Edward Scribner Ames

An Emergent Seminary for an Emerging Church

2011-10-20T07:01:00.000-07:00

An Emergent Seminary for an Emerging Church

Psalm 72

2011-08-20T06:02:00.000-07:00

Pondering A Prayer for Politicians, by Rev. Craig M. Watts

I’m like a lot of people in America right now: I don’t think much of politicians. It seems to me that the new batch is even worse than the old ones. And the old ones where bad enough. I don’t get the impression that many of them have the sorts of qualities most extolled in scripture. The “fruit of the Spirit” has been far from conspicuous (Gal. 5:22-23).

Sure, there are politicians who are quite public about their faith. They use God-words and speak of their personal devotion to Jesus. They may participate in prayer meetings. Some are big promoters of displays of official ceremonial religion: God in the pledge, God in the national motto, posting the Ten Commandments, orchestrated prayer in school and so forth. But while they push the appearance of religion in public life, they seem to use this as a substitute for the practical reality of biblical faith, something sorely lacking in the policies they pursue.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think Jesus ever provided a political platform he wanted his disciples to adopt to run the nations of the world. I don’t think there can be such a thing as a genuinely Christian nation. The only Christian nation is that Christ-centered nation without geographical borders: the church (1 Peter 2:9). Still I wish those politicians who draw attention to their Christian faith would allow something that looks a bit like Jesus to seep into their stated vision of how things ought to be. It seems to be missing. The very politicians who use the most God-talk seem to be the ones least influenced by the priorities of Jesus or the highest values of the Hebrew scriptures.

I was reflecting on Psalm 72 earlier today and it struck me that this is a prayer politicians ought to ponder and that we ought to ponder as we evaluate politicians. While the prayer is for an ancient king, and Senators, Representatives and the President are not kings, still they have the responsibility to govern. This Psalm points to the qualities that make a leader praise-worthy. We should note both what is included and what is excluded in the text. The prayer asks God to lead the king in ways that will result in “prosperity for the people” (vs. 3) and abundance in food so the people may be satisfied (vs.16). Further, the prayer asks, “In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound” (vs.7).

But what is this leader who is responsible for governing the nation supposed to actually do? The Psalm is very clear in its emphasis. He is to “judge your people with righteousness” but note that a particular class of people are given special attention: “and your poor with justice” (vs. 2). These words are directly linked to the prayer for prosperity. In this same vein, the prayer continues, “May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor” (vs. 4).There is no suggestion that the righteous leader should give similar attention to the interests of the strong or wealthy. This strikes me as a significant omission, not one found in contemporary American political leaders.

The Psalmist can’t seem to emphasize enough the importance of the leader’s attention to those who are less advantaged: “For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight” (vs.12-14). There is no way to govern “righteously” that neglects this focus. Of the leader who does the sorts of things he names, the Psalmist prays,”May his name endure forever, his fame continue as long as the sun” (vs.17). Where do we find leaders of this quality who govern with the emphasis this scripture commends? Do we have any in either major party? They seem to be missing in action. I think we should pray for our nation and pray in particular that leaders with the qualities the Psalmist applauds will step forward.

Craig is minister of Royal Palm Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Coral Springs, Florida, Co-Moderator of Disciples Peace Fellowship and a brand new Granddad who is willing to show pictures of his amazing Grandson if you want to see a few.

By Craig M. Watts

Why Socialism? (By Albert Einstein)

2011-08-08T04:41:00.000-07:00

Why Socialism?

Harvey Cox

2011-08-06T10:16:00.000-07:00

Harvey Cox

Al Staggs as Walter Rauschenbusch

2011-07-30T15:14:00.000-07:00

Bible and the Poor

2011-07-29T20:51:00.000-07:00

http://www.zompist.com/meetthepoor.html

The Internationale

2011-07-29T06:00:00.000-07:00

Leonardo Boff: Is the Crisis of Capitalism Terminal?

2011-07-28T07:06:00.000-07:00

Is the Crisis of Capitalism Terminal?
by Michael Lerner
July 3, 2011

Editor’s Note: Leonardo Boff is a noted South American liberation theologian.
Is the Crisis of Capitalism Terminal?

Leonardo Boff*
I believe the present crisis of capitalism is more than cyclical and structural. It is terminal. Are we seeing the end of the genius of capitalism, of always being able to adapt to any circumstance? I am aware that only few other people maintain this thesis. Two things, however, bring me to this conclusion.
The first is the following: the crisis is terminal because we all, but in particular capitalism, have exceeded the limits of the Earth. We have occupied and depredated the whole planet, destroying her subtle equilibrium and exhausting her goods and services, to the point that she alone can no longer replenish all that has been removed.

Already by mid XIX century, Karl Marx prophetically wrote that this tendency of capital would destroy the twin sources of its wealth and reproduction: nature and labor. That is what is happening now.

Especially in the last century, Nature was stressed as never before, including the 15 great disasters she experienced throughout her four billion year history. The verifiable, extreme, phenomena in every region, and the changes in the climate that tend towards ever increasing global warming, support Marx’s thesis. How can capitalism continue without Nature? It has reached an insurmountable limit.
Capitalism reduces, or eliminates, labor. There are great laborless inventions. A programmed and robotic production apparatus produces more and better, almost without labor. The direct consequence of this is structural unemployment.

Millions of people will never join the labor market, not even as a reserve army. Instead of depending on labor, capital is learning to do without it. Unemployment in Spain approaches 20% of the general population, and 40% of youth. In Portugal, it is 12% of the population, and 30% among the young. This results in a grave social crisis, like that which Greece is undergoing at this very moment. All of society is sacrificed in the name of an economy that is not designed to take care of human needs, but to pay the debts to the banks and the financial system. Marx is right: exploited labor is no longer the source of its wealth. The machine is.

The second reason is linked to the humanitarian crisis that capitalism is creating.
Before, it was limited to the peripheral countries. Now it is global, and it has reached the central countries. The economic question cannot be resolved by dismantling society. The victims, connected by new venues of communication, resist, revolt and threaten the present order. Ever more people, especially the young, reject the perverse capitalist political economic logic: the dictatorship of finance that, through the market, subjugates the States to its interests, and the profitability of speculative capital, that circulates from one stock market to another, reaping profits without producing anything at all, except more money for the stockholders.

Capital itself created the poison that could kill it: by demanding that its workers have ever greater technical training, to create accelerated growth and greater competitiveness, it unintentionally nurtured people who think. They are slowly learning the perversity of the system, that all but skins people alive in the name of pure material accumulation, and shows its heartlessness by demanding greater and greater efficiency, to the point of profoundly stressing the workers, pushing them to desperation, and in some cases, even to suicide, as has occurred in several countries, including Brazil.

The streets of several European and Arab countries, the “indignants” who fill the squares of Spain and Greece, are an expression of a rebellion against the current political system, controlled by the markets and the logic of capital. The young Spaniards shout: «it is not a crisis, it is theft.» The thieves are comfortably housed on Wall Street, in the International Monetary Fund, IMF, and in the Central European Bank. In other words, they are the high priests of the exploitative global capital.

As the crisis worsens, the multitudes who can no longer tolerate the consequences of the super exploitation of their lives and of the life of the Earth, will grow; and will revolt against the economic system that is in agony, not because it is old, but because of the strength of the poison and the contradictions it has created, punishing Mother Earth and afflicting the lives of her sons and daughters. (ALAI)

*Leonardo Boff, Theologian Earthcharter Commission. http://leonardoboff.com/ (Free translation from the Spanish sent by Melina Alfaro, Refugio del Rio Grande, Texas, EE.UU.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, author of The Left Hand of God: Taking Our Country Back from the Religious Right is editor of Tikkun Magazine, chair of the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives, and author of the forthcoming book Embacing Israel/Palestine, which will be out in December.

Source Sited: http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/is-the-crisis-of-capitalism-terminal

Realist Pacifism

2011-07-27T16:59:00.000-07:00

From Tikkun: Socialism

2011-07-27T10:15:00.000-07:00

Our Forgotten Traditionby Paul Buhle
May 27, 2011
THE ‘S’ WORD: A SHORT HISTORY OF AN AMERICAN TRADITION… SOCIALISMby John Nichols
Verso, 2011

Just when the confused and often deeply troubled relation of those two global subjects, “United States” and “socialism,” seemed to disappear — and not for the first time — the New Right warned against the dark threat of Obamist socialism, whatever that meant to the likes of Glenn Beck. John Nichols, Nation magazine editorial board member, columnist, and political savant on MSNBC’s Ed Show, cleverly seizes the advantage. Socialism, contrary to generations of conservative (often also, liberal) propagandizing, may not be un-American after all.

Way back in the 1880s, when the socialist movement in Germany was gathering new members by the thousands, German immigrants in the United States, among many other observers, wondered why the most industrially advanced country in the world had so few enrolled socialists. Vulgar answers were offered immediately and have been recycled ever since: what would Americans — prosperous, fat, happy, and individualistic — want with cooperative, fund-sharing doctrines when any one of them might become a millionaire?

Of course, that might not be the whole story. The United States long held the dubious distinction of having the largest difference between the best-paid and the worst-paid sections of the working class, to which we can intelligently add the lower-middle class. Waves of new immigrants working the worst jobs found themselves alongside or only just higher than the large population of nonwhites. Railroad magnate Jay Gould swore (or was it a barbarous jest?) that he could hire half the working class to kill the other half if he wanted. Socialist movements demanded a sense of solidarity that has been rare enough, even among the various ethnic Catholic blue-collar groups — the classic European socialist recruits — let alone industrial workers in general.

And that’s not the whole story of socialism in America, anyway, by a long shot. Socialist ideas first rooted on this side of the ocean among utopians, in their mostly short-lived communities (the religious-based ones lasted longer), and then among free-thinking German escapees from the failed 1848 Revolution, who had in mind ethics as much as economics. John Nichols’s version seeks to revive this aspect for anyone who sees U.S. society heading toward a crash of social services, ecological stability, and all else that makes American life decent and livable.

In his version, socialists don’t necessarily need to call their version “socialism,” and frequently have not. Thus he begins with Emma Lazarus, not Emma Goldman, and proceeds to Walt Whitman, who in old age considered himself “more radical than the radicals” but left it to his protégé, the half-Jewish Horace Traubel, to become intimate friends with Eugene V. Debs and publish a socialist weekly for decades in Philadelphia. Nichols’s point is that really egalitarian ideas borrow from the socialist framework and have enriched that framework, as those ideas have proved necessary across the generations. Naomi Klein, Laura Flanders, Gore Vidal, and Bill Moyers — their praise for the book spread across the back cover — second Nichols’s nomination of this provocative view.

Nichols declines any straightforward chronological argument. We find ourselves jumping from Tom Paine and Abraham Lincoln to Norman Thomas (“Mr. Socialism” during the 1930s-40s, with almost a million votes for his presidency in 1932), and for contrast, Glenn Beck, whose ignorance about Paine and Lincoln is as staggering as his chutzpah. Lovers of nineteenth-century history will find a further catalogue of favorite great hearts, Frances “Fanny” Wright to George Henry Evans, Horace Greeley to Frederick Douglass.

Then, as befits a seventh-generation Wisconsinite, Nichols turns to the former social-democratic republic of Milwaukee, where even the giant beer-brewers were sure to advertise in the socialistic daily paper and open their factories to Socialist Party lunchtime speakers. At the high point of the Socialist Party, Indiana native Debs ran with Milwaukee machinist Emil Seidel, and together they garnered 6 percent of the vote, quite an accomplishment against the financial as well as patronage power of the two parties and the hatred of socialism preached from churches (less often from synagogues). Socialists brought good, honest government to Milwaukee, fine planning, clean water, efficient hospitals, healthy beaches, and excellent public education. The experiment spread to more cities and towns (mostly places where the middle class was small, certain ethnic groups prominent) than most Americans would think. Then it was cut short by the impending bloodbath that socialists opposed with bravery and perhaps a touch of foolhardiness: the First World War. The federal government, under noted liberal (and brutally racist native Southerner) Woodrow Wilson rigorously repressed them, and the socialists never really recovered.

But as Nichols goes to great pains to point out, they still had really good ideas. Norman Thomas, once a household name, is now largely forgotten, and the effort to bring him back here is admirable. More difficult but more important to Nichols is the saga of Michael Harrington, whose best-selling exposé, The Other America, inspired the Kennedy administration’s War On Poverty, and more indirectly, LBJ’s “Good Society.”

Here, a real problem disguised up to the 1950s sneaks into the argument unbidden. After the Second World War, influential advocates for social change felt compelled to couch their arguments in the language of an Americanism against outside threats, almost a natural extension of New Deal arguments during the Second World War, but with a dangerous twist. The military-industrial-complex, as Eisenhower named the phenomenon, added union jobs, a kind of racial integration took place through an unprecedented expansion of the standing military force, and Michael Harrington’s political companion (as well as drinking buddy) was ferocious Cold Warrior Daniel Patrick Moynihan, intellectually best known for attributing the poverty of African-Americans to the absence of strong father figures. In other words, prominent socialists (most often, influential liberals of a socialistic bent) seemed to premise the idea of a better America on Pax Americana, with few apologies for past wrongs against non-whites.

Michael Harrington, the real hero of this book in at least its final chapters, valiantly tried to move beyond these limitations, and by the mid-term elections of 1976, seemed to win a large bloc of the Democratic party to the “Swedish Alternative,” an egalitarian world policy combined with stronger social benefits at home. The erstwhile supporters of George McGovern were beaten back by Demo-hawks, even before Ronald Reagan assumed the historic task of rolling back the New Deal gains. And “economic reform” came to mean the opposite of its original intent: hereafter, it meant elevating the wealthy and comfortable at the expense of the poor, with the considerable support of Democrats, and naturally raising the Pentagon budget to hitherto unimagined heights.

Nichols makes a strong and effective argument that we are nearing the end of this particular road. The East Bloc fell in 1990 and despite China, and despite Iran, no Monsters Abroad, armed with what theologian Reinhold Niebuhr in one of his nuttier Cold War moments described as a “demonic faith” (no, Islam is not the Devil Religion that Glenn Beck suggests), will take its place. Democrats, reduced to a money-machine organization with an ideology to match, have brought historic liberalism to something like its end point. Now we need alternatives.

Would we call those alternatives socialist? At a moment when the Right regards every measure of public safety, protection of the water supplies, even the presence of Social Security and public (oops, “government”) schools, as manifestations of demonic socialism, perhaps the word and the larger idea can be reclaimed. Me, I like the nineteenth-century phrase (used as a title by an early and popular socialist tract) the “Cooperative Commonwealth.” I want to live in one of these and so, I am sure, does the remarkable journalist and TV personality John Nichols.

Paul Buhle, from Madison, Wisconsin, is retired from Brown University and produces nonfiction comics.

From Tikkun: Dr. King's Very Liberal Theology

2011-07-20T11:02:00.000-07:00

King’s God: The Unknown Faith of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.by Robert James “Be” Scofield

You undoubtedly know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a progressive Christian and champion of civil rights and the social gospel. You may also know that he spoke out against the Vietnam War, harshly criticized U.S. foreign policy, and questioned the capitalist system that produced poverty. But do you know his theology?

Right up until Dr. King's assassination in Memphis, Tennessee, where he had traveled to support striking sanitation workers, the civil rights leader worked—not as a secular activist but as a Baptist minister—to awaken the conscience of the nation. What was the meaning of Jesus for Dr. King? Did he see Jesus as divine? How did he interpret the Bible?

Biographies describe King as a liberal Protestant, but what does this mean? What was his understanding of Christian doctrines and why are they important to us? A number of academic papers written during his seminary years (1948-1951) provide an intimate look at the young King as he struggled to reconcile religion with a changing, dynamic, and modern world.

Prior to entering the liberal Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, King had developed only a tenuous relationship with Christianity. Despite being raised in a lineage of orthodox Baptist ministers, King at a young age demonstrated skepticism of the irrational claims of religion, and embarrassment at the emotionalism of his father's preaching. His entrance into Christianity at the age of six came from neither a genuine religious conviction nor a crisis moment; rather, he saw his sister make the altar call during a local religious revival and quickly followed suit. He claimed that during his baptism he had no idea what was occurring. Perhaps most striking was his denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus during Sunday school at the age of thirteen. From this point he stated, "doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly."[i]

King carried these suspicions with him when he entered Morehouse College in Atlanta at the age of fifteen. He had originally planned on being a doctor or lawyer. At Morehouse, under the guidance of President Benjamin E. Mays and professor George D. Kelsey, he began to believe that religion could be both "intellectually respectful and emotionally satisfying." Mays's weekly talks on the social gospel enchanted King, while Kelsey's Bible course taught him to see the Bible metaphorically, leading him to conclude the Bible has "many profound truths which one cannot escape."[ii]

While the "shackles of fundamentalism" broke off during these years at Morehouse, it was at Crozer that King discovered the insights and potential of liberal theology and began to articulate his opinions about Christianity. It was here that he found his calling, graduating first in his class and delivering the commencement address. He would go on to study the twentieth-century giants of theology -- Tillich, Wieman, Niebuhr, and Barth -- while pursuing a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Boston University. But by the end of his seminary years at Crozer he had already laid out his understanding of the core doctrines of the Christian faith. And it is here that we now direct our focus.

How did Dr. King understand Jesus? Did he see him as the Son of God? In "The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus," a paper written for a class called "Christian Theology Today," King clearly lays out his view on the divinity of Jesus:

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadequate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: "Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possibly have ..." So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit of God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers. The appearance of such a person, more divine and more human than any other, and in closest unity at once with God and man, is the most significant and hopeful event in human history. This divine quality or this unity with God was not something thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation. [iii]

The question King answered was not whether Jesus was divine but rather how he became divine. This approach allowed him to deal with the "insuperable difficulties" of the orthodox position while still explaining why Jesus was unique and different from other people.

In line with his metaphorical interpretation of Jesus, King searched for the deeper significance of the history and context in which the Christian doctrines were created. He suggests, "We should delve into the deeper meaning ... and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation," and when we do this "we will find they are based on a profound foundation."[iv]

In a paper discussing the creation of orthodox beliefs, King argues that the virgin birth story represents a pre-scientific worldview: Christ's followers believed that Jesus's uniqueness could only be explained biologically. According to King, Jesus's early disciples saw his "spiritual life so far beyond theirs" that any attempt to explain his existence as human was inadequate. He concludes, "We of this scientific age will not explain the birth of Jesus in such unscientific terms."[v] This same type of thinking led Christ's followers to externalize their inner experience of his lasting power through the story of the bodily resurrection. Those who knew Jesus "had been captivated by the magnetic power of his personality," King writes, which led them to believe that he "could never die."[vi] The living and eternal presence they experienced was then transferred into the story of a bodily resurrection.

In "The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope," a paper King wrote for Christian Theology Today, he explores the core doctrines. The one he denounces most directly is that of the second coming, writing, "It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of Christ."[vii] What were the early Christians trying to convey in predicting the return of Jesus? King states:

Actually we are celebrating the Second Advent every time we open our hearts to Jesus, every time we turn our backs to the low road and accept the high road, every time we say no to self that we may say yes to Jesus Christ, every time a man or wom[a]n turns from ugliness to beauty and is able to forgive even their enemies. Jesus stands at the door of our hearts if we are willing to admit him.... The final doctrine of the second coming is that whenever we turn our lives to the highest and best there for us is the Christ.[viii]

This is in effect the continual return of Jesus.

In addressing the orthodox notion of the Day of Judgment, King suggests that we "set aside the spectacular paraphernalia of the judgment scene and the literal throne."[ix] Jesus has already come to judge the world. When we judge ourselves against the life of Christ or experience closeness to him we are experiencing the Day of Judgment. King also denies the traditional notion that some are destined for eternal communion with God while others are destined for hell. In "The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope," he writes, "A physical heaven and a physical hell are inconceivable in a Copernican world ... for us immortality will mean a spiritual existence."[x] And in "Why Religion?" he says, "In reality I know nothing about heaven ... personally I don't believe in hell in the conventional sense."[xi] In the end King interprets the kingdom of God not as some cataclysmic end time or a theocratic kingdom that triumphs over "satanically inspired regimes."[xii] Rather he associates the kingdom of God with the eternal love of God on earth, writing, "When we see social relationships controlled everywhere by the principles which Jesus illustrated in life -- trust, love, mercy, and altruism -- then we shall know that the kingdom of God is here."[xiii]

In a paper entitled "A View of the Cross Possessing Biblical and Spiritual Justification," King describes the various different views of the meaning of the cross throughout history and then concludes: "Any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the triumph of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death and Satan is inadequate.... If Christ by his life and death paid the full penalty of sin, there is no valid ground for repentance or moral obedience as a condition of forgiveness. The debt is paid; the penalty exacted, and there is, consequently, nothing to forgive."[xiv]

Dr. King's understanding of the Bible is quite simple: he believed it was written in a pre-scientific world and used language that was representative of its era. He flatly rejects a literal interpretation of biblical stories, claiming such a reading would be "absurd" in a Copernican world. The pre-scientific worldview that informed the authors of the Bible is clearly inadequate for modern Christians. Written by men trying to understand their social environment and place in the cosmos, the Bible is filled with "mankind's deepest devotional thoughts and aspirations."[xv] Readers who accept the Bible literally are faced with impossibilities and deep contradictions, but those who read it as myth encounter "many profound truths which one cannot escape."[xvi]

For Dr. King, the value of biblical stories is not diminished by their mythological nature. Rather, the myth serves to take the reader beyond the idea or thought within the mind. In short, he accepts the standard methods for critically examining the Bible. In "How to Use the Bible in Modern Theological Construction," he explains that this modern method "sees the Bible not as a textbook written with divine hands, but as a portrayal of the experiences of men written in particular historical situations."[xvii] Textual and literary criticism, archaeology, and history revealed to King the inadequacy of a literal biblical interpretation. He claimed that this critical approach to the Bible was "the best or at least the most logical system of theology in existence."[xviii] He also believed that biblical criticism and biblical archaeology "will serve to justify the church in modern culture."[xix] However, King was keenly aware of liberal theologians' ability to get caught up in abstract theory. In "The Weaknesses of Liberal Theology," he expressed his understanding that his role as a religious leader was to reconcile theory with concrete meaning:

It is certainly justifiable to be as scientific as possible in proving that the Pentateuch was written by more than one author, that the whale did not swallow Jonah, that Jesus was not born a virgin, or that Jesus never met John the Baptist. But after all of this, what relevance do the scriptures have? What moral implications do we find growing out of the Bible? What relevance does Jesus have in 1948 A.D.? These are questions which the liberal theologian must of necessity answer if he expects to influence the average mind. Too often do we find many of the liberals dodging these vital questions. [xx]

King also wrote at this time that "to discuss Christianity without mentioning other religions would be like discussing the greatness of the Atlantic Ocean without the slightest mention of the many tributaries that keep it flowing."[xxi] During his first semester at Crozer, writing on the Hebrew Bible, he compared the creation accounts, flood stories, and theologies of Babylonia, Egypt, and Sumer with those in the Bible and concluded that biblical stories are rooted in the surrounding cultures. He concluded that the Hebrew authors of the flood story were "producing from Babylonian mythology an almost verbatim story."[xxii] While most Christians of his time would have seen both Judaism and Christianity as contradicting and rejecting pagan religion, King argued that they gave a more "profound and spiritual meaning" to the pagan views to which they must be indebted,[xxiii] adding that these traditions even prepared people "mentally and emotionally to understand the type of religion which Christianity represented."[xxiv] For King, the only reason Christianity triumphed was the particular historical and social circumstances. He even went on to suggest that Christianity might end up like those other cults, religions, and pagan practices that didn't survive. In The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity, he wrote: "The staggering question that now arises is, what will be the next stage of man's religious progress? Is Christianity the crowning achievement in the development of religious thought or will there be another religion more advanced?"[xxv]

The purpose of the church for King is not to create dogma, theology, or creeds but rather "to produce living witnesses and testimonies to the power of God in human experience," and to commit to action. From a young age, King understood the importance of combining his religion with social justice. From this perspective King viewed the church's role as promoting a way of life rather than a belief system, saying, "Jesus always recognized that there is a danger of having a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds."[xxvi] He stated that Christ is more concerned with how we treat our neighbors, our attitudes toward racial justice, and living a high ethical life than he is with long processionals, knowledge of creeds, or the beautiful architecture of a church.[xxvii] According to King, the church had strayed from Christ.

In "Is the Church the Hope of the World?" he asserted that "nothing has so persistently and effectively blocked the way of salvation as the church," due to the church's condoning of evils such as slavery and monopoly capitalism.[xxviii] He went on to say, "On the other hand, the church can become the hope of the world, but only when it returns to Christ."[xxix]

By his senior year, King had developed a strong belief in the liberalism that defined the social gospel movement and progressive theology in his era. However, his encounter with Reinhold Niebuhr and the Neo-Orthodoxy movement led him to "recognize the illusions of a superficial optimism concerning human nature and the dangers of a false idealism."[xxx] Thus, he sought a middle ground and rejected original sin as "preposterous" while acknowledging that sin is a real choice we make, albeit far too often.

Like the great mystics, King viewed God as an experience not limited to any religion or restricted by any creed, stating, "Of course the true seeker will realize that there is no one way to find God"[xxxi] and "No theology is needed to tell us that love is the law of life and to disobey it means to suffer the consequences; we see it everyday in human experience."[xxxii] King meditated for an hour a day, prayed, and discovered God through nature. It was through this sort of devotional life that he believed our souls can be united with God, bringing our will in line with his.

For King, God is always near. In "Mastering Our Evil Selves," he writes: "God is not a process projected somewhere in the lofty blue. God is not a divine hermit hiding himself in a cosmic cave. But God is forever present with us."[xxxiii] Despite his liberal theology, he did, however, maintain the belief in a personal God that is both transcendent and immanent. In his dissertation King compared and contrasted his particular theology of personalism with the theology of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman, two leading voices in the process theology movement, which viewed God as an impersonal force. King also viewed God as synonymous with justice. He believed God was right there with him and others during the civil rights movement: "The God that we worship is ... but an other-loving God who forever works through history for the establishment of His Kingdom."[xxxiv]

On the issue of evolution and creation, King sought to reconcile the advances of science with his religious belief in God. He claims that the scientific origin of the beginning of the world "might be right in seeing the invalidity of the older view of a first creation."[xxxv] However, instead of denying any creation, he advocates the view of "emergent evolution," which suggests that God is "an intelligent conscious mind working out its purpose through the evolutionary process."[xxxvi] According to King, it is "here that we find creation and evolution working together."[xxxvii]

At this point a few important questions can be asked. Did King's views on the Christian doctrines while in seminary change later in his life? He was ordained as a Baptist minister. Would he not have chosen a different denomination if his views were so liberal? Dr. Clayborne Carson, a world-renowned King scholar and director of the King Papers Project at Stanford, told me that he had not seen any documentary evidence of a later shift in King's thinking from his early views on Christian doctrines. He also said King may have found creative ways to avoid expressing his unorthodox views, as he was trained in a liberal seminary but served a Baptist congregation.

King had numerous opportunities to express his understanding of Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity with his many sermons, books, interviews, and writings. If at any point he changed his views and became an orthodox Christian, he might have at least once claimed that Jesus was his savior, the Bible was the literal word of God, or non-Christians would go to hell. But there are no statements either during his educational career or in his work as a civil rights leader and preacher that would suggest he ever changed his liberal views of the doctrines.
King's metaphysical and philosophical understanding of God and human nature did grow and develop while at Boston University, though his approach to the Christian doctrines remained constant. It should not be surprising then that while Dr. King served a Baptist church, his first choice of religion was Unitarian Christian (which later merged with Universalism).[xxxviii] Dr. King's liberal faith resonated with the dynamic Unitarian Christian tradition because of his acknowledgment of the truth in all religions, his view of Jesus as an exemplary teacher, and his rejection of biblical literalism. Coretta Scott had been attending Unitarian churches for years before she met and married Martin, and they both attended Unitarian services while in Boston. He ultimately faced the reality that he would probably not be able to play a role in the civil rights movement in this tradition and thus he became pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, shortly thereafter being elected to lead the Montgomery bus boycott.[xxxix]

God is bigger than any one religion, and King's theology is a pertinent reminder of this. King was able to express a vision of Christianity that was both meaningful and welcoming of others. In our present world, where fundamentalism is on the march, a look back at his reasoned and thoughtful approach to religion can serve the public well. And for the spiritual progressives working to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth, Dr. King's expression of faith offers a powerful synthesis of how justice, love, and peace can be manifest as paradise here and now. His theology is inclusive, tolerant, renewing, and life-sustaining—free from dogma and exclusionary views, which can lead to violence and separation. The history of religious intolerance within Christianity is, needless to say, troubling. A historical and metaphorical interpretation of Christianity is valid: it need not lack energy and conviction as some fear. Indeed, such an interpretation is held by many in today's vibrant "emergent church." Dr. King is a voice for this movement, as he promoted Christianity as a way of life based on an inner experience and rooted in a commitment to the social gospel. For those of us progressive Christians who have fought for a seat at the table, Dr. King politely pulls a chair out for us to sit on.

Robert James Scofield (aka "Be") is a spiritual activist and the founder of www.godblessthewholeworld.org. He is pursuing a Master of Divinity at Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley, California. You can reach him at bjscofield@gmail.com.

Endnotes

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

[i] King Jr., ed. Clayborne Carson. The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr. Warner

Books. 1998 p. 6.

[ii] Ibid., p. 180.

[iii] King Jr., "The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol 1, p. 150.

[iv] King Jr., "What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol 1, p. 224.

[v] Ibid., p. 229.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] King Jr., "The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope," in "The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. Vol. 1," p. 269.

[viii] Ibid., p. 270.

[ix] Ibid., p. 271.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] King Jr., "Why Religion?" in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, p. 83.

[xii] Ibid., p. 272.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] King Jr., "A View of the Cross possessing Biblical and Spiritual Justification," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 265.

[xv] King Jr., "Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. Vol. 1, p. 180.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] King Jr., "How to Use the Bible in Modern Theological Construction," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 253.

[xviii] King Jr., "The Weaknesses of Liberal Theology," in the Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, p. 78.

[xix] King Jr., "Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 180.

[xx] King Jr., "The Weaknesses of Liberal Theology," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, p. 78.

[xxi] King Jr., "The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 311.

[xxii] King Jr., "Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 172.

[xxiii] King Jr., "The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 311.

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Ibid.

[xxvi] King Jr., "A Religion of Doing," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, p. 171.

[xxvii] Ibid.

[xxviii] King Jr., "Is the Church the Hope of the World?" in "The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, pp. 105-106.

[xxix] Ibid.

[xxx] Ibid., p. 27.

[xxxi] Ibid., p. 232.

[xxxii] Ibid., p. 234.

[xxxiii] King Jr., "Mastering Our Evil Selves," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, p. 97.

[xxxiv] Ansboro, John, Martin Luther King Jr., The Making of a Mind, p. 47.

[xxxv] King Jr., "Examination Answers, Christian Theology for Today," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., p. 290.

[xxxvi] Ibid.

[xxxvii] Ibid.

[xxxviii] Bray McNatt, Rosemary, "The Problem of Theology in the Work of Anti-racism: A Meditation," in Soul Work: Anti-racist Theologies in Dialogue. Skinner House, 2003.

[xxxix] Ibid., p. 27.

A Note on Sources:

Most quotations in this article come from The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr.,
Volumes 1 and 6. A fully footnoted version of the article will be posted at www.tikkun.org on January 1, 2010. If you need a copy before that, please email dave@tikkun.org

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

http://www.tikkun.org/article.php?story=nov_dec_09_scofield

2011-07-18T05:22:00.000-07:00

2011-07-17T17:32:00.001-07:00

The martyred Christ of the working class,
The inspired evangel of the downtrodden masses,
The world's supreme revolutionary leader,
Whose love for the poor and the children of the poor
Hallowed all the days of his consecrated life,
Lighted up and made forever holy
The dark tragedy of his death
And gave to the ages his divine inspiration
And his deathless name.

Jesus by Eugene V. Debs, leader of the American Socialist Party

Cornell West to President Obama

2011-06-10T07:56:00.000-07:00

"Paul's" Letter to the Ephesians: 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (New American Standard Bible)

Douglass Boulevard Christian Church (Disciples of Christ): UPDATE

2011-05-18T15:11:00.000-07:00

On the ninth of May I wrote an open post to my denomination, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) stating that I wished there were official mention of the prophetic action taken by Douglass Boulevard Christian Church. It turns out that the omission was an honest and simple mistake. This link will take the reader to an article that makes me feel proud to be a liberal Disciple.

http://www.disciples.org/tabid/58/itemid/904/Disciples-congregation-votes-to-change-its-policy.aspx

Peace,
Brian

http://www.disciples.org/
http://douglassblvdcc.com/295/041911/

An Open Post to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

2011-05-09T08:20:00.000-07:00

Matthew 5:14-16 "You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your father in heaven."

The reason I’m writing this brief, but public, note is that I wish that I were witnessing some official recognition for the recent action of Douglass Boulevard Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). http://youtu.be/KS_kJjYWHf4

This action has received a lot of media attention. A simple google of “Douglass Blvd Christian Church” will reveal this. However over at disciples.org, the same search reveals nothing of this news item. I wish this were not the case.

Many Disciples are proud of Douglass Blvd. I’m one of them. Generally I shy away from the role of cheerleader, but let’s make some noise! Praise God for the prophetic witness of Douglass Blvd!

Peace,
Brian

Ames would approve of this comic.

2011-05-06T07:05:00.000-07:00

http://www.thepaincomics.com/Jesus%20vs.%20Jeezus.jpg

Mother's Day Proclamation, by Julia Ward Howe

2011-05-05T07:58:00.000-07:00

Mother's Day Proclamation
by Julia Ward Howe
(1819-1910)

Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/jhowe/bl-jhowe-mothersday.htm

Positive Attention for Disciples of Christ

2011-04-25T10:54:00.000-07:00

Douglass Boulevard Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Louisville, KY has made the news recently. In order to show solidarity with our gay and lesbian sisters and brothers, the congregation recently unanimously passed a resolution that no minister or elder of the congregation will sign a marriage license for church weddings. People, gay or straight, can still opt to get married in the church, but the congregation chooses not to act as agents for the state. When gay people have equal rights in marriage, Douglass Blvd will (most likely) start signing licenses again.

I'm very proud of this congregation. They do my denomination, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) proud. As followers of the Risen Christ, we stand for all who suffer oppression. It is an honor to stand in solidarity with the good people of Douglass Blvd Christian Church. They are a shining example of what Christianity can look like.

Matthew 5:14-16 "You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your father in heaven."

Ames on Disciples of Christ, 1944

2011-04-14T12:20:00.000-07:00

The Disciples of Christ, 1944

Loyalty to Jesus Christ

In nothing has this renunciation of old forms of thought and speech been more significant than in understanding what loyalty to Jesus Christ involves. The predominant traditional view held that he must be conceived as divine in a supernatural and miraculous sense. But the biblical terms applied to him may be regarded as honorific, expressing devotion and the appraisal of affection, of gratitude and admiration. Wonder, awe, reverence and in a very real sense, worship, do not depend upon attributing to him a certain metaphysical nature, such as trinitarian theology assumes. Neither is the unitarian doctrine more satisfactory. Unitarianism also implies impossible metaphysical conceptions and has not been able to fulfill the honorific attitudes which a vital religious faith usually requires. A more biblical and appreciably practical interpretation is that which reverses the order of the terms involved. Both trinitarians and unitarians start with a formulated idea of God and then demand that a conception of Jesus must be accepted which fits into that formulated idea. In contrast, the biblical and common-sense solution is to begin with the person and life of Jesus and let them determine the idea of God! Jesus said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." In this way we proceed from Christology to God, rather than from Theology to Christ. The designation, Son of Man, which Jesus applied to himself also yields illumination with reference to the nature of man, for it emphasizes a relationship which elevates man through the possibilities of attaining a fuller measure of the divine.

There was no such chasm between the human and the divine for the Disciples as there was for the Calvinistic theology. For them, in his natural state, man was not completely alienated from God; nor was God, in his holiness, completely transcendent beyond man. It was a father and son relationship. God was thought able to make his will clear to man, and man was thought able to understand that will sufficiently to be guided by it, and to follow it.

Selected Meditations by Ames

2011-04-08T09:31:00.001-07:00

From the book, Prayers and Meditations of Edward Scribner Ames, 1970 by the the Disciples Divinity House of the University of Chicago

pp 141-143, “The Disciples of Christ”

The Disciples of Christ constitute a religious body instituted in 1809 by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Scotch Presbyterian ministers in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. This is now the largest denomination of American origin, distinctly of democratic temper. Each congregation is independent and free in teaching and practice.
The Disciples do not interpret God in either trinitarian or unitarian terms, but through the personality and teaching of the historical Jesus. They have no official creed or theology. They seek a universal, practical basis for the union of all Christians upon the essentials of religion as found in the teachings of the New Testament, in the life of Christ, and in a scientific understanding of the religious nature of man. They believe in the dignity of man, not in original sin. No essential difference is recognized between clergy and laymen. Any member may administer any ordinance. Conversion is a voluntary turning of mind and heart to the way of Jesus Christ. Stress is on the right of private interpretation of scripture and individual freedom of opinion. Salvation is a process of growth in knowledge and grace, through an experimental attitude in ideas, forms, and organization.
The only confession of faith required of those who have not been previously identified with any church is: “Do you believe in Jesus and in his way of life, and do you earnestly desire to follow him?” It is not the doctrinal significance of these words which is stressed so much as their expression of appreciation of the spirit and teaching of Jesus, and willingness to cooperate in practical efforts to realize his idealism in individual and social life. Baptism is optional. Communion is observed every Sunday, and all persons are invited to participate, but it is never required of anyone.
The Disciples share with other denominations the missionary spirit and enterprise. They promote federation, religious education, and great practical, social movements. They use religious literature from all sources, sing the great hymns of all churches, and cherish the devotional books of all faiths. Increasingly their students for the ministry are attending great universities without regard to denominational affiliation.
The Disciples have had the seeds of liberalism in them from the first. If they do not know how free they are, it is because they are not informed on their own history and have shamefully neglected their birthright. If members of other churches look upon the Disciples as conservative, narrow fundamentalists, the reasons for this are to be found largely in the failure of the Disciples themselves to know and to make known the deeper and finer qualities of their own inheritance. (From The Calendar, March 28, 1926; and from The Scroll, January, 1944, reprinted in The Disciples of Christ: Their Growth, Their Heritage, Their Timeliness, 1943-44: Addresses given at the annual convention of the Disciples of Christ of Northern California, at San Jose’, July, 1943.)

pp 110-111, “Neo-orthodoxy”

Neo-orthodoxy of the present day is to my mind a half-hearted and inconsistent treatment of science and religion. All the significant representatives of this group are men who advanced some way on the path of liberal thought and then, under the pressure of war and distress, reverted to acceptance of traditional conceptions of revelation and supernatural grace. But none of them, so far as I know, gave up the methods and results of higher criticism. Yet higher criticism is itself the application of scientific method to the study of the Bible. Quite uniformly, these one-time partial “liberals” reject scientific procedure and empiricism in religion except in the biblical field. So long as they accept it there, their a priori, dogmatic, supernaturalistic theology hangs only by slender threads when the main cable has been cut away. It is my conviction that such a hybrid treatment of religion, thoroughly begun in the crucial field of biblical research and reconstruction, will be resumed in all other aspects of religion, much to the advantage and furtherance of religious faith and works. (From “Science and Religion,” published in The Christian, February 25, 1933.)

p 111, Karl Barth Versus Modernism

The readiness with which many religious leaders have responded to the ideas of Karl Barth reveals how little the principles of modern science have influenced religious thought. The formulation of Christianity is still dominated emotionally by Calvin and Luther who belong to the pre-scientific period of the sixteenth century. Barth and other adherents of “dialectical theology” and traditional authoritarianism reject modern science in relation to religion. For them the function of reason is, in principle, the defense of revelation in one form or another. Science to them is man-made, this-worldly, secular, and therefore religiously impotent. Barth reaffirms the gulf that Calvin put between God and man.
The denominations in America most influenced by this reversion to the pre-scientific thought of the sixteenth century have Calvinistic and Lutheran backgrounds: The Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Congregational. The denominations least affected, like the Unitarian and the Methodist, hark back more to the eighteenth century, the century of the Enlightenment. Modernism, as the modification of traditional orthodoxy by the impact of the scientific spirit, was gaining in all denominations until the “crisis” theologians brought an emotional reaction. Modernism was thereby shown to be a recent and relatively superficial development, not well enough grounded to stand the strain of the wars and crises of our time. Modernism’s “failure of nerve” is evidence that it did not really understand itself. (From Lecture III in the series on, “The Reasonableness of Christianity” for the Pastors’ Institute, 1937.)

Selected Quotes: Beyond Theology: The Autobiography of Edward Scribner Ames

2011-04-06T18:33:00.000-07:00

ES AMES

Beyond Theology: The autobiography of Edward Scribner Ames, Chicago, 1959

pp 184-185 Chapter, “Religious Values”
The only real secularism in a bad sense is isolation from the full stream of natural interests. When business tries to go its own way in defiance of the common good, it tends to become secular. But the same is also true of religion. When the church withdraws into its sanctuary and denies its organic relation to scientific knowledge or to the institutions of society around it, there results a deadly secularization of religion. Too often this has happened, and far too widely it is happening today. It happens not only with those sects which cultivate an intense emotionalism, like the Holy Rollers, or the sects that stress other-worldliness, but to many old and settled churches whose theologians speak in dialectical tongues and declare that the God in whom they believe is beyond the reach of man’s best efforts.

p 188 - Nothing yet proves that continued progress is inevitable, but that it is possible no one but an extreme skeptic or pessimist can doubt.

p 188 - It may be said that the supreme revelation is to be found in Jesus Christ and that all the rest of the Bible leads up to him. Yet there are two ways of accepting the words and example of Jesus. One is to take what he says as true because he says it, and another is to believe it because it stands the test of reflection and experience. When his way of life has been confirmed by the demands of intelligence and of practical life, it has gained the deepest security and made its strongest claims upon our loyalty.

p 71, The Hyde Park Church
(From a poem called “What We Stand For” by Dr J.H. Garrison)
For the Christ of Galilee,
For the truth which makes men free,
For the bond of unity
Which makes God’s children one.

For the faith against tradition,
For the truth ‘gainst superstition,
For the hope whose glad fruition
Our waiting eyes shall see.

Beyond Theology: The autobiography of Edward Scribner Ames, Chicago, 1959
p 46, Chicago, 1896-97
In the same winter quarter, beginning in January, 1896, I taught a class for the Disciples Divinity House, in the divinity school of the university, on the theology of Alexander Campbell. This enabled me to work over again the relation of his thought to that of John Lock, which had so much interested me while I was working on my thesis the previous year. With a class of eight graduate students it was possible to have reports and discussions on various problems. Our excitement ran high, for the “discovery” of the relation between Campbell and Locke gave new meaning to Disciple history and placed it in a stream of thought that was influencing modern science and philosophy with what Locke himself called “a new way of ideas.” It was the empirical and pragmatic temper applied in religious matters. This meant not only a lessened emphasis upon traditional theology and speculative metaphysics but a refection of their assumptions and methods. Like Locke, Campbell also rejected the “inner light” and “enthusiasm” as grounds for religious assurance. Both held to the possibility of revelation, but both insisted that any alleged revelation must be brought to the test of reason.

p 92, The Psychology of Religion
It has become a conviction with me that psychology may in the long run do much to change the conception of the fundamental nature of the religious life, which, on the whole, is now too generally made a matter of doctrine. It is too intellectual At the doors of most churches one is met by required beliefs in a particular conception of God, in a speculative theory about the divinity of Christ, definite ideas concerning sin and salvation, the efficacy of ordinances, and the claims of supernatural revelation. What people are really seeking is access to refreshing fountains of life, sources of strength and guidance. They crave association with people and institutions which may convey to them a sense of what is most worthwhile in life and what may furnish impulsion toward real and enduring values. They know pretty well what those values are when allowed to let their own deepest desires express themselves.

p222, My Faith
We have overdeveloped the individualism that arose in a pioneer country. We are destined to become more co-operative, more collectivistic, and to find in this direction still greater opportunity for the individual, not so much restricted and defeated by competition but enlarged and enhanced by the support of a common will. It may be that the problem of material goods--of the necessary but yet external goods of food, clothing, shelter, and money-is about to be solved through new discoveries and developments, with the energies of men left freer than they have ever been to cultivate on higher levels the sharable goods of life, such as love and wisdom. These values grow with use and multiply by being freely shared.

Lenten Meditation

2011-04-03T03:39:00.001-07:00

2 John, verse 7: (NRSV) Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!

For many Christians, including this one, Lent begins with these words, "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return". Lent is a time to dig a little deeper into our hearts and minds. It is a time to reflect on how we want to live, and how we want to die. Lent reminds us of the preciousness of each moment that we have on this earth.

During Lent, I usually use the image of "marching with Jesus toward Jerusalem". During the march we are mindful of the pain and death that is to come. But we also know that pain and death is not the final word. We know that Easter can only happen after Good Friday.

As we march toward Jerusalem, let us remember some other reminders of the living Christ in the flesh. During Lent we join the Reverend Doctor King in marching toward Memphis. We join Archbishop Oscar Romero in marching toward San Salvador. We join Joe Hill in marching toward Salt Lake City. We join with all of those who have willingly marched toward their own martyrdom due to a commitment to the risen Christ.....the very real flesh and blood of the people who suffer oppression and injustice.

Christ does indeed come to us in the flesh. To claim otherwise is, according to Saint John, to be a "deciever and ....antichrist". Oscar Romero said it well, "We learn to see the face of Christ - the face of Christ that also is the face of a suffering human being, the face of the crucified, the face of the poor, the face of a saint, and the face of every person - and we love each one with the criteria with which we will be judged: 'I was hungry and you gave me to eat.'...Salvation begins with the human person, with human dignity, with saving every person from sin. And in Lent this is God's call: Be converted!"

Jesus, Martin, Oscar, and Joe all were martyred for living a life of faith. By faith I don't mean opinions or feelings. I mean action. Yet, each one of them is alive today. Indeed, each one is more alive now than they were before death. This is the promise of resurrection.

The inward focus of Lent brings us face to face with the outward focus of Christ. It gives us clarity. Clarity gives us courage. If we don't have courage to die for justice, then have are we saved? Are we converted? Do we have eternal life? The Reverend Jesse Jackson says, "A (person) must be willing to die for justice. Death is an inescapable reality and (people) die daily, but good deeds live forever".

Have you met the Risen One? If so, have you decided to follow him? Follow him to Jerusalem, Memphis, Sal Salvador, and Salt Lake City. Follow him and never look back. Be converted!

New Face Book Page

2011-03-26T04:34:00.000-07:00

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Edward-Scribner-Ames/214297295252615

The link above directs you to a new Face Book page. It is a page that is dedicated to the name sake of this site. I'll admit, for most people, this will probably not be that interesting. But for folks who like church and intellectual history, it may be worth a visit. A few points:

- I am in no way an expert on Edward Scribner Ames. I found him in seminary and resonated with him. In him I found someone who thinks like I do. That is always refreshing.

- I just started the page yesterday. It will grow as info becomes available. It will also grow as I learn more about being a page administrator.

- I invite others who have info on Ames to add it.

As I stated in the first post on this blog, I feel that Ames does not get the credit and attention that he deserves. He earned the very first PhD from the newly formed philosophy department at University of Chicago in 1895. This means that he studied directly with John Dewey. This is big stuff. Why is he not famous among his denomination (and mine) The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)? I suggest it is because his teachings are inconvenient. He was a true liberal. He rejected supernatural phenomenon. He denied the afterlife. He denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. I suggest that had he placated the superstitious who tend to fund denominations, he would be well-known. But he did not placate the superstitious. He honored Christ by speaking rightly of him.

Do we have courage to do likewise today? It is 100 years later. Are we still cowards? Are we ready to move on to an adult version of Christianity? I am.

Peace,
Brian

Iraq: 8 Years of War (Sermon)

2011-03-18T08:34:00.000-07:00

Matthew 10:34-36 (NRSV)
34 ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.  35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;  36 and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.

March 19, 2011 marks the 8th anniversary of the date that the government of the United States started a war against the people of Iraq. I have one simple goal for this humble sermon. The goal is to speak out in plain language against the kind of thinking that encourages war, and to do it in a way that honors Jesus of Nazareth.

The above scripture passage from Matthew’s gospel portrays Jesus saying that he did not come to earth to bring peace, but instead a sword. He came to bring division, even in families.

I think it is pretty clear that the sword Jesus yields is not an actual sword, but instead a symbolic sword. The sword of Jesus is the sword of truth and justice. Words of truth and justice have always brought division. They still do.

I invite you to think back to that time when our government started killing Iraqis. Most people supported the war. The mainstream media supported it. Many Christians supported it. It was a very popular war.

In fact, those of us who opposed it had our patriotism called into question. The Dixie Chicks were boycotted by many radio stations for simply saying they were ashamed of President Bush. (I suspect the same people who found this to be unpatriotic are the very people who claim that President Obama is not “one of us”.)

The sword of Jesus is still causing division. Indeed, one can see his sword causing division among those of us who call him Lord. Let me suggest that there are two different versions of Jesus. (There are more of course, but we’ll stick to two for clarity.)

First I will show the Jesus that I believe is false and harmful. This is the Jesus of superstition and bigotry. Candidate George W. Bush was once asked to name his favorite political philosopher. He answered, “Christ”. George W. Bush has a very different understanding of Jesus than do I.

He believes in a Jesus who is of supernatural origin who came to earth in order to be tortured to death by the world’s most powerful nation so that those who hold certain opinions and/or feelings of him will go to heaven in the afterlife instead of hell.

There is no place for this view of Jesus in the 21st century. While it is true that many in the 1st century saw Jesus in that way, we mock God when we think like a 1st century Christian. Would you hire a personal trainer who maintains a first century understanding of exercise physiology? Of course not! If only Christians cared as much about Jesus as they do fitness.

Candidate Bush went on to become President Bush, in large part because he appealed to the people who choose to follow a Christ of superstition and bigotry. You see, these folks don’t worry too much about injustice and suffering in this world, because after a little while, Jesus will take the suffering people to heaven (provided they have the “correct” thoughts/feelings about Jesus of course).

With this view of Jesus as his favorite political philosopher, President Bush decided that God wanted him to kill thousands of Iraqis. After wiping out an ancient culture, he could then replace it with a thriving free-market. In Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, you will find these words spoken by a Procter & Gamble partner, “Getting the rights to distribute Procter & Gamble products would be a gold mine...One well-stocked 7-Eleven could knock out 30 Iraqi stores; a Wal-Mart could take over the country”. (p430)

I have good news. There is another view of Jesus. This is the view that I proclaim. The Jesus that I proclaim does not endorse bombing people. The Jesus that I proclaim sides with those being bombed. This Jesus does not ask you to wash your mind of reason, but asks you to stand up for those who are outsiders: gays, atheists, Iraqis, “illegal” aliens, etc.

This Jesus does not mock God with promises of life after this one, but teaches us how to make the most of the life that we are living right now. This life is not a dress rehearsal for the “real thing” to come later. Those of us who love and honor Jesus Christ choose to stand for peace and justice for real people on this very real planet. No pie in the sky for those who love and honor Jesus Christ. Bigots and fools can have that.

President George W. Bush followed his false Jesus. Judge him by the fruit of his actions. Frankly, I believe that President Bush needs to be imprisoned for war crimes. (In time I may come to the same conclusion about President Obama. More data is needed before coming to that conclusion.) In the name of Jesus Christ, President Bush chose to torture people. He confesses to his sin in his auto-biography. What I want to shine a light on is the fact that he himself stated that he gets his political philosophy from Jesus Christ. That ain’t my Jesus!

As you can see, the sword of Jesus still divides. Just try talking about this topic at a family reunion. You will see with your own eyes how it causes division in families today. Every time someone stands up to superstition and bigotry division will occur.
However, we must not be silent. We must speak words of accuracy. Jesus deserves this. Jesus is who I give my allegiance to. He deserves to be honored, not mocked with superstition and violence.

There is an old union song called “Which Side Are You On?”. I end this sermon with the same question. Which side are you on? No fence sitting is allowed, because fence sitting allows bigots and fools to keep dictating who Jesus is and what Christianity is. Stand up and unite with good people of common sense.

In the name of Jesus, end this damn war now!

Social Justice Sermon: Power

2011-03-11T08:00:00.000-08:00

Micah 2:1-2 Alas for those who devise wickedness and evil deeds on their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in their power. They covet fields, and seize them; houses, and take them away; they oppress householder and house, people and their inheritance.

Some say us liberal Christians are not into evangelism. If by evangelism they mean trying to convert people to Christianity, they are right. I reject that kind of evangelism with every fiber of my being. If, on the other hand, by evangelism they mean speaking truth to power, then evangelism on the left is alive and kicking. Social justice evangelism is something that I can get behind. I hope you can too.

This sermon is evangelistic in this sense of the word. It is a sermon about power.

The Bible says a lot about power. In the scriptures we find stories and teachings about the different kinds of power that are at work in the world. We see examples of power being used in ways that are helpful. We also see examples of power being used in ways that are hurtful. Power in and of itself is not good or bad. It is like electricity. It can be used to help or to hurt people. Micah makes it clear that power must be used for the greatest good for everybody, especially those who are most vulnerable to exploitation.

In the short passage above, Micah states that there are some people who want to hurt people for their own benefit. Not everybody can follow through with these bad things, but some people can. The difference is power. Some people have it. Others don't. He then goes on to give examples of what an abuse of power can look like. "They covet fields, and seize them; houses, and take them away; they oppress householder and house, people and their inheritance."

We can list examples of abuse of power today. Banks kicking families out of their homes. Public employees being stripped of their rights for collective bargaining. Tax payor handouts for Wall Street executives while low income and working people experience cuts in funding for public education and health care assistance.

Speaker John Boehner sheds tears when he thinks about himself. His eyes are dry for you and your unemployed mother. His eyes are dry for the children in poor urban and rural school districts. His eyes are dry for everybody who does not benefit him.

Micah opposes this kind of power. But he supports power of another kind. Listen to this from Micah 3:8, "But as for me, I am filled with power, with the spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin".

When Micah talks about Jacob and Israel, he is talking about his homeland....his country. The power Micah is talking about is what happens when people tell the truth about how people with power are choosing to hurt people for selfish gain. This is the kind of power that we need to see more of these days. We need to see more people, young and old, speaking out against those who use power unjustly. We need to hear people speaking the truth of God.

Some may ask, "How do we know when we are speaking truth of God?" We know that we are speaking truth of God when we speak out against the abuse of power. It matters not one iota what religion we represent. If we choose to speak out against the rich who abuse the poor, they are speaking rightly of God.

Jesus teaches about this kind of power too. In the Book of Acts 1:8 Jesus says to his followers "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth".

Over the centuries many Christians have been fooled into believing this means that followers of Jesus are supposed to convert people to Christianity. This is wrong. It brings dishonor to Christ and it mocks God. What is right? Working for social justice all over the world. We have no concern what somebody's religion is. This is none of our business. Nor do we care what their opinions are of Jesus. This is meaningless. The only thing that matters is love and justice for everybody all over the world. Let me say this again. The only thing that matters is love and justice for everybody all over the world. All else is foolishness.

Right now in Wisconsin we are seeing both kinds of power. We are seeing an abuse of power by Governor Walker (and the Koch Brothers) as he is trying to steal away workers' rights for collective bargaining. This is an evil use of power. But we also see the kind of power that Micah, and Jesus, support. We see the power of people working together to fight against Governor Walker's evil plan. When good people work together to speak out against abuse of power, good things can happen. Indeed, this is Holy Spirit power at work. This is true evangelism.

With collective social action, people have godly power. Together we can say with Micah, "Listen you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Should you not know justice?--you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin off my people, and the flesh off their bones,; who eat the flesh of my people, flay their skin off them, break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron. Then they will cry to the LORD, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have acted wickedly". (3:1-4)

I used to struggle with verses like the one above. I struggled because it portrayed God as refusing to answer those who are wicked. However, I see it differently now. Now I view God's refusal to answer the wicked not in supernatural terms, but with God being a metaphor for collective social action. God is incarnate in the collective action of people who have been hurt by the wicked. This metaphorical God will not hear the cries of the Koch Brothers and Governor Walker when justice prevails . A time will come when Governor Walker will lose his power. The collective action of people, God, will see to it. Justice will prevail.

The end of every evangelical sermon includes an opportunity to respond to the message of God. This sermon is no different. It is time for action. It is time for those who choose good over evil to speak out against the wicked leaders of the world. Speak out against Governor Walker. Speak out against the Koch Brothers. Speak out against Fox News. Speak out against Speaker Boehner. And when President Obama chooses evil over good (Gitmo), speak out against his evil as well.

Christian evangelism is not dead. Indeed, evangelism is about fighting injustice, not converting people to Jesus. Come forward and join the movement of collective action. This is God-power. In solidarity, let us speak out for love and justice. In the name of Jesus, Amen

Let's Talk About Jesus

2011-03-04T04:35:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: I am attempting to communicate liberal Christian ideas in a way that even a child can understand. Therefore, I'm writing as if I'm speaking with children. However, I'm also reaching out to the many adults who struggle with reading. I will do my best to make this easy enough to read so that such people are offered a vision of Christianity that is not fundamentalist.)

Today we are going to read about Jesus.

Christians love Jesus very much. This is what makes Christianity different from other religions. But Christians have different ideas about Jesus. Some of these ideas are good. Some of these ideas are bad.

First we will read some bad ideas about Jesus. Then we will read some good ideas about Jesus.

A lot of people think that God wanted Jesus to be sad so that you can be happy. This is a very bad idea. These people teach children that the reason people were mean and killed Jesus was to make God be nice to you. This idea is mean and wrong. The people who choose to teach bad ideas about Jesus will find things in the Bible to make it sound like they are telling the truth. But they are not telling the truth.

(Remember that we already discussed the Bible. Not everything in the Bible is good. In fact, in Matthew 4, there is a story about the devil saying things from the Bible to try to trick Jesus into believing bad ideas.) There are adults who use the Bible today to try to teach bad things to children too. But we won't believe the bad ideas. We will believe the good ideas.

One of the meanest things that some adults say about Jesus is that if you think differently than they do, that God will be very mad at you. These adults teach kids that God will treat them very mean if they don't agree with the adults who teach bad ideas about Jesus. These adults are very wrong. They might be nice people, but they believe bad ideas about Jesus. We will not let the bad ideas win. We will believe good things about Jesus!

Now we will read some good ideas about Jesus. Jesus was nice to kids. Jesus was nice to unpopular people. Jesus wanted people to be kind to each other. One time somebody asked Jesus what matters the most. Jesus said that people should be good to each other. They should share and be kind. (Matthew 7:12)

You may have friends who have a different religion. Other religions teach this same thing. Jesus was very smart and good, but there are smart and good people from other religions too. We need to treat them nice, just like Jesus said.

You may know some adults who teach bad ideas about Jesus. Be careful who you talk to about these things. Some adults will get mad and be mean if you disagree with their bad ideas about Jesus. Find people who will treat you nice, even if they disagree with you. Stay brave when adults tell you bad things about Jesus. You will grow up to teach kids good things about Jesus. You are good. I believe in you. So does Jesus.

Peace,
Brian

The Bible Was Written By People Just Like You

2011-03-01T06:21:00.000-08:00

(NOTE: I am attempting to communicate liberal Christian ideas in a way that even a child can understand. Therefore, I'm writing as if I'm speaking with children. There are many adults who struggle with reading. I will do my best to make this easy enough to read so that such people are offered a vision of Christianity that is not fundamentalist.)

Today we are going to talk about the Bible. Different groups of Christians understand the Bible differently. This is why Christians sometimes argue with each other. But all Christians love the Bible and study it regularly.

The Bible was written over a long period of time by many different people. These people did the very best they could to be faithful to God. Yet, they all had very different countries, family situations, and concerns. Over time, you can see for yourself that understandings of God change. I want you to know that this is a good thing.

Some Christians believe that God magically made the Bible. They believe that people wrote it, but that God was telling them what to write. These people are doing the best they can, but they are making a mistake. God did not write the Bible. People wrote the Bible. This is why the Bible can be wrong about some things.

One time a really smart person said that the earth rotates around the sun. This made his ministers very mad. They were mad because the Bible said that the sun rotates around the earth. These days everyone knows that the smart man was right and his ministers were wrong.

These days some ministers say that a smart man named Charles Darwin was wrong about stuff becuase they think the Bible says something differnt. These ministers are making a mistake, but if you tell them this, they will get mad at you.

These days some ministers say that women should not marry women and men should not marry men because the Bible says so. They are making a mistake. The Bible does not say this at all, but that is not what really matters. What really matters is that you are smart enough to know what is good and bad. Love is good. Marriage is good. Stopping people who love each other from getting married is bad. If you tell these ministers that they are wrong, they will get mad at you.

Why is the Bible important? The Bible is important for you and for me because it gives us stories and lessons to share with each other. We can tell Bible stories about Jesus. This is good. It is good for people to tell each other stories about Jesus.

Now you know about the Bible, but be careful who you tell this to, because some people will get very mad and say mean things to you if you understand the Bible diffently than they do. Do not let them scare you. God made you smart enough to know that sharing stories about Jesus is good and that being mean to people is bad.

I love the Bible, but God loves you!

Peace,
Brian

James and Partiality

2011-02-26T05:06:00.000-08:00

(Note: I am writing this with no assumption of biblical knowledge on the part of the reader. I'm trying to make it simple enough for a grade school child to understand.)

The Letter of James is a very practical book within the New Testament. In a few short chapters the reader finds simple instructions for living a Christian life with dignity and honor. For the purpose of this brief post I suggest the reader review the 2nd chapter of James in the New Testament.

James writes to a church about people treating people differently (partiality) based upon their wealth. The wealthy get treated really great. The poor are told to stand in a different part of the church. James says this is not right. Yet, we often see it in our own churches today. Indeed, a family that is upper-middle class will often be viewed by the congregation as being more responsible than a family that is going through a bankruptcy. This is not OK. This is not the way of Jesus.

Let's now use this thinking for how our communities can live. In every city and town in America, there are places where the rich people live, the "middle" live, and the poor live. They are all treated very differently (partiality). Those living in rich neighborhoods will have good schools and good grocery stores close by their homes. Those living in poor neighborhoods often have schools with old books and ugly walls. These schools are often unsafe and violent. This is not right. (Public education should not be funded mostly through property tax.)

The children who go to poorer schools will find themselves shut out of opportunities for making their dreams come true. Even poor children in good schools will often get ignored and labeled "slow learners". The kids who are rich will have a lot of chances to make mistakes that poor kids won't get. It is not OK. It is not the way of Jesus.

Let us take this thinking a little further. Rich people all over the planet are treating the poor worse than the rich. There are certain countries in which the people do not even have clean water to drink. This is terrible. Yet, we say this is OK when we do not speak out and say that this is not OK. Jesus teaches us to stand up for the poor. So does James.

James 2:5-6 Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court?

Kids and adults who love Jesus need to care about these things. God loves the poor. We are to give mercy (kindness) to all, especially the poor. "For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgement."(James 2:13)

In the name of Jesus, let us stand up together to make things better for the poor.

Christian Humanism is Not New

2011-02-24T06:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/edwin_wilson/manifesto/ch11.html

Edward Scribner Ames
Because of my feeling that Edward Scribner Ames was one of the very great men on the University of Chicago campus, I took his course "The Psychology of Religious Experience" during the summer of 1929 while completing work for a master's degree in comparative religions under A. Eustace Haydon. I revered Dr. Ames while he was my teacher and found him to be a thorough-going naturalist despite his use of traditional theistic terms. (I once heard Professor Ames say sadly to a young Disciples of Christ minister, who had lost his pulpit for refraining from the use of traditional terms, "If you had listened to me, you could still be there.")

However, there is no question of the sincerity or validity of Dr. Ames' beliefs; his views were based on profound psychological study of religious experience. Anyone who ever heard Edward Scribner Ames lecture would be immensely impressed. I can still remember, at the end of the course, saying to him: "If I have a god, I want a real god!" Feigning intimidation by shaking his fist in my face, Professor Ames thundered in reply: "My God is a real god!"

In 1931, Ames set forth his views in a lecture to the Chicago Literary Club, which was also published as a brochure entitled Humanism:

[Religious] humanists are naturalistic, experimental , behavioristic, humanitarian. They accept the evolutionary doctrine. . . . This sphere (here and now) of human interests and accomplishments is the proper concern of many, according to these humanists. . . . (a) chief point of attack of the humanist upon the old beliefs is the existence of God, and in general the conception of the supernatural which runs through those beliefs. . . . They emphasize the function of scientific knowledge as a means of realizing a better and happier life.

The editors of "A Humanist Manifesto" were all familiar with this Chicago Literary Club discussion of what Ames termed "a new ism." Reviewing its historical background and discussing the so-called humanism of Irving Babbitt and his disciples -especially Paul Elmer More, who "does not hesitate to go the whole distance in the acceptance of supernatural religion and traditional theology" -Ames usefully presented the literary humanists of the 1930s as "violently opposed not only to Rousseau but to Francis Bacon and John Dewey." Ames stated of Babbitt and More:

Bacon, for them, symbolizes empirical science and the spirit of our machine age, in which his motto, "Knowledge is power" leads to the . . . naturalism and pragmatism of John Dewey. It is not strange, then, to hear these [new] humanists proclaim that they [Babbitt and More] are reactionaries in the midst of the modernists.

Many humanists, myself included, have long felt that naturalistic (scientific) humanism can be traced back directly to Bacon's Novum Organum, first published in 1620, and his argument that we should "pursue science in order that human life may be enhanced."

Dr. Ames gave his own notion of the gods as something real but which has grown out of human group experience: "The gods are not separate from men but are of one nature with them. Gods and men constitute one living organism, one kinship group." To Ames, God was apparently a projection of this group spirit: "Projections of new ideas of God have appeared in the midst of social readjustment. . . . God and man are moving together out of the old dualistic framework of an outworn religious philosophy into a living social process where their kinship and common nature are better understood."

In spite of his brochure's title, Humanism, Ames in effect read himself out of the new movement because of his concept of God. Understandably, the manifesto editors did not ask Edward Scribner Ames to sign because it was their view that any use of supernatural symbols or god language would open the door to a flood of theist apologists. An explicit nontheism refraining from the use of traditional theological language was the distinguishing feature of the newer humanists. Later, when the word-conscious pioneers were more ecumenical and not as severe in their use of language, I think it certain that a man of Ames' caliber would have been included. Using the term ecumenical as being unity in the cause of humankind, as compared to unity in God and Christ, the humanists of 1973 who worked on and signed the second manifesto did not maintain as sharp a symbolic barrier as did the editors of "A Humanist Manifesto" in 1933.

Though not asked to sign the manifesto, Dr. Ames was respected. And I'll always remember a comment he made to me during a visit to his home (this was much later, after he had retired and after having had both legs amputated): "Here I sit, literally footless, wondering what it would be like if-as I do not believe-it were possible for me to rejoin the wife of my years in an existence other than this."

Wonderful Words of Life

2011-02-24T05:54:00.000-08:00

WINGED WORDS

May there be winged words spoken here that shall echo far, and touch
with power, widening circles of those who grope for the way of life and
blessedness.

In all that is here spoken may there be the restraining and the quickening
spirit of the great teacher, Jesus Christ, to whose cause and service this
house of worship is itself dedicated.

And bless, we pray, the congregations which listen here for the accent of
heavenly words, to nourish and to sustain their spirits.
May men and women, youths and little children, find here, according to
the measure of their need, the beauty and the wisdom of the kingdom of
God in its fullness and redeeming power.

May the voice which utters itself here be the voice of the common faith
and the aspiration of all hearts.
And as, through the years, there are sounded forth the words of life and
death, of challenge and instruction, may there also arise deeds of love and
devotion which shall make this world a better place and fill it more and
more with the peace of heaven. Amen.

EDWARD SCRIBNER AMES

September 29, 1929. Dedication of the pulpit of the University Church of the
Disciples of Christ, Chicago, Illinois, expressing the spirit of the new sanctuary
and building (dedicated in 1923).
Winged Words:

http://ddh.uchicago.edu/resources/ames.pdf

First Post

2011-02-23T05:53:00.001-08:00

I've been stewing on doing something new for some time. I'll confess, this blog is a spur-of-the-moment idea. I'm not making any promises....but I have some neat ideas.

I chose the name Edward Scribner Ames because I believe he is a hidden treasure in 20th century liberal Christian thought. He was an ordained Disciples of Christ minister as well as a true scholar. He studied with John Dewey at U. of Chicago. He returned there to basically build the Disciples House as well as teach philosphy. He also served as the Pastor for University Church right off of the campus.

I suspect that the reason he is not well known is because his teachings are inconvenient. However, there is much truth in his teachings. He was a person of his time, with all of the limitations and strengths of that time. He appeals to me because he sought to communicate liberal ideas to the masses. In this way he is like John Shelby Spong. He is also like Karl Marx in this regard. Marx was a great sociologist, but he took the learning to the streets to empower people.

This blog won't neccessarily be about Ames, but it will be in the spirit of Ames. He means a lot to me and I want him to be honored and remembered. This is a small step in that direction.

Peace,
Brian