Wisdom from Rumi

Your grief for what you’ve lost lifts a mirror
up to where you are bravely working.
Expecting the worst, you look, and instead,
here’s the joyful face you’ve been wanting to see.
Your hand opens and closes and opens and closes.
If it were always a fist or always stretched open,
you would be paralysed.
Your deepest presence is in every small contracting and
expanding,
the two as beautifully balanced and coordinated
as birdwings.

~"Bird Wings," by the great Muslim Poet, Rumi

Be like the sun for grace and mercy.
Be like the night to cover others' faults.
Be like running water for generosity.
Be like death for rage and anger.
Be like the Earth for modesty.
Appear as you are.
Be as you appear.

~Rumi

Happy Pride Day!

"Goodness is stronger than evil.
Love is stronger than hate.
Light is stronger than darkness.
Life is stronger than death.
Victory is ours through God who loved us."

~Desmond Tutu

"Love him and let him love you. Do you think anything else under heaven really matters?"

~James Baldwin

"and when we speak we are afraid
our words will not be heard
nor welcomed
but when we are silent
we are still afraid
So it is better to speak
remembering
we were never meant to survive"

~Audre Lorde

"This is my commandment, That you love one another, as I have loved you."

~Jesus

"Hope will never be silent."

~Harvey Milk

"To be afraid is to behave as if the truth were not true."

~Bayard Rustin

"Without community, there is no liberation."

~Audre Lorde

She Dreamed

She dreamed of 

a rampaging river

ripping through the cold night sky

She dreamed of impossible

made practical

and doubtful

giving it a try

She dreamed of worlds clashing

and uniting

of day and and of night

of digging deeper holes

of black and of white

and all the colors, implied
in between

She dreamed 

of magick and mastery

of fear and of flight 

of hope and of horror

despair and of fright

but mostly

hope

Mostly

she dreamed of Hope

.

And then

she woke up

filled her cups with water

and took them 

to the river

and poured them deep within.

RIP, James Lawson

"...For me, nonviolence is that quality that comes out of all the great world religions, the notion that the creative force of the universe is love, that God is love, and that love is all encompassing. Gandhi insists—and I think this is Gandhi’s great contribution—that the creative force of the universe is the force that we humans must learn to exercise because that force is the only force that can cause the human race to do on earth God’s will.

And nonviolence is power. It is not, as I was originally told in college in 1947, just persuasion. Persuasion is a form of power. Aristotle says that power is the capacity to achieve purpose. It is a God given gift of creation to human beings. Nonviolence has its deep roots in the long journey of the human family as so many people operated out of love and truth in spite of all that was raging around them.

As Gandhi and King also said, nonviolence is the science of how you create your own life in the image of God. Nonviolence is the science of how you create a world that practices justice, truth and compassion."

"My mother’s word was you should not retaliate by fighting. At age eight, in the Spring of the fourth grade, I slapped a boy who yelled racist epithets at me on Main Street. And for the first time, when I returned home from this errand for my mother, I told her about the incident.

She continued to do what she was doing in the kitchen and without turning around to face me, responded, “Jimmy, what good did that do?” And there was a long period of silence in the house as I heard her voice telling me who I was–that I was loved, that I belonged to God, and that we were a family of the church, and how important that community was to us, that I did not need to use my fists on anyone. Her last sentence to me was, “Jimmy, there must be a better way.”"

The Reverend James Lawson, September 22, 1928 – June 10, 2024

A Song of Water and of History

Studying history begins

for me, today

with a long look at

the water running

in no particular hurry

in the stream next to me.

It is, I realize,

the same water my grandmother drank

and boiled her snap beans in

It is the same water we crossed to escape torture

and the same water they drowned us in

before we escaped.

It is the Water that gathered all in one place

and separated the Dry Land from the Dry Land

It is the Water over which the Spirit hovered

and within which life began.

And so, I went down to the river to pray.

Down by the riverside.

Where we laid down our sword and shield

where we hung our harps and wept

bleeding history from our face

for the captors demanded we sing a song

of Zion

of Home

of Sanctuary

and there was

no

Sanctuary.

And so, studying history,

I remembered and recalled and imagined

and I built an ark

a boat bound for the promised land

over Jordan's stormy banks

beyond the muddy waters of the Ohio

across the Rio Grande

and like the stream beside me

I sang a song

a song

of Water

and of History

and of that first pair of centipedes that

crawled out of the water

and made a home for the rest of us

and waited for Paradise.

And the Jurors Say...

Just to be clear: IF the verdict is Not Guilty, I will be disappointed, but I won't be in the streets protesting and calling it a sham. IF, on the other hand, he's found guilty, you can count on anger and protests from Trump and his allies.

5:06pm

Down by the Riverside

A version of Down by the Riverside inspired by a band called, I think, A Southern Gospel Revival. From my church service, yesterday. We really enjoy pulling together makeshift bands to do these sorts of songs. Side note: This is my debut of me playing an acoustic bass.

Fundamentalism as a Parasite

 

Stan, over at the conservative Winging It blog, referred to this article (below) from Psychology Today. He, of course, took it to be a destructive, bad bit of information (apparently entirely missing the point - or actually, proving the point), but I found it to be very insightful, especially for followers of Jesus. Jesus, after all, spent his adult life teaching warnings about what might be called the religious fundamentalism in the Pharisees.

Words of wisdom:

In moderation, religious and spiritual practices can be great for a person’s life and mental well-being. But religious fundamentalism—which refers to the belief in the absolute authority of a religious text or leaders*—is almost never good for an individual. This is primarily because fundamentalism discourages any logical reasoning or scientific evidence that challenges its scripture, making it inherently maladaptive.

It is not accurate to call religious fundamentalism a disease, because that term refers to a pathology that physically attacks the biology of a system. But fundamentalist ideologies can be thought of as mental parasites. A parasite does not usually kill the host it inhabits, as it is critically dependent on it for survival. Instead, it feeds off it and changes its behavior in ways that benefit its own existence.

By understanding how fundamentalist ideologies function and are represented in the brain using this analogy, we can begin to understand how to inoculate against them, and potentially, how to rehabilitate someone who has undergone ideological brainwashing—in other words, a reduction in one’s ability to think critically or independently...

One particularly intriguing example of parasitic manipulation occurs when a hairworm infects a grasshopper and seizes its brain in order to survive and self-replicate. This parasite influences its behavior by inserting specific proteins into its brain. Essentially, infected grasshoppers become slaves for parasitic, self-copying machinery.

In much the same way, Christian fundamentalism is a parasitic ideology that inserts itself into brains, commanding individuals to act and think in a certain way—a rigid way that is intolerant to competing ideas. We know that religious fundamentalism is strongly correlated with what psychologists and neuroscientists call "magical thinking," which refers to making connections between actions and events when no such connections exist in reality. Without magical thinking, the religion can’t survive, nor can it replicate itself. Another cognitive impairment we see in those with extreme religious views is a greater reliance on intuitive rather than reflective or analytical thought, which frequently leads to incorrect assumptions since intuition is often deceiving or overly simplistic."

[Welp! -Dan]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201810/how-religious-fundamentalism-hijacks-the-brain

There's a lot there. Thanks, Stan!

* Note on fundamentalism: The word itself means "getting to the root of, the foundations of... getting to the bottom." That's not necessarily problematic, depending on what roots one is speaking of. But the word itself is a relatively new word coined to speak specifically of religious fundamentalism as we know it today, "to denote a strict and unques­tioning set of beliefs linked to literal readings of sacred texts." or...

"Fundamentalist is said (by George McCready Price) to have been first used in print by Curtis Lee Laws (1868-1946), editor of "The Watchman Examiner," a Baptist newspaper. The movement may have roots in the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1910, which drew up a list of five defining qualities of "true believers" which other evangelicals published in a mass-circulation series of books called "The Fundamentals."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/fundamentalism

So, getting to the roots of Jesus' teachings, THAT is something I support and celebrate. But "a strict and unquestioning set of beliefs linked to literal/inerrant sacred texts..." that is problematic, from a rational point of view and, given the problems found in the Bible that Jesus had with the fundamentalist Pharisees, a biblical problem.

Seems to me.

Rise Up, Redux

I've posted this poem before, but it seems all the more appropriate now. Just today, I was listening to a new story about the horrible conditions at Willowbrook State School that was finally shut down in the 1980s (interestingly, in part due to an expose by a very young Geraldo Rivera in the 1970s and RFK condemning the facility in 1965!). At the "school," people with developmental delays and disabilities were warehoused like cattle and treated worse than cattle.

People needed to rise up and demand human rights. Eventually, changes began to come.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook_State_School

The moral arc of the universe is indeed long and sometimes quite slow.

I'm also reminded of the need to rise up now, more than ever, for LGBTQ rights, in a nation whose conservative states are regressing on hard-won human rights wins. We won't go back.

I'm also reminded of the need to rise up as women, their families and allies, and medical personnel are increasingly having limits put upon them, human rights taken away.

Rise up, rise up, rise up! Not that you need my approval...

Rise up wild daughter of the woods

dance and romp

struggle and scream

kick and punch.

Persist. Resist. Insist. Consist

of and within your

own sweet and glorious dragon Self.

Kick at the stones and

split the sky into

one thousand shards of color

bellow in rage

fight

spin

sing.

Or don't.

Just rest and relax or do

whatever

it is your own unchained soul wants.

It IS your life. Live it by your rules.

This poet stands with you and your choices.

A Man and a Bear

A man and a bear met at a bar and he says to the bear I've been near and I've been far and I've seen men and I've seen bears as I've been here and I've been there and I think I'm a good judge of the two and given the choice I'd trust you

Harm and Human Rights as a Measure for Morality

Stan, at his blog, recently addressed a post citing my concern about harm done to innocent people. The gist of his post is that "harm" as a measure for morality, is an imperfect measure. We, as people, won't be able to agree on what is and isn't harmful and HOW harmful something is. This, is, of course, not mistaken. Harm - and the extended notion of human rights - is not an objectively definable measure for morality.

Stan's conclusion, then, of course, was, "But we have the Bible and what GOD tells us, and that's a better measure." (My words, not his, but I do not think it's an unfair representation of the gist of his post. My response to Stan (not one that he posts or will post, but he's probably read - I know this because he routinely responds to my questions, even if he doesn't actually answer them).

Given your premises in this post - that harm is an imperfect measure of morality, that maybe your religious opinions and interpretations of the Bible are more reliable, I think a good-faith point to raise would be to consider the benefits of the notions of "harm" and human rights are to considering moral questions and policies and the PROBLEMS of religious opinion and holy texts. Namely...

1. While it is a given that notions of "harm" and human rights are an inexact measure, they ARE at least a measure.  Further, they are a measure that people could look to regardless if they are conservative or liberal, evangelical Christian, Catholic Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or non-religious. It is a fairly universal measure, and that's not nothing.

2. Broadly speaking, we can see that most religions and secular groups can affirm the notion of human rights and can affirm the notion of the various golden rules, common to all religions - do unto others. In general, that is a widely accepted truth.

3. Further, it's not THAT complex, in broad terms: We should not be able to deprive others of their lives, of their livelihoods, people should not be beaten or raped or have their homes burned down. It's relatively understandable and reasonable and agreeable for most people. Thus, "harm," while an imperfect measure, IS a helpful measure and a fairly universal measure, at least in broad terms.

4. On the other hand, if we're going to appeal to "My Religious Text" or "My religion," we immediately fall into the very difficult problem of WHOSE religious text, WHOSE religion, WHOSE version of that religion, WHOSE interpretation of those texts? What of those who don't SHARE that religion's premises and policies and opinions?

Do you see? There is no universal or objective source or decider to has the authority to make that call/those calls.

5. For my part, as a person of faith and what might be called a religious person, I would want no part of setting up policies based upon my religious beliefs or my views of particular texts wholly to me. To try to force policy based on any one person/set of person/subset of some religion is problematic on the face of it. EVEN for the religious ones who might at some level delight in the notion of a Religious Realm. That would be a great threat to a society, wouldn't you think? The fights and oppression and chaos that would potentially bring?

6. No, on a local, state of national level, I want policies that are rational and can be appealed to on the basis of harm and human rights, because in a multicultural, poly-religious world, that makes the most sense.

I would argue for support human rights and self-determination for LGBTQ folks NOT because I believe it's what God would approve (which I do) but because it's also rational. Of course, free humans should be able to make their own decisions about marriage, who they love, their children, etc... So long as they're not causing harm to others.

I would argue for support of parents raising their children as they deem best not because I think God approves (although I do think that), but because of human rights and self-determination... so long as they're not causing harm to that child.

I would argue for rights of people to move from one place to another - especially if they're escaping danger or starvation/deprivation - NOT because I think the Bible tells us so (although, of course, it does) but because of human rights and harm prevention... So long as they immigrants in question do no harm.

Can you acknowledge the benefit of "harm" and human rights as a policy measure in a multicultural setting, especially as opposed to one group's personal religious opinions?

Atonement in the Gospel of Matthew?

 

Because of many conversations where I've asked traditional evangelical conservative types, "WHERE is Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) in the teachings of Jesus?" ... and I've asked because Jesus said clearly he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized and we have many of the teachings and sermons of Jesus contained in the four Gospel books. IF Jesus was preaching PSA, where is it? And when I've asked that, I've either gotten no answer or a reference to maybe two verses where Jesus uses a phrase that COULD be taken as a reference to PSA (if you squint and hope). So, I'm just doing a pretty quick review of the entirety of the Gospel of Matthew IN SEARCH OF PSA! Here we go!

Matt 1: we have the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew's genealogy)

Matt 2: we find the story of the powerful Jewish king, Herod, who plots to kill baby Jesus and acts monstrously in his position of wealth and power. We also find that Jesus and his family become political refugees, seeking asylum and safety from a mad king. Herod behaves as powerful despots often do: he orders the mass slaughter of babies to defend his seat of power.

“A voice is heard in Ramah,
    weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
    and refusing to be comforted,
    because they are no more.”

Matt 3: We are introduced to John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin. John is already getting in trouble for calling the Pharisees/Sadducees (the religious leaders) "You brood of vipers!" and worse. Later on we find that John has a heart for preaching good news to the poor and marginalized. In trying to determine if Jesus was "The One," he asked if he was preaching to the poor (Jesus was, of course). John is a wild, simple-living country preacher who preached repentance, but the main target for his rebukes was the Pharisees, the Sadducees and King Herod Antipas (the son of Jesus' King Herod, the Baby Killer)

Matt 4: Jesus tempted in the desert. Jesus begins preaching, citing Isaiah "for the people living in darkness have seen a great light..." Isaiah, to the Jews of the time and today, would be known for calling the people to not be consumed by wealth, but to follow God by defending the poor and marginalized. The very "worship" that Israel did was condemned as worthless, if not being an outgrowth of defending justice for the poor and marginalized.

Jesus begins his preaching with a call to repentance and welcome to the "kingdom of God," the realm of God, the beloved community.

"Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues,
proclaiming the good news of the kingdom,
and healing every disease and sickness among the people."

This "good news of the kingdom" is a consistent message/theme from Jesus and Jesus expounds upon it repeatedly. In Luke we see that Jesus came to preach this good news to the poor and marginalized. The realm of God is Jesus' most mentioned theme.

Jesus calls his disciples from the normal working class people of the day. People who struggled to get by.

Matt 5-7: Sermon on the Mount. THE single most complete passage that we'd recognize as a sermon.

Not once in this most complete sermon do we have a theme of substitutionary atonement (a theory that some Christians developed over the 1200-1400s).

We do see simple, gracious living promoted, the Light of God in a dark world.
In the context of John the Baptist's and eventually Jesus' ongoing rebukes of the religious legalists, Jesus makes clear he's not come to take away the laws, but to fulfill them, to help them be understood rightly.
We see gracious, humble ally-ship with the poor being taught (the people Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to)

We see simple living promoted and warnings of wealth.
We see Jesus telling us clearly that we can recognize the followers of God by the way they act (their "good fruit") which is made clear in many places that this includes how we ally with and for "the least of these."

Matt 8-9: Jesus heals an "unclean" leper

Jesus heals the servant of a Roman centurion (the "enemy")

Jesus heals many others (and a reminder that the physical and mentally ill in that time would be considered unclean and marginalized and would typically be poor and marginalized)

Jesus is rebuked by the religious for "daring" to forgive someone (again setting their legalism up and against Jesus' grace)

The religious legalists continue to snipe at Jesus for hanging out with the marginalized and unclean "sinners." (again, setting their legalism up and against Jesus' grace)

Again and again, more healing and grace and welcome from Jesus for the "sinners" and marginalized. More sniping/attacks from the legalists. Making for a clear context between the protagonist, God, and the way of Grace in opposition to the antagonists, the Legalists, and the way of deadly and exclusionary rule-following, rules that ultimately serve to further marginalize the poor and marginalized (including the women, always).
The legalists begin literally demonizing Jesus, saying he was of the Devil. Sounds familiar, yes?

Matt 10: Jesus sends out his disciples to preach and share with the Jews (specifically), telling them:

As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

and giving some simple living instructions and instructions on grace. "Freely you have received, freely give..."

Jesus warns them that the Legalists will attack and oppress them, but to go, anyway. His instructions (other than the warnings about the legalists) are always about welcome and grace and forgiveness.

Giving a cup of cold water to one of these...

A third of the way through Matthew and no mention of PSA. Many mentions of "the realm of God," service to/ally-ship with the poor and marginalized, and simple, grace-full living, of welcoming.

Matt 11: Jesus and John the Baptist stories. John confirms that Jesus is preaching to the poor and healing, his "evidence" that Jesus was of God. More preaching about the realm of God and the attacks against it (clearly a reference to the Legalists):

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence and violent people have been raiding it....

Jesus confronts the Legalists:

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’  The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

The "THEY" who are saying these things aren't the regular "sinners," the poor and marginalized, the sexually active or others typically demonized. It's the Legalists.

Jesus condemns some cities for their refusal to repent, but doesn't give details. But he does compare them to Sodom and Gomorrah, which the Bible says were condemned because they were arrogant and didn't care for the poor and marginalized.

In contrast to the Legalists and the burdens that weighed people down with, Jesus emphasizes the gentle, welcoming grace and love of God's way:

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Matt 12-13: Jesus continues to be rebuked by and to rebuke the Legalists. They condemn Jesus for "breaking the law" of the Sabbath rest, but Jesus reminds them ("fulfills the law") that the Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around. God is not a legalist cop seeking to punish an endless number of people for endless transgressions. God is a welcoming Lover, seeking to give rest and support.

More confrontations of the Legalists against Jesus and vice versa. Jesus again cites the Prophet Isaiah and his welcoming beloved community where the poor are not oppressed. MULTIPLE rebukes against the legalists.

Still no Substitutionary Atonement mentions.

Jesus' teaches in parables (explaining that the Legalists will not understand them, so long as they are legalists and not grace-followers/accepters.)

Matt 14-15: Jesus feeds the large crowd of his followers, the poor and working class who followed Jesus and listened to his teachings. Or rather, the disciples feed them, as instructed by Jesus.

Jesus walks on water. Jesus heals the sick.

Jesus confrontations with the Legalists increase and get more serious. Jesus heals more people, including the gentile Canaanite woman (triply unclean, being a woman and a gentile and an enemy of Israel!). Jesus allows her to teach him about inclusion and grace.

Jesus again cites the radical Isaiah, who condemned the legalists. Jesus feeds another large crowd of the poor and marginalized and working class who followed him.

Matt 16-20: More conflicts and rebukes of the legalists, who have begun actively testing him, looking for justification to have him killed. Jesus tells on them/tells his disciples it won't be long. More healing. Transfiguration.

Jesus teaches more about grace and humility and welcoming/becoming like a little child.

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

Jesus speaks about the limitless nature of forgiveness and grace.

Jesus speaks about divorce (don't do it). Jesus tells the rich young man that for him to be saved, he'd need to give up his wealth. Jesus clarifies/emphasizes: "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven."

More parables. Parables about money/wealth and workers, which concludes: "So the last will be first, and the first will be last"

THEN, FINALLY, about 2/3 through the Gospel of Matthew, we find ONE line where Jesus utters a phrase that COULD be taken to be referring to some kind of atonement. But it was not part of one of the sermons Jesus taught (again, Jesus came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized!), but in a private conversation where the POINT being discussed was humility within the realm of God.

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers [James/John]. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Now, IF Jesus had repeatedly, in his sermons and teachings to the poor and least of these had talked about the need for a blood payment to atone (as the ONLY way God would be able/willing to forgive people), THEN this one passage might be taken to speaking of that. But that doesn't happen. Period. But absent that, this seems, on the face of it, to be talking about why we should strive to be humble, not seek to be great. For even God in Jesus came to serve and to pour out his life in service to others. Absent any other mention of (let alone emphasis upon) atonement, I don't see this being perforce understood that way.

Matt 21-22: Jesus enters Jerusalem in the final escalation between the grace of the protagonist, Jesus and the legalism of the antagonists, the Legalists. Jesus arrives humbly upon a mule, not as a triumphant warrior king. The working class and poor who followed Jesus celebrated his arrival.

Jesus enters the temple and sees the moneychangers cheating (especially/specifically the poor) inside the temple and drives/chases them out with a handmade whip. More confrontation with the Legalists. Jesus sides with the humble children (the least of these) over and against the wishes of the powerful legalists.

More parables. Legalists plot to arrest Jesus but fear the regular people, who were his ardent followers. Some of the parables are speaking of the powerful who will abuse the humble King. When the rich and powerful won't come to the dinner, the King welcomes the poor and marginalized, in rebuke of the rich and powerful.

More confrontations and plots from the legalists. Jesus teaches the simple, "greatest commandments" - Love God, Love people.

Matt 23-25: Jesus gives the Legalists a great deal of hell. Rebukes and condemnation for them and their legalism ways.

More parables, including the Sheep and the Goats, in which Jesus makes clear that HE is the least of these. "In as much as you do it to them, you do it to me."

Matt 26-28: The Last Supper. Here, in this private conversation with the disciples, we have the SECOND of only two potential mentions of Atonement. In sharing the supper (in his typical, humble, grace-full way), Jesus says:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Once again, IF in the sermons of "good news for the poor and marginalized" Jesus had clearly mentioned something like atonement, THEN we might could envision that this second sentence in a private conversation COULD be referencing atonement as the modern religionists mean it. But we just don't have that. Period.

From this point on, we have the final kangaroo court of the Legalists who are enraged at Jesus' way of grace and inclusion and failure to follow the rules that they thought were important. Then Jesus Roman trial and capitol punishment torture/execution by more people in power (although, in his defense, the cowardly Roman governor, Pilate, at least had the sense to say "I don't see he's done anything wrong..." and yet, he still had him executed) .

In summation, we don't have ONE single sermon where ANYTHING like the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory (theorized by humans hundreds of years after Jesus' death and resurrection) in the canon of Jesus' teachings to the poor and marginalized as found in Matthew.

IF we assume that Jesus (who, once again, literally said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized) would have, at some point in at least ONE set of his teachings, seen fit to at least give a passing mention to something like atonement as theorized by some, it would be there in his words in his sermons/teachings. It's literally not.

What we do see is a gospel (good news to the poor and marginalized, remember) full of words of welcome, grace, forgiveness, acceptance and love to all, beginning with the poor and marginalized AND we see a gospel full of warnings and rebukes to the legalists, the rich and powerful. The legalists, the rich and powerful are literally the antagonists in the Gospels of Jesus - the warning to NOT be like THAT.

And while the "regular people," the poor, marginalized and working class are called to repentance and to join the Realm of God, the Beloved Community of Grace, they are never rebuked exceedingly harshly. The warnings of hell and condemnation are nearly exclusively (exclusively?) for the rich, powerful legalists.

fyi.