B u l l e t i n o f t h e C o l g at e R o c h e s t e r C r o z e r D i v i n i t y S c h o o l
Spring/Summer 2015
Faith. Critically engaged.
Inside:
✛ Rev. Paul
Brandeis Raushenbush, Huffington Post Executive Religion Editor, delivers dynamic Commencement address
✛ Transhumanism
or Ultrahumanism? Teilhard de Chardin on Technology, Religion and Evolution by Ilia Delio, OSF, Ph.D.
P lu s : + BMTS Echoes is back! + Alumni/ae Out in the World + 2015 Fall Lecture Preview
About this issue:
This April, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School welcomed more than a dozen accomplished, talented and inspirational thought leaders to our campus. Honored guest lecturers this Spring included Sr. Ilia Delio, Ph.D., Director of Catholic Studies at Georgetown University, Gail O’Day, Ph.D., Dean and Professor of New Testament and Preaching at Wake Forest University, and Patrick Cheng, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA. Local guests included Michael A. Philipson, Co-Founder & CCO of Greentopia of Rochester, Jan McDonald, Executive Director of Rochester Roots, Inc. and Rev. Rachel McGuire (CRCDS ‘04), Ph.D. In May, Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, Executive Religion Editor at the Huffington Post, delivered an exceptionally inspiring Commencement address to the graduates of the CRCDS Class of 2015. Rev. Raushenbush’s speech, “Even Greater Things Than These,” received so many accolades and requests for reprints that we’ve included it, in its entirety, in this issue.
We hope you enjoy this publication and all the articles, insights and information it contains. It tells the story of a vibrant CRCDS community that is truly changing lives, bringing the Good News of Jesus to a world in need. Your generous and prayerful support makes the CRCDS mission possible. On behalf of all our students and the thousands of people served by CRCDS graduates, thank you for your support.
CRCDS: Faith. Critically engaged. is a bi-annual publication of Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School 1100 South Goodman Street, Rochester, New York, 14620. PUBLISHER: Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School (CRCDS) EDITOR: Michele Kaider-Korol DESIGN: MillRace Design PRINTING: Cohber Press
J
oin the conversation!
If you haven’t checked us out on social media, please do—we want to hear from you! Share your news, photos and updates: www.facebook.com/crcds @crcds
CRCDS
Spri n g/Sum m er 2015
Faith. Critically engaged.
Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: “Even Greater Things Than These”
4
CRCDS Student in Action: Holly Strickland
7
Ilia Delio, OSF, Ph.D.: Transhumanism or Ultrahumanism? Teilhard de Chardin on Technology, Religion and Evolution
8
Dr. Sally Dodgson (CRDS ‘84): A Distinguished Alumna’s Perspective
12
BMTS
13
Alumni/ae Out in the World
14
Fall Lecture Preview
16
Horizon Society
17
Memorial & Appreciation Gifts
18
In Memoriam
23
3
“Even Greater Things Than These” R e v . Pa u l B r a n d e i s R a u s h e n b u s h Executive Religion Editor, Huffington Post
“We are all part of the grand Christian story that stretches back 2,000 years. . .CRCDS has played an oversized role in that history by training some of the most important leaders in this country and around the world.” Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, greatgrandson of “Father of the Social Gospel” Walter Rauschenbusch and great-grandson of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, captivated a sizable audience at the CRCDS Commencement exercises on May 16, 2015. Two days later, he wrote a Huffington Post article entitled, “It’s a Great Time to be Graduating from a Mainline, Progressive, Christian, Divinity School.” The piece sparked tremendous interest, garnering 5,500 “likes” and almost a thousand shares. Thank you, Rev. Raushenbush, for honoring our incredible graduates and for acknowledging the vital and enduring mission of Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.
To President McMickle, Board of Trustees, esteemed faculty, beloved family and friends, and most of all to you students—I want to say what a profound honor it is to be with you today to celebrate your graduation from Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.
This is a major accomplishment. People who haven’t been through Divinity School don’t know how hard it actually is. It’s not all classes on walking on water and turning water into wine. My three years at seminary were the most challenging of my life—but also the most formative. Divinity School, especially a place like CRCDS that attracts such a diverse group of students, has given you graduates the opportunity for deep encounter with classmates who may share the same faith, but are very different in almost every other way. Yet the years of praying, singing, debating, eating, mourning and celebrating together have been as formative as the theologians you have read and the scriptures you studied. Your time together, while challenging, has made you open to future encounters, when people will need you to stand with them in solidarity, just as you stood by one another during this time of theological training.
Whether your vocation involves teaching, preaching, chaplaincy, creating art or organizing for social justice, by the very fact that you have gone through the transforming experience of Colgate Rochester Crozier Divinity School, you will, for many, be the embodiment of the Good News that they sorely need in this breaking and aching world. There are people outside these doors who never have met a big hearted, deep spirited, justice seeking, and open minded Christian like you before and I’m praying that they get that opportunity.
As newly minted graduates, you are the future of our faith. And that gives me a great deal of hope in this uncertain time. Of course, it’s an odd week to be graduating from a mainline, progressive, Christian, Divinity School. At Baccalaureate, Dr. McMickle referenced the major study that came out from Pew on the religious landscape in America. The startling headline was that the number of Americans who call themselves Christians has declined by 8 percent over the last 8 years.
According to the data, the biggest ‘losers’ were the Catholic Church and mainline Protestants, while the numbers of those who identify as Evangelicals held steady or even gained a point. Ever quick to misread a
4
”As newly minted graduates, you are the future of our faith. And that gives me a great deal of hope in this uncertain time.”
text, some of the most prominent Evangelicals were crowing about how the study proved the superiority of their conservative Christian faith.
The problem with that argument is that conservative Christian rhetoric and politics are part of the reason given by many of the people who have left the church.
The most striking news in the report is the confirmation of the extraordinary rise of those who don’t identify with any religion, also known as the ‘nones’, and this is especially true among young people. One in three millennials do not identify with any religion.
In preparing for this day, I asked a younger friend of mine who is not associated with any faith tradition to do a little word association game with me. When I said the word Christian he immediately rattled off: “Closed minded, only out for themselves, wanting to tell others what to do.” And I said to him, “But you know that I am a pastor,” and he said, “Oh, yeah, but you are different,” meaning that I didn’t represent what “real” Christians are like.
Sociologist Robert Putnam at Harvard and Political Scientist David Campbell at Notre Dame wrote a piece called God and Caesar in America: Why Mixing Religion and Politics Is Bad for Both in which they explain: "To (millennials), ‘religion’ means ‘Republican, ’intolerant,’ and ‘homophobic,’ and since those traits do not represent their views, they do not see themselves—or wish to be seen by their peers—as religious."
A 2014 study by Public Religion Research Institute showed that fully one out of three young people left their faith because they perceived it to be hostile to LGBT people.
I want to make clear, most of these young ‘nones’ are not atheists. In fact, many of them claim a belief in God. The problem is that they perceive the church to be hostile to them or to those whom they love, unwilling to engage their questions as they seek for meaning, and/or indifferent to the deep and often systemic injustice they are facing in the world in the 21st century.
So, I do find the religious landscape study very troubling, but not because there aren’t as many Christians as there used to be. Rather, it disturbs me because so many people have been hurt by a horrible lie about who Jesus is, and what his church is about. It is up to us to go out there and reclaim, and proclaim, the authentic Gospel of love and liberation so that at least people will understand who Jesus is, and why we continue to commit our lives to follow him in the 21st century. And in that I am hopeful today because you all are sitting in front of me and will be going out into the world just like another student who celebrated his graduation from this institution in 1886. My great-grandfather’s first
call out of seminary was to a small German Baptist church in New York City. He went down there without much sense of their actual lives and later explained: “My idea then was to save souls in the ordinarily accepted sense.” Yet, the people he ministered to radically changed his life and expanded his own understanding of the reach of the Gospel.
Rauschenbusch, like you, received his theological education in a time of great change and great suffering. America in the late 19th century, like now, was marred by enormous disparities between the rich and the poor with little or no resources for the ‘least of these’. In that time, as now, many of those on the margins felt that the church was of no use to them, or actively working against them as they struggled to feed their children on starvation wages. Yet the longer Rauschenbusch was in ministry with them, the more he knew that his place was alongside those suffering, whether they were members of his congregation, or Christians at all. Reflecting on that time, he remembered most of all the funerals of the children in his neighborhood who died simply because they were poor. Rauschenbusch lamented: “Oh the children’s funerals! They gripped my heart —the small boxes. I always left thinking— why did these children have to die?”
“It is up to us to go out there and reclaim, and proclaim, the authentic Gospel of love and liberation so that at least people will understand who Jesus is, and why we continue to commit our lives to follow him in the 21st century.”
Rauschenbusch used the training he had received here in Rochester to go back to the Bible and re-read the scripture with eyes wet with the tears of loss and suffering of the poor, the hungry and the oppressed with whom he was ministering—and that was the genesis of all his future work. He had learned the Lord’s Prayer at his parents’ table and learned how to approach the text in the seminary classroom. But, only after his time burying the poor children could he really hear the clarion call of ‘Thy Kingdom Come, on earth as in heaven’ and join in soulful and prophetic solidarity with those who needed God’s will and justice here, and now, and not in some future and faraway place after death.
5
This is just one story of the kind of Christian this institution has graduated over the years. It is an example of a progressive faith that took seriously the lives of people and their struggles and stood in solidarity with them. It was fueled by a deep spirituality that accompanies such a journey of faith and if you want to really get to understand Rauschenbusch I suggest you look at his prayers. This tradition of progressive, prophetic, and spiritual faith is found in other iconic alums of CRCDS such as Howard Thurman and Martin Luther King. They offer us inspiring examples of Christians convicted and transformed by the very people whom they encountered in their ministries, resulting in deep spiritual witness and prophetic fire.
“From my vantage point as religion editor at The Huffington Post, I see what Christians from around the world are doing and actually feel this is the most exciting time for progressive faith that I can remember in my lifetime.”
Yet I hope that CRCDS will avoid looking back wistfully to the past as the good old days. To really follow in their footsteps is to face towards the future. Our work is to build upon the foundations of the kingdom of God that we have inherited from them, and to let their lives inspire us to do even more and to bend that arc of the universe even further towards Justice. Our faith is forward-looking, and mandated by Jesus himself.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus says to his disciples: “Truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. “
Jesus was telling his disciples then, and telling us today, to avoid the temptation to look to the past as the only locus of the important work of God, instead, we are to look forward, and continue to bring the spirit of Christ and to do the work of Jesus in the world today. And what is that work? To proclaim good news to the poor, freedom for the prisoner, recovery of sight for the blind, and to set the oppressed free. And the really amazing news is that Christians are doing that right now.
6
From my vantage point as religion editor at The Huffington Post, I see what Christians from around the world are doing and actually feel this is the most exciting time for progressive faith that I can remember in my lifetime. Christians are on the front lines demanding that Black Lives Matter in Ferguson, Cleveland, New York City and Baltimore, holding communion services at the border and demanding a just and merciful immigration policy, dedicating themselves to caring for God’s creation, proclaiming the full humanity of LGBT people and honoring their relationships as holy, showing solidarity with our Christian brothers and sisters persecuted in the middle East, leading interfaith engagement and standing up against Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism, we are demanding gender equality both in and out of the church, naming the moral outrage of the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and waging peace between peoples around the world. Every day I see the continuing spiritual power of the Gospel wielded by women and men who are healing broken souls and transforming systems that oppress. This is the Jesus movement I want to introduce to people who feel that the church doesn’t care about them. I want them to know about the exciting things that are happening right now, including all of the ways that you are gong to be doing ministry in the world. Let’s go out there and shout it from the mountaintops, because it is such good news.
We are all part of the grand Christian story that stretches back 2,000 years and today, with this graduation, we turn and look out into the future with courage and hope. CRCDS has played an oversized role in that history by training some of the most important leaders in this country and around the world. It is crucial that this school be part of our future, creating more leaders like you graduates. Believe me, they didn’t ask me to say this, but two of my largest contributions every year are to my seminary, Union, and CRCDS. Let’s all find ways to build up this great institution—invite students to apply who you think will thrive here, find donors who value the kinds of values that you have learned here—let’s make sure that CRCDS does even greater things in the future. And one final hope for you graduates, and to all of us who are attempting to follow in the way of Jesus: maintain your spiritual practice even as you do the work for justice in the world. Continue to strengthen your personal connection with Christ. Pray, meditate, take time to breathe every day. Find space for joy. Abide in Jesus, so that you might do his work and even greater. And may God bless your ministry as you live into and create the future of our faith.
CRCDS Student
I
H o l ly S t r i c k l a n d ( M . D i v . )
In Action
that parents are their child’s first teachers. Holly Strickland, CRCDS M.Div. student and mother of five, says she was blessed with wonderful parents who taught her how, with the grace of God, to turn everyday living occurrences into rich learning experiences in a home filled with “church, travel and books.”
t is often said
The oldest of seven children, Holly was expected to set a good example for her siblings, all of whom went to college or pursued professional careers.
Holly, an avid reader, book collector and writer, says her father’s job as a bookmobile driver for the Elmira Library System was the catalyst for her family’s life-long love of reading, providing the family with a seemingly unending supply of books. Holly’s love of books inspired her membership in the Family Reading Partnership of Chemung Valley, which promotes reading appreciation and family literacy.
“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” —Nelson Mandela
Holly says her parents deeply admired the courage and hard work of those in the Civil Rights movement and strongly believed in sharing their time, talents and blessings with people in need. Every holiday, Holly’s mother cooked, baked and made handmade gifts for friends, which her children wrapped and delivered throughout the neighborhood. Holly and her siblings continue her parents’ legacy of love and giving through community service, volunteering, and helping others. Holly models her parents’ enduring values for her own children. She is a proud mother to five “blessings”, three grown daughters and two sons, and says that two of her greatest joys in life are her grandchildren, Kennedy and Emerson.
In addition to her commitment to faith and family, Holly worked as an educator and public school administrator for 42 years. She recently retired as the Assistant Principal at Ernie Davis Middle School in Elmira, New York in order to pursue her studies at CRCDS. She is extremely active in her community, serving as Vice President of the Elmira YWCA Board of Directors, Vice President of AIM (Alliance of Inter-denomination Ministers), and as Board Member of the Cosmopolitan Club, an organization that mentors middle school students. Holly was recently elected as Chaplain of the CRCDS Black Student Caucus for the 2015-2016 term. In spite of her accomplishments, Holly admits that one of her biggest obstacles in life has been overcoming self-doubt and learning to listen to that “still, small voice inside that orders my steps.” Acknowledging God’s call to follow Him, she says, was a defining moment in her life, one that led her directly to CRCDS.
Holly didn’t get to CRCDS by herself.
She was encouraged along the way by people like you who saw in her the qualities of a minister.
Be an ambassador for CRCDS and encourage someone you know to inquire about serving God in a new way by enrolling at CRCDS. For more information, call 1-888-937-3732
7
Transhumanism or Ultrahumanism? I l i a D e l i o , O S F, P h . D .
Te i l h a r d d e C h a r d i n o n Te c h n o lo g y , R e l i g i o n a n d E v o lu t i o n
T
— Excerpted with permission from Theology and Science (2012)
ranshumanism is a term used to describe the enhancement of human life through technology, seeking to overcome biological limits.
Teilhard de Chardin has been described as a transhumanist but a closer examination of his ideas reveals his distinction of ultrahumanism, a deepening of the whole evolutionary process in and through the human person. This paper examines ultrahumanism and Teilhard’s vision of technology in the evolution of religion.
One of the fastest growing areas of human creativity today is the area of technology. Carl Mitcham notes, “a thousand or two thousand years ago the philosophical challenge was to think nature—and ourselves in the presence of nature. Today the great and the first philosophical challenge is to think technology. . .and to think ourselves in the presence of technology.” Technology has become more than creative inventions for practical purposes; it has become the mirror of our deepest desires. Transhumanism is “the belief that humans must wrest their biological destiny from evolution’s blind process of random variation and adaptation and move to the next stage as a species, favoring the use of science and technology to overcome biological limitations.” The inventor Ray Kurzweil claims that the human species will become extinct in the not too distant future (2030), since we are evolving ourselves through technology into techno sapiens who will usher in a new more fruitful posthuman era.
Eric Steinhart among others has described Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as a forerunner of transhumanism. Teilhard, he claims, envisioned a cyber world as the next level of evolution, anticipating current trends in transhumanist philosophy and inventions. But is Teilhard’s transhumanism on the same level of Kurzweil and others who anticipate a postbiological era marked by techno sapiens? Here I will discuss Teilhard as a scientist and visionary who saw technology as a positive step in the whole evolutionary process. He described the noosphere as the next step in evolution, a level of global mind that leads not to trans-humanism but to ultra-humanism, a deepening of human life through technologically-mediated collective consciousness. I will highlight Teilhard’s view of ultrahumanism and compare his view with current transhumanist trends. Finally, I will explore whether or not technology aids or thwarts the process of Christogenesis which Teilhard saw as the core of evolution. Teilhard understood the science of evolution as the explanation for the physical world and viewed Christian life within the context of evolution. Evolution, he claimed, is ultimately a progression towards consciousness; the material world contains within it a dynamism toward spirit. Biological evolution begins on the level of physical convergence or joining of disparate elements to form new entities; life prefers increased life. Throughout its process it takes advantage of what it chances to find and puts it to its own use. In the course of evolution, the
8
human person “emerges from a general groping of the world,” thought is born. The process of evolution in Teilhard’s view is a spiritualization of matter and the evolution of mind. He did not view mind apart from matter but mind is the withinness of matter from the beginning of evolution.
For Teilhard, consciousness is active at all levels of reality. The mental enters the material reality in a natural way. He considered matter and consciousness not as two substances or two different modes of existence. . .but as two aspects of the same cosmic stuff. The within is the mental aspect and the without is the physical aspect of the same stuff, physical and psychic are co-related in the evolutionary movement of convergence and complexity. He links evolution of the mind with the concept of physical and psychic energy. The human person is integrally part of evolution in that we rise from the process, but in reflecting on the process we stand apart from it. He defines reflection as “the power acquired by a consciousness to turn in upon itself, to take possession of itself as an object...no longer merely to know, but to know that one knows.” Following Julian Huxley, Teilhard wrote that the human person “is nothing else than evolution become conscious of itself.” The human person is “the point of emergence in nature, at which this deep cosmic evolution culminates and declares itself.” Ultimately, Teilhard indicated, evolution is the unfolding of consciousness through the dual processes of complexification and convergence. His use of the word “convergence” differed markedly from current use in biological, especially evolutionary, science. When evolutionary scientists speak of “convergence” they generally are referring to the phenomenon of similar types of organisms evolving in a parallel fashion from different evolutionary lines of development. For Teilhard, convergence is a grouping of cells in a living body or a grouping of individuals under the influence of a great love. Convergence is the ongoing process of complexification and the process of convergence and complexity is the unfolding of consciousness in evolution.
Teilhard recognized that there is a unifying influence in the whole evolutionary process, a centrating factor that holds the entire process together and moves it forward toward greater complexity and unity. The process of evolution from the physical sciences may be one of cosmogenesis and biogenesis but from the point of Christian faith it is “Christogenesis,” a “coming-to-be” of Christ. His faith led him to posit Christ, the future fullness of the whole evolutionary process, as the “centrating principle,” the “pleroma”
and “Omega point” where the individual and collective adventure of humanity finds its end and fulfillment, and where the consummation of the world and consummation of God converge. What we anticipate as the future of evolution is “the mysterious synthesis of the uncreated and the created—the grand completion of the universe in God.”
Teilhard did not view evolution with a naïve realism but was acutely aware of internal forces that could thwart the direction of evolution toward the Omega Point. In an article on “The Directions and Conditions of the Future” he had begun to worry not so much about the human race blowing itself up or a pandemic disease wiping out all human life but the problem of enough food to properly feed the world’s exploding population, which he then predicted would reach 2.5 billion within the next
Technology has become more than creative inventions for practical purposes; it has become the mirror of our deepest desires. quarter century or so. He was concerned whether or not an expanding population would be able to live amiably and in peace with each other under conditions which he no longer described as “convergence” but “external compression.” He saw the choice to be between political totalitarianism or some new breakthrough into a new state of human “unanimization,” the emergence of an “ultra-humanity.” Hence he did not see evolution as a forward movement without resistance. Rather the forces of history acting on humanity must either complexify it causing humanity to evolve or force humanity to wither.
Teilhard described humanity as facing an insurmountable “wall” and the human reaction as being either the extroversion of “escape” or else the introverted pessimism of Sartre’s “existentialism.” The evolutionary vigor of humankind, he indicated, can wither away if we should lose our impulse, or worse, develop a distaste for ever-increased growth in complexity–consciousness. The danger he worried about most is that humanity, in losing its faith in God, would also lose what he called its “Zest for Living.” He questioned whether or not the human race having experienced “a scientific justification of faith in progress was now being confronted by an accumula-
9
tion of scientific evidence pointing to the reverse—the species doomed to extinction.” The only solution he indicated is not “an improvement of living conditions”—as desirable as that might be; rather Teilhard saw the inner pressures of history as the catalyst for evolution toward more being. The evolution of humanity therefore is not only an evolution of consciousness; rather it is a new phase of life in the universe toward unification of mind by which the whole cosmic evolution progresses toward greater unity.
The evolutionary ascent of human beings occurs in stages, according to Teilhard. In the first stage of its evolution, humanity expanded in both quantity (number of persons) and in quality (psychological and spiritual development). During the long period of expansion, physical and cultural differences isolated the peoples of
Teilhard’s theory runs counter to Darwin’s in that the success of humanity’s evolution in the second stage will not be determined by “survival of the fittest” but by our own capacity to converge and unify. the Earth from each other as they spread to fill the Earth. At the beginning of our present century, with most of the habitable surface of the Earth occupied, the races began to converge. Teilhard points to the heightening organopsychic human development (that is, the process of socialization) which began 30,000 years ago, as an indication that evolution marches on. The birth of the tribes, of the empires, and of the modern states is the offspring of the great movement of evolution towards socialization or collectivization. We have reached the end of the expanding or “diversity” stage and are now entering the contracting or “unifying” stage. The human is on the threshold of a critical phase of super-humanization: the increasingly rapid growth in the human world of the forces of collectivization, the “super arrangement” or the mega-synthesis. At this point, Teilhard’s theory runs counter to Darwin’s in that the success of humanity’s evolution in the second stage will not be determined by “survival of the fittest” but by our own capacity to converge and unify. The most important initial evolutionary leap of the convergence stage is the formation of what he called “the noosphere.” In his Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard describes the noosphere:
10
The idea is that the Earth [is] not only becoming covered by myriads of grains of thought, but becoming enclosed in a single thinking envelope so as to form a single vast grain of thought on the sidereal scale, the plurality of individual reflections grouping themselves together and reinforcing one another in the act of a single unanimous reflection.
The noosphere is a psycho-social process, a planetary neo-envelope essentially linked with the biosphere in which it has its root, yet distinguished from it. It is a new stage for the renewal of life and not a radical break with biological life. Before the human emerged, it was natural selection that set the course of morphogenesis; after humans it is the power of invention that begins to grasp the evolutionary reigns. If there is no connection between noogenesis and biogenesis, Teilhard said, then the process of evolution has halted and man is an absurd and “erratic object in a disjointed world.” Teilhard envisioned the noosphere like “the living membrane which is stretched like a film over the lustrous surface of the star which holds us.” Just as Earth once covered itself with a film of interdependent living organisms which we call the biosphere, so mankind's combined achievements are forming a global network of collective mind. Hence, the noosphere is a sphere of collective consciousness which preserves and communicates everything precious, active and progressive contained in this earth’s previous evolution. It is the natural culmination of biological evolution and not a termination of it, an organic whole, irreducible to its parts, destined for some type of superconvergence and unification. The formation of the noosphere begins with a global network of trade, communications, accumulation and exchange of knowledge, cooperative research, mixture of populations and production of energy—all go into the weaving of the material support for a sphere of collective thought. Although mass communication technology was just beginning to develop in Teilhard’s time, he appreciated the role of machines in the emergence of the noosphere. In his Future of Man he wrote of “the extraordinary network of radio and television communications which, perhaps anticipating the direct intercommunication of brains through the mysterious power of telepathy, already link us all in a sort of ‘etherized’ universal consciousness.” Teilhard predicted the evolution of the computer as the “brain” behind the noosphere and thus the catalyst for the next step of evolution. He writes: Here I am thinking of those astonishing electronic machines (the starting-point and hope of the young science of cybernetics), by which our mental capacity to calculate and combine is reinforced and multiplied by a process and to a degree that herald as astonishing advances in this direction as those that optical science has already produced for our power of vision.
His anticipation of what computers would do for us was twofold: first, they would complete our brains through instantaneous retrieval of information around the globe so that what one person lacks is immediately provided by another, and second, they would improve our brains by facilitating processes more quickly than our own resources can achieve them. Teilhard’s vision of the noosphere as cybernetic mind anticipated the emergence of cyberspace as a field of global mind through interconnecting computer pathways. With the rise of technology he saw a forward movement of spiritual energy, a maximization of consciousness and a complexification of relationships. Technology extends the outreach of human activity but it depends on a broader use of human activity and how humans control psychic, spiritual energy needs and powers.
Transhumanism is a term used today to describe enhancement or alteration of the human person through biomedical technology, genetics, artificial intelligence and nanotechnology. The World Transhumanist Association sees technology as the panacea for human ills and limits. However, some scholars lament the enlarging role of machines in human socialization. The philosophical and religious heritage of the west, according to Naomi Goldenberg, leaves westerners predisposed to form harmful attitudes toward the technologies overtaking their lives. This heritage has taught us “that human life is a rough copy of something out there—something better, wiser and purer.” As a result, westerners possess a cultural proclivity to respond to machines not as tools to use but as role models to emulate. As people act upon this proclivity, she states, the isolation and loneliness of modern life are being increased. We are becoming more comfortable with machines than with people. Is technology enhancing human socialization or alienation? Teilhard saw the role of technology as one of convergence, that is, a drawing together of hearts and minds, forming a collective mind. Although the noosphere is the layer of global mind, it is not an intellectualization but an amorization of human life that is unified through technology. This is a radically different view from contemporary transhumanists who see technology not as a means of collective unification but as self-perfection. Ray Kurzweil, for example, anticipates an increasingly virtual life in which the bodily presence of human beings will become irrelevant. Kurzweil claims that machinedependent humans will eventually create the virtual reality of eternal life, possibly by “neurochips” or simply by becoming totally machine dependent. As we move beyond mortality through computational technology, our identity will be based on our evolving mind file. We will
be software not hardware. By replacing living bodies with virtual bodies capable of transferral and duplication, we will become disembodied superminds. Robert Geraci states, “our new selves will be infinitely replicable, allowing them to escape the finality of death.” This futuristic “post-biological” computer-based immortality is one also envisioned by Hans Moravec who claims that the advent of intelligent machines (machina sapiens) will provide humanity with “personal immortality by mind transplant.” Moravec suggests that the mind will be able to be downloaded into a machine through the “eventual replacement of brain cells by electronic circuits and identical input-output functions.” Michael Benedikt believes that cyberspace is an extension of religious desires to escape earthly existence. The “image of the Heavenly City,” he writes, “is. . .a religious vision of cyberspace.” The pursuit of cybernetic heaven means that we will be able to overcome the limitations of the body, including suffering and death—and attain artificial eschatological paradise. Thus just as human beings must give up their bodies to attain the heavenly city, so
Just as Earth once covered itself with a film of interdependent living organisms which we call the biosphere, so mankind’s combined achievements are forming a global network of collective mind. too artificial intelligence transhumanists view relinquishing the human body for artificial mediums as a positive step in the evolution of techno sapiens.
Daniel Crevier argues that artificial intelligence is consistent with the Christian belief in resurrection and immortality. Since some kind of support is required for the information and organization that constitutes our minds, Crevier indicates, a material, mechanical replacement for the mortal body will suffice. Christ was resurrected in a new body, he states, why not a machine? Antje Jackelén notes that the development toward techno sapiens might be regarded as a step toward the kingdom of God. What else can we say when the lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, and the dead are at least virtually alive? The requirements of the Gospel and the aims of technical development seem to be in perfect harmony. Geraci states: “Only by eliminating the physical and embracing the virtual can we return to the undifferentiated wholeness of the good.” (continued on page 20)
11
“Perspective” D r . S a l ly D o d g s o n ( C R D S ‘ 8 4 )
I
Dr. Sally Dodgson (CRDS ’84), above, and Rev. Lawrence Hargrave (CRCDS ’00), right, were the recipients of the Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School Distinguished Alumni/ae Award on April 8, 2015. Following are the remarks given by Dr. Dodgson during her acceptance of the award.
have been thinking a great deal about perspective the last couple of years and will try very hard to keep this honor in perspective. I have come to appreciate what Marcus Aurelius, the stoic Emperor of Rome in the second century, had to say on the topic. He wrote in his Meditations, “Everything we hear is an opinion not a fact, and everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” So I hope you, too, will keep all of this in perspective, just as I tried to do 34 years ago when this school made it clear to me that it is never too late to learn. When my husband, Ken, and I left India, he very generously asked me where I would like to live. I told him I would be happy to go wherever he decided to practice surgery, but that I would like a year in Rochester at the Divinity School to study with J.C. Wynn and update the psychotherapy I had studied in graduate school. I also wanted to take some course work on Tillich. My students in India had tweaked my appetite for theology. That one year in 1981–82 soon led to completion of a full Master of Divinity course, followed by a 12-year staff position. So actually, I never left. Changing perspectives have shaped this school which we all love. I could list many: the decision of thirteen Baptists in Hamilton, NY, in 1817 that ministers should be educated, later that pastoral training could best be carried out in a boom town on the Erie canal, that the theological and secular parts of the university could remain twins but not Siamese twins, and that the orthodoxy of Augustus Hopkins Strong could give a nod to progressive thought by inviting Walter Rauschenbusch to join the faculty. (Speaking of Strong, perspectives can change even at sea. In his autobiography, Strong admitted that when sailing to Europe he drew an imaginary line in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean which when crossed would allow him to enjoy a cigar and a glass of wine—a surprising shift for a Baptist of his time.) Some of the greatest changes of perspective came in the ‘60s under CRCDS President Gene Bartlett with the welcoming of the BMTS women to full ministerial training, the defense of
12
academic freedom in the face of the Death of God controversy, the protection and support of our black students during the lockout, and the widening of ecumenism with the meetings of the central committee of the World Council of Churches on this campus, the anticipated arrival of Bexley Hall, and the inclusion of St. Bernard’s in what became the interfaith Center for Theological Study. The role of the Bartletts, and I am including both Gene and Jean, continued after their return to the Hill in the ‘80s when Gene taught and served as Pastor in Residence. During that time, the Bartletts quietly opened their home for meetings of gay students and supporters. Fortunately, changes in perspective have continued to be defining marks of Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, and I appreciate what you, President McMickle, and Bishop McKelvey, Chair of CRCDS Board of Trustees, are doing for our school.
Perspective is, of course, both a visual and a thought process. When I lost an eye to melanoma cancer, I learned that it really doesn’t take two eyes to see both sides of a question, though it really helps when applying tooth paste to a brush. Perspectives change as we mature, and as institutions mature. I am not the same person I was in my early years, but how fortunate I was to be exposed to some of the great graduates of this school in my formative years. I still have a small New Testament given to me on my third birthday by alumnus Roy B. Deer, class of 1919, who performed the wedding ceremony for my parents. A Baptist Missionary Training School graduate, missionary to India, stayed in our home when I was six or seven. I decided, at that time of childish romanticism, that I would like to be a missionary. Three other BMTS graduates, in succession, served as Directors of Christian Education in my church. The man who baptized me, who immigrated to this country from Denmark when he was 16 years old, was a 1932 graduate of Colgate Rochester Divinity School.
While in high school and early college, I attended the Baptist youth conferences at our national assembly grounds in Green Lake, Wisconsin, for three years. Drs. Gene Bartlett (class of 1935) and Charles Boddie (class of 1936), were perennial favorite leaders during those years. They both influenced me greatly. I remember playing soft ball with Rev. Boddie—we called him Chuck. Later he had a distinguished pastoral ministry here in Rochester at Mt. Olivet Baptist Church. I grew up in Terre Haute, Indiana, and went to school and church with Ted Keaton (class of 1954), longtime Director of what was then this school’s Development Office. Too, I was a Franklin College classmate of former CRCDS President, Leon Pacala (class of 1952). I could name other influences. Is it any wonder that I picked an alumnus of this school with whom to spend 62 years and counting?
I used to say that I attended this Divinity School for the fun of it, for my ministry came before my studies here and I had no intention to seek ordination. I was older than most of my professors. I have been grateful ever since for the stimulus and new perspectives which I gained as a student. As we give thought to the great changes that are taking place in society and as we sometimes worry about the future of the church, I would hope that the perspective of this school might place even more emphasis on the training of lay persons. What a difference that would make in the life of the church.
The Baptist Missionary Training School
Pr o m o t i n g t h e e d u c at i o n o f w o m e n f o r l e a d e r s h i p i n m i n i s t ry 13
Out in the World
U p d at e s , N e w s and Notes from CRCDS, CTS and B M T S A lu m n i / a e
Rev. William J. Merriman
(CRDS ’59) Bill has lived with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) for over twenty years. He recently published a book about living with this chronic disease entitled ALS: The Gift of a Designer Disease, available on Amazon.com. Through the process of diagnosis, life adjustments and learning to be a kid again, Bill’s book takes a thoughtful and entertaining look at life. He hopes it will benefit people living with chronic disease, as well as their family members and caregivers.
Dr. Thomas Rugh
(CRDS ’66) Thomas' retirement project culminated in the first comprehensive biography of artist Franklin Booth, an illustrator of books, magazines and advertisements. Thomas is in the process of donating his book to as many libraries as possible, beginning in Indianapolis. To view or purchase the book, see: www.FranklinBooth.com. Thomas says attending CRDS in the mid ’60s was an important career-setting event: his “service placement” as a youth minister in Brockport, NY and as a nursing home chaplain prepared him for a career in human services. He was Settlement House Director and administrator of the Neighborhood Center Central Agency, March of Dimes, and the Indiana Association of United Ways, retiring from there in 2007 after 25 years service. Thomas received a Ph.D. in Philanthropic Studies from Union Institute Graduate School.
14
Mr. J. Douglas Archer
(CTS ’72) Doug has been elected to a three-year term on the governing Council of the American Library Association and to a two-year term as a Trustee of the Freedom to Read Foundation. He has also been named the Hesburgh Libraries’ liaison to the new Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame.
Dr. Leonard I. Sweet
(CRDS ’72) Dr. Sweet has a new partnership with Tabor College (Hillsboro, KS), where he is a distinguished visiting professor. He also works as an active partner in the marketing and educational processes of the new Master of Arts in Entrepreneurial Ministry Leadership degree program.
Rev. Paul A. Hanneman
(CRDS ’74) Paul, one of the North Carolina’s best known advocates for the homeless, retired April 30, 2015 as program director at Charlotte’s Urban Ministry Center. Paul worked with the agency for 15 years but is best known for directing the ministry’s Room in the Inn program during the past four years. Room in the Inn recruits church congregations to house homeless men, women and children at night during the winter. This past winter, it provided 17,000 beds at 135 houses of worship and YMCAs. Among those helped were 90 families with 127 children. Paul will continue to serve the community as a consultant and teacher, encouraging congregations to help low income and homeless people.
Paul’s wife of 35 years, Evelyn, retired in February as operations director of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North Carolina.
Rev. Thomas G. Bayes, Jr.
(CRDS ’75) Tom is currently serving as the interim minister at First Baptist Church, Gastonia, NC.
Rev. Larry R. Baird
(CRDS ’75) Larry is retiring from the United Methodist Churches in July.
Dr. Thomas G. Poole
(CRDS ’77) Dr. Poole has been appointed to the CRCDS Board of Trustees.
Dr. Peter Fabian
(CRDS ’79) Peter was promoted to the position of Associate Dean for Graduate Psychology/ Marriage and Family Therapy Program at Edgewood College, Madison, WI.
Rev. Dr. Brad J. Donahue
(CRDS ’80) Brad will celebrate 20 years of ministry at Lorain Christian Temple Disciples of Christ (Lorain, OH) in July.
Rabbi David Spitz
(CRDS ’80) Rabbi Spitz was honored with his classmates from HUC-JIR, class of 1965 at a ceremony conducted at the annual convention of the National Association of Retired Reform Rabbis in Phoenix, AZ, for having served as Rabbi for 50 years.
Rev. Susan S. Shafer
(CRDS ’82) Susan will be retiring from Asbury First United Methodist Church (Rochester, NY) in July.
Dr. Sally L. Dodgson
(CRDS ’84) Sally received the 2015 CRCDS Distinguished Alumni/ae Award in April.
Rev. Alicia Conklin-Wood
(CRDS ’86) Alicia has been appointed to the Syracuse City United Methodist Churches (Bellevue Heights, Brown Memorial, Erwin First, Gethsemane, Hope Korean, James Street, St. Paul’s and University), effective in July.
Rev. Dr. Vincent Howell
(CRDS ’86) Vincent has been appointed as an elder to another denomination to Webb Mills in addition to his current appointment at Westside in Elmira, NY.
Rev. John E. Holt
(CRDS ’88) John is now pastor at Osterville United Methodist Church (Osterville, MA).
Rev. Nancy A. Tripp-Leport
(CRDS ’90) Nancy just published her first book, A Sabbath Journey: and a little child shall lead them. The book is available on Amazon.com. It is a monthly devotional about rediscovering the joy of the fourth commandment as taught to her by her four year old granddaughter.
Rev. Lawrence Hargrave
(CRDS ’00) Lawrence preached his last sermon at Asbury First United Methodist Church (Rochester, NY) this past April to begin his retirement. Lawrence oversaw the church’s many outreach ministries, including the Dining and Caring Center, the Storehouse, and the URWell Clinic. He has also played a vital role in maintaining and enhancing Asbury First’s reputation in the Greater Rochester area through his service on numerous city- and county-wide task forces and committees. Lawrence received the 2015 CRCDS Distinguished Alumni/ae Award in April.
Pastor Nancy L. Goff
(CRCDS ’01) Nancy served 15 years in various churches in the Susquehanna Conference of The United Methodist Churches. After a two month retirement in 2012, she was called to serve two churches in Shermans Dale, PA.
Rev. Kathleen Brumbaugh
(CRCDS ’04) Kathy has been appointed as an elder to another denomination to Schenevus United Methodist Church in July.
Rev. Rachel McGuire, Ph.D.
Rev. Dr. Michael Ford
(CRCDS ’15) Patricia is pursuing ordination in the Episcopal Church.
Mr. Scott Hayes
Mr. Gary Kubitz
(CRCDS ’12) Scott joined the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America (BPFNA) as Office Manager. BPFNA is the largest network of Baptist peacemakers in the world. He was previously Pastor of Parma Baptist Church and Assistant Pastor of Greece Baptist Church, as well as a supply pastor at First Baptist Church, Rochester, NY.
Rev. Emily B. Huyge
(CRCDS ’12) Emily has been appointed as a full elder to First Methodist Church in Mexico, NY.
Rev. Dr. Mary J. Korte
(CRCDS ’13) Mary has been appointed by the Episcopal Bishop of Kansas to the board of Episcopal Social Services, Wichita, KS. She serves on the program committee and is helping bring a spiritual element to client-based work. She has also been appointed as examining Chaplain for the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas and works on standards for the Bishop Kemper School for Ministry.
Mr. Jimmy Bedgood
(CRCDS ’04) Rachel successfully defended her Doctoral dissertation “The Dangerously Divine Gift: A Biblical Theology of Power” in April.
(CRCDS ’14) Jimmy has adopted 17 month old twins, Elijah and Aaron.
Rev. Caroline Simmons
Rev. Raymond H. Allen
(CRCDS ’05) Caroline has been appointed as a full elder to Bridgeport United Methodist Church, in addition to her current appointment at Collamer United Methodist Church.
Rev. Carla M. Kline
(CRCDS ’08) Carla is working full-time for Delaware North Companies and is bi-vocational Pastor with Island Presbyterian Church (Grand Island, NY).
Rev’s Russell and Marjory Roth
(CRCDS ’09) Russell and Marjory welcomed their third child, Trevor Allan, on February 27, 2015.
Rev. Carolyn S. Stow
(CRCDS ’11) Carolyn has been appointed as a full elder to Kidder Memorial United Methodist Church in Jamestown, NY.
Ms. Patricia M. Kinney
(CRCDS ’12) Michael has been appointed to the CRCDS Board of Trustees.
(CRCDS ’15) Raymond is senior pastor at Bethany Baptist Church (Niagara Falls, NY).
Rev. Dr. Deborah Duguid-May
(CRCDS ’15) Deborah is pursuing ordination in the Episcopal Diocese of Rochester.
Minister Nicole Iaquinto
(CRCDS ’15) Nicole is currently assistant pastor at Greece Baptist Church (Greece, NY).
Rev. Brett Johnson
(CRCDS ’15) Brett is an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Churches.
(CRCDS ’15) Gary has been appointed as a provisional elder to the Sidney, NY United Methodist Church in addition to his current appointment at the Afton/Bainbridge United Methodist Churches.
Rev. Rebecca Naber
(CRCDS ’15) Becky is pastor of congregational care at Baker Memorial United Methodist Church (East Aurora, NY).
Mr. Michael N. Okinczyc
(CRCDS ’15) Michael is the Executive Director of Gamaliel of Western New York State. Gamaliel trains community and faith leaders to build political power and create organizations that unite people of diverse faiths and races.
Rev. Sebrone O’Neil Johnson
(CRCDS ’15) Sebrone is IT Director at the Urban League (Rochester, NY) and pastor at Greater Harvest Church.
Ms. Nancy Raca
(CRCDS ’15) Nancy has been appointed as a provisional elder to the Sophia Community and Covenant United Methodist Church (Rochester, NY).
Rev. Jacquelyn Ross Brown
(CRCDS ’15) Jacquelyn is pastor at New Covenant United Church of Christ (Buffalo, NY).
Rev. Andrew D. VanBuren
(CRCDS ’15) Andrew was ordained as a transitional deacon by Bishop Singh at the Church of the Good Shepherd, in Webster, New York. He will also prepare for ordination to priesthood in the future.
Rev. Dr. Ellen B. Vanderzwan
(CRCDS ’15) Ellen is associate pastor at Webster Presbyterian Church (Webster, NY).
15
Save the Date
Lectures, Reflection, and Worship October 5-8, 2015
In Christ, there is no abled or disabled… Inclusion, accessibility & belonging. H i g h l i g h t s i n c lu d e : Monday, October 5
Rita N. Brock, Ph.D.
9:00 am – 3:00 pm Veterans, Moral Injury & Soul Repair Rita N. Brock, Ph.D.
Co-Director of the Soul Repair Center, Brite Divinity School
12:00 Noon Community Lunch
4:00 pm African American Chapel Service Garth Kasimu Baker-Fletcher, Ph.D. preaching 7:00 pm African American Legacy Lecture Garth Kasimu Baker-Fletcher, Ph.D. Michael A. Scharf, M.D.
Tuesday, October 6
10:30 am African American Legacy Workshop Garth Kasimu Baker-Fletcher, Ph.D. 12:00 noon Community Lunch
Gail Ricciuti, D.D.
7:00 pm Christian Faith and LGBT Experience Lecture Chris Hildebrant, Chief Operating Officer of Finger Lakes Health Systems Agencies, Co-Lecturer TBA
Join us in October!
Wednesday, October 7
9:00 am – Noon Janice Lynn Cohen Symposium UR Medical Center Michael A. Scharf, M.D. Associate Professor, University of Rochester Medical Center School of Medicine and Dentistry 7:00 pm The Gene Bartlett Lectureship Gail Ricciuti, D.D.
Associate Professor of Homiletics at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School
Thursday, October 8
10:30 am Gene Bartlett Chapel Service Gail Ricciuti, D.D. preaching 12:00 noon Community Lunch
1:30 pm The Gene Bartlett Lectureship Gail Ricciuti, D.D.
M a rk your c a lend a rs t o d ay! 16
Living Gratitude: Horizon Society
The Rev’d Dr. W. Kenneth Williams and Rev. Peg Nowling Williams
My late spouse, Brenda, and I started our married life when I became a student at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School (CRCDS) in 1973. We were both shaped and formed by the ethos of the School—academic rigor, intense mutual caring and positive impact on the world. When I graduated in 1976, I was ready—learned, pastoral, and prophetic. And, so was Brenda. We earned my degree together, entered ministry together, and, in the way of Providence, our career path circled back to Rochester. Brenda became Director of Development at CRCDS in the late 1990’s just as I was becoming Executive Minister of the ABC/Rochester-Genesee Region. No one loved better than Brenda, no one was more loyal. She took delight in her daily interchanges with alumni/ae, and in representing the School at events across the land. Brenda considered it the highest of honors when the Baptist Missionary Training School made her an honorary alumna.
I support CRCDS with an annual gift as an act of faith and love, which is ultimately an act of gratefulness. I have also made a planned gift to the School as testimony to the agelessness of gratefulness—gratefulness that will provide for a thriving future for CRCDS. God is still speaking, still calling, earnestly seeking souls who are willing to be shaped for a life of grateful service through novel ministries. CRCDS plays a vital role in preparing these souls for successful service. Including CRCDS in my will is a tribute to Brenda’s witness for peace, justice, and the ideal of the Beloved Community and is also a recognition of the important work of CRCDS in preparing leaders committed to those same ideals and values.
Peg Nowling was one of Brenda’s best friends. After Brenda’s death, our lives slowly began to merge, leading ultimately to our marriage. One of our many common commitments was to the mission of CRCDS. Peg has served the School as adjunct faculty, teaching Baptist Polity, and also
Ken Williams (CRCDS ’76) and Peg Nowling Williams
pastored a congregation that met on the CRCDS campus for a time. We have realized that our story of love rising out of grief is a metaphor for the Church today: give thanks for the ways of God made known in heritage and history. Give thanks for the ways of God yet to be made known.
It takes courage to believe when so much is changing at once and it takes courage to continue to have faith and love in the face of so much unknown. Our gratitude is a tangible sign of our faith in the future and a witness to the presence of God’s love in the midst of change. We are grateful for CRCDS, for its legacy and for the promising future it holds in the midst of this great change.
Please join me and Peg by showing your gratitude for CRCDS by including the School in your estate planning. —Ken Williams (CRCDS ‘76) and Peg Nowling Williams
W h at i s Yo u r L e g a c y ? What is your legacy? Take care of yourself and help take care of CRCDS. For more information on how you can help us grow, contact Tom McDade Clay, Vice President for Institutional Advancement, at (585) 340-9648 or email tmcdadeclay@crcds.edu.
17
Memorial & Appreciation Gifts T h e Fu n d f o r CRCDS
Dr. William Hamilton Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer
Dr. Floyd Massey, Jr. Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer
Dr. James B. Ashbrook Rev. Charles B. Mercer Dr. C. Jack Richards
Rev. Bruce E. Hanson Mr. Donald S. Chapin Ms. Mary V. Fisher Ms. Paula G. Gianforti
Dr. William T. McKee Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer
In Memory of:
Dr. Oren H. Baker Rev. Merle S. Arnold
Dr. Gene E. Bartlett Rev. Mahlon Gilbert, D.Min. Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer Rev. Nancy A. Tripp-Leport
Ms. Jean Bartlett Rev. Mahlon Gilbert, D.Min. Rev. Roanne C. MacEwan
Dr. Russell H. Bishop Rev. Russell H. Bishop, Jr.
Rev. Wesley Bourdette Rev. Dr. Ralph Anderson
Rev. Emmanuel S. Branch, Jr. Rev. Harry B. Parrott, Jr.
Rev. Henry A. Buzzell Ms. Eleanor Pope
Mr. W. Douglas Call Anonymous
Rev. Dr. Paul Cameron IV Ms. Janet I. Cameron
Rev. Arthur E. Crane Ms. Kathryn Ketcham
Dr. Vinjamuri E. Devadutt Ms. Chelli Devadutt Ms. Dorothy A. Ellmore Rev. Edward D. Ellmore
Rev. E. Robert Ferris, Jr. Ms. Susanna Ferris
Rev. Jerry C. Freiert Rev. Barbara A. Freiert
Dr. Milton Froyd Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer
Rev. Edward B. Grevatt Wayne and Wanda Higgins Richard and Ruth Myers Ms. Barbara M. Thomas
18
Rev. David B. Hammar Ms. Linda Hammar
Rev. Kenneth Hardy Ms. Deborah Blauw
Dr. Floyd W. McDermott Ms. Lorena M. Ritter Ms. Agnes J. Morrison Ms. Epp K. Sonin
Mr. Justin W. Nixon, Sr. Mr. Robert Nixon
Dr. Winthrop S. Hudson Rev. Glenn Loafmann
Rev. Melvin Phillips Rev. Ruth E. Phillips
Ms. Heather M. Janes Deena and David Harkins Ms. Beatrice E. Smith
Leroy and Dorthea Pullen Dr. Bruce R. Pullen
Rev. J.D. Jackson, Sr. Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer
Dr. Walker Pipkin Rev. Lawrence Hargrave and Ms. Brenda Lee
Rev. Dr. Leardrew L. Johnson Ms. Audrose Banks Ms. Gloria A. Battle Dr.’s Kenneth V. and Sally Dodgson Genesee Baptist Church (Rochester, NY) Rev. Lawrence Hargrave and Ms. Brenda Lee Rev. R. LeRoy Moser Mr. Alfred Neelands
Rev. G. Todd Roberts Ms. Lou G. Roberts Eckle
Rev. Joseph A. King Ms. Marietta P. King
Ms. Tanya Sexton Mr. James S. Badger
Dr. Theodore Keaton Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer
Rev. Ruth Lacker Rev. Barbara J. Lacker-Ware and Rev. Michael A. Ware
Dr. Werner Lemke Ms. Anne Campbell Rev. G. Travis Norvell Rev. Donald D. Turk
Rev. Archie LeMone Rev. Larry W. Dobson
Rev. Harold Loughhead Ms. Claire Elizabeth Loughhead Ms. Margaret C. Malmquist Rev. Dr. Richard C. Malmquist
Mr. Robert Rowsam Ms. June Morin
Rev. James R. Roy Children of James R. Roy Rev. Roland V. Santee Ms. Lorena M. Ritter
Dr. Michael Scrogin Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer Ms. Alice Shae Ms. Maxine Bascom Rev. Gerald Smith Mr. Gary Clinton
Mr. Gary D. Talbot Rev. M. Kathleen Talbot Ms. Leona Macro Tefft Ms. Carol Hellwig Dr. Charles Thurman Ms. Mattie Thurman
Dr. James E. Townsend Ms. Billie Jean Townsend
Wayne and Beulah Wagner Rev. Gary W. Wagner
September 24, 2014–June 1, 2015
Rev. Ronald H. Webb Ms. Lois A. Webb
Rev. Paul Raushenbush Mr. Walter Raushenbush
Mr. MacDonald Westlake Ms. Jennie A. Findley
The Rt. Rev. Prince G. Singh Dr. Walter Szymanski
Ms. Edina G. Weeks Rev. Edwin F. Weeks
Ms. Dorothy Wilder Florin Dr. Wiliam L. Malcomson
Ms. Brenda Williams The Rev'd Dr. W. Kenneth Williams and Rev. Peggy Nowling Williams
Dr. J.C. Wynn Dr. Peter Fabian In Honor of:
Baptist Missionary Training School Ms. Margery Wahler
Rev. Winifred Collin Mr. Robert Goeckel
Rev. Claudine P. Crooks Ms. Margaret Ackley
Rev. Dr. Andrew C. Davison Rev. Thomas G. Bayes, Jr.
Friends of Barnabas Rev. Charles B. Hunt
Rev. Lawrence Hargrave Ms. Karen S. Hibbard
Rev. Richard Henshaw, Ph.D. Rev. Shirley M. Chan
Dr. H. Beecher Hicks, Jr. Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer
Ms. Marcia Kilpatrick Dr. David M. Kilpatrick
Ms. Virginia Kullman Ms. Michele Kaider-Korol
Dr. Barbara A. Moore, RSM Mr. James S. Badger Rev. Janet A. James Ms. Margaret A. Nead Mr. Samuel Bishop
Rev. Hugh D. Outterson Rev. Robert H. Calvert
Rev. Susan S. Shafer Mr. Samuel Bishop
Dr. Gardner Taylor Dr. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer
OTHER FUNDS BMTS Professorial Chair In Memory of:
Suzanne Rinck Armstrong Ms. Marian “Katie” Gerecke Ms. Cheryl C. Knight Ms. June E. Jacobson
Gene E. Bartlett and Jean Kenyon Bartlett Memorial Scholarship Fund In Memory of:
Jean Kenyon Bartlett Henry and Tish Allen Bob and Paige Bartlett Mr. Robert Bartlett Mr. Scott Bartlett, Esq. Mr. Donald Beech Rev. Bruce E. Billman Rev. and Mrs. Edward I. Carey Michael and Shirley Condon Rev. Dr. Andrew C. Davison and Dr. Beverly Davison Ms. Deborah Diederich Dr.’s Kenneth V. and Sally Dodgson Rev. David Evans and Ms. Grace L. Evans Mr. Daniel E. Eves Ms. Deborah Ferguson Rev. Dr. Lowell H. Fewster and Rev. Julie P. Fewster Ms. Sara Greenfield Culp Mrs. Barbara Hall Dr. and Mrs. Paul L. Hammer Michael and Susan Harrison
Dr. and Mrs. William Jones Mr. and Mrs. William R. Kenyon Dr. H. Darrell Lance Rev. and Mrs. Donald L. Lawrence Rev. G. Rheanolte LeBarbour and Dr. Annie Marie LeBarbor Rev. Sandra J. Lemke Rev. Carol Holtz-Martin and Ms. Dana Martin Thomas and Maranne McDade Clay Ms. Kelly McLaughlin Ms. Margaret A. Nead Ms. Virginia S. Pacala Bill and Doris Perkett Mr. Dale W. Peterson Rev. Phyllis Reed Rev. Gail A. Ricciuti, D.D. Mr. Ray Shero Ms. Marion B. VanArsdell Ken and Colleen Weisbeck Rev. and Mrs. Lawrence Witmer Ms. Rachel Wynn
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Endowed Chair for Social Justice and Black Church Studies In Memory of:
Rev Dr. Leardrew L. Johnson Rev. Lawrence Hargrave and Ms. Brenda Lee Dr. Charles Thurman Ms. Mattie Thurman In Honor of:
Rev. Lawrence Hargrave Ms. Enid Graham-Raad and Mr. Scott T. Graham-Raad
The Janice Lynn Cohen Memorial Fund In Memory of:
Robert “Chick” Kane Ms. Bernard S. Baron Jerry and Susan Marks Ms. Eleanor Levy Anna Razzante Ms. Eleanor Levy
19
(continued from page 11)
Many transhumanists look to a postbiological future where super informational beings will flourish and biological limits such as disease, aging and death, and perhaps even sin, will be overcome. Bart Kosko, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Southern California writes: “Biology is not destiny. It was never more than tendency. It was just nature’s first quick and dirty way to compute with meat. Chips are destiny.” Katherine Hayles, in her book How We Became Posthuman writes, “In the posthuman, there are no essential differences, or absolute demarcations, between bodily existence and computer simulation, cybernetic mechanism and biological organism, robot technology and human goals.” She concludes with an admonition: “Humans can either go gently into that good night, joining the dinosaurs as a species that once ruled the earth but is now obsolete, or hang on for a while longer by becoming machines themselves. In either case…the age of the human is drawing to a close.” Similarly Robert Jastrow claimed, “human evolution is nearly a finished chapter in the history of life,” although the evolution of intelligence will not end because a new species will arise, “a new kind of intelligent life more likely to be made of silicon.” While artificial intelligence transhumanists aim toward a new virtual body, they also anticipate a new virtual creation where the earthly garden will wither away and be replaced by a much greater world, a paradise never to be lost.
Although Steinhart and others have drawn a sympathetic link between Teilhard and artificial intelligence transhumanists, I find little in common between them. artificial intelligence transhumanists such as Kurzweil and Moravec explore transhumanism as a means of individual apocalyptic triumph. Through information technology, the human will be able to transcend the contingencies of suffering and death. However, techno-
While Moravec’s “mind children” may evoke the horror of a humanmachine convergence threatening dehumanization and the survival of the human species, Teilhard saw the convergence of human and machine intelligence as completing the material and cerebral sphere of collective thought. 20
logically-perfected life, especially transcending the limits of suffering and death, were not part of Teilhard’s vision. He did not see the evolution of a new techno sapien species as the replacement for biological life; rather he saw the deepening of biological life through techno sapiens.
While Moravec’s “mind children” may evoke the horror of a human-machine convergence threatening dehumanization and the survival of the human species, Teilhard saw the convergence of human and machine intelligence as completing the material and cerebral sphere of collective thought. His hopeful vision of transhumanism was a richer and more complex domain, constructing with all minds joined together, a collective or global mind for the forward movement of cosmic evolution.
Teilhard did not see evolution as a disruption in the organic whole but instead a greater unification of the whole in and through the human person. The human person is the growing tip of the evolutionary process; thus “we should consider inter-thinking humanity as a new type of organism whose destiny it is to realize new possibilities for evolving life on this planet.” artificial intelligence transhumanists look toward the emergence of techno-sapiens as a new species derived from humans but different from humans, privileging informational patterns over embodiment, a seamless fusion with intelligent machines. Teilhard did not anticipate the perfection of being through artificial means; rather, for him evolution is progression toward more being. He wrote: . . . it is not well being but a hunger for morebeing which, of psychological necessity, can alone preserve the thinking earth from the taedium vitae . . . it is upon its point (or superstructure) of spiritual concentration, and not upon its basis (or infra-structure) of material arrangement, that the equilibrium of Mankind biologically depends.
Teilhard distinguished “more being” from “well being” by saying that materialism can bring about well being but spirituality and an increase in psychic energy or consciousness brings about more being. He imagined psychic energy in a continually more reflective state, giving rise to ultrahumanity. He insisted that technology is the means of convergence and the noosphere is the evolutionary convergence of mind through technology; humankind does not dissipate itself but continually concentrates upon itself. Hence the noosphere is a superconvergence of psychic energy, a higher form of complexity in which the human person does not become obsolete but rather acquires more being through interconnectivity with others. In this respect the Noosphere is not the realm of the impersonal but conversely it is the realm of the deeply personal through convergence or
the bringing together of diverse elements, organisms, and even the currents of human thought. The noosphere is not merely a cyber world of virtual being but a medium of collective consciousness that enhances more being. Teilhard wrote: “It is a mistake to look for the extension of our being or of the Noosphere in the impersonal. The Future universal cannot be anything else but the hyperpersonal.”
Teilhard saw the techno-cultural knitting together of human society not as a para-biological epiphenomenon inferior in organic value but as the vital arrangements of matter, a new psychic temperature rising proportionally to the degree of complexity. In his Future of Man he wrote: “We are witnessing a truly explosive growth of technology and research, bringing a…mastery…of cosmic energy... the rapid heightening of psychic temperature…the growth of a true ultra-human.” A higher state of consciousness diffused through the ultra-technified, ultra-socialized, ultra-cerebralized layers of human mass needs a Center of Reflection for a real power of love to emerge at the heart of evolution, a love stronger than all individual egotisms and passions. Otherwise, he asked, how can the noosphere ever be stabilized? A world culminating in the impersonal, he indicated, can bring us neither warmth of attraction nor hope of irreversibility [immortality] without which individual egotism will dominate and rebel. Ron Cole Turner states that technologies of the self “are selfasserting rather than self-transforming, enhancing the ego rather than surrendering it to a greater reality and purpose.” “The danger of technology,” he writes, “is that it offers the illusion of a managed grace whereby the self can fix itself up without changing and remaining in control—so we think.” Technology is not out of control because it is a real power, he states, but because “we cannot control what is supposed to control it: namely, ourselves.” Without a true center, Teilhard writes, a “veritable Ego” at summit of the world, evolution cannot progress toward its ultimate consummation.
Teilhard repeatedly used the language of ultra-humanity to emphasize the need for humanity to enter into a new phase of its own evolution. As he saw it, the first phase happened long ago when our ancestors first emerged into the state of reflective consciousness. Man is psychically distinguished from all other animals, he wrote, by the fact that he not only knows, but knows that he knows. The second phase of human evolution, as Teilhard saw it, involved not just this reflective consciousness, but what Teilhard termed a “co-consciousness,” a collective awareness brought about by the convergence of human beings (the noosphere) over the surface of the earth. Finally, he envisioned, fast approaching on the horizon, a third, even
more critical phase facing humanity which he described as “a completely new mode of phylogenesis,” a “megasynthesis”elaborated in terms of a “planetization.”
Teilhard saw that science would face its own limits and the human person would have to choose between science and unanimity. The scientific route had already progressed from a simple exploration of nature (“knowledge for its own sake”) into a “conquest of matter put to the service of the mind” to “increased action for increased being.” He realized the limits of science, as he wrote: “However far science pushes its discovery of the essential fire and however capable it becomes someday of remodeling and perfecting the human element, it will always find itself in the end facing the same problem— how to give to each and every element its final value by grouping them in the unity of an organized whole.” Science is not an end in itself, according to Teilhard, but
Teilhard saw that science would face its own limits and the human person would have to choose between science and unanimity. aids the deepening of spirituality. The knowledge of science increases mind and mind deepens spirit. Hence science is at the service of religion.
Teilhard saw the insufficiency of science to effect the transition to superconsciousness. “It is not tête-à-tête or a corps-à-corps we need; it is a heart to heart.” Hence integral to the noosphere is the necessary role of love and “the rise of our inward horizon of a cosmic spiritual center...the rise of God. A theogenic process of love at the heart of cosmic evolution, now at the level of the noosphere, is far different from the transhumanist trend of individual perfection or posthuman techno sapiens. Whereas artificial intelligence transhumanists view consciousness as an epiphenomenon in the evolutionary process, Teilhard described evolution as the process of unfolding consciousness. He indicated that ultimate knowing is love which draws together and unites in such a way that new complexified being transcends individual being; it is the emerging body of Christ. The evolution of noosphere is a new collective consciousness that enables a more profound union in love and thus a deepening of being that reflects more unified soul and greater wholeness.
21
While artificial intelligence transhumanism can seem self-serving at the expense of community or cosmic wholeness, Teilhard saw ultrahumanism less as alteration of the human person (trans-humanism) than as the next level of evolution and expansion of community through greater unity. Philip Hefner states that technology is either pointless in the long run or an expression of the fundamental self-transcending reality of God. Teilhard too saw the evolution of the noosphere and the emergent ultrahumanism as fundamentally religious in nature. The whole of evolution is christogenesis; Christ is the Omega Point, the goal of the universe and also the evolver of the universe in its convergence toward unity. Through the inner law of convergence-complexity, God is being born from within; salvation is “becoming one with the universe.”
Although technology plays a key role in evolution, Teilhard saw that evolution is larger than the scope of the human person alone. A fundamental difference between Teilhard’s ultrahumanism and artificial intelligence transhumanism is the role of religion in evolution. Artificial intelligence transhumanists such as Kurzweil see technology as the fulfillment of what religion promises; however, technosalvation is centered on the individual. Teilhard did not see technology as self-perfecting or self-asserting; rather technology furthers religion which is the heart of evolution. “Religion, born of the earth’s need for the disclosing of a God, is related to and co-extensive with, not the individual human but the whole of humankind.” Teilhard wrote “to my mind, the religious phenomenon, taken as a whole, is simply the reaction to the Universe as such, of collective consciousness and human action in the process of development.” As we advance from individual consciousness to collective consciousness, we see that reality is a single organic evolutionary flowing. For Teilhard, the noosphere is not simply a new level of global mind; rather the new level of global mind is the emergence of Christ because the human person is “the arrow pointing the way to the final unification of the world in terms of life.” Technology not only advances noogenesis but noogenesis continues Christogenesis. Through a collectivization of consciousness, Teilhard saw the possibility of a new
22
global unity in love which is the birth of Christ from within. Reflecting on the future of humanity, he envisioned an eventual convergence of religions so that the emergence of Christ would ultimately not be limited to a single religion but would be the convergence of psychic, spiritual energy, the unification of the whole. In a 1950 talk to the Congrès Universel des Croyants he stated that “…the various creeds still commonly accepted have been primarily concerned to provide every human with an individual line of escape” and for this reason they fail to “allow any room for a global and controlled transformation of the whole of life and thought in their entirety.” This stance, Teilhard insisted, can no longer be: “No longer is it simply a religion of individual and of heaven, but a religion of mankind and of the earth—that is what we are looking for at this moment, as the oxygen without which we cannot breathe.”
Teilhard describes the noogenic Christ as “a general convergence of religions upon a universal personal center of unity who fundamentally satisfies all religions.” Technology plays a key role in evolutionary convergence, enabling the emergence of global mind and collective consciousness; however, the endpoint is not technology or techno sapiens. For Teilhard the end is Omega, the total unification of being-in-love. The transhumanist Christ does not supercede biological evolution; rather as biogenesis yields to noogenesis, so too Christ emerges as greater unity in love.
Although technology plays a key role in evolution, Teilhard saw that evolution is larger than the scope of the human person alone. Beyond the level of collective consciousness, he posited a mega-synthesis, a convergence of interplanetary consciousness or complexification of intergalactal consciousness. Teilhard thought wide and deep, much more broadly than prolonging human brain power or overcoming disease. His was a cosmic vision, an evolution of religious spirit towards the fullness of union in love. We are still in Christogenesis, he proclaimed, and technology enables a new genesis of Christ who continues to evolve. With technology, Teilhard envisioned a new unity in love through a collectivization of mind. The techno sapien is not an informational network, a seamless web of biology and machine. Rather the ultra human of the noosphere is an ultra lover because evolution is a daring adventure in love.
In Memoriam Baptist Missionary Training School Lillian Conrad Ulrich Jeanette Dolk
Colgate Rochester Divinity School Leardrew L. Johnson Douglas W. Hill
‘50
‘57
‘50
‘52
‘52
James N. McCutcheon
‘56
‘54
Wesley Bourdette
‘61
Charles Hess
‘67
Edward B. Grevatt
Britt Starghill
William S. Ellis
‘09
‘14
Friends of CRCDS
Janice Kuehn
Bruce E. Hanson
Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School
‘61
Jean Kenyon Bartlett Ann B. Benjamin
Jack W. Fishbaugh, Jr. Calvin S. Garber Georgia Gosnell
Mark Hargrave, Jr.
Mary Ann B. Henderson Marylu Raushenbush Gardner Taylor
Kenneth Vienneau
23
Non-Profit Org. US Postage
PAID
Rochester, NY Permit No. 1588
Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
(585) 271-1320 www.crcds.edu
Follow us: @crcds Like us: facebook.com/crcds
B u l l e t i n o f t h e C o l g at e R o c h e s t e r C r o z e r D i v i n i t y S c h o o l
Faith. Critically engaged.
Spring / Summer 2015