things, I believe, that I am engaging in the essence of worship.

John Shelby Spong

Preaching and the "Word of God"

2008-06-05T10:34:00.002-04:00

Excerpts from an article by Rev John Shuck, First Presbyterian Church, Elizabethton, TN

I believe that many clergy are overdue for a heart to heart with their congregation about the metaphor “Word of God” especially as it applies to the Bible. I have found that this metaphor more often stops creative thought than inspires it. The question we might ask our congregations is, “If the Bible is the Word of God, what makes it so?”

Modern scholarship has eroded the foundations for the metaphor. We have come to a time in which it is incredible to assert that our canon of scripture is objectively true or authoritative for all humanity. Appeals to the Bible’s historical or scientific accuracy are naïve. The claim that our canon has been dictated or inspired by supernatural revelation amounts to little more than special pleading. There is no magic power that makes the Bible or any text within it superior, truer, or more divinely inspired than any other human writing, religious or secular. The hands of human beings through their own imaginative power made every jot and tittle of carving and of script.

The Bible is a collection of the writings of human beings. Once we dismiss the assumption that our book or library of books is more authoritative that any other collection, we can finally take our seat around the table of humanity.

Bishop Spong's Q&A 5/29/08

2008-05-30T08:37:00.001-04:00

Michael Gill from New York City writes:

I am among those who agree with you in regard to the great need for transformation within traditional Christianity — indeed, a new reformation is overdue and necessary for the Christian tradition to survive the 21st century. I believe that Jesus came not to change any of the Hebrew scripture or its tradition but rather to reaffirm its true meaning in revealing the spiritual nature of human life through his own demonstration within humanity. As such, his example created something new.

Have you ever considered officially joining a New Thought community such as Unity Church of Practical Christianity? I believe these communities closely reflect the spirit of the Christian message and serve humanity well in providing a way in which we may experience and live Christian principles more fully. Thank you so much for the wonderful work you are doing.

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your letter. No, I have never considered joining a church other than my own. I am deeply committed to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Of course, both have their faults and I do not spare either in my critical remarks, but I don't believe one can change anything from the outside. Only those who are insiders can do what I do to facilitate transformation.

Having said that, I am not only familiar with but deeply touched by the Unity movement. I would guess that I do three or four events a year in Unity churches in the United States. I love this contact, feel enriched by it and treasure my relationship with this Church.

The Unity movement is grounded in the goodness of creation not in the aberration of that which traditional Christianity has come to call "the fall." They are more in touch with Matthew Fox's Original Blessing than they are with the Church's teaching of original sin. They are therefore more life affirming than life denying.

Unity is deeply committed to education and sponsor classes and lectures constantly. The attention they give to their children is inspiring. The music in the various Unity Churches is normally spectacular. It is always a moving worship service for both my wife and me.

I don't know that Unity will be the Church of the future, but I do believe that the themes of the Unity Movement will be part of the Christian Church of the future. For those looking for a new way to be a Christian and for a church that will allow them to be who they are, I recommend Unity with great enthusiasm, if you can find one where you live. Since you live in New York City, I might add that Unity New York, which meets on Sunday Morning in Symphony Hall (Broadway and 91st), is one to which I am particularly drawn. Paul Tenaglia is their pastor and a spectacularly gifted man and the singing group known as "Spiritus" is worth flying to New York from anywhere just to hear them perform.

- John Shelby Spong

Bishop Spong's Q&A

2008-05-22T08:45:00.001-04:00

MaryBrinson from Springfield, Missouri, writes:

Although I did not read it until adulthood, I have found the words in the Gospel of Thomas to be true all my life.

V.3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

And:
V. 77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all come forth and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

What is your take on the Gnostic view, the Gospel of Thomas and others? I know you try to avoid describing God, for God truly is indescribable, but what you said sounded similar.

Dear Mary,

I have read the Gospel of Thomas several times and believe it to be the most authentic of the non-canonical gospels. Your letter has captured two of its insights with which I too resonate. The Jesus Seminar actually elevated it into the canon in a seminar-published book called The Five Gospels. The best work done on it is by Elaine Pagels in her book Beyond Belief and by Bart Ehrman in his book Early Christianities.

The Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic gospels offer us a new angle on Jesus and I think we honor that. When orthodox defenders of traditional religious formulas attack alternative understandings, it is because they have assumed that their view has captured truth. That is little more than idolatry.

We walk into the mystery of a God who is beyond words, concepts or human perception. Jesus is for me a doorway into that mystery. Christian language in such concepts as Incarnation and Trinity is designed to put rational shape into that experience. I do not reject that language, but I also do not literalize it.

Thanks for writing.

- John Shelby Spong

Religion vs. The Teachings of Jesus

2008-05-22T08:05:00.000-04:00

This past Sunday our study group read and discussed material from Chapter 24 of Bishop Spong’s book ‘Jesus for the Non-Religious’. In that material Spong points out the difference between religion and the teachings of Jesus.

Religions, Spong explains, are not about a search for truth, they are rather the human search for security. The need for security, of course, comes from our human anxiety, which stems from self-consciousnesses and the knowledge of our mortality.

" It is an act of enormous courage to embrace what it means to be a self conscious
human being. It is not easy to live with the awareness of the unrelieved anxiety that is the mark of human life. That is why human beings are almost inevitably religious creatures. Religion meets a desperate and chronic need in the human psyche and has, therefore, a tenacious hold on human life itself. Self-created security is, however, never real. The fact is that religion as it has been traditionally practiced has never provided genuine security, but only its illusion. Most religion has in fact served as an opiate for the people."

The teachings of Jesus, on the other hand, speak nothing of security. They speak of breaking down tribal barriers, overcoming prejudice. He invited his followers to walk in the fullness of life; to love others, to do unto others, as they would have others do unto them. These things were not about security; rather they were about living a fully human life.

But how do we separate the two – religion and the teachings of Jesus – after two thousand years of co-mingling ? It is the religion and its dogma that need to be examined and updated and purged if Christianity is to survive. The teachings of Jesus remain solidly intact.

That’s what I think… but then I could be wrong….barry e

The trip that never happened

2008-05-15T09:12:00.001-04:00

When I was in my early teens I was a member of the Boy Scouts of America – troop #132, First Methodist Church, Princeton, Indiana. At one point our Scoutmaster was a man I’ll call Mr. Edwards (not his real name) One Monday evening at troop meeting, Mr. Edwards announced a contest, “The scout who makes the most advancement between now and next summer will win a trip with me and my family to the Catskill mountains!”

Wow, what an incentive for a bunch of young boys.

I was sure I could win and I began working immediately. In the course of the next ten months I advanced several levels in the Scouting ranks, and seldom was I working on less than three or four merit badges at the same time. It became a friendly but serious competition among fellow scouts.

We maintained a scoreboard in the troop meeting room that allowed us to track our tangible accomplishments but there were intangible elements to the contest as well, things like leadership, participation in troop events and discipline. Mr. Edwards would judge these.

At a meeting in late spring, one of my fellow scouts boldly ask Mr. Edwards when we would know the winner of the contest. Mr. Edwards paused and then without looking up from the papers on the table he said, “I’m afraid there isn’t going to be any trip to the Catskills.” …He then continued on with the troop business with no further explanation.

WHAT??!! NO TRIP TO THE CATSKILLS?? How can there be NO TRIP TO THE CATSKILLS. We had worked our young butts off for almost a year only to hear, THERE WILL BE NO TRIP TO THE CATSKILLS!

As you can imagine we were pretty upset and several parents were upset as well. There were a few phone calls made, a few behind the scenes meetings held and within a couple weeks we had a new Scoutmaster. Mr. Edwards had moved on. A couple disillusioned scouts left the troop as well. As for me, I stayed and enjoyed several more years of Scouting, but this was the Genesis of my total belief in the adage, “Get it in writing.”

It wasn’t until some time later that we (scouts) found out that Mr. Edwards had separated from his wife and was involved in a divorce, and that was the reason there would be no trip to the Catskills. Had Mr. Edwards explained the situation earlier rather than later, perhaps things would have gone much smoother.
------------------
Am I wrong in suggesting that the dilemma the church finds itself in today is similar to that of my Scout troop? For two thousand year the church has been promising forgiveness, salvation, and life ever after. Now, common knowledge of the cosmos, life and reality has exposed those promises as mythology and folklore… and the hierarchy of the church is certainly aware of the disparity between academic and popular religion.

What would happen if the church were to announce that “there really isn’t a sky-god and therefore there really is no savior and by the way…heaven is only make believe.” Who among the clergy you know has the ‘guts’ to speak so honestly from the pulpit?

Author Brian Wilson recently wrote, “However uncomfortable, it is time for the clergy to modernize worship and educate their congregations.” …

I agree with him, but I don’t expect to see it happen anytime soon!

But then I could be wrong…………… barry e

An Alternate to the Lord's Prayer

2008-05-08T08:33:00.004-04:00

(I have not been able to determine the author of this prayer)

In the Spirit of love, compassion and tolerance,
We find the source of all that is good,
Hallowed be the presence of this Spirit through all the world.
May it reign among all living beings.
May it bring peace and freedom to all the earth.

With the bread we need for today, may we be fed.
For the hurting we cause one another, may we be forgiven.
In times of temptation and test, may we be strengthened.
From trials to great to endure, may we be spared.
From the grip of all that is evil, may we be freed.

For the Spirit that is love, reigns in the glory and power,
Now and forever.

Amen.

Does the Church have the will to survive?

2008-04-30T12:55:00.002-04:00

Since the writing of Paul’s letters and the Synoptic gospels, in the second half of the first century, the church has promoted the idea of salvation. The church has continuously taught that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity and to avail ones self of the redemptive power of that sacrifice one must be baptized. And coincidently, the only place where baptism could be administered is (of course) the church. For the better part of the last two thousand years this has been the primary message of the church – salvation, Jesus as the savior, Jesus as the redeemer, Jesus as our entry point into eternal life. To be baptized in the blood is to join hands with the Saints of old and reserve ones place in that glorious home on high…forever.

Such a contrivance has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. In all of what is thought to have been taught or spoken by the historical Jesus, ideas of a savior, redemption of sin or eternal life in a place called heaven, are noticeably absent. Jesus spoke nothing of these things. They are the manifestations of the church leaders of the second, third and fourth centuries.

Jesus taught people to love one another, to do unto others, as they would have others do unto them. He implored his followers to break down barriers of prejudices and tribal boundaries. He taught inclusiveness and care for the down trodden, those at the fringes of society. This is the true message of Jesus.

Adult Christians are – for the most part – products of the indoctrination they received during childhood and that indoctrination was chiefly one of Jesus as the good shepherd and savior. But today many adults, and young people alike, are rejecting these unsubstantiated claims. Our society is much more educated today, less willing to believe irrational stories of virgin births, resurrection of the dead, prayers to an invisible sky-god, etc.

Result; membership in Christian institutions world wide is on a steep decline. Granted, this is not the only reason for the decline but it is certainly high on the list.

Can the church stop this decline? How? What will take the place of the age old story of salvation and how will the church infuse a new mantra into the old fabric. Or is it an impossible task? Some say it is, that the church will simply die a slow death.

I hope not… but I see no indication that the church is eager or willing to accept the challenge. It seems to be marching straight toward the cliff, as if oblivious to the danger at hand.

That’s what I think….. but then, I could be wrong….. barry e

The Popular vs. The Biblical Jesus

2008-04-24T08:57:00.000-04:00

Popular religion often depicts Jesus as if he were a good-luck charm. He is the defender of each believer, the one who carries prayers and concerns to God. Jesus is seem as a protector, one who keeps bad things from happening to good people. The Jesus of popular religion was a divine intervention in history, unaffected by social, economic or political realities of his time.

On the other hand. Those who have studied the biblical records in depth tend to arrive at a very different understanding of Jesus. The contrasts are severe;

The popularized Jesus protects the person of faith from life’s overwhelming problems; the biblical Jesus leads the follower into conflict with the powers and principalities, a conflict that can lead to suffering or even death.

The popularized Jesus promises a blissful, eternal existence beyond the grave; the biblical Jesus focuses of the current world, encouraging a quality of present living that is worth preserving into an infinite future.

The popularized Jesus lifts the burden of our guilt from us, paying with his own blood the price for our sins demanded by God (or by Satan, or by both); the biblical Jesus adds to our burdens, insisting that people of faith carry crosses of their own.

The popularized Jesus insists that people worship him; the biblical Jesus asks that people follow him.

The popularized Jesus gives simple and inflexible answers to each of life’s perplexing problems; the biblical Jesus gives often cryptic teachings that modern followers must struggle to interpret for their own time and place.

The popularized Jesus is based almost entirely on the resurrected Christ, a spiritual presence that transcends time and place to become a protective, comforting companion for every age; the biblical Jesus was bound by time and place, a historic person who lived amid the complexities of daily life.

Popularized Christianity is, then. egocentric to the core. While it includes enough authentic references to the actual life and teachings of Jesus to make it seem real, it also contains large portions of superstition. Jesus, in this view, is an adult equivalent of the child’s invisible friend.

One of popular Christianity’s most frequently used hymns states:

What a friend we have in Jesus,
All our sins and grief to bear….

The alternate view also stresses the presence of an eternal Christ, available to inspire us and put us in touch with our spiritual strengths. The resurrected Jesus promised that he would continue with his disciples, much as a dying mother promises to be a continuing influence in the lives of her children. This promise was given in answer to the problem of how to continue Jesus’ mission.

The living Jesus, then, will not hold our hand through life’s inevitable and often petty problems. Instead, the spirit of Jesus will inspire us to find the strength necessary to encounter the excruciating pains that accompany life. A hymn popular among the progressive Christians states:

Grant us wisdom, grant us courage,
For the living of these days.

Practice Resurrection—All of the Time…

2008-04-10T09:14:00.000-04:00

Mainstream Christianity is no longer “main stream”. It is fast becoming a peripheral part of the Christian narrative in this country and abroad. Personally I celebrate this change of status for the following reasons.

There has always been something profoundly arrogant to be found in every mainstream movement, often expressed by the self-congratulatory remark that “we must be right because we are the majority” (numerically, that is). Our decline is nothing new and every organization, empire and society undergoes these same changes and adaptations over time.

My positive stance on the decline of mainstream Christianity has to do with the fact that once we become smug and self satisfied, we should always get the hint that it is time to move on.

Mainstream Christianity has been stuck in a rut for way too long and its time to move on.
Where do we find our inspiration and hope when all around us the old structures, familiar and beloved to us, are crumbling?

In the resurrection story!

Personally I have very little interest in the resuscitation of dead bodies, and it is quiet easy, when making the effort to read the most basic of literature regarding the ancient times, how great figures in faith always seemed to be “taken up into the sky”, whether it be Elijah, Jesus or Mohammed. These figures simply could not die as ordinary mortal men for the stories to survive in those times.

But true resurrection is an amazing and spectacular miracle and there are many resurrection stories in all of our lives. The one we treasure as Christians tells of how Jesus died on a cross; humiliated and brutalized by a system that could not bear the kind of resurrection he preached—but it is also the story of the triumph of his message.

His is a message that still inspires us and points us in the direction of hope after all of these centuries.

He truly is RISEN!

The mainstream church too, will be resurrected, but not to the old body we once knew. The church-stories of resurrection are manifold, as Hal Taussig demonstrated in his lectures here in February. The new is emerging from the old and those among us who wish to retreat into the familiar safety of the past will continue to be frustrated and disappointed. We will ultimately become embittered and lonely, even moving back to the “fleshpots of Egypt.”

But true life begins in the desert experience where everything is at risk and the stakes are high. Its a place of discomfort and even hunger and thirst from time to time. But it is only in courageous renewal that we will find new life—resurrected life.

For our communal life together, as the remnants of the so-called mainstream church movement, I see hope in our uneasiness and unsettledness. For it is in times such as these that we can truly begin to grow again—if not in numbers, then in maturity and relevance.

Let us open our hearts and our minds as we remember that discipleship in Christ is a life of giving ourselves away, not preserving and protecting the past. I am filled with hope for the liberating love of Christ is beginning to bloom again as the new butterfly emerges from the cocoon of past trappings. Yes, metaphorically seen… “God is still speaking…”

Anton DeWet

Discussion Group

2008-03-27T09:49:00.002-04:00

During our group discussion this week I posed the question… ‘What do you think the Church will look like one hundred years from now?’

The thoughts expressed went in two directions, first; if the Church continues to preach and teach a literal belief in a religion based on an ancient and obsolete worldview. And second; if the Church enters an era of intellectual honesty thus preaching and teaching a religion that is compatible with current knowledge.

In the first instance, most felt that the Church would either disappear or become only a fringe organization among the uneducated and uninformed of society. Other secular organizations would spring up to replace the need for community and altruism. Most likely the US would mirror the current religious environment of Europe.

In the second instance, it was felt that the Church, assuming it reforms its liturgy and teachings, could play as vital a role in the society of the future as it has in the past.; perhaps even greater. This, however, will require a great deal of change and effort on the part of both Church leaders and laity. The small part Progressive Christianity is currently playing in such a change would need to grow enormously over the next several decades.

Which direction will the Church go? Only time will tell, but to be sure, the actions of the current generations of believers will play a part in the decision either consciously or unconsciously.

barry e

From the final page of Tim Callahan’s, ‘Secret Origins of the Bible’

2008-03-20T08:45:00.002-04:00

…There are great mythic themes in the Bible and majestic moments, as when God descends upon Mt Siani in fire and smoke. It is a myth to be awed by. Many who are not sympathetic to religion would trivialize the Bible and in so doing discard such epiphanies. We do this at our peril. Failure to understand the power of those myths and their hold on people leads to nothing more than further division.

Those faithful to the myths – and those comprise far more than fundamentalists – sill simply ignore any critique of their beliefs if the critics are contemptuous of the Bible. Therefore one should respect the mythic material and understand that such myths endure, at least in part, because they resonate with deep psychological needs. Myths can also have a validity beyond that of literal truth.

…Yet if these tales are held to be sacrosanct, if we must accept them as literally true, if we are forbidden from looking beneath the surface of myths, they will almost surely be used by agents of repression, burdening society with unreasonable limitations and irrational directives, and in extreme cases inciting assassination and war.

Even if the forces of repression are held in check, they may alienate us from the myths they have so misused to the point that we will be robbed of the richness of mythic understanding and will lose the insights to be gained by seeing the human condition from the perspective of humanity’s collective yearnings and strivings through the millennia to comprehend what lies behind the surface, what is the true nature of the cosmos.

Religious education?

2008-03-12T09:47:00.004-04:00

The inescapable conclusion for any relatively objective observer of religion is that all religions, especially the more fundamentalist Judeo-Christian sects, are opposed to true education, which starts from the premise that all suppositions are open to inquiry, all hypotheses tentative, all conclusions subject to continual review.

Pronouncements unsupported by the weight of logic and evidence are rejected. Hence there can be no dogmas.

Judging by these criteria, most religious teachings are a form of indoctrination, not education.

Anon

More on… Age Appropriate Christian Education Material

2008-03-05T09:46:00.005-05:00

(Note: If you haven't read last weeks entry on 'Age Appropriate Education Material', you may want to scroll down and read that entry first.)

Our study group (meets on Sunday Mornings) recently had a discussion on the subject of ‘age appropriate Christian education material’ and came up with some interesting observations.

One of our members, a retired United Church of Christ minister, mentioned that the UCC had introduced a version of age appropriate material for children, over thirty years ago. He presented it to his Sunday School teachers and it lasted three weeks. They (the teachers) didn’t like teaching it and the parents were beginning to get upset about some of the content.

This prompted a discussion about how such age appropriate material might ever make its way into the church curriculum. Our conclusion seemed to be; that it would never work if introduced to children whose parents were not first introduced to and educated on a more intellectual and honest understanding of religion and the Church.

This of course would require a complete reversal of our normal education process, i.e. educating the oldest members first and then moving down (rather than up) the age ladder.

Could this work? Well, one might observe that the attendees of lectures given by Spong, Borg, Crossan, Geering, and others, are predominately the older age group. Therefore, it might be said that the process has already started.

The questions then become; Who writes the material that allows for a wider broadcast of the Progressive message? What does the material contain? How does the message get out that it is available?

I would appreciate your input, either by comment to this blog or by email…… barry e

Age Appropriate Education Material

2008-02-28T09:12:00.003-05:00

Couple weeks ago I attended a one-day lecture series at Faith UCC here in Clearwater. The featured speaker was Dr. Hal Taussig, Professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary in New York. During one of the question and answer periods the subject of education material came up. A discussion ensued regarding levels of material for various age groups. Dr. Taussig made the comment, “Once upon a time stories are appropriate for six year olds.”…

In that moment it struck me… This is the crux of the ‘intellectual honesty’ gap that plagues the Church today. The only thing the Church ever preaches or teaches is – ‘Once upon a time stories - no matter what the age group. We begin and end our Church life hearing nothing but ‘Once upon a time’ stories.

Age appropriate education material seems like such a simple answer to this problem…Write it, introduce it, teach it, problem solved… but its not that simple, is it?

The Church hierarchy is not likely to promote such an agenda. Although they have known for decades of the great differences between what is preached and taught to ‘the-people-in-the-pews’ vs. what is taught in the seminaries and universities, I have little hope that the current practice will change in my lifetime. And yet that’s all it would take to overcome today’s bane of superstition and folklore… Age appropriate Christian education material, to bridge the gap between ‘Once upon a time’… and… Reality… From pre-adolescent, to teen, to young adult, to mature adult.

Think about it....................... barry e

A sad fact.....

2008-02-20T09:29:00.006-05:00

It is a sad fact that most people’s lives are primarily characterized by boredom and drudgery. Lacking an appreciation of music, art, literature and/or even an entertaining hobby, they seek escape through the exotic and/or occult.

Religion can also fill the bill nicely. It is small wonder, then, that no matter how inherently contradictory or downright absurd a religious dogma is, it remains a cherished belief for most members of society.

Joseph McCabe

The results are in...

2008-02-20T09:29:00.001-05:00

Well… this morning my faith in humanity has been somewhat restored. The Florida State Board of Education, by a vote of 4-3 agreed to include evolution in our school science curriculum . Certainly not an overwhelming endorsement, but a win for the side of intellect none the less.

A majority was not achieved, however, until it was agreed that evolution would be taught as a ‘scientific theory’… Duh!!… I guess the opponents were unaware of the use of the word theory in the world of science.

The St. Petersburg Times stated this morning, there will probably be numerous lawsuits at the local level when classes start next fall… The saga continues.

Value of religion in the 21st century

2008-02-13T13:17:00.000-05:00

Perhaps the world’s religions might be of real value in the 21st century and beyond, if they:

1. admitted that religious beliefs are derived from ancient myths, but sought to explain why many of the lessons conveyed in those fables may have enduring value.

2. acted as an independent body of scholars dedicated to investigation of ethical issues utilizing reason and evidence rather than ancient traditions and/or divine revelation.

3. attempted to influence human morality through appropriate behavior modification techniques rather than superstitious promises of eternal reward or damnation.

4. refrained from using its unique position of trust for personal, political or monetary advantage.

New Science Standards for Florida?

2008-02-12T10:30:00.000-05:00

Hard to believe that in this day and age there would be so much controversy over teaching evolution in our schools, but that’s the situation we find ourselves in here in Florida. The state Board of Education is to vote next Tuesday (Feb. 19th) on whether or not evolution will be included in the state’s new science standards.

The proposed standards say evolution is the “fundamental concept underlying all of biology” and is “supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence. This position is supported by scores of scientific societies, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Teachers Associations.

Last night in a public hearing in Orlando, forty-five of seventy speakers were OPPOSED to the changes that would include evolution in the science curriculum.

When I hear people argue that creationism and/or intelligent design are equally valid theories I shake my head in disgust and wonder how they can be so uninformed, but then I remind myself that, that is what the Church has taught them.

I have no doubt the Church knows better. I have no doubt the Church Academic has taught evolution for decades… So where are the voices of the Church? The voices that could squelch the ignorant and the uninformed opposition to the teaching of evolution?

They are silent…afraid…unwilling to lead,... and again I shake my head in disgust.

All Religions Since Ancient Times...

2008-02-07T09:10:00.000-05:00

All religions since ancient times can be characterized by superstition and ignorance of natural processes.... At best, ancient religions incorporated some rules and customs that had some hygienic or economic value long ago. But it is senseless to try to build a modern-day society on the words of simple minded 'prophets' and priests of by gone ages.

2007 Darwin Awards

2008-01-30T08:55:00.000-05:00

Proving once again that we don't all evolve at the the same rate...

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim during a hold-up in Long Beach , California , would-be robber James Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered down the barrel and tried the trigger again. This time it worked.

2. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus driver found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be transporting from Harare to Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to admit his incompetence, the driver went to a nearby bus stop and offered everyone waiting there a free ride. He then delivered the passengers to the mental hospital, telling the staff that the patients were very excitable and prone to bizarre fantasies. The deception wasn't discovered for 3 days.

3. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer, the man pulled a gun and asked for all the cash in the register, which the clerk promptly provided. The man took the cash from the clerk and fled, leaving the $20 bill on the counter. The total amount of cash he got from the drawer... $15.

4. Seems an Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly. He decided that he'd just throw a cinder block through a liquor store window, grab some booze, and run. So he lifted the cinder block and heaved it over his head at the window. The cinder block bounced back and hit the would-be thief on the head, knocking him unconscious. The liquor store window was made of Plexiglas. The whole event was caught on videotape.

5. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man grabbed her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and the woman was able to give them a detailed description of the snatcher. Within minutes, the police apprehended the snatcher. They put him in the car and drove back to the store. The thief was then taken out of the car and told to stand there for a positive ID. To which he replied, "Yes, officer, that's her. That's the lady I stole the purse from."

In the interest of bettering mankind, please share these with your friends and family... Unless of course one of these individuals by chance is a distant relative or long-lost friend. In that case, be glad they are distant and hope they remain lost.

This from Wanda; about the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas"

2008-01-22T09:42:00.000-05:00

There is one Christmas Carol that has always baffled me.What in the world does leaping lords, French hens, swimming swans, and especially the partridge who won't come outof the pear tree have to do with Christmas?

Today, I found out.

From 1558 until 1829, Roman Catholics in England were not permitted to practice their faith openly. Someone during that era wrote this carol as a catechism song for young Catholics.It has two levels of meaning: the surface meaning plus a hidden meaning known only to members of their church. Each element in the carol has a code word for a religious reality which the children could remember.

-The partridge in a pear tree was Jesus Christ.

-Two turtle doves were the Old and New Testaments.

-Three French hens stood for faith, hope and love.

-The four calling birds were the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.

-The five golden rings recalled the Torah or Law, the first five books of the Old Testament.-The six geese a-laying stood for the six days of creation.

-Seven swans a-swimming represented the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit--Prophesy, Serving, Teaching,Exhortation, Contribution, Leadership, and Mercy.

-The eight maids a-milking were the eight beatitudes.-Nine ladies dancing were the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit--Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness,Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self Control.

-The ten lords a-leaping were the ten commandments.

-The eleven pipers piping stood for the eleven faithful disciples.

-The twelve drummers drumming symbolized the twelve points of belief in the Apostles' Creed.

So there is your history for today. This knowledge was shared with me and I found it interesting and enlightening and now I know how that strange song became a Christmas Carol...so pass it on if you wish."

Interesting quips....

2008-01-14T10:23:00.000-05:00

The man who has no imagination has no wings. - Muhammad Ali

Handle them carefully, for words have more power than atom bombs. - Pear Strachan

The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom - Unknown

Just as there are no little people or unimportant lives, there is no insignificant work. - Elena Bonner

Hold fast to your memories, everything else in life ends up in a garage sale. - Unknown

Even if you are on the right track, if you don't keep moving you're going to get run over. - Will Rogers

The world is blesses most by those who do things and not by those who merely talk about them. - James Oliver

You will never get to second base if you insist on keeping one foot on first base. - Unknown

There can be no happiness if the things we believe in are different from the things we do. - Freya Stark

Celestial Potentates

2008-01-08T09:17:00.001-05:00

It would seem to me…that all candidates for the office of President of the United States must profess some kind of religion. ‘We the people’, the voting public, have sort of made this a requirement (unfortunately).

However, most of us, who profess a liberal understanding of religion, recognize that religions of all kinds are reactions to death or ignorance, and usually date from the childhood of our species, when we didn't know better.

The world (I think) would be so much better off if more people could bring themselves to reject those celestial potentates and realize we are out here on our own. That we must learn to rely on each other, not a sky-god.

I am fearful when I hear candidates say they want to ‘lead the country back to Christ’, or that profess a religion that believes a resurrected Jesus lived for some time in North America. Such profession of belief in religious dogma worries me. Causes me to have concern about motive and intelligence.

How do we as a people move past this delusional status and reliance on celestial potentates?

Perhaps if the Church would embrace the concept of intellectual honesty, that would be a start, but I don’t look for that to happen very soon.

But then I could be wrong……………. barry e

A Note form Rev. Cliff L. regarding last weeks article on 'original sin'

2007-12-26T10:09:00.000-05:00

Barry,

Thank you for your web site. It is very stimulating and I appreciate the challenge of examining my beliefs.

I voted in your inquiry of "Do you believe in "original sin." While I do not believe in the dogma of "original sin." as it is interpreted to mean that all persons are born as depraved, sinful, corrupted individuals and need someone to "save" them, I do believe that at one time or another most of us are selfish, offend/abuse others, and do not seek the common good. Sin has often been understood as "offending God, or doing things contrary to God's will." Repentance, as understood by the first century Jews and Christians was a "turning around so that one's actions were in accordance with God's will, i.e., doing that which is right, just, and loving."

When the first Christians said that Jesus saved us from our sins, they were saying that Jesus showed us the way to be at one with God." That's a lot different from "saving" us from eternal damnation, although if one believes that being "one with God" means eternal life, which is available in the present, then I can see how Jesus saves us from eternal damnation, which would mean living in the absence of God in the present.

For me, Original Sin has the connotation that every individual is depraved, unable to know God. I do not believe that. The writers of the Bible looked around them and discovered that all people seemed to be self-serving, contrary to God's will. Therefore, early Christian theologians (I think it Augustine was the first) coined the conception "Original Sin." I believe that it is descriptive of humanity rather than a theological truth (of which there are very few, if any).

This may seem that I am riding the fence. What I am seeking to do is to understand why people of faith in the past have written about their faith and why now their words have the weight of "LAW and TRUTH." When they were writing, I think they were not writing LAW and TRUTH, but a rational for their personal faith.

Does this make any sense?

Thanks again for your willingness to explore the complexities of our faith.

Richard Holloway - Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church

2007-12-18T12:14:00.000-05:00

In the late fourth and early fifth centuries AD, one of the great psychological controversies of all time took place. It had to do with what we today should call the ‘Theory of Original Sin’. Specifically, the question at issue was whether a certain sin of the ancestor of the race, namely Adam, was carried by inheritance to all his offspring through all the ages.

One of the parties to the controversy was a man named, Pelagius. According to his view, Adam’s will to disobedience ended where it began. Because, under a momentary temptation, he had misbehaved, there was no reason, Pelagius argued, why every child born thereafter was fated to inherit this same will to misbehavior.

Each child in the world, he maintained, starts with his own powers and carries in him no weight of sin produced by a single ancestral misdemeanor.

St. Augustine, on the contrary, held that Adam’s act of disobedience started a long train of psychic inheritance. Every child born thereafter was cursed with sin that began with Adam’s act of disobedience. Adam’s original sin, in short, became a universal and inherent tendency to commit sin. From this tendency the individual could be saved only by Divine favor.

When we think now of the conditions under which this debate was carried on, we wonder at the deep seriousness with which it was taken – and continues even yet to be taken. There was no attempt at research or rigorous experiment. In fact St. Augustine’s position was so flagrantly a projection upon the whole human race of his own uncontrollable lusts that a modern psychologist would have thrown out his contentions as untrustworthy and misconceived.

So the greatest question at issue in our human life – whether we start with powers that enable us to work out our destiny; or whether, by a mysterious curse, we are defeated at the outset and must appeal to a higher Power to help us out – was settled without the slightest attempt to search for relevant factual evidence. It was settled by sacred writings, by theological debate, and by theological politics.

We might almost say that the curse which, through all subsequent centuries, has rested upon humankind came, not from Adam, but from St. Augustine. To a peculiar degree, it was St. Augustine who denied to Christians the world over, the healthy blessing of self-respect. Augustine won this argument, not by decision of a competent body of scientific minds, but chiefly by his power to influence the leaders of the Church. He used his theological arguments so effectively that Pelagius was declared a heretic.

Did Augustine have the right of the argument? There was nothing in the procedure by which his view was make the truth and the opposite view was made false. When the rulers of the Church declared the Pelagian view a heresy they did not prove it to be an error. Yet once the declaration was made, Augustine’s doctrine of original sin became so strongly institutionalized that the question of its truth or falsity virtually ceased to arise. Institutional might… made it right.

If the same question were to arise today, it would doubtless be handled differently. In the first place, the ‘ancestor’ would not be a man called Adam but more likely a primordial cell-structure. In the second Place, we would look, first of all, for factual evidence. We would not likely take as our source authority an ancient, unverifiable creation-tale. Starting thus afresh, we might well conclude that each person comes into the world not only with the traces on him – physical and psychological – of what his ancestors have been and done, but also with his own powers. No man starts with a biologically and psychologically clean slate. To this extent Augustine was right.

On the other hand, no person, so far as we can judge from available evidence, starts life so specifically cursed by a will to evil that he has no chance to direct his powers toward decency and wholeness. To this extent Pelagius was right. The ‘will to disobedience’ that Augustine found in all of us appears to be merely the expression of the inevitable conflict between a helpless creature trying to grow into its proper independence and an environment that the child, in his immaturity, can neither understand nor master.

The time is at hand to re-view the whole situation. Christian religion as we know it took over as its own this premature psychological theory: a theory established long before there was any equipment of research or experiment to give it validation. In taking over this premature theory, Christianity condemned man to a psychological hopelessness to which Christ himself bore no witness. It declared humans to be basically impotent to work out our psychological salvation.

Instead of encouraging us to develop all the characteristically human powers within us, and so overcome inner contradictions and outer obstacles, it encouraged us to distrust ourself and malign ourself. It encouraged humankind to cast himself upon a power greater than himself – and to credit, not his own nature, but that mysterious power, with every virtue that seemed to reside in his own thoughts and behaviors. In short, it encouraged the individual to remain a dependent child.

LLoyd Geering - Secular trend a part of church evolution (excerpts)

2007-12-12T10:05:00.000-05:00

The erosion of church institutions does not mean the end of Christianity, for the latter needs to be seen not as something eternally fixed but as an ever-changing and developing process. The modern secular world is all part of that evolving process.

When Christianity emerged out of Judaism, Christians claimed it to be the legitimate continuation and fulfilment of the Jewish path of faith. Similarly, the modern, secular and humanistic world may be regarded as the legitimate continuation of the Judeo-Christian path of faith.

The churches must stop treating the secular world as an enemy to be fought and conquered and welcome it as the new form of the Christian tradition out of which it has come.

The most important task of the churches on entering the 21st century is to help the secular world to understand its Christian origin. The study of the past illuminates the present, but it does not dictate the future.

That is why the Bible remains an invaluable set of documents. We learn much from it but we are not bound by it.

From the Association of Religion Data Archives

2007-12-05T12:53:00.000-05:00

Religion Data Archives www.Thearda.com
Figures as of 2005

Rank.... Religion .....................Adherents
1 .............Christians ........................2,135,782,815
2 .............Muslims ..........................1,313,983,654
3 .............Non-Religious/Atheists ....920,246.454
4 .............Hindus ..............................870,047,346
5 .............Chinese Universists ..........404,922,244
6 .............Buddhists ..........................378,809,103
7 .............Ethno-Religionists ............256,340,652
8 .............Sikhs ...................................25,373,879
9 .............Jews ....................................15,145,702
10 ...........Spiritists ..............................13,030,538
11 ........... Bahai's ..................................7,614,998
12 ...........Confucianists ........................6,470,714
13 ...........Jains .....................................4,588,432
14 ...........Shintoists ..............................2,789,098
15 ...........Taoists.................................. 2,733,859
16 ...........Zoroastrians ..........................2,647,523

Mithra and Jesus compared…

2007-11-27T09:49:00.000-05:00

Mithra or Mitra is even worshipped as Itu (Mitra-Mitu-Itu) in every house of the Hindus in India. Itu (derivative of Mitu or Mitra) is considered as the Vegetation-deity. This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also believed that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He traveled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... [The Sun's] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox--Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb....

The Persian priests had their legend of the chief of their religion, and they tell us that prodigies announced his birth. He was exposed to all sorts of danger from his infancy, was obliged to flee into Persia, as Christ was obliged to flee into Egypt; he was pursued as him by a king who wished to destroy him; an angel transported him into the skies, from when they said he brought back the book of the law; as Christ, he was tempted by the devil, who made him magnificent promises, if he would but follow him; he was pursued and calumniated, as Christ, by the Pharisees; he performed miracles, in order to confirm his divine mission and the dogmas contained in his book.

Such was the history of the god Mithra given by the Persians--squaring exactly with the history of Christ given by his worshippers.

Now, Mithra was but a personification of the Sun--and we dare to say, what all intelligent readers will certainly think, that Christ was no more--nay, that the Christian religion is a mere copy of the Persian--a branch of the same allegorical tree.

Because of its evident relationship to Christianity, special attention needs to be paid to the Persian/Roman religion of Mithraism. The worship of the Indo-Persian god Mithras or Mithra dates back centuries or millennia prior to the common era. The god is found as "Mitra" in the Indian Vedic religion, which is over 3,500 years old, by conservative estimates. When the Iranians separated from their Indian brethren, Mitra became known as "Mithra" or "Mihr," as he is called in Persian.

What are we to make of this comparison?

Church Music - Old and New !!!!!!!

2007-11-14T15:03:00.000-05:00

A man accustomed to a mainline church went to a seekers' service one Sunday. He came home and his wife asked him how it was. "Well," he said, "it was interesting. They did something different. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns."

"Praise choruses?" said his wife. "What are those?"

"Oh, they're okay, I guess. They're sort of like hymns, only different," said the man.

"What's the difference?" asked his wife.

He replied, "Well, it's like this. If I were to say to you,

'Martha, the cows are in the corn,' that would be a hymn. Suppose, on the other hand, I were to say to you:

'Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh, Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA,

the cows,

the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows, the white cows, the black and white cows,

the COWS, COWS, COWS are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn,

the CORN, CORN, CORN.'…..

Then if I were to repeat the whole thing five or six times, that would be a praise chorus."
________

As luck would have it, the same Sunday a young woman accustomed to seekers' services attended a mainline service. She came home and her husband asked her how it was.

"Well," she said, "it was interesting. They did something different, however. They sang hymns instead of praise choruses."

"Hymns?" said her husband. "What are those?"

"Oh, they're okay, I guess. They're sort of like regular songs, only different." said the woman.

"What's the difference?" asked her husband.She replied,

"Well, it's like this. If I were to say to you, 'Ernest, the cows are in the corn,' that would be a regular song. Suppose, on the other hand, I were to say to you:

Oh Ernest, dear Ernest, now hear thou my cry;

Incline thine ear to the words of my mouth.

Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by to the righteous, inimitable, glorious truth.

For the way of the animals who can explain?

There is in their heads no shadow of sense!

Hearken they not in God's sun or his rain.

Unless from the mild, tempting corn they are fenced.

Yea, those COWS in glad bovine, rebellious delight broke free from their shackles, their warm pens eschewed.

Then goaded by minions of darkness and night.

They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn have chewed.

So look to that bright shining day by and by, Where all the corruptions of earth are reborn, Where no vicious animal makes my soul cry, And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn.……

Then, if I were to sing only verses one, three, and four, and if I were to do a key change on the last verse, that would be a hymn."
__________________
(....To each his own !!!!!)

Why Won't God Help Amputees?

2007-10-23T08:52:00.000-04:00

Except from the web site ; http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

"Why won't God heal amputees?" may seem like an odd name for a Web site. The reason for choosing it is simple: this is one of the most important questions that we can ask about God.

The question, "Why won't God heal amputees?" probes into a fundamental aspect of prayer and exposes it for observation. This aspect of prayer has to do with ambiguity and coincidence.

To help you understand why this question is so important, let's look at an example. Let's imagine that you visit your doctor one day, and he tells you that you have cancer. Your doctor is optimistic, and he schedules surgery and chemotherapy to treat your disease. Meanwhile, you are terrified. You don't want to die, so you pray to God day and night for a cure. The surgery is successful, and when your doctor examines you again six months later the cancer is gone. You praise God for answering your prayers. You totally believe with all your heart that God has worked a miracle in your life.

The obvious question to ask is: What cured you? Was it the surgery/chemotherapy, or was it God? Is there any way to know whether God is playing a role or not when we pray?

Unless you take the time to intelligently analyze this situation, it looks ambiguous. God might have miraculously cured your disease, as many Christians believe. But God might also be imaginary, and the chemotherapy drugs and surgery are the things that cured you. Or your body's immune system might have cured the cancer itself.

When your tumor disappeared, in other words, it might simply have been a complete coincidence that you happened to pray. Your prayer may have had zero effect.

How can we determine whether it is God or coincidence that worked the cure? One way is to eliminate the ambiguity. In a non-ambiguous situation, there is no potential for coincidence. Because there is no ambiguity, we can actually know whether God is answering the prayer or not.

That is what we are doing when we look at amputees.

Think about it this way. The Bible clearly promises that God answers prayers. For example, in Mark 11:24 Jesus says,

"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

And billions of Christians believe these promises. You can find thousands of books, magazine articles and Web sites talking about the power of prayer. According to believers, God is answering millions of their prayers every day.

So what should happen if we pray to God to restore amputated limbs? Clearly, if God is real, limbs should regenerate through prayer. In reality, they do not.

Why not? Notice that there is zero ambiguity in this situation. There is only one way for a limb to regenerate through prayer: God must exist and God must answer prayers. What we find is that whenever we create a unambiguous situation like this and look at the results of prayer, prayer never works. God never "answers prayers" if there is no possibility of coincidence.

The fact that prayers are never answered when the possibility of coincidence is eliminated meshes with another fact. If we analyze God's responses to ambiguous prayers using statistical tools, what we find is that there is never any statistical evidence for prayer. In other words, when we statistically compare prayer to coincidence for explaining any situation, they are identical. For example,

One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments.

It also says:

A review of 17 past studies of ''distant healing," published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods.

No valid scientific study has ever found any evidence that prayer works.

You can see the same effect in the following prayer. Let's assume that you are a true believer and you do believe that God cures cancer. What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:

Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. If God cures cancer, then this is an easy prayer for an omnipotent, all-loving God to answer.

The fact is, what this prayer does is remove ambiguity. As soon as we do that, we see the true nature of "God." There is no way that a coincidence can answer this prayer, and, sure enough, the prayer goes unanswered.

If you look at the data, you can see exactly what is happening here:

When we pray to God about any non-ambiguous situation, God never answers the prayer.
When we analyze any ambiguous prayer using statistical tools, we find zero effect from prayer.

In other words, every "answered prayer" truly is a coincidence, nothing more. "God" doesn't "answer prayers" at all. The belief in prayer is pure superstition. Non-ambiguous prayers (like those of amputees) show us, conclusively, that the whole idea that "God answers prayers" is an illusion created by human imagination.

The ‘Savior Motif’

2007-09-18T12:09:00.000-04:00

Here is a quick ‘Pop Quiz’ for you… What do the following fourteen historical figures have in common?

Vishnu of India
Osiris of Egypt
Mithras of Persia
Baal of Phoenicia
Alexander (the Great) of Greece
Indra of India
Tammuz of Syria
Attis of Phrygia
Caesar Augustus of Rome
Adonis of Greece
Hercules of Thebes
Thor of the Scandinavians
Fo of China
Jesus of Palestine

Rather than make you guess, let me tell you… They were all said to have been ‘born of a virgin.’ Not only they but hundreds and hundreds of other Kings, leaders, warriors and rulers hold the same distinction. They were all said to have been ‘born of a virgin.’ Moreover, it has been written in documents through out the ancient world that most of them have been labeled with the entire ‘Savior Motif’, as I call it.

The ‘Savior Motif’ consists of eight specific points;…
1. Born of a virgin,
2. Said to be the ‘Son of God’,
3. Said to have performed miracles,
4. Died a cruel death,
5. Said to have died to save humankind from sin,
6. Said to have arisen from the grave,
7. Said to have been seen by many after he arose,
8. Said to have been seen ascending into heaven.

As one can easily see, with the exception of number four, the elements of the motif violate natural laws in ways that make it impossible for a person of average intelligence to fathom. And yet millions do believe it to be literally true with regard to Jesus of Palestine.

My second question – directed to those who believe – would be… If it can be believed to be true for one ‘savior’, then why not the hundreds of others?

Truth is… most believers are probably not aware that there were hundreds of so called ‘Saviors’ in ancient history. They do not realize that the eight elements of the motif were not intended to be taken literally. Historians explain that these things were said about a person (long after they had died) to indicate that they were important, extraordinary, exceptional, special.

Unfortunately, believers , through the centuries, have insisted on literalizing these stories as they relate to Jesus and thus have destroyed the beautiful prose that it was intended to be.

Why is this so?…

Could it be that the average believer is not a student of ancient history?…

Could it be that the average believer is not inclined to question what the church has told him/her?…

Could it be that the church has been negligent in explaining this truth to its adherents?…

I am inclined to say that all three are true.
But then… I could be wrong……………………. barry e

Does it matter --- what people believe?

2007-09-12T13:26:00.000-04:00

At the end of my blog entry of July 26th, I ask the question….

Does it matter??…. Does it make one ‘hoot’ of difference what the masses believe? Should we who profess a more progressive and intelligent understanding of religion just shut up and go away… or… Does it matter??

I told you I would give you my opinion later. Well, whether you want it or not, here are my thoughts on the matter…..

As you might guess, yes, I think it matters.

It is a well known fact that ‘what a person believes will affect how he acts.’ If one believes there is a supernatural being, ‘up there’ or ‘out there’ who will hear and answer prayer, it lessens one’s feeling of personal responsibility. “I will pray for the hungry, the homeless… and God will care for them.”

If one believes that his or her ‘Holy Book’ contains the inerrant word of God, and the moral law(s) for all time, then all debate over moral issues is dead.

If one believes that his or her ‘Holy Book’ contains the inerrant word of God, he or she might be persuaded to strap on a vest full of explosives, walk into a crowd of innocent people and blow one’s self up.

If one believes that his or her ‘Holy Book’ contains the inerrant word of God, he or she might feel compelled to bomb an abortion clinic, or to suggest ‘taking out’ the leader of a foreign country.

Belief in a God and/or an ancient book, is a belief based on ignorance. Knowledge of the 21st century that explains where those Gods and Goddesses and those ancient book came from, and renders such belief systems impotent. Facts, evidence, reason and just a little bit of logic must prevail if the human race is to mature beyond it’s current state.

Yes, I know all the arguments about leaving room for the spiritual and the transcendent and not wanting to disturb Granny and her comfort zone… but such ‘right brain (emotional) thinking’ is bringing the world closer and closer to the brink of disaster.

Richard Holloway, Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, in his book ‘Godless Morality’ Canongate Books Ltd., 1999, writes, …”it is better to leave God out of the moral debate and find good human reasons for supporting the system or approach we advocate, without having recourse to divinely clinching arguments. We have to offer sensible approaches that will help us to pick our way through the moral maze that confronts us.”

It is time for all religions to become honest… and first of all, honest with themselves.

But then, I could be worng………………………..barry e

2007-09-07T09:33:00.000-04:00

John Martin from Adelaide, South Australia writes:

This week, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) television program Compass, hosted by Geraldine Doogue, ran a production on Interfaith Ministry. It was based on a book written by Peter Kirkwood and published by ABC Books in Sydney, Australia. Now I am reading the book — The Quiet Revolution — and it is an inspiring story indeed. I had never heard of the Parliament of the World's Religions, so I am moving into a set of stories completely new to me.
Despite the glamorous report presented through the television lens, the movement may have much goodwill building to do. Given that I live in a far-flung part of the world, I feel the need not to invest too much hope in it yet. On the other hand, this is no time in the life of the planet to be timid and doubtful. Perhaps you might comment on the movement and provide some guidance to those of us unfamiliar with, but not averse to, this approach?

Dear John,

The Parliament of the World's Religions is a reputable organization, developed by competent people, one of whom is The Rt. Rev. William Swing, retired Episcopal (Anglican) Bishop of California. Whether it is now or will be an effective organization is still a question. Only time will tell. The direction in which it seeks to move is quite obviously the correct one.

Transcending a cultural faith tradition in the name of a vision of a world religion is not easy. It demands that all religious systems sacrifice their claims to possess exclusive truth or to be the sole pathway to God. It invites people to live in the insecurity of uncertainty and to embrace the fact that we are creatures bound by time and space talking about a God who is not.. True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers.

Will the Parliament succeed? All I know is that every new movement begins with a new idea and a single step. This organization seeks to bring about a conversation where none has previously existed. Unless we find a way to transcend tribal limits and the religious systems (including our own) that have their origins in tribal thinking, I do not believe that there will be a realistic hope for the future of humanity. Far too many human beings have already been killed by others in the name of their God.

So I support this initiative and I hope others will also.

- John Shelby Spong

The Bogus Biblicism Of the Religious Right - Rev. Dr. Jack Good

2007-08-29T14:51:00.000-04:00

Recent events have given additional evidence of a fact most of us wish we did not have to acknowledge: Religious fundamentalism is one of the most destructive forces on the planet. The dangers increase when fundamentalism is rooted in blind obedience to, and misuse of, a holy book.The religious right demonstrates that the danger is no less real in Christianity than in any other faith. Violence, for these people who claim to be followers of Jesus, lies near the surface, as evidenced by a spokesperson who recently counseled the government to “take out” the elected head of a South American nation. My concern here is for another of fundamentalism’s destructive tendencies. For more than a generation, this reactionary group has pushed an agenda that, if enacted, would limit the rights and freedoms of significant portions of the population. Their announced rationale is that their positions are rooted in the Bible. Their claim does not square with reality. The truth is that the Bible does not support their stands on abortion, homosexuality, or “family values.” Leaders of the religious right have seized the Judeo-Christian scripture—“stolen” is not too strong a word—to immeasurably strengthen the arguments for their radical concerns. This has been a shrewd move. Even in our increasingly secular society the Bible carries considerable weight. Shifting that weight from one side of the social debate to the other gives reactionary arguments an inappropriate, and, as shall be shown, a quite unsupportable, advantage.

The so-called “biblical conservatives” do not attempt to adjust themselves to biblical themes; that would be disastrous for their cause. Instead, they attempt to align the scripture with their ideas. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have been particularly ingenious in this task. Robertson and Falwell make their biblical claims by taking snippets of scripture and rearranging them to suit their goals. Or, they simply claim a biblical foundation for their ideas without any biblical citations at all. A good example of this is Falwell’s response to criticism by an organization of homosexuals:"We were targeted solely because we advocate biblical ideals, namely traditional marriage and sexual purity before marriage - moral principles that counter those of the homosexual-rights movement."The Christian Coalition", formerly led by Pat Robertson, has been equally eager to attach itself to the aura of scripture. “God’s Plan for Salvation,” which this group offers on its website, offers numerous short quotes taken from various parts of the Bible, but gives the reader no opportunity to explore the Bible in depth.

This shallow and scattered approach has been the modus operandi throughout the life of his Christian Coalition. Few people seem to have noted how vulnerable the religious right has become through this process. Since their spokespersons have designated the Bible – “God’s Word” as they like to call it – as the primary support for their social positions, recognizing the false nature of that support could cause the collapse of their primary arguments.It is time to challenge the religious right at this point of vulnerability. Toward that end, it is helpful to expose the distance between what the religious right claims and what the Bible actually says about concrete items on their social agenda. Exposing the bogus use that the religious right makes of scripture can also reclaim the Bible for its more traditional, liberating role.AbortionOn the subject of abortion, the religious right takes a strongly pro-life, anti-choice, position. Unfortunately for them, biblical warrant for their stance is non-existent. Absolutely. The morality of abortion is not a biblical topic.

No other subject illustrates so clearly the dishonest way in which the religious right exploits the Bible. Here is a quote from one of Pat Robertson’s writings: “Nature is clear. Abortions kill babies. And the revealed laws of God about such killings in both the Old and New Testaments are easily understood.” The reader may note that “the revealed laws of God about such killings” are not cited. They are not cited because they do not exist.The absence of biblical comment on abortion is a surprise. The sexual ethic of the early biblical writers was designed to create as many babies as possible. Israel was a small nation surrounded by potential enemies. To maximize births, polygamy was allowed. The spilling of semen in any way other than production of babies (via masturbation, male homosexuality, and even intercourse with one’s wife during her period of infertility) was declared an abomination. Incredibly, in view of the need for population growth, the deliberate termination of a pregnancy never made it to this “thou shalt not” list.In only one instance does a biblical writer describe anything like abortion. This case makes clear that the protection of a pure paternal line was of greater value than continuation of a particular pregnancy. The passage in question (the later verses of the fifth chapter of Numbers, a text so hostile to women that I have never heard it read in public) describes one method of aborting an unwanted pregnancy. If, according to this obscure passage, a husband was suspicious that the fetus his wife was carrying may not be related to him, he and the priest could conspire to feed the wife enough impurities to make her violently ill. If she aborted, this was taken as a sign that another man had fathered the fetus.

The woman, having just lost her expected child, would then be banished from the community. If woman and fetus survived, it was assumed the husband’s suspicions were wrong.This obscure passage shows that abortion was practiced in ancient Jewish culture. Abortion is not mentioned again in scripture, nor can any rules be found to regulate the practice.

Several biblical passages relate indirectly to abortion. The twenty-first chapter of Exodus describes punishments to be meted out in cases of personal injury or death. Striking a person a mortal blow was punishable by death. But if, in a brawl, a man bumped against a pregnant woman and caused a miscarriage, he was to pay her spouse an amount determined by that husband. This verse directly precedes the famous “eye for an eye” concept: “When harm is done, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” (Exodus 21:22-24). Obviously, the fetus from the previous verse was not considered to be fully human, or the person who had caused its demise would have had to forfeit his own life. In the twenty-seventh chapter of Leviticus monetary value was assigned to men, women, and children—a determination necessary to settle civil suits. Females were valued at sixty percent the worth of males. Children were assigned even lower worth, a value that decreased with younger age. No value was mentioned for anyone less than a month old, and no additional worth was assigned to a pregnant woman.

In most debates over abortion, the command, “You shall not kill,” will be voiced. Actually, a correct translation of this commandment is, “You shall not murder.” The Jewish nation, along with other societies of the time, was busy killing. They killed in war. They killed by enforcing a long list of capital crimes. Abortion did not fall under this prohibition, since no biblical writer labeled a developing fetus a human being. Without that label, the fetus would not be subject to murder. One Biblical writer even gave mothers and fathers permission to kill their own children when those children were disobedient. (Exodus 21:15 and 17) Since children were considered the property of parents, the children could be either cared for or disposed of as the owner determined. The religious right is thus in the position of arguing from scripture that parents had the authority to stone a child to death for insubordination, but were forbidden to interrupt the pregnancy that produced that child. One thing is clear to any reader of scripture. Biblical writers were capable of putting together powerful, declaratory sentences. Clear prohibitions abound. Yet not a single writer felt motivated to state: “You shall not interrupt a pregnancy.” Neither this sentence nor anything remotely like it appears in scripture. The morality of abortion is not an issue in the pages of the Bible.

Rev. Dr. Jack Good

Does it matter??

2007-07-26T09:53:00.001-04:00

A few years back there was a movie called “A Few Good Men” playing in the theaters. It starred Tom Cruise and Jack Nickleson, as I remember. Tom Cruise played the part of a Naval lawyer. In one scene, a courtroom scene, Nickleson was on the witness stand and Cruise was interrogating him. He pointed his finger at Nickleson and in a loud voice demanded, “I want the truth.”…. Theatergoers watched as Nickleson’s face turned red, the veins in his neck bulged and in an angry voice he replied,… “You can’t handle the truth!”

For the past two hundred plus years, the “Professionals” of Christianity (the clergy, theologians, biblical scholars, professors of religion, the hierarchy of the church) have, in essence, spoken this same line to the people-in –the-pews, regarding the truth of religion. They have covertly said over and over, “You can’t handle the truth”, … about God, about the Trinity, about prayer, about the virgin birth, the resurrection, original sin, atonement, heaven, hell and eternity.

For over two hundred years, the “Professionals” of Christianity (with only a few exceptions) have chosen to remain silent about the true history and authenticity of God, religion and the dogma of the Church. Opting instead to allow the myth of an immature belief system to continue unabated; maintaining an “Our father who art in heaven” theology.

But now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, intelligence is beginning to overtake the silence of the Church. More than just a few of the Church “Professionals” are breaking rank. They are talking and writing about the true understanding of gods and goddesses, religion and ‘faith’.

Some – who would squelch this new truth – object on the grounds that the people-in-the-pews should believe what ever they want to believe. If the old belief (myth) system gives them comfort, leave it alone. After all, many of them “…can’t handle the truth.”

My question to you today is this….. Does it matter??…. Does it make one ‘hoot’ of difference what the masses believe? Should we who profess a more progressive and intelligent understanding of religion just shut up and go away… or… Does it matter??

I solicit your comments… my opinion will come later… barry e

(3) It would seem to me...

2007-06-28T11:40:00.000-04:00

Let me till you about my Pastor….

My Pastor graduated with a Master’s of Divinity degree, from a well-known Christian seminary, in the early 1990’s. She was ordained shortly thereafter by a Mainline Christian denomination and began her career as a Pastor by serving as an Associate minister at a church in Southwestern Florida.

In 2002 she became the Senior Pastor of the church (where I regularly attend) where she now serves, and cares for a congregation of about 350-400 parishioners.

My Pastor is faced with the task that most Mainline Pastors are faced with today, albeit; to serve the church in a time of dramatic cultural and spiritual change. She must not only preach the gospel of the ‘Popular Christianity’ (that which is understood primarily by the people-in-the-pews), but also, she must tend to that segment of the ‘flock’ that has moved beyond the ‘Popular Christianity’ to a more mature and intellectual understanding of the church and religion. This is a ‘balancing act’ that will challenge many mainline Christian Pastors for years to come.

It would seem to me… my Pastor is making great progress in accomplishing the dynamics of this ‘balancing act’. Her sermons are biblically based but not dogmatic. She uses scripture to reference a thought, an ideal, a situation, but her reference to the scripture seldom implies a literal interpretation. In Bible study classes she will often explain the scriptures as the experience of those of the ancient world, but not necessarily our experience, today, in the 21st century. She has instigated small (but important) changes in the liturgy of the worship service that are helping to move the congregation toward a more mature understanding of the Christian religion. Her sermons are life affirming messages that comfort and inspire, (as opposed to those that instill fear and intimidation).

It would seem to me… this is the path that Mainline Pastors mush begin to walk if the Church is to have a chance for survival, and the sooner the better.

It would seem to me… there are a great number of people in Church pews who are silently waiting for this movement to begin and untold others who have left the Church because – in many cases – it has not.

But then… I could be wrong………….barry e

Another interesting excerpt....

2007-06-21T09:05:00.000-04:00

Excerpt from the book, The Question of Religion
by William Corlett and John Moore
Bradbury Press, 1978

If I leave aside religion’s involvement in temporal matters – political, economic and social – at least for the moment, then the religious image has among its assets the advantages of comparative permanence, stability, continuity and security. Its importance may fluctuate from time to time and from place to place, but in the main, its threads, in their various forms, have woven continuously through the tapestry of human history.

Certainly it is debatable whether man invented religion for his own satisfaction, but there can be no doubt that it has fulfilled its human requirements – indeed, it still does. In general, the forms of religion have always been accepted as an essential ingredient in human society, even though at times the different forms have sought to suppress and eliminate each other. (But are those unseemly activities the fault of the religion or the men who are interpreting it in inappropriate ways?)

Now, in modern times, as a result of the effects of science, technology and industry, certain materialistic ideologies, gathering strength in many parts of the world, have elected to dispense with religion altogether and actively discourage it in their societies. This last development seems very significant.

Does it not indicate a crucial point in human evolution? Does it represent a foolhardy and disastrous movement which will result in men being no more than well-organized colonies like ants, simply surviving and reproducing themselves? Or does it signify progress, in that men are facing the facts of existence and are beginning to regulate themselves intelligently and be responsible for themselves?

Are we alive at a time when, regardless of past evidence, the god-idea is no longer viable or even useful to man?

(2) It would seem to me...

2007-06-07T09:21:00.000-04:00

Our study group, that meets each Sunday morning, has been discussing a chapter from the book ‘Philosophers and Philosophies’ titled ‘Christianity Without Belief in God’. The book is by Frederick Copleston.

The essence of the chapter is this… “For an increasing number of people, belief in the existence of a God is becoming impossible in a sense analogous to that in which it has become impossible for most people to believe that there are elves in the forest.

It is not a case of one’s being able to demonstrate the non-existence of elves. Rather it is a case of one’s seeing no good reason for accepting the hypothesis that they do exist. The events, which might be said to be the activities of the elves, can be explained in other ways.

Analogously, in view of what seems to be the massive silence and the conspicuous inactivity of the alleged divine being, and in view of the fact that events that were once explained in terms of divine activity are now explained in other ways, belief in such a God has become a superfluous hypothesis.”

It would seem to me… in addition to those who do not believe, there are vast numbers of Christians who would describe God in some way other than the description found in the Bible.

This, of course, is not a new discovery. Humanity has been trending in this direction for (at least) the past two hundred years. Bishop John A. T. Robertson said as much in his book, ‘Honest to God’ written in 1963.

It would seem to me… the trend is beginning to grow exponentially as the intelligence level of the nation and the world increases.

It would seem to me… the Church must embrace a new understanding of God and begin to gently infuse it into the its liturgy and teachings, before the critical mass of non-belief in the traditional description of God causes the Church to fail completely. Copleston suggests the possibility of an understanding that moves “from God to god”. (I’ll explain that concept another time.)

It would seem to me… a new approach to religion and/or spirituality must become an urgent priority of the Church if it intends to survive the 21st century as anything more than a fringe organization among the uninformed and uneducated…

But then… I could be wrong……………barry e

It would seem to me...

2007-05-17T10:00:00.000-04:00

I attended a church mini-seminar a couple weeks ago. It was sponsored by a regional office of a mainline Protestant denomination that has been losing membership on a yearly basis, just like all other mainline Christian churches. The theme of the seminar was ‘Transformation of the Church’. Sounded like something I would be interested in.

Turned out I was wrong.

The speaker, a regional minister from Northern California, blamed much of the steady decline in membership on the fact (or presumed fact) that the Church(s) have lost sight of their ‘mission’. He conjectured that if the existing members of the church would rededicate themselves to the job (mission) of inviting the 60+ percent of the general public that do not currently attend church to ‘come and join us’, the problem of declining membership would soon be solved. Basically, that was the sum total of his 1 ½ hour message. He ended with an enthusiastic …”so get out there and get going!” That was it. That was his idea of ‘Transformation'.

It would seem to me… if it were that easy, it would have been done long ago.

It would seem to me… the 60+ percent of the population that are not coming to church are not coming for a reason… Perhaps one ought to spend some time trying to understand what that reason is before one begins to “get out there and get going!”

It would seem to me… (from what little research I have done on the subject), people today are much smarter than they were a hundred years ago. They understand to much about the universe and humankind and science in general, to believe in the ancient dogma of the church.

It would seem to me… the church ought to grow up and get honest with itself and the-people-in-the-pews, (about things like; virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, God in the sky, etc., etc.) before it decides to “get out there and get going!”

It would seem to me… A more intelligent message would have much more of an appeal to the un-churched and those who have left the church, than the myth and folklore the church is promoting today.

But then… I could be wrong………………….. barry e

From "Paths of Faith' by Michael Ford

2007-05-03T14:10:00.000-04:00

Most people attend church or go to the synagogue or mosque and take the teachings they receive at face value, without ever questioning whats beneath them. Religion has much more to do with belief and faith than with grappling with reality.

Changes needed...

2007-04-17T08:25:00.000-04:00

Just as we have made changes to update the music portion of our worship services, we need to look toward our liturgy and our understanding of our Christian heritage.

The past two hundred years have seen great changes in the understanding of the Bible and the Christian doctrine. Christian leaders, theologians, biblical scholars all talk, teach and write about Christianity in a way that is completely foreign to 98% of the people-in-the-pews. And they agree that the church must begin to wake up to the knowledge of the 21st century and begin to preach and teach a more intellectually honest doctrine or it will continue to lose its place in society - and in the not to distant future - become relegated to the fringes of society, among the uneducated and uninformed.

Behind the Invisible Velvet Curtain

2007-04-11T09:46:00.000-04:00

It amazes me that in this post-modern age, with the knowledge we humans have of the universe, of human nature and our place the world, that the human mind can still carry around the idea that there is a supernatural ‘being’ somewhere ‘up there’ or ‘out there’, watching over us and from time to time intervening in the affairs of our lives. Such a notion is an indication of immaturity and a lack of knowledge (even basic knowledge) of the history and origin of god(s), goddesses and religion.

It is clearly understood by knowledgeable Theologians, biblical scholars, seminarians and many, if not most, church hierarchy, that all god(s) and goddesses are of human construct. That ‘reveled word’ is nothing more than a reflection of man’s highest ideals. The only people who do not understand these vital facts are the-people-in-the-pews. Why? Because of what the Rev. Dr. Jack Good calls, “The Dishonest Church” (Rising Star Press, 6/03), or what Bishop John Shelby Spong writes in “A New Christianity for a New World” (HarperSanFrancisco, 2001).

It is as if there were an invisible velvet curtain hanging between the pulpit and the pews. The-people-in-the-pews are being ‘fed’ the pabulum of their youth because the church does not know how to admit to it’s centuries of mis-information and abuse of privilege.

So long as we humans continue to rely on a non-existent supernatural ‘being’ to take care of our needs, we ignore our personal responsibility to ourselves and all of humankind. And as a species we will not grow to our full maturity.

Religions play a valuable role in society. They provide a place for teaching ethics and morals. They offer a much needed atmosphere of community. But if they are to continue to be a valuable resource for all humankind, they must begin to bring their dogma and their beliefs into the 21st century. As humans we need to begin to reconcile what we believe with what we know. If we do not, our churches, synagogues and mosques will soon become nothing more than havens for the uninformed and uneducated.

Christianity - likened to a ladder

2007-04-10T09:45:00.000-04:00

Christianity (and religion in general) can be understood at many levels. The various levels can be likened to the rungs on a ladder. The lowest rung can be thought of as an immature level of understanding and the top rung a mature level of understanding.

The most immature level of believer, believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible and other Christian (religious) dogma. This level believes in a God that is supernatural in nature, one that resides ‘up there’ or ‘out there’ and from time to time invades the world to invoke His own will. This level of understanding also believes in the literal virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and believes that Jesus literally died to save humankind from sin. At this immature level, the adherent believes that the written authority of the religion (i.e. the Bible, Torah, Quran) was literally written or inspired by a God.

The most mature level of believer, understands that all religious writings and all Gods/Goddesses of all religions are of human construct. The origin of which can be found in a cursory study of the early history of the human species. At a macro level it is understood that (any) religion is a tool, instituted and used to control social behavior. At a micro level religious adherence provides comfort and support to the individual believer.

The rungs between represent the many variations expressed in denominational creeds and beliefs. However, there are potentially as many rungs (i.e. understandings of religion) as there are religious adherents.

An individual believer is able to understand religion at the level (or rung) where he/she stands, and most likely understands the levels below where he/she stands. A person may also understand some of the level immediately above where he/she stands. However, he/she is likely to label as heretic or atheist, anyone expressing an understanding that is two or more rungs above his/her own level of understanding.

The ability of an individual, to move (upward) toward a more mature understanding of religion is limited only by the individual’s appetite and desire to study the historical origins of God(s) and religion(s). Without such a desire to learn, the individual, and society as well, will forever remain below the level of a fully mature understanding of religion.