December 2, 2017

News and Views

MANY WOMEN HAVE A VERY STRONG DESIRE TO HAVE A BABY. THIS WILL BE A GREAT THING FOR THAT SEGMENT OF HUMANITY, AND MORE NEW LOVELY LITTLE BABIES WILL COME INTO THE WORLD. LOOK AT THE PHOTO THAT COMES WITH THIS ARTICLE.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-baby-born-from-a-uterus-transplant-in-the-u-s-delivered-in-texas/
AP December 2, 2017, 9:06 AM
First baby born from a uterus transplant in the U.S. delivered in Texas

Photograph -- In this undated photo provided by Baylor University Medical Center the first baby born as a result of a womb transplant in the United States lies in the neonatal unit at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. HANDOUT / AP

The first birth as a result of a womb transplant in the United States has occurred in Texas, a milestone for the U.S. but one achieved several years ago in Sweden.

A woman who had been born without a uterus gave birth to the baby at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

Hospital spokesman Craig Civale confirmed Friday that the birth had taken place, but said no other details are available. The hospital did not identify the woman, citing her privacy.

Baylor has had a study underway for several years to enroll up to 10 women for uterus transplants. In October 2016, the hospital said four women had received transplants but that three of the wombs had to be removed because of poor blood flow.

The hospital would give no further information on how many transplants have been performed since then. But Time magazine, which first reported the U.S. baby's birth, says eight have been done in all, and that another woman is currently pregnant as a result.

A news conference was scheduled Monday to discuss the Dallas baby's birth.

A doctor in Sweden, Mats Brannstrom, is the first in the world to deliver a baby as a result of a uterus transplant. As of last year, he had delivered five babies from women with donated wombs.

There have been at least 16 uterus transplants worldwide, including one in Cleveland from a deceased donor that had to be removed because of complications. Last month, Penn Medicine in Philadelphia announced that it also would start offering womb transplants.

Womb donors can be dead or alive, and the Baylor study aims to use some of both. The first four cases involved "altruistic" donors -- unrelated and unknown to the recipients. The ones done in Sweden were from live donors, mostly from the recipients' mother or a sister.

Doctors hope that womb transplants will enable as many as several thousand women born without a uterus to bear children. To be eligible for the Baylor study, women must be 20 to 35 years old and have healthy, normal ovaries. They will first have in vitro fertilization to retrieve and fertilize their eggs and produce embryos that can be frozen until they are ready to attempt pregnancy.

After the uterus transplant, the embryos can be thawed and implanted, at least a year after the transplant to make sure the womb is working well. A baby resulting from a uterine transplant would be delivered by cesarean section. The wombs are not intended to be permanent. Having one means a woman must take powerful drugs to prevent organ rejection, and the drugs pose long-term health risks, so the uterus would be removed after one or two successful pregnancies.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine issued a statement Friday calling the Dallas birth "another important milestone in the history of reproductive medicine."

For women born without a functioning uterus, "transplantation represents the only way they can carry a pregnancy," the statement said. The group is convening experts to develop guidelines for programs that want to offer this service.

© 2017 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



The second is that the president’s team apparently likes to pretend there’s “no evidence of collusion,” which is true just so long as we overlook all the evidence of collusion.


“THE SECOND IS THAT THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM APPARENTLY LIKES TO PRETEND THERE’S “NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION,” WHICH IS TRUE JUST SO LONG AS WE OVERLOOK ALL THE EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION.”

IT SEEMS THAT OVER THIS LAST SUMMER, THE PRESIDENT HAS CALLED NUMEROUS PEOPLE IN CONGRESS AND THE SENATE TO GET THEM TO STOP THIS INVESTIGATION. I CAN’T WAIT TO SEE THE REPORT ON THIS INVESTIGATION. SEE THE MADDOW REPORT ON THIS BELOW.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-faces-new-obstruction-allegations-russia-scandal
Trump faces new obstruction allegations in Russia scandal
12/01/17 08:00 AM—UPDATED 12/01/17 02:15 PM
By Steve Benen

Photograph -- US President Donald Trump speaks to the press before departing from the south lawn of the White House in Washington, DC on November 21, 2017. / AFP PHOTO /... ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS

For months, the nation has faced the very real possibility that Donald Trump obstructed justice in the federal investigation into the Russia scandal. Indeed, Special Counsel Robert Mueller already appears to be examining allegations that the president allegedly pressured the director of the FBI in the matter, and then fired him in order to help derail the probe.

But as Rachel explained on last night’s show, those allegations grew louder with this New York Times report.

President Trump over the summer repeatedly urged senior Senate Republicans, including the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to end the panel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, according to a half dozen lawmakers and aides. Mr. Trump’s requests were a highly unusual intervention from a president into a legislative inquiry involving his family and close aides.

Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, the intelligence committee chairman, said in an interview this week that Mr. Trump told him that he was eager to see an investigation that has overshadowed much of the first year of his presidency come to an end. […]

In addition, according to lawmakers and aides, Mr. Trump told Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri and a member of the intelligence committee, to end the investigation swiftly.

The Times’ report added that the president “called other lawmakers over the summer,” urging them to pressure Burr to end the Intelligence Committee’s investigation. One unnamed senator was reportedly “alarmed” by Trump’s direct lobbying.

In case this isn’t already painfully obvious, when Congress is investigating a scandal involving the president, the president isn’t supposed to call lawmakers to pressure them to stop.

Indeed, Rachel spoke last night to Joyce Vance, a former U.S. Attorney, who acknowledged on the air that Trump’s intervention was “potentially obstruction of justice.”

The former federal prosecutor added that if the president claimed ignorance, and said he didn’t realize it was a problem to lean on Congress to end an investigation into his political operation, the defense would be “a very weak one.” Vance went on to say that this sort of argument is “tried a lot and it fails a lot.”

For its part, a White House spokesperson issued a statement last night, which said, “The White House has been cooperative with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s inquiry and the President at no point has attempted to apply undue influence on committee members. He has reiterated what he has long said publicly: there is no evidence of collusion and these investigations must come to a fair and appropriate completion.”

There are a couple of things that stood out in those two sentences. The first is the use of the word “undue,” which suggests the White House realizes the president did try to intervene in Congress’ investigation, but Trump World doesn’t think that should be seen as problematic.

The second is that the president’s team apparently likes to pretend there’s “no evidence of collusion,” which is true just so long as we overlook all the evidence of collusion.

Postscript: Let’s also not forget that House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told reporters after a hearing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions that he asked Sessions whether Trump had ever instructed him to take action that he believed would hinder the Russia investigation.

Sessions apparently refused to answer the question.

Explore:
The MaddowBlog, Donald Trump, Richard Burr, Russia and Scandals


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 11/30/17
Trump obstruction eyed in Sessions avoidance of pressure question
Rep. Jim Himes of the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about new Trump obstruction questions after Jeff Sessions refused to tell Rep. Schiff in testimony before the committee whether Donald Trump pushed him to hinder the Russia investigation. Duration: 5:18
Playlist



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/1/17
Why did Trump ignore repeated warnings Flynn was compromised?
Rachel Maddow looks at the warnings Donald Trump received about Mike Flynn and the inexplicable way Trump held Flynn in favor even after he left office. Duration: 19:36



WELL, THIS IS JUST ENOUGH TO INCREASE MY CURIOSITY. GIVE ME MORE!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-agent-suspected-of-sending-anti-trump-texts-removed-from-mueller-team/
By KATHRYN WATSON CBS NEWS December 2, 2017, 1:40 PM
FBI agent suspected of sending anti-Trump texts removed from Mueller team

Special Counsel Robert Mueller removed a top FBI agent assigned to the investigation into Russian election meddling and any ties to Trump associates after learning of allegations that the agent had exchanged messages with another member of Mueller's team that were anti-Trump in nature.

The New York Times and Washington Post both published stories Saturday reporting the removal of Peter Strzok from the investigation. In a rare public statement Saturday, the special counsel's office confirmed Strzok was removed from the probe. The messages were reportedly discovered by the inspector general of the Justice Department during the course of an investigation into the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe.

As deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI, Strzok played a pivotal role in the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. Lisa Page, the other FBI agent involved in the communications, left the special counsel's office before it was aware of the accusations, according to the special counsel's office.

"Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the Special Counsel's Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation," said Peter Carr, spokesman for the special counsel's office, in a statement to CBS News. "Lisa Page completed her brief detail and had returned to the FBI weeks before our office was aware of the allegations."

Despite Mueller's removal of the agent from the Russia investigation, the text messages are likely to raise concerns among Republicans, many of whom are already skeptical of Mueller's probe.

The possible messages came up as the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General's reviews the actions leading up to the 2016 election, a review that has been publicly known since the beginning of the year. The OIG earlier this year announced it was reviewing the FBI probe of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's emails and then-FBI Director James Comey's decision to make public statements about the probe and not recommend charges.

"The January 2017 statement issued by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announcing its review of allegations regarding various actions of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in advance of the 2016 election stated that the OIG review would, among other things, consider whether certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations and that we also would include issues that might arise during the course of the review," the OIG said in a statement to CBS News. "The OIG has been reviewing allegations involving communications between certain individuals, and will report its findings regarding those allegations promptly upon completion of the review of them."

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


SUPER GOOD JOB, PC WILLIS!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/british-police-officer-martin-willis-grabbing-van-dangling-off-bridge/
CBS/AP December 2, 2017, 2:34 PM
British police officer praised for saving van dangling off bridge

LONDON -- A British police officer has been praised for grabbing hold of a van as it dangled on an icy bridge over a highway with the driver trapped inside.

The West Yorkshire Police force said Constable Martin Willis arrived Friday at the scene of an accident that had left the large van teetering on the edge of the bridge.

Willis says he could see the van sway every time another vehicle passed. He grabbed the rear axle and held it until a fire department crew arrived. Willis said Saturday he told the driver not to panic and "whatever you do, don't move."

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Motorway Martin
@WYP_PCWILLIS
1st on the scene of this collision on the #A1M this morning and faced with a vehicle balancing over the edge of a bridge with the driver trapped! After holding on to the vehicle to stop it swaying in the wind I can't begin to desribe my relief when @WYFRS arrived on scene!
2:16 PM - Dec 1, 2017
473 473 Replies 1,474 1,474 Retweets 4,128 4,128 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The fire service said the driver is recovering in a hospital.

The constable posted pictures of the rescue on Twitter, where he goes by Motorway Martin.

Motorway Martin
@WYP_PCWILLIS
1st on the scene of this collision on the #A1M this morning and faced with a vehicle balancing over the edge of a bridge with the driver trapped! After holding on to the vehicle to stop it swaying in the wind I can't begin to desribe my relief when @WYFRS arrived on scene!
2:16 PM - Dec 1, 2017

"A very sincere thank you to everyone for all your kind tweets. I was only doing my job, but feel very honoured to [receive] so much praise," Martin tweeted Saturday.

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


I MISSED THIS MOVIE BECAUSE I NO LONGER HAVE A CAR. I’LL LOOK ON YOUTUBE FOR IT.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-weir-the-martian-new-novel-artemis/
CBS NEWS December 2, 2017, 12:50 PM
Andy Weir, author of "The Martian," is happy to remain an "earthbound misfit"

Trending Videos CBSN LIVE

Ridley Scott*'s 2015 hit movie "The Martian" grossed $228 million and gave NASA a real-life publicity boost. The movie was based on the best-selling book by first-time author Andy Weir. Now, Weir is out with his second novel called "Artemis," a murder mystery that takes place on the moon.

artemis-book.jpg
CBS News' Jeff Glor sat down with Weir at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum to discuss his new book, which is already a best-seller, why he never wants to go space and what he plans to write next.

"I always wanted to be a writer, but I also like eating regular meals. So when I went to college, I went with software engineering, and writing ultimately was my hobby. I kind of bungled into success with 'The Martian' so now I get to be a writer," Weir said.

With no publisher backing him, Weir self-published "The Martian" in 2012. It was discovered by readers around the world who were pulled into Weir's unmistakable blend of real-world science and otherworldly drama. "The Martian" has since sold more than five million copies.

Weir has a massive and loyal following -- and he responds to every one of them who reaches out.

"Every email. They took the time to email me it seems only reasonable to respond. If they have questions, I'll answer the questions. If they just say 'hey, I loved your book!' I'm like 'Thanks!'" Weir said.

A number of Weir's fans went to an "Artemis" book signing in the Space Shuttle Pavilion at the Intrepid. They were eager to hear more about the lunar crime novel set in the late 21st century about a woman named Jasmine Bashara who tries to pull off a huge heist.

"Jazz was born in Saudi Arabia, but when she was six years old, she and her father moved to Artemis, which is the only city on the moon. She grew up in sort of a low-income, blue collar household. As an adult, which is when the story takes place, she's a porter, which basically means a delivery person but she makes most of her money off of illegal smuggling," Weir said.

Weir says he wanted to set his new story on the moon, in part because of a mineral that can be refined into many other materials.

"The moon has an enormous amount of this mineral called anorthite and if you smelt anorthite, if you refine it, what you get out of it is aluminum, silicon, calcium and oxygen. It gives you aluminum to build your moon base and oxygen to fill it with. It's amazing. It's like it's asking to be colonized," Weir said.

ctm-120217-andyweir.jpg
Andy Weir CBS NEWS
"If you can drive the price of booster technology, if you can drive that price down to the point that middle class people can afford to go into space, then you will have a space boom. A proper huge explosion in the space industry like the airline boom in the 40s and 50s," Weir said.

Surprisingly, Weir has no interest in going there himself.

"I write about brave people, I'm not one of them. I am an earthbound misfit. I'll stay right here, thanks," he said.

For Weir, even earthbound travel takes its toll.

"I'm afraid of flying. So, yeah I'm here in New York and I live in California. I have to take meds and stuff just to fly out here. I have a general problem with anxiety and have for most of my life and I spend most of my life just thinking 'Well, I'm broken and there's nothing I can do about that.' Now there are meds for that. I take medication and therapy and stuff. People know there's a lot of stuff for depression but they don't know there's a lot of stuff for anxiety. So to anybody who hears this or has anxiety problems, I urge you, go talk to a doctor. Anxiety is not just a failure of your personality, it's a physical problem that can be solved with medical solutions."

ctm-120217-andyweir-1.jpg
Andy Weir signs a book for a fan. CBS NEWS
His anxiety does have an upside.

"When you're writing a story if you're thinking of everything that could go wrong that helps you write the story. Especially when you're writing stories about everything going wrong," Weir said.

Fans may be able to visit the city of "Artemis" in theaters soon. Fox optioned the rights to the book before it was released. As for what's next, Weir plans to stick around Artemis for a bit.

"I would love for Artemis to be my own personal playground where I can have lots and lots of different stories with different main characters cause it's a city," he said.

He says he may one day visit the idea of exploring distant galaxies in his writing but for now, he's already got a sequel for "Artemis" in mind.

"I've got book ideas enough to last me the rest of my life. It's just, you know, what am I my most excited by at any moment and what do I think the readers want to read?"

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridley_Scott
Ridley Scott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sir Ridley Scott (born 30 November 1937) is an English film director and producer. Following his commercial breakthrough with the science-fiction horror film Alien (1979), his best known works include the neo-noir dystopian science fiction film Blade Runner (1982), historical drama and Best Picture Oscar winner Gladiator (2000), and science fiction film The Martian (2015).

Scott is known for his atmospheric, highly concentrated visual style.[1][2] Though his films range widely in setting and period, they frequently showcase memorable imagery of urban environments, whether 2nd century Rome (Gladiator), 12th century Jerusalem (Kingdom of Heaven), Medieval England (Robin Hood), contemporary Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down), the future cityscapes of Blade Runner, or the distant planets in Alien, Prometheus, The Martian and Alien: Covenant. His films are also known for their strong female characters.[3]

Scott has been nominated for three Academy Awards for Directing (for Thelma & Louise, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down).[1] In 1995, both Ridley and his brother Tony received a BAFTA for Outstanding British Contribution To Cinema.[4] In 2003, Scott was knighted for his "services to the British film industry".[5] In a 2004 BBC poll Scott was named the tenth most influential person in British culture.[6] In 2015 he received an honorary doctorate from the Royal College of Art in London.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0955308/videoplayer/vi4088071961?ref_=vi_nxt_ap
This is the 2010 version of Robin Hood by Ridley Scott. I missed it, so I’ll try to find this on the Internet and watch it. The one I really loved was the 1999 film starring Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman. Good as this new trailer looks, it probably won’t be BETTER than the Costner production, however I can’t watch Robin Hood too many times. I love good drama, and especially produced in a stirring and beautiful historical setting.


THE COSTNER AND FREEMAN VERSION: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/RobinHoodPrinceOfThieves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood:_Prince_of_Thieves
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is a 1991 American romantic action adventure film. The film, an iteration of the legendary English folk tale, was directed by Kevin Reynolds. The film's principal cast includes Kevin Costner as Robin Hood, Morgan Freeman as Azeem, Christian Slater as Will Scarlet, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Maid Marian, and Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham.

The film grossed over $390 million worldwide, ranking as the second-highest-grossing film of 1991. For his role as George, Sheriff of Nottingham, Rickman received the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role. The film's theme song, "(Everything I Do) I Do It for You", by Bryan Adams, was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Song and won the Grammy Award for Best Song Written Specifically for a Motion Picture or Television.[5]


THIS REVIEW OF THE COSTNER VERSION IS VERY ENTERTAINING AS WELL, BUT IT’S WAAYY TOO LONG TO PUT IN THIS BLOG:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/RobinHoodPrinceOfThieves
Film / Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves


I REALLY DO LOVE NEWS STORIES. LOOK AT THIS ONE.

https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/why-the-little-dutch-boy-never-put-his-finger-in-the-dike/
Why the Little Dutch Boy Never Put his Finger in the Dike
30 JUNE 2017 BY YVETTE HOITINK

He is probably the most famous Dutch boy that never lived. The Little Dutch boy who saved the day by putting his finger in a dike.

The book in which he appeared, Hans Brinker; or, the Silver Skates: A Story of Life in Holland, featured several stories. The story about the Little Dutch Boy told how he saved Haarlem from flooding by putting his finger in the dike. Another story about Hans Brinker was about a boy who wanted to win silver skates. Some people think Hans Brinker was the Little Dutch Boy, but these are two separate stories.

The story about Hans Brinker and the Little Dutch Boy who put his finger in the dike were created by American author Mary Mapes Dodge and not based on any actual Dutch folk heros. Since the book’s publication in 1865, the Little Dutch Boy has become part of American pop culture even though most Dutch people have never heard about him.

But there’s another twist to the story. Not even the Little Dutch Boy could have saved the town.

You see, when a dike is about to break, a finger just does not cut it. Dikes don’t typically leak—they weaken until whole sections are washed away. No finger will help when that happens.

So what is a hero supposed to do?

You don’t use a finger, you use a boat.

De redding van de Zuid-Hollandse polders in 1953 door Schipper Evergroen die met…
Twee Groeders plugging the dike. Credits: Spaarnestad Photo (rights reserved, embedding allowed).

It was the night of 1 February 1953, the night of the worst flooding of the Netherlands in recent history.

In Zuid-Holland, the water in the IJssel river was rising. The dike along the river protected the deepest polders of the Netherlands, in which large cities of Rotterdam, Gouda, The Hague, and Leiden were located. The water kept rising, saturating the dike. If the dike broke, the most densely-populated part of the Netherlands would be several meters [a dozen feet] under water.

At 5.30 AM, a 15-meter-section of the dike [50 feet] gave way and water gushed into the low-lying polder. The dike reeve* commandeered the largest ship in the area, the Twee Gebroeders, which measured 18 meters [60 feet] and ordered it to plug the dike. Skipper Evergroen drove the ship parallel to the hole, and then turned it to lock it in place. The gap behind the ship was quickly filled with sand bags. The torrent slowed to a trickle and three million people kept their feet dry.

People in Zeeland and Noord-Brabant were not so lucky. Heavy flooding in that area caused 1796 people to lose lives that night. That number would have been a lot higher if it hadn’t been for skipper Evergroen, the big Dutch man who put his boat in the dike.

flooded houses

Flooding of 1953. Credits: Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst, collection Nationaal Archief (no known copyrights).

Sources

“Hans Brinker, or The Silver Skates,” Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Brinker,_or_The_Silver_Skates), version 10 October 2016 09:12.
“A. Evegroen – ‘Dubbeltje op zijn kant’,” Mens & Dier in Steen en Brons (http://www.vanderkrogt.net/standbeelden/object.php?record=ZH44aa : accessed 10 January 2017).
“Watersnood van 1953,” Wikipedia (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watersnood_van_1953), version 10 January 2017 19:49.
“Het schip van Evergroen,” Entoen.nu (http://www.entoen.nu/watersnood/beeld-en-geluid/het-schip-van-evegroen : accessed 10 January 2017).
J. Hafkamp, “Een schip dichtte het gat in de dijk van Nieuwerkerk tijdens stormnacht in 1953,” Reformatisch Daglad, 9 August 1990, p. 19; digital image, Digibron (http://www.digibron.nl : accessed 10 January 2017).


DIKE REEVE* – WORD FOR THE DAY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkgraaf_(official)
Dijkgraaf (official)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A dijkgraaf (translated: dike-warden or dike-reeve), sometimes called a watergraaf, is the chair of a Dutch water board. He is the equivalent of a mayor in local government and a King's Commissioner in provincial government, chairing both the legislative and executive council, while having both ceremonial and representational roles as well as his own portfolios. The term goes back to pre-medieval days.
Literally the term means "Dike count", like other titles ending in -graaf (equivalent to English -grave and German -graf) of feudal origin, but remained a functional official.



I JUST FOUND A GREAT NEW WEBSITE: https://atheopoetic.com/2015/04/16/givingup4lent-day-40-the-relational-shift/
#GivingUp4Lent: Day 40 (The Relational Shift)
16
Thursday
Apr 2015
Posted by tdburnette in pluralism, theopoetics

Hey friends, before we turn to this week’s shift, I wanted to let you know that next Thursday, I’ll disclose one final super secret shift, and the following week I will wrap up this #GivingUp4Lent project with some closing thoughts.

That being said, I am excited to talk about the final shift in progressive Christian thought and praxis: the relational shift. It is a:

Social shift away from a tribalistic divisivism, and toward a mutualistic identity of benevolence.

The stimulus behind this shift is a social one. The kind of Christianity I am talking about here is not solely one that learns how to play nicely together (which by the way, I think is true, we need to grow up a bit here), but one whose core ethos is seen and experienced as interconnected. It is a shift away from thinking of Christian identity as a means to divide, separate, and disengage from a pluralistic world. Some forms of Christianity would say, “But we aren’t disengaged, we are out to conquest and convert the world, for Christ’s sake! Everyone needs to get in on this goodness!” And while this line of thinking may be well-intentioned, it is apparent that many of us simply do not understand what it means to love and bless the Other in their unique identity on behalf of our own tradition. This is a shift from seeing our religion as a means to compete and dominate other religions, to seeing our religion as a means to be in relationship with, love, and bless all the others.

What I am talking about here is a transition from owning our location as Christians as a means to set ourselves

above,

apart,

aside from,

or against, the rest of the world,

and rather to a full immersion into the interconnectedness and blessing of all things…which includes all people.

It is a transition toward understanding our Christian location within the global spectrum of religion as one that has a unique particularity to it, but it is also one that proclaims universal acceptance and charity not in opposition to the Christian gospel, but rather, directly on its behalf. We must allow our worldview to become unitive in the sense that we can now see our entire existence as relational at its core, and all of humanity as our sisters and brothers.

The past two shifts I have mentioned, both the theopoetic shift, and the embodied shift, are shifts which can be misinterpreted as shifts simply in terms of thinking, or of internal tweaks. However, they cannot remain solely cerebral. The thrust of this holistic internal transformation must have a teleology, or a direction to it. It also has to be a shift in praxis as it is an internalization that moves to outward action in love on behalf of the world.

I like Tom Oord’s (#supporttomoord) definition of love in his book, The Nature of Love: A Theology, and it will work for our purposes here:

“To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.” p. 17

Check the beginning of this definition: “to love is to act.” To love is not merely to contemplate, reason, or speak, but it is an action. Notice also that it does not say, “to love is to evangelize,” nor does it say, “to love is to convert.” To love is not to Christianize the world. To love is not to make it uniform to some Christian formula for salvation. To love, rather, is to act intentionally to heal the world in the name of Christ. Or, in other words, to recognize that how we act in this world matters in a relational sense. How we live and what we do has real, actual effects on not only the people around us, but also those across the globe, and even the Earth itself.

Or on the flipside…how we have been acting is what is causing the poverty of both people and planet.

This is an issue of justice, which is always social…so we maybe don’t need to add it to the front of the term. This is an issue of how we listen to, consider, and integrate the cries and perspectives of others unlike ourselves and let them critique and transform our own experiences and worldviews. We have got to start seeing this global shift in heterogeneous experience and opinion as a gift that can open us up to even more beauty, rather than a threat to our Christian identity. Renowned theologian and ecologist John B. Cobb Jr. is famous for saying,

“To see the world with ecological relations at its core means never to see it in the same way again.”

This revision in our thinking is the necessary product of the thrust of Christian teaching. Ecology is not solely about the environment, although it absolutely includes creation care. It is about how organisms relate to one another, which includes person to person! And, the implications of this run all the way down. In uniquely Christian terms, the New Testament shift in thinking is one that sees the temple (the place imbued with the presence of the divine) changed from one specific physical location as an edifice, to the human life and the earth being locations that are full of divine presence. The earth is actually the sanctuary, and everything in it. We need not gloss over what this means for our advocacy for the protection of the environment (maybe I can address that more fully in some subsequent posts), but we must also not miss what this means for us as a human species. This “relational core” is what will cause us to change our attitudes and practices from ones that homogenize everything, to ones that become considerate of those not only in the other Great Traditions, but especially to those on the margins of them, and those outside their bounds as well.

This shift allows us to work together in mutuality for the betterment of the entire world. It is not a religion-contest. Neither is it a surfacey form of pluralism. It is rather what process theologians have called a “deep religious pluralism.” It is about owning our unique identities in a way that learns to exist in reciprocal philanthropic relationality with other traditions, and likewise those who self-identify as post-religious. Here is exactly what I mean by this:

Philip Clayton makes an important distinction in this Homebrewed podcast at about 20:35:

“Maybe it’s impossible to be religious pluralists. Maybe we are inherently tribal. Maybe it’s in our genes back to those thousands and thousands of generations that evolved on the African Sahara that we form groups of 100-150 people… the experts say that religion is about tribalism and tribalism is about division. Maybe we have to own the impossibility of this conversation… the impossibility of ‘a religion’ that actually claims to fuse over that distinction to reach out toward others… What if we own within ourselves that drive to draw distinction?

…Christology is what? It’s a tool to divide. You’re in or you’re out. You’re too high or too low. Wherever you are, there are micrometers, you’re a little too high or a little too low in your Christology. What if we owned the impossibility of this very discussion at the outset? The discussion of really branching out across.”

What he is hitting at here is that it’s impossible to be merely a pluralist. It’s also possible to misuse the purpose of good things like having a Christology, or, having something to say about who Jesus is. Effective pluralism is not a relativizing and universalizing of all religions to be different ways to hit at the same core truth. It is also not a dismissal of all religions as “incorrect.” It is an affirmation of the human experience by which we make meaning of our lives through stories, symbols, and sacraments in all of their various forms. Each of them unique, and each beautiful, including the Christian one. In this pluralistic, or rather, multiplicitous, environment, we have the added benefit of getting to contribute to one another’s success, rather than compete with one another.

So, how do we get away from dismissing religions altogether? Or from thinking that they all lead up the same mountain and thus lead into relativizing them all, stripping them of their uniqueness? And what can we claim about Christ that has any sort of merit or specificity when there are so many other options?

Clayton responds to that question by answering:

“The easy thing would be to say, ‘all the religious people are wrong.’ All their doctrines are just their own cultural expressions, and they’re all pointing toward something they can’t grasp…The only trouble with that is you’ve just simply told every religious person in the world that they’re all full of it; they’re all basically completely deluded.”

Instead, he posits this idea:

“Deep religious pluralism. So, let’s be pluralists. Let’s admit that ‘I don’t have the full corner on the market,’ but let’s say that each person has a grasp of the truth in a different way. John Cobb made the radical claim that there are multiple religious Ultimates:

‘It’s really true that the Ultimate is personal.’ -Abrahamic traditions

‘It’s really true that the Ultimate is the ground of all things.’ -Hindu traditions

‘It’s really true that the Ultimate is the interconnection of all things.’ -Buddhist traditions

Now is that the answer? Or is that one more takeover bid disguised as humility?“

The goal is to learn to own our unique faith locations, and not allow them to be a means to take over the world, but rather a means toward interdependence and action for justice on behalf of and with one another. In many ways, this shift is a plea for peace. The easy thing to do is to participate in our Christianity in ways that make it all about us. It’s all about “me” and “my relationship” with Jesus. This type of thinking can cause us to believe that we’re in on something so personal that we come to believe that it has to be true for everyone else in the world, which, in turn, demonizes the rest of the options. This is why many Christians will say things like, “Muslims are evil,” or Hinduism is demonic,” or “Buddhism is of the devil!”

Ever heard anything like that before?

Ever know a Buddhist who is an O.K. dude? Whoops.

What I am advocating for is a turn towards the affirmation of humanity in all its plurality, not only for the sake of its own inherent worth, which is very true, but also if you self-identify as a Christian, in the very name of Christ! Especially imbedded within our own tradition of Christianity is a universal acceptance that all people are made in the image of God, which includes their own experiences and traditions. It starts right there in Genesis 1, and continues as an idee fixé throughout the rest of the Bible as well: all things are beloved by God. The gospel is actually a means to break down the ways in which we build up various forms of division. I am not the first to think this. Read some Paul.

Richard Rohr mentioned recently at a gathering I attended that:

“The Cosmic Christ is a positive declaration of the nature of the universe. In the Christ proclaimed in the hymns in John 1, Philippians 2, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, and 1 John 1, we see that the Christ is the universal mystery of matter and spirit. It is a cosmic – human revelation. Christianity was never supposed to be a competing religion, but rather a universal message of love, nonviolence, and acceptance in the name of Christ that we all could learn from.”

Let’s recap where we’ve come here. The Christian relational shift is a shift:

1. Away from a religious identity that becomes a means to divide or conquest.

2. Toward actions of love on behalf of both others and the planet, exempt from exclusions.

3. Toward learning to embrace a unique and particular Christian identity that participates in a deep pluralism, building relationships with and learning from those who are not like us.

The last thing I’d like to mention here is that this perspective shift should cause us to learn to break down all barriers: racial, religious, class, or otherwise, for the sake of healing the world together. It may seem paradoxical at first to imbed oneself in a tradition that professes specific allegiance to Christ, but seeks to affirm a pluralistic world, even those who find themselves working for the common good from a post-theistic location. We too must learn to adapt, mature, and change for the sake of those on the fringe who desperately need inclusion. The rise over the past 100 years or so of feminist, liberation, queer, and eco, etc. theological critiques have done us the service of teaching us a valuable lesson:

We white guys don’t have this market cornered. Not even close.

And…exhale. It’s going to be O.K.

The more we as Christians can champion the voices of those who are excluded by the power structures we have participated in and continue to create, the more robust our collective faith will become. This is the way forward. This is the faith of the future. Get on the bus quickly, I pray you. We have got to do the work in-house of knocking down walls to ensure that together we might become better listeners and practitioners. We have also got to allow ourselves to be immersed in the humility and hospitality that comes from truly affirming and blessing others in the locations in which they have made their homes.

Besides, Christian identity is formed in part in its relationship to others within the salvific community anyways. I personally hope that salvation continues to lose the “personal” from its front-end. It is already inherently relational, inherently universal. If we hold to any kind of Trinitarianism at all, we understand that this whole dance is a correlative one anyways.

What if rather than “evangelize,” which is a word loaded with hidden agendas of conversion, we “witnessed,” or let our lives tell the Christian story of the relational and universal worth of all things? I for one, insist we move that direction.

I’ll leave you with this thought by Philip Clayton:

“Owning a deep place of religious location will inevitably have its hands mired in paradox. Pluralism, and I’m located? Christology, but I’m not using it to exclude, which means it’s not a single? And yet, I have to mean something when I say Jesus Christ…that it is a location. A location for prayer, action, justice. Can I find the courage to say that I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and I have something to learn from all those other traditions?

We can only live that. It’s not a mental location, it’s a way of being in the world.”

I tend to agree with Phil here…and, yes I’ve heard John 14:6 before!

Share this:
TwitterFacebook1Goog