Can There Be Worldwide Common Cause between Christians & Muslims?

"Revolutionary ideas do not come from books and manifestos,

but from experiences and connections with different peoples."

 Tarak Barkawi, Senior Lecturer in the Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge.

The Peace of All Nations found
in Cooperation, Trust and Goodwill

The following opnion-column was submitted to the Muslim newspaper Aljazeera by a Muslim professor of Internation Studies of the University of Cambridge, England. It provides a vision created by the unappreciated and oft-overlooked common men and women of the world - who seek justice amongst the unfortunate; who are willing to seek peace within their own communities; and who wish to remove unjust political contexts from where they must live and work. To the common goal of creating a system of good welfare to all who hope to find life, liberty and justice within the oppression of their own religions, cultures and the mis-founded attitudes of family, relatives, friends and neighbors.

The Ottoman Empire's Symbol of Peace
stylized in calligraphy as an Ostrich

The question must be asked, "Is it possible in this diverse world of ours that Westerners, Asians and Muslims can lay down their attitudes of superiority in a multi-racial, multi-regional, multi-cultural resistance movement? Or will we continue to suffer from repression, regression and from the paucity of words and actions of support to coalition, solidarity and selfless actions of peace amongst one another?"

World Peace Logo

The choice is ours to re-work into our own religious contexts of beliefs and attitudes, and into the peaceable structures of inter-cooperation, protection and asylum to all the world's participants.... More plainly... "Can Christianity learn to become peaceable with Islam and the Middle-Eastern peoples threatening terror to the West? Can Islam learn to become peaceable with Christianity and the West who have responded in kind? And can both Christianity and Islam learn to become peaceable with the Asian religions and attitudes of the Far East?" We are all humanity's brothers and sisters. Surely there can be a way found.

Chinese Symbols of Peace

Moreover, it is this author's opinion that within Christianity this mindset and behavior can be possible through Jesus. But insofar as it is promised in the Bible that the Christian Jesus is mankind's God and Savior, not just our own privately-kept, iconic form of  Jesus. Where is found God's promises of peace in Jesus' personage, ministry and Gospel. And to that same degree I believe Christians must find a way to communicate and live that out with one another, and with those who believe differently from the Christian religion. At the last, it is a heart issue, "Is it not?" For the God of love has come through Christ Jesus His Son commanding us to "Love one another." Love conquers fear. Love conquers strife. It seeks all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

This is the love of Christ Jesus. And it is infectious once caught, no matter what the religion, the culture, the resistance. God's love allows men and women to find Jesus within their own religions, cultures and family structures. To this we must be supportive. But not to our own Westernized or Americanized version of what we think the Christian Gospel must look like. We must adopt the attitude that God is quite capable of allowing His Love and Revelation through Jesus to be assimilated within all the communities of the world, and not just our own ideas of it. To know that Christianity may live and breathe differently from our own versions and inculcations of it, but that its centrality of doctrine and focus will still be substantially the same in Jesus. This will be the work of God and His Spirit. Not our own. Our trust then is in God, not ourselves. He will work it out. But it is our responsibility to LIVE it out.

Japanese paper cranes of Peace

So then, learn to love, to serve, to become peacemakers. To better behave our actions and jingoisms before one another. And to seek the peace of God with all men everywhere. That is the way of God. It is the way of Jesus. It is the way of God's love.

R.E. Slater
November 14, 2011


1 Corinthians 13

The Way of Love

¹If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. ²And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. ³ If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,^[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.

⁴ Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant ⁵or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;^{[b] 6}it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

⁸Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. ¹¹When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. ¹²For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

¹³So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Citizens of Toronto Create the
Universal Symbol of Peace

Many Hands, One World
Free & Interdependent

Can Ron Artest's Name-Change
Bring "Metta World Peace"?

 

********************

<><><><><><><>

<><><><><><><>

A vision of the whole human race http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011115131942562643.html Source: Al Jazeera by Tarak Barkawi Last Modified: 09 Nov 2011 Tarak Barkawi is Senior Lecturer in the Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge.

"Revolutionary ideas do not come from books and manifestos, but from experiences and connections with different peoples."

The Arab winter will see a 'counter-revolution', as new forms of repression are imposed [GALLO/GETTY] On February 22, 1803, Colonel Edward Despard was hung and beheaded in London for organising a revolutionary conspiracy to overthrow King George III and establish a republic in Britain. Among the crowd of 20,000 in front of the gallows was Colonel Despard's wife and partner in conspiracy, Catherine, an African American who Despard met during his military service in the Caribbean. She helped him compose the speech he made with the rope around his neck: "... his Majesty's Ministers... avail themselves of a legal pretext to destroy a man, because he has been a friend to truth, to liberty and to justice. Because he has been a friend to the poor and the oppressed. But Citizens, I hope and trust, notwithstanding my fate ... that the principles of freedom, of humanity and of justice will finally triumph over falsehood, tyranny and delusion, and [over] every principle inimical to the interests of the human race." What Despard meant by the "human race" was far in advance of the political theorists of his time. He included in this concept not only white males, but women and men of every colour and every status and class, native peoples, slaves and all the mixtures of white, brown and black that he had encountered during his service in the Americas. How did the son of a family of small, Irish landlords, who became an accomplished professional soldier, develop such an expansive view of humanity? As a boy in Ireland, he watched peasants driven off the land as English-backed landlords enclosed land that had been held in common. As a young officer building fortifications in Jamaica, he was nursed by Afro-Caribbean women. He learned to effectively command multi-racial work parties, and saw firsthand the terror used to enforce discipline among slaves, sailors, soldiers and workers. Along with a young Horatio Nelson, Despard led a harrowing expedition to evict the Spanish from Nicaragua. They successfully captured the main Spanish fort but then their men began to die from starvation and disease. Challenging societal norms Survival was possible only by cooperating with nearby free communities of Mosquito Indians - composed in fact of native Americans, runaway slaves and lower class whites who preferred freedom to backbreaking labour. (Nelson, who became Britain's greatest naval hero, would later unsuccessfully appeal for clemency for Despard and for a pension for Catherine.) Despard then became the Crown's leading official in British Honduras. There he sought to distribute land to indigent men and women of colour. He set aside lands for common use; sought to keep food prices down "for the poorer sort of people"; and worked with Indians who understood the local ecology. The landlords and big merchants were outraged. One railed that Despard had placed the "lowest Mulatto or free Negro" on an equal footing with the wealthy whites. People of different origins can find a common cause, and work together for change [GALLO/GETTY] Not to be trifled with, the landlords and merchants appealed to their networks in London and had Despard removed. Despard and Catherine returned to London and started plotting their conspiracy which ended on the gallows. What does the story of Edward and Catherine Despard offer us today, as we live through another moment of upheaval, revolution and counter-revolution? One thing the Despards teach us is that new political ideas do not generally arise from intellectuals and theorists alone. Rather the cut and thrust of experience and practice throws up new political possibilities. 'Practitioners' like Despard draw on their stock of ideas to develop new and creative responses to the situations that confront them. It is worth remembering that many of those we regard as great thinkers were also practitioners. Karl Marx was a revolutionary not an academic, and his comrade Friedrich Engels managed a factory. Karl von Clausewitz, the philosopher of war, was a Prussian officer with much experience of war. Socrates too was a veteran soldier; Freud a working psychologist; Keynes a civil servant. Gandhi was an activist. Even Rene Descartes, the supreme rationalist philosopher, was a professional soldier who sought to 'gather experiences'. His worry that he might be a brain in a vat, fooled by his senses, was perhaps an early modern case of PTSD. Despard developed his expansive concept of the human race because he had lived and worked in the multi-racial world of the 18th century Atlantic, not because he had read Immanuel Kant. In any case, Kant's cosmopolitanism was profoundly limited by comparison with Despard's. Kant [falsely] believed that "Humanity achieves its greatest perfection with the White race". In Haiti in 1801, revolting slaves managed to produce a constitution that went well beyond the liberal thought of the day. All slaves were freed and everyone made equal before the law. The US Constitution of 1787 regarded slaves as three-fifths of a person so that their white owners could have more representation in Congress. [The Arabian Spring] Counter-revolution And so, when we look upon the Arab Spring, we should not interpret it as a matter of Arabs having finally read John Locke and Thomas Jefferson and applied Western ideas. We should look instead for the new ideas, the new possibilities, the new politics created up by the protesters, activists and ordinary people who have made revolution. We should be cognizant too that the Arab Winter will be a university of counter-revolution, as new forms of repression, of neo-imperialism and of exploitation are developed in response to novel circumstances. The Despards-of-the-world have one last, difficult lesson to teach us. For over two centuries, liberal political theorists have been writing of human rights and democracy. Their well-intentioned acolytes have sought to spread the word around the world. Yet today, despite globalisation and multiculturalism, it is difficult to imagine political activism, cooperation and resistance across lines of race, religion and region that match what the Despards achieved. Think about it: A lordly Irish officer in the 18th century finds common cause, even love, with Indians, Africans and all manner of oppressed folk, and returns to the West as a revolutionary citizen of the world. Catherine, too, of slave origins and "violently in love" with her husband, crossed lines to help organise London's sailors (white and black), longshoremen, and other workers in the failed plot to create a republic. Here and there, in our time, Westerners, Christians and Muslims may find common cause - as in the Palestinian solidarity movement; or whites, blacks and mixed race people, as in the resistance to the apartheid regime in South Africa. But in a jingoistic age, when Westerners, Asians and Muslims are all convinced of their own superiority, a multi-racial, multi-regional, multi-cultural resistance movement on the model the Despards cooked up is almost unthinkable. Despite our own delusions, we have regressed - not progressed - from the Despards' vision of the whole human race. Tarak Barkawi is Senior Lecturer in the Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge. Al Jazeera readers can find out more about the Despard conspiracy in Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker’s The Many-Headed Hydra: The Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (London: Verso, 2000) The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. Source: Al Jazeera

Roger Olson - A Definition of Evangelicalism

"Evangelicalism"–what is that?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/12/evangelicalism-what-is-that/

by Roger Olson

posted December 16, 2010

The current issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education (Dec. 12, 2010) contains an article by Timothy Beal (Case Western Reserve University) entitled “Among the Evangelicals: Inside a fractured movement.” (It is available on line at: http://chronicle.com/article/Among-the-Evangelicals/125647/

The thesis seems to be twofold: 1) scholars of religion have largely ignored the movement until recently, and 2) the movement is so diverse that it can hardly be said to exist at all. The article deals almost exclusively with history and sociology highlighting studies of evangelicalism by people like Randall Balmer, Joel Capenter, Mark Noll and various non-evangelical sociologists who have studied the movement ethnographically (e.g., by studying small group Bible studies and TV evangelists).

The author, who attended Seattle Pacific University, describes evangelicalism as “a broad movement that centers on personal conversion to a ‘born again’ experience of faith in Jesus Christ, a missionary zeal to share this faith with others, and a high regard for the authority of the Bible” (three of David Bebbington’s four hallmarks of evangelicalism).

One fact that seems increasingly clear from these and other studies of the evangelical movement is this: When you view it from the sky, so to speak (the proverbial “bird’s eye view”) there seems to be an Evangelical movement, but when you study it “on the ground” (deep involvement and broad inquiry) the movement seems to disappear. From the “sky” evangelicals seem to have a lot in common in contrast to other religious affinity groups. On the “ground,” however, Evangelicalism seems to be nothing more than a bunch of very diverse Christians who share a love for Jesus, the Bible and Billy Graham. (Well, the love for Billy Graham part is certainly dissolving and I argue that it was he and his enormous ministries and their influence that really held the movement together for a while.)

Beal’s article tends to follow the now familiar pattern of looking at Evangelicalism through the lenses of mega-churches (and their ministries) and right wing politics. In other words, these tend to typify and represent evangelical Christianity in America today. One could certainly get that impression from browsing the shelves of evangelical-oriented Christian “bookstores.” (I put “bookstores” in scare quotes because most of these stores have few books and make most of their money from sales of “holy hardware.”)

These seem to me to be ephemeral expressions of what is essentially not a movement but a basic form of life created by an eclectic blend of Pietism, Revivalism and Fundamentalism. The movements that arise out of this form of life take various shapes and TV evangelism, mega-churches (of the Willow Creek and Saddleback variety), the Religious Right and the New Calvinism are just temporary manifestations that will eventually give way to others leaving their marks on the evangelical form of life for better or worse. (Earlier examples include the Keswick movement and the Jesus People movement.)

So what is this “evangelical form of life?” Certainly not a cohesive movement; various movements grow out of it and give it diverse expressions and sometimes take advantage of it and occasionally alter it somewhat. But the evangelical form of life is historically identifiable beneath and behind the movements associated with it. It can best be described as Jesus-centered conversional piety committed to the ultimate authority of the Bible for theology and ethics. It was born out of what scholar R. W. Ward has labeled the “Evangelical Awakenings” in Europe, Britain and America; it’s mothers and fathers were the continental Pietists and British Puritans–all of who emphasized heart-felt spirituality over confessional orthodoxy while remaining basically orthodox (i.e., “catholic.”)

One person who seemed to grasp this (earlier if not presently) was Randall Balmer in his now classic book and video series Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory. He described Evangelicalism as America’s folk religion. He shined his historical and sociological spotlight on a variety of organized expressions of Evangelicalism: an African-American church in the South, Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois, Calvary Chapels, a holiness camp meeting in the Appalachian mountains, a revivalistic summer camp for youth in New York, Voice of Calvary Ministries (John Perkins) in Mississippi, etc. Balmer calls these a subculture; I don’t see them as that united. What they share is very basic: a religious-spiritual form of life rooted in Pietism, Revivalism and Fundamentalism. (Here I am using these terms in their older, historical senses. By “Fundamentalism” I do NOT mean its contemporary popular expressions but its original expression in the early decades of the 20th century.)

I increasingly agree with those scholars who argue there is no such thing as Evangelicalism. The attempt to reify it and pin it down reminds me of those who attempted to do the same thing with the so-called New Age Movement in the 1980s. There never was a New Age Movement; it was a figment of the imaginations of media people, some sociologists, and especially conservative Christian conspiracy theorists. What there was were many manifestations of esoteric spirituality that temporarily found each other and then discovered they had less in common than they thought and stopped holding New Age conventions. Perhaps (I’d now say probably) “Evangelicalism” is just a term people have slapped on a blooming, buzzing confusion of relatively conservative, relatively revivalistic, pietistic Protestants who share only one thing–a form of life birthed out of the Evangelical Awakenings of the 17th and 18th centuries.

So what does that form of life look like? Of course, it looks very different in different people and groups. But overall, and in general, it looks like this: testimony of a conversion experience (whether datable or not) that marked the beginning of one’s authentic Christian life, the search for an ever stronger ”personal relationship with Jesus Chirst” including a regular prayer life, love for the Bible demonstrated through devotional reading and regular study (both individual and communal), trust in the cross of Jesus Christ as the central event in human history (together with the resurrection) as one’s hope for salvation, and basic embrace of the cardinal tenets of historic Christianity including especially the deity of Jesus Christ, his virgin birth, miracles and resurrection, the Trinity (even if only in a somewhat modalistic form), original sin (inherited depravity), salvation by grace through faith, etc. Part and parcel of this form of life is belief in the supernatural power of God to work miracles.

“Evangelicals” are those who embrace and practice this form of life, but they do NOT make up a cohesive movement. Rather, various movements gather them and either enhance that form of life or take advantage of it or both. All the movements come and go; none is identical to or necessary for the flourishing of the evangelical form of life.

What gets called “the Evangelical movement” is nothing more than a diverse collection of people who share the evangelical form of life - OR a particular organized expression of that form of life - extended into politics, or ethical activism, or evangelism, or worship renewal.

Emergent Christianity's Voice Is More Than Emergent Village's Assertions

Emergent Christianity is Not Progressive Christianity

As introduction, I should point out that I do not automatically associate "Emergent Christianity" in the same category as that of "Process Theology" - as is being billed by Emergent Village (a progressive Christian group more than it is an Emergent group) in its upcoming 2012 conference.

Just as Classic Theism and Open Theism are part of the Emergent movement's discussion, so too may Process Theology be part of that discussion. But unlike Emergent Village's bold statement, process theology is not the sum-total of Emergent Christianity, but part of a larger conversation between itself and Theism. Regardless of its Christian claimants.

What I am saying here is that Emergent Christians are investing themselves in all forms of discussions about God - who He is in His nature and essence - and in His relation to creation and time via His authoritative divine will and ourselves. Hence, it is for this reason that this blog has been created to speak more clearly about what Emergent Christianity is, both in it's diversity, as well as in its central core of beliefs. It is my intent (as well as others similar in intent as mine own) to add to that discussion, and lend it directional support. To uncover, renew or remake older expressions of the orthodox Christian faith into updated, postmodernistic forms of expression.

Accordingly, we must acknowledge that Emergent Christianity has a larger audience than that of Evangelicalism - for it includes progressive Christians and mainline denominationalists as well; has a broader orthodoxy and orthopraxy consequently; and more of a postmodern mindset. But, it cannot be simply defined by Tony Jones and Emergent Village's belief statements any longer -  though neither should it be lessened by those same sentiments. Emergent Christianity must be as mainline as it is radical. And it behooves Emergents to understand and know who they are, what they are, and why they are, from the right to the left of its participating groups.

Consequently, we should not be content in simply stating that Progressive Christianity (or Big Tent Christianity) is the completing definition of Emergent Christianity. It is not. If anything, Progressives are further left of Evangelicalism than Emergents are. And there are large distinctions too (more on this in later posts).

However, like Emergent Christianity with its mix of conservative denominations and post-conservative evangelicals, Progressive Christians are seeking to expand their assemblies and associations both right and left of their movement... not unlike what Emergent Christianity has been doing since its break out about ten years ago (1998? 2004?). And both groups are each seeking to discover a more progressive form (or, updated form) of Christianity over and beyond traditional orthodoxy and classic Calvinistic associations and assemblies.

For me, Emergent Christianity is simply understood as any-and-all participants who can define themselves around Jesus as Redeeming God and Savior. Assuredly syncretism will occur (more probably for the right side than the left side of the religious line of pluralism)  but hopefully at the cost of apprehending Jesus more clearly than we have at present through our delimiting religious cultural expressions found currently in its classic or traditional expressions. Expressions that we leave with thankfulness and appreciation for its many years of declaring Christ to the world. But one that must be left in today's marketplace of postmodernism.

The central focus of Emergent Christianity must then be an understanding of Jesus (i) unhindered by past Reformational decrees and Calvinisms - including worship practices, demeanor and missional statements. As well as (ii) deliverance from Liberalism's unbelieving assertions of Jesus' non-divine personage, mission and ministry, and denial of the Bible's divine revelation. (And by Liberalism is not meant Progressive Christianity - which has formed the rear-guard of discerning mainstream Christianity from Liberalism's Continental incursions into America.) And finally, (iii) Emergent Christianity includes all those frustrated Christians unwilling to submit to either branches of Christianity because it is the popular thing to do. Or the politically correct thing to do. Who find themselves as moderates and independents seeking better expressions of Jesus to the world than is currently being offered from either the right or the left. Culturally, politically, societally, religiously.

Emergent Christianity is a spectrum unto itself. A third man as it were. Neither Catholic nor Protestant. It is stateless and wishes to remain so while offering a broader outreach to the world's religions and mankind than can currently be done within present institutional systems and parochial beliefs. This then would be the true spectrum of Christianity: one without boundaries and barriers, stateless and universal, color-blind, gender-neutral, disavowing all human limitations to its mission and charter (http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/09/four-views-of-evangelicalism-emergent.html).

And with that said, and in an effort to (i) better our understanding of Process (Relational) Theology; and to (ii) explore and create some kind of theosophical alternative within the folds of Classic Theism that doesn't require a panentheistic base, but a theistic base; (iii) Emergent Village is hosting a 3 day event at Claremont School of Theology, Jan 30- Feb 2, 2012. Below may be found Emergent Village's itinerary, guest speakers, and registration links. Thank you.

RE Slater

November 13, 2011

Join Us For the Theological Conversation

http://www.processtheology.org/sample-page/

    

The Emergent Village Theological Conversation has quickly established a reputation for deep thought and rich interaction. This year’s conversation will engage Process Theology as we explore the dynamic conception of the living and life-giving God. Monica A. Coleman, John Cobb and Philip Clayton will lead the conversation engaging with Jeanyne Slettom, Bruce Epperly, Julie Clawson and Daniel Shroyer

Cobb has proclaimed that the church should “join God in working for the salvation of the world.” This strong assertion flows right out of the open and relational vision of theology he has pioneered throughout his career. It is our belief that in conversation with Cobb a progressive, missional, holistic, and radically relational theology with legs will emerge.

After setting the context with an introduction to process theology we will immediately turn towards the biggest challenges facing the world, making those essential conversations for all creation the location for doing theology. Through practical engagements of Process and Emergence we will reflect on how God relates to the world, works within the world, and do what all theology is suppose to be doing: seeking to engage and transform the world as it exists in reality. This will take us into ecology, economics, religious pluralism, secularism, and the relational ramifications for the Church both locally and globally.

Come join us in Claremont California, January 30- February 2, 2012 for the conversation.

Partners: This event is sponsored by the Emergent Village & hosted at Claremont School of Theology in partnership with Process & Faith

Hotel: Our event hotel is the Hotel Claremont. They are giving our participants a special deal with rooms for 59 – 69 bucks a night for bed, breakfast, and a shuttle to the campus. Just let Steven Mercado know you are part of the ‘emergent village’ when reserving your room. Email him: reservations@myhotelclaremont.com

Sign up: Registration is limited in order to create the conditions for conversation. For now it is just $99 bucks until the New Year when it will go up to $119 or when we cap it off. So sign up now.

5 Sessions

 http://www.processtheology.org/5-sessions/

The Emergent Village Theological Conversation 2012 will carry forward some of the best aspects of previous conversations. It will also feature some innovations that appropriately reflect the topic of this year’s gathering.

Here are some highlights of what you can expect:

• Process Theology emphasizes an open-ended and relational view of faith. The 5 sessions will integrate a format that is thoroughly relational and open-ended.

It is important that the information being presented match the organization

• Process Theology introduces new concepts and vocabulary. Each of the 5 sessions will begin with a ‘keynote’ presentation from a scholar, who will then be in dialogue with two other practitioners and thinkers. The conversation will then be expanded to the gathered participants – with each session utilizing an appropriate format for the themes of that session.

Use of technology like the Twitter-Tumbler and an empowered moderator will facilitate real-time interactions with the presenter during the session.

• The structure of the five session are organized in a chiastic format. Monica A. Coleman will lead us in session 1 and 5. John B. Cobb will host session 2 and 4. Philip Clayton has agreed to provide the ‘hinge’ session 3.

Session 1 is Introduction with Monica Coleman
Session 2 is Expansion with John Cobb (Christian Belief and Pluralism)
Session 3 is Dissection and Doubt with Philip Clayton
Session 4 is Application with John Cobb (Economics and Ecology)
Session 5 is Construction for Ministry with Monica Coleman

• Julie Clawson, veteran of Emergent Conversations, pointed out that most conferences don’t build in a time to question, disagree, and push-back. Great ideas are presented and insightful questions are asked … but the real wrestling is done either individually or after hours.

We still want personal wrestling and after-hours conversation, but we have also purposefully built in a session for wrestling out loud. Session 3 will let us debrief with Philip Clayton who navigates the worlds of Emergent and Process, Church and Academy in a masterful way.

• Each session will be followed up with related break-out tracks. One will focus on ministry specific issues.Jeanyne Slettom, director of the Center for Process & Faith and co-Pastor of a process-centered congregation will be helping us with this. Another track will be theological-conceptual. The third will be a wild-card showcase.

Five times we will come together for the main sessions to hear a presentation, listen to a dialogue, participate in a conversation, and then disperse for break-out sessions. These four expanding levels of engagement will allow for both learning and expression in each of the five chapters.

Here is a potential picture of Session 5: Monica Coleman will present ideas and stories about her ministerial experiences and context specific opportunities and challenges for ministry with a Process framework. Then Danielle Shroyer and Bruce Epperly will join her to tell a bit about their context and their engagement of Process in ministry. Next, we will break down into smaller circles to compare notes in order come into the Question & Response time. This main-session conversation will propel us into the the breakout sessions. One breakout will have two pastors talking about preaching Process. One will be about comparing theological vocab & concepts between different schools of thought. Another will address sexuality in the church & community.

For John Cobb’s session 4 on Ecology and Economy, a conversation partner like Julie Clawson (author of Everyday Justice) and another thinker would be followed by breakout sessions that correlate.

This is going to be a wonderful time – come to the registration page and sign-up now.

The Deism (or, Natural Religion) of Some of America's Founding Fathers

Our “founding fathers” - Christians or what?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/11/our-founding-fathers-christians-or-what/

by Roger Olson

posted November 13, 2011

Recently I’ve been delving once again into deism, or what is more appropriately called natural religion. (Deism has come to have connotations of belief in a distant, uninvolved and even uncaring God. That wasn’t true of all who have been lumped together as deists. [The] real sine qua non of “deism” was a belief in natural religion, not a doctrine of God.) I’ve been re-reading Locke (a precursor), Toland and Tindal (among others). These men thought they were Christians. Well, there’s some doubt about what Tindal actually thought, but let’s say they all considered themselves Christians–probably “of a higher order” than those around them.

My mind began to wander and wonder about those who claim publicly that most, if not all, of our republic’s founding fathers were orthodox Christians, if not evangelical Christians. I’m not going to name any names here, but if you pay close attention to this controversy I think you can figure out some of the people I might be referring to.

There are writers and speakers, conservative evangelicals all (so far as I know), claiming that even Thomas Jefferson was a “real Christian.” I don’t see them or hear them talking about Benjamin Franklin much. Maybe they don’t consider him one of our founding fathers. Or maybe they would say he’s the exception that proves the rule. In any case, writings and video recordings by these people are being used in numerous home schooling situations. I have had students who came out of a home schooling situation who thought, on the basis of some of these books and videos, that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and all the others were good Christians by which they meant something similar to what we would today call evangelical.

What I wonder is whether these writers and speakers really believe the things they are saying and writing or whether they are intentionally misleading people.

My uncle, a retired denominational leader, called me to ask me about something he heard one of these writers (who is also a frequent speaker at churches and conferences and even political events) say on a Christian talk show on a Christian television network. According to my uncle, the man claimed that “Jefferson’s Bible” (The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth) was created by Jefferson to have a handy, abbreviated version of the four gospels to give to Native Americans to evangelize them for the gospel. He denied that Jefferson “cut up” the New Testament to cut out the supernatural or offensive sayings of Jesus–as “liberals” claim. My uncle genuinely wanted to know what I, as a church historian / historical theologian, thought about that.

It didn’t take much research to discover that Jefferson himself explained why he created the so-called “Jefferson Bible” (now published by the Unitarian publishing house Beacon Press) in letters to friends, especially John Adams. In a letter about The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth dated 1813 Jefferson compared the portions of the gospels he cut out and pasted into his book to diamonds separated from dung. He left no doubt that, while he admired Jesus, he did not agree with everything Jesus said or did. He ended his book with Jesus’ death and omitted the resurrection. Most, if not all, of the miracles were also left out.

I reported on Jefferson’s 1813 letter to Adams to my uncle who was shocked and dismayed. He said to me “I wonder what [he named the man he saw and heard on the Christian television program] would say about that?” I wonder, too.

There is no doubt that SOME of the founding fathers were orthodox Christians, but to claim that all or even most of them were is simply stretching the truth.

Some of these writers and speakers quote from various proclamations and prayers of founding fathers as if those actually expressed their own personal beliefs. Anyone who has paid careful attention to even more modern presidents and their religious rhetoric should know that presidents (and other government officials) sometimes sound more religious in public than they really are. And, yes, like Toland and Tindal, even the most secular of the founding fathers considered themselves Christian in some sense of the word. But just because they talked about God, the Bible and Jesus in glowing terms hardly justifies claiming them as ones “of us” (evangelical Christians).

My point here is not to get into the details of the religious lives of the founding fathers; that has been done in many volumes. The problem is that it is increasingly becoming apparent that some of the most popular ones are simply unreliable; they promote a revisionist history that appears to be blatantly dishonest.

Why can’t the founding fathers have been simply good men? Why do we have to claim they were orthodox, even spiritual Christians to hold them in high esteem? And why not just pick out the ones who really were orthodox Christians, such as apparently Patrick Henry was, and hold them up as “our heroes?”

Sloppy and/or revisionist history is not becoming of any Christian; it pays no real compliments to God or the founding fathers. In the end, when home school young people get to college (unless they go to one of two or three schools that specialize in promoting revisionist history about the founding fathers) they will be disillusioned and wonder whether anything they were taught was right. Better to be honest and real and let the chips fall where they may than pretend and then be exposed as a fake scholar who promoted blatant falsehoods. That only results in broken trust and sometimes lost faith among young people.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  

Some Personal Observations

R.E. Slater

December 30, 2011

I have included the article below from the Smithsonian Magazine on Thomas Jefferson's strange form of Deism to show that we as followers of Christ are no less prone to subtracting from (or adding to) the Word of God in our daily lives as we pick-and-chose which of God's words to listen to and obey. A large part of this past year's blog has spent many hours showing the many ways that modern day Christianity delimits God's wondrous word spoken to both the Church and the world-at-large as we argue over doctrines of Universalism, Heaven and Hell's entrance requirements, various forms of biblicism and the resulting folklore interpretations that we prefer to adhere too, and so on and so on.

It is a curious fact that whenever God speaks to our hearts we immediately begin to decipher what we have heard from our competing philosophies of life experiences. And it is a wonder at all that God is able to communicate with us through the noise of our lives. We see this with Adam and Eve's re-interpretation of God's first words to them by inquiring "Has God said?..." With Abraham's debate with God whether to proceed from Ur of the Chaldees into the strange, wild lands of the West; his furthering questioning of God concerning his wife Sarah's married status to himself when approached by a intriqued King of her beauty; and later, with her barrenness as Abraham provides substitutions to God's plan by helping God along in the dispatch of His promises of becoming a father to all the nations [sic, of faith]. We again read of this in Moses' many experiences, such as when he strikes the Rock twice in his anger with God, and in the frustration of his leadership experiences with God's people, Israel. With King David's clear instruction to honor the Lord God in his life as ruler of Israel. And even with the OT prophets, both major and minor, and with the Apostles of Christ themselves in the NT.

Time-and-again we humans sing out in our willfulness whether to believe and obey God's word to us. When God speaks it seems to come each-and-every-time like a new thing to our disbelieving hearts to test us, try us and sort us out. Only praise can be given to our God whose loving persistence and faithful patience sifts and purifies us through our failures to rightly hear and obey His word spoken to our hearts and souls and spirits until the scales fall off our blinded eyes, and our deaf ears again hear heaven's music proclaim "I AM that I AM." It is with but humbleness and a stumbling spirit that we may seek the Divine and know His almighty and mysterious ways. Praise God for His faithfulness to those to whom He would re-birth, re-create, re-new, re-surrect and re-claim! Amen.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

How Thomas Jefferson Created His Own Bible

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/How-Thomas-Jefferson-Created-His-Own-Bible.html

by Owen Edwards

January 2012

Thanks to an extensive restoration and conservation process, the public can now see how Jefferson cut and pasted his own version of the Scripture

Read more:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/How-Thomas-Jefferson-Created-His-Own-Bible.html#ixzz1i2I5X2ao

Thomas Jefferson believed that his version of the New Testament distilled "the most sublime
and benevolent code of morals which has never been offered to man."

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/How-Thomas-Jefferson-Created-His-Own-Bible.html#ixzz1i2HzL4cZ

Thomas Jefferson, together with several of his fellow founding fathers, was influenced by the principles of deism, a construct that envisioned a supreme being as a sort of watchmaker who had created the world but no longer intervened directly in daily life. A product of the Age of Enlightenment, Jefferson was keenly interested in science and the perplexing theological questions it raised. Although the author of the Declaration of Independence was one of the great champions of religious freedom, his belief system was sufficiently out of the mainstream that opponents in the 1800 presidential election labeled him a “howling Atheist.”

Thomas Jefferson created his own gospel by taking a sharp instrument to existing copies
of the New Testament and pasting up his own account of Christ's philosophy.

In fact, Jefferson was devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ. But he didn’t always agree with how they were interpreted by biblical sources, including the writers of the four Gospels, whom he considered to be untrustworthy correspondents. So Jefferson created his own gospel by taking a sharp instrument, perhaps a penknife, to existing copies of the New Testament and pasting up his own account of Christ’s philosophy, distinguishing it from what he called “the corruption of schismatizing followers.”

The second of the two biblical texts he produced is on display through May 28 at the Albert H. Small Documents Gallery of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History (NMAH) after a year of extensive repair and conservation. “Other aspects of his life and work have taken precedence,” says Harry Rubenstein, chair and curator of the NMAH political history division. “But once you know the story behind the book, it’s very Jeffersonian.”

Jefferson produced the 84-page volume in 1820—six years before he died at age 83—bound it in red leather and titled it The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. He had pored over six copies of the New Testament, in Greek, Latin, French and King James English. “He had a classic education at [the College of] William & Mary,” Rubenstein says, “so he could compare the different translations. He cut out passages with some sort of very sharp blade and, using blank paper, glued down lines from each of the Gospels in four columns, Greek and Latin on one side of the pages, and French and English on the other.”

Much of the material Jefferson elected to not include related miraculous events, such as the feeding of the multitudes with only two fish and five loaves of barley bread; he eschewed anything that he perceived as “contrary to reason.” His idiosyncratic gospel concludes with Christ’s entombment but omits his resurrection. He kept Jesus’ own teachings, such as the Beatitude, “Blessed are the peace-makers: for they shall be called the children of God.” The Jefferson Bible, as it’s known, is “scripture by subtraction,” writes Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University.

The first time Jefferson undertook to create his own version of Scripture had been in 1804. His intention, he wrote, was “the result of a life of enquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system, imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.” Correspondence indicates that he assembled 46 pages of New Testament passages in The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. That volume has been lost. It focused on Christ’s moral teachings, organized by topic. The 1820 volume contains not only the teachings, but also events from the life of Jesus.

The Smithsonian acquired the surviving custom bible in 1895, when the Institution’s chief librarian, Cyrus Adler, purchased it from Jefferson’s great-granddaughter, Carolina Ran­dolph. Originally, Jefferson had bequeathed the book to his daughter Martha.

The acquisition revealed the existence of the Jefferson Bible to the public. In 1904, by act of Congress, his version of Scripture, regarded by many as a newly discovered national treasure, was printed. Until the 1950s, when the supply of 9,000 copies ran out, each newly elected senator received a facsimile Jefferson Bible on the day that legislator took the oath of office. (Disclosure: Smithsonian Books has recently published a new facsimile edition.)

The original book now on view has undergone a painstaking restoration led by Janice Stagnitto Ellis, senior paper conservator at the NMAH. “We re-sewed the binding,” she says, “in such a way that both the original cover and the original pages will be preserved indefinitely. In our work, we were Jefferson-level meticulous.”

“The conservation process,” says Harry Rubenstein, “has allowed us to exhibit the book just as it was when Jefferson last handled it. And since digital pictures were taken of each page, visitors to the exhibition—and visitors to the web version all over the world—will be able to page through and read Jefferson’s Bible just as he did.”

Owen Edwards is a freelance writer and author of the book Elegant Solutions.

Read more:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/How-Thomas-Jefferson-Created-His-Own-Bible.html#ixzz1i2HpyibD

Peter Rollins - Podcast Audio "Insurrection"

Bo Sanders of Homebrew recently recorded Peter Rollins at Claremont (which coincidently will be the January 2012 site for a general discussion of Process Theology) speaking about his new book Insurrection.

In a related post, Bo comments on the two persons that make up the one Peter Rollins, which I thought to be both insightful and humurous (as I've met, spoken with, and have heard Peter several times, and do enjoy his multifaceted - or is it Peter's schizophrenic/nihlistic (pun intended) personas!). And so, both of Homebrew's posts are presented here together as one. Enjoy.

RE Slater

November 13, 2011

**********

TNT: Peter Rollins at Claremont
http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2011/11/04/tnt-peter-rollins-at-claremont/

by Bo Sanders
November 4, 2011

3 Comments

Peter Rollins was at Claremont School of Theology a couple of weeks ago – and we recorded it!

His new book is Insurrection and he is in full form during this hour.

If you like what you hear or want to express some concern, come over here [link] and sound off.

Standard Podcast [ 1:12:26 ] Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download

**********

I like both Peter Rollins

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2011/11/04/i-like-both-peter-rollins/

by Bo Sanders
November 4, 2011

10 Comments

Confession: I’m a big fan of Peter Rollins. Actually, I am a big fan of both Peter Rollins.

Maybe I should explain. There seem to be two Peter Rollins

• the mesmerizing author and speaker credited with such wondrous works as How (Not) to Speak of God, The Orthodox Heretic, and now Insurrection, who helps people’s faith by relieving them of their superfluous religious facades.

• the suspicious and sinister author and speaker who mystifies critics with his ability to deconstruct (ie. deceive) and entertain (ie. trick) people into asking Slovoj Zizek into their heart – and thus agreeing to go to hell.

As you can see there are two distinct Peter Rollins. And here is the thing, I like them both.

I like what Peter Rollins is up to and I like what people think that he is up to.

I buy books for my nephews and nieces. The favorites are Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne and Peter Rollins. These books challenge their hearts, expand their minds, and help their faith. They would have one view of Peter Rollins.

I often listen to MDiv and other students at Christian Colleges and Seminaries go after Peter Rollins like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. They accuse him of masking deceptive A/theistic trickery under the guise of deconstruction and post-structural poetics. The accusation is that he is importing some sort of hollow, empty, nihilistic slight-of-hand with a sweet & seductive Irish lilt.

Truth is: I like them both.

• I like the guy who helps the young people in my family and youth group to think through their inherited faith and mean the things they say, even if it is a bit more humbly.
• I also like the guy who is subverting and undermining the grotesque bloated corpse of Christendom and its related classicist theology.

I like that I can give his book to almost anyone.

I like that educated evangelical christians think he is up to something.

I am a big fan of both Peter Rollins.

Things Traditional Christians and Gay Christians Can Agree On...

A Non-Zero-Sum Conversation Between the Traditional Church and the Gay Community

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/

by Rachel Held Evans

November 11, 2011

98 Comments

Today I am excited to share a guest post from my friend and fellow blogger, Richard Beck. Richard is Professor and Department Chair of Psychology at Abilene Christian University and the author of Unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality. His blog, Experimental Theology, was one of the first I followed and really connected with online. I had the pleasure of meeting Richard (and his delightful wife Jana) when I spoke at ACU earlier this fall. In fact, Richard and I participated in a fun forum on blogging, which you can watch here, here, and here.

Richard has a way of connecting the dots between faith and sociology in a way that consistently resonates with me. He’s a brilliant conversationalist, whose skill in negotiating potentially treacherous ideological waters is something I’ve long admired, and I deeply appreciate his efforts here to try and forge a better way forward in a conversation that has been static for so long.

Be sure to weigh in with your own thoughts…and enjoy!

* * * * * * * * * * *

I'd like to share a few thoughts about the conversation, or lack thereof, between traditional-conservative Christian institutions (e.g., churches, Christian universities, Christian organizations) and the gay community.

I have two interrelated frustrations about this conversation as it typically plays out.

The first frustration is that it tacitly assumed that the only issue at stake in these conversations is the biblical status of same-sex relations. From a biblical perspective, are same-sex relations permissible? No doubt that is the central question, but it's often assumed that this is the only question. That is, once this question is settled, one way or the other, the two groups have nothing much else to say to each other. Usually because they can't agree on this question.

Which leads to my second frustration: the zero-sum nature of the conversation. Since it's often assumed that the biblical status of same-sex relations is the only issue at stake, a "winner takes all" atmosphere is created. Either the traditional Christian side will win (in prohibiting same-sex relations) or the gay side will win (in affirming same-sex relations). This creates a zero-sum "I win. You lose." dynamic that isn't very kind or healthy.

I think we can do better. Even if we disagree on the central question.

Let me come at this from the traditional Christian side as I am affiliated with a couple of different traditional Christian institutions. Let's assume for this discussion that this side, given its traditions and the way it reads the bible, just isn't going to budge on the issue of same-sex relations. A lot of us are associated with groups like this, groups that, at least in our lifetime, aren't going to move away from traditional Christian teaching regarding human sexuality and marriage.

So, with that settled and out of the way, let us go on to ask: Have we exhausted this topic? Is that the only thing that can be said? Are there no other areas of mutual concern?

I think there are. I don't think the conversation is a zero-sum, "winner takes all" game. I think the conversation is non-zero-sum. I think the conversation between traditional Christian groups and the gay community is much wider than the narrow debate about the biblical view of same-sex relations. We have significant areas of shared and mutual concern.

To start, I can think of four:

First, I think both groups share a mutual concern in treating others with respect, love and dignity. We share an interest in the Golden Rule. We both want to be treated well.

This is such an obvious thing, but how often is it forgotten? More often than we'd like to admit. And one reason I think it's forgotten is that we tend to think that the only thing at stake is the biblical question on same-sex relations. This creates the tense and combative zero-sum dynamic. But there is more at stake in the conversation.

Specifically, how we treat each other. And this is where our interests can overlap. We may disagree, but how we disagree is critically important. We can share the desire to be people of peace. Despite our disagreements.

Second, many within the gay community are confessing Christians. Thus, outside of the issue of same-sex relations just about everything else within the Christian experience is open to mutual cooperation and partnership. For example, traditional and gay affirming churches partnering on local projects, ministries, programs and initiatives that are unrelated to issues of sexuality (e.g., poverty).

Third, both groups have a mutual interest in speaking out against discrimination, oppression, and violence. I talked about this in a recent post, The Gospel According to Lady Gaga, regarding how Christian communities should take a more personal and active interest in protecting gay kids from being bullied in schools. Protecting these kids, and any kid being bullied, is an area of mutual concern, a location for partnership and cooperation between the traditional Christian and gay communities. As another example, I've heard conservative Christian friends of mine come out in favor of gay marriage. Not because they are gay affirming (they aren't), but because they see the issue as a matter of civic respect and fairness within a democratic society. A simple act of being a good neighbor. I doubt many conservative Christians will see it this way, but some do (often because they are libertarians) and it demonstrations another area of mutual concern/cooperation.

Fourth, even within the area of sexuality there is significant overlap between gay Christians and traditional Christians. For example, despite differences on the biblical status of same-sex relations, both groups can partner in speaking a clear prophetic word about sexual promiscuity. Additionally, both groups can partner in pushing back on our sex-saturated media. I have some experience with this as I was a participant in a discussion on our campus with SoulForce visitors on the subject of sex and the media. The gay and traditional Christians on the panel found significant areas of agreement in addressing this topic.

The point of all this: The game isn't zero-sum; it's non-zero-sum. Fighting doesn't have to be the only thing we have in common. There are significant areas of mutual concern, locations where we can drop our fists and partner together on important Kingdom work.

I'm passionate about this issue because I'm distressed about how toxic the conversation has become between the gay community and the traditional Christian community. And one reason the conversation has become so toxic is because we've become convinced that the only thing we have in common is the biblical debate about same-sex relations. And since this is believed to be the only area of mutual concern we treat the conversation as a winner takes all cage match. With the zero-sum outcome of exactly one winner and exactly one loser.

But we have so much more to say to each other. So many other things of mutual concern and interest.

And if we paid attention to these areas of mutual concern, speaking a word of peace to each other now and again, how much poison might be sucked out of the current dynamic?

Imagine how the conversation would change between the traditional Christian and gay communities if traditional Christian communities became, say, known for their guardian angel and anti-bullying programs and initiatives, often partnering with local gay advocacy groups to get this work done. Imagine how traditional Christians would be perceived if, say, they advocated for gay marriage on the grounds of democratic fairness, this despite their deeply held convictions that God disapproves of those marriage. How might actions like these change the dynamic that is currently playing out?

There is so much work to be done. And most of it we can do together.