Spring/Summer2015

Ins ide :

� Rev. Paul

Brandeis

Raushenbush,

HuffingtonPost ExecutiveReligion Editor,

delivers

dynamic

Commencement

address

� Transhumanism

or

Ultrahumanism?

Teilhard de

Chardin on

Technology,

Religion and

Evolution

by Ilia Delio,

OSF, Ph.D.

Plus :

+ BMTS Echoes is back!

+ Alumni/ae Out in the World

+ 2015 Fall Lecture Preview

Bullet in of the Colgate Rochester Crozer D iv in i t y School

Faith. Critically engaged.

Join 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: Faith. Critically engaged. is a bi-annual publication of Colgate Rochester CrozerDivinity School 1100 South Goodman Street,Rochester, New York, 14620.

PUBLISHER: Colgate Rochester CrozerDivinity School (CRCDS)

EDITOR: Michele Kaider-Korol

DESIGN:MillRace Design

PRINTING:Cohber Press

About this issue:

This April, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity Schoolwelcomed more than a dozen accomplished,talented and inspirational thought leaders to ourcampus. Honored guest lecturers this Springincluded Sr. Ilia Delio, Ph.D., Director of CatholicStudies at Georgetown University, Gail O’Day,Ph.D., Dean and Professor of New Testament andPreaching at Wake Forest University, and PatrickCheng, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Historical andSystematic Theology at the Episcopal Divinity Schoolin Cambridge, MA. Local guests included Michael A.Philipson, Co-Founder & CCO of Greentopia ofRochester, Jan McDonald, Executive Director ofRochester Roots, Inc. and Rev. Rachel McGuire(CRCDS ‘04), Ph.D.

In May, Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, ExecutiveReligion Editor at the Huffington Post, delivered anexceptionally inspiring Commencement address tothe graduates of the CRCDS Class of 2015. Rev.Raushenbush’s speech, “Even Greater Things ThanThese,” received so many accolades and requestsfor reprints that we’ve included it, in its entirety, inthis issue.

We hope you enjoy this publication and all the articles,insights and information it contains. It tells the story of avibrant 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 CRCDSmission possible. On behalf of all our students and thethousands of people served by CRCDS graduates,thank you for your support.

CRCDSFaith. Critically engaged.

Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: “Even Greater Things Than These”

CRCDS Student in Action: Holly Strickland

Ilia Delio, OSF, Ph.D.:Transhumanism or Ultrahumanism? Teilhard de Chardin on Technology, Religion and Evolution

Dr. Sally Dodgson (CRDS ‘84):A Distinguished Alumna’s Perspective

BMTS

Alumni/ae Out in the World

Fall Lecture Preview

Horizon Society

Memorial & Appreciation Gifts

In Memoriam

4

7

8

12

13

14

16

17

18

23

Spring/Summer2015

3

Rev. Paul BrandeisRaushenbush, great-grandson of “Father ofthe Social Gospel” WalterRauschenbusch andgreat-grandson ofSupreme Court JusticeLouis Brandeis,captivated a sizableaudience at the CRCDSCommencement exerciseson May 16, 2015. Twodays later, he wrote aHuffington Post articleentitled, “It’s a GreatTime to be Graduatingfrom a Mainline,Progressive, Christian,Divinity School.” Thepiece sparkedtremendous interest,garnering 5,500 “likes”and almost a thousandshares. Thank you, Rev.Raushenbush, forhonoring our incrediblegraduates and foracknowledging the vitaland enduring mission ofColgate Rochester CrozerDivinity School.

To President McMickle, Board of Trustees, esteemed faculty, beloved family and friends, andmost of all to you students—I want to say what a profound honor it is to be with you today tocelebrate your graduation from Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

This is a major accomplishment. People who haven’t been through Divinity School don’t knowhow hard it actually is. It’s not all classes on walking on water and turning water into wine. Mythree 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 thesame 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 theologiansyou have read and the scriptures you studied.

Your time together, while challenging, has made you open to future encounters, when peoplewill need you to stand with them in solidarity, just as you stood by one another during this timeof theological training.

Whether your vocation involves teaching, preaching, chaplaincy, creating art or organizing forsocial justice, by the very fact that you have gone through the transforming experience ofColgate Rochester Crozier Divinity School, you will, for many, be the embodiment of the GoodNews 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 ofhope in this uncertain time.

Of course, it’s an odd week to be graduating from amainline, progressive, Christian, Divinity School. AtBaccalaureate, Dr. McMickle referenced the major studythat came out from Pew on the religious landscape inAmerica. The startling headline was that the number ofAmericans who call themselves Christians has declinedby 8 percent over the last 8 years.

According to the data, the biggest ‘losers’ were theCatholic Church and mainline Protestants, while thenumbers of those who identify as Evangelicals heldsteady or even gained a point. Ever quick to misread a

“We are all part of the grand Christian story that stretchesback 2,000 years. . .CRCDS has played an oversized rolein that history by training some of the most importantleaders in this country and around the world.”

4

”As newly mintedgraduates, you are thefuture of our faith. Andthat gives me a greatdeal of hope in thisuncertain time.”

“Even Greater Things Than These”

Rev . Paul Brande is RaushenbushExecut ive Rel ig ion Ed i tor , Huff ington Post

text, some of the most prominent Evangelicals werecrowing about how the study proved the superiority oftheir conservative Christian faith.

The problem with that argument is that conservativeChristian rhetoric and politics are part of the reasongiven by many of the people who have left the church.

The most striking news in the report is the confirmationof the extraordinary rise of those who don’t identify withany religion, also known as the ‘nones’, and this isespecially true among young people. One in threemillennials do not identify with any religion.

In preparing for this day, I asked a younger friend ofmine who is not associated with any faith tradition todo a little word association game with me. When I saidthe word Christian he immediately rattled off: “Closedminded, only out for themselves, wanting to tell otherswhat to do.” And I said to him, “But you know that I ama pastor,” and he said, “Oh, yeah, but you aredifferent,” meaning that I didn’t represent what “real”Christians are like.

Sociologist Robert Putnam at Harvard and PoliticalScientist David Campbell at Notre Dame wrote a piececalled God and Caesar in America: Why Mixing Religionand Politics Is Bad for Both in which they explain: "To(millennials), ‘religion’ means ‘Republican, ’intolerant,’and ‘homophobic,’ and since those traits do notrepresent their views, they do not see themselves—orwish to be seen by their peers—as religious."

A 2014 study by Public Religion Research Instituteshowed that fully one out of three young people lefttheir faith because they perceived it to be hostile toLGBT people.

I want to make clear, most of these young ‘nones’ arenot atheists. In fact, many of them claim a belief in God.The problem is that they perceive the church to behostile to them or to those whom they love, unwilling toengage their questions as they seek for meaning, and/orindifferent to the deep and often systemic injustice theyare 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 thereused to be. Rather, it disturbs me because so manypeople have been hurt by a horrible lie about who Jesusis, and what his church is about. It is up to us to go outthere and reclaim, and proclaim, the authentic Gospelof love and liberation so that at least people willunderstand who Jesus is, and why we continue tocommit our lives to follow him in the 21st century.

And in that I am hopeful today because you all aresitting in front of me and will be going out into the worldjust like another student who celebrated his graduationfrom this institution in 1886. My great-grandfather’s first

call out of seminary was to a small German Baptistchurch in New York City. He went down there withoutmuch sense of their actual lives and later explained:“My idea then was to save souls in the ordinarilyaccepted sense.” Yet, the people he ministered toradically changed his life and expanded his ownunderstanding of the reach of the Gospel.

Rauschenbusch, like you, received his theologicaleducation in a time of great change and great suffering.America in the late 19th century, like now, was marredby enormous disparities between the rich and the poorwith little or no resources for the ‘least of these’. In thattime, as now, many of those on the margins felt that thechurch was of no use to them, or actively workingagainst them as they struggled to feed their children onstarvation wages. Yetthe longerRauschenbusch was inministry with them, themore he knew that hisplace was alongsidethose suffering,whether they weremembers of hiscongregation, orChristians at all.Reflecting on thattime, he rememberedmost of all thefunerals of thechildren in hisneighborhood whodied simply becausethey were poor.Rauschenbuschlamented: “Oh thechildren’s funerals!They gripped my heart—the small boxes. Ialways left thinking—why did these childrenhave to die?”

Rauschenbusch used the training he had received herein Rochester to go back to the Bible and re-read thescripture with eyes wet with the tears of loss and sufferingof the poor, the hungry and the oppressed with whom hewas ministering—and that was the genesis of all hisfuture work. He had learned the Lord’s Prayer at hisparents’ table and learned how to approach the text inthe seminary classroom. But, only after his time buryingthe poor children could he really hear the clarion call of‘Thy Kingdom Come, on earth as in heaven’ and join insoulful and prophetic solidarity with those who neededGod’s will and justice here, and now, and not in somefuture and faraway place after death.

“It is up to us to goout there andreclaim, andproclaim, theauthentic Gospelof love andliberation so thatat least people willunderstand whoJesus is, and whywe continue tocommit our livesto follow him inthe 21st century.”

5

This is just one story of the kind of Christian thisinstitution has graduated over the years. It is an exampleof a progressive faith that took seriously the lives ofpeople and their struggles and stood in solidarity withthem. It was fueled by a deep spirituality thataccompanies such a journey of faith and if you want toreally get to understand Rauschenbusch I suggest youlook at his prayers. This tradition of progressive,prophetic, and spiritual faith is found in other iconicalums of CRCDS such as Howard Thurman and MartinLuther King. They offer us inspiring examples ofChristians convicted and transformed by the very peoplewhom they encountered in their ministries, resulting indeep spiritual witness and prophetic fire.

Yet I hope thatCRCDS will avoidlooking backwistfully to the pastas the good olddays. To reallyfollow in theirfootsteps is to facetowards the future.Our work is tobuild upon thefoundations of thekingdom of Godthat we haveinherited fromthem, and to lettheir lives inspireus to do evenmore and to bendthat arc of theuniverse evenfurther towardsJustice. Our faith isforward-looking,and mandated byJesus himself.

In the Gospel ofJohn, Jesus says to his disciples: “Truly, I tell you, the onewho believes in me will also do the works that I do and,in fact, will do greater works than these, because I amgoing to the Father. “

Jesus was telling his disciples then, and telling us today,to avoid the temptation to look to the past as the onlylocus of the important work of God, instead, we are tolook forward, and continue to bring the spirit of Christand to do the work of Jesus in the world today. And whatis 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 doingthat right now.

From my vantage point as religion editor at TheHuffington Post, I see what Christians from around theworld are doing and actually feel this is the most excitingtime for progressive faith that I can remember in mylifetime. Christians are on the front lines demanding thatBlack Lives Matter in Ferguson, Cleveland, New YorkCity and Baltimore, holding communion services at theborder and demanding a just and merciful immigrationpolicy, dedicating themselves to caring for God’screation, proclaiming the full humanity of LGBT peopleand honoring their relationships as holy, showingsolidarity with our Christian brothers and sisterspersecuted in the middle East, leading interfaithengagement and standing up against Islamophobia andAnti-Semitism, we are demanding gender equality bothin and out of the church, naming the moral outrage ofthe growing gap between the rich and the poor, andwaging peace between peoples around the world. Everyday I see the continuing spiritual power of the Gospelwielded by women and men who are healing brokensouls and transforming systems that oppress.

This is the Jesus movement I want to introduce to peoplewho feel that the church doesn’t care about them. I wantthem to know about the exciting things that arehappening right now, including all of the ways that youare gong to be doing ministry in the world. Let’s go outthere and shout it from the mountaintops, because it issuch good news.

We are all part of the grand Christian story that stretchesback 2,000 years and today, with this graduation, weturn and look out into the future with courage and hope.CRCDS has played an oversized role in that history bytraining some of the most important leaders in thiscountry and around the world. It is crucial that thisschool be part of our future, creating more leaders likeyou graduates. Believe me, they didn’t ask me to saythis, but two of my largest contributions every year are tomy seminary, Union, and CRCDS. Let’s all find ways tobuild up this great institution—invite students to applywho you think will thrive here, find donors who value thekinds of values that you have learned here—let’s makesure that CRCDS does even greater things in the future.

And one final hope for you graduates, and to all of uswho are attempting to follow in the way of Jesus:maintain your spiritual practice even as you do the workfor justice in the world. Continue to strengthen yourpersonal connection with Christ. Pray, meditate, taketime to breathe every day. Find space for joy. Abide inJesus, so that you might do his work and even greater.And may God bless your ministry as you live into andcreate the future of our faith.

“From my vantagepoint as religioneditor at TheHuffington Post, Isee what Christiansfrom around theworld are doingand actually feelthis is the mostexciting time forprogressive faiththat I canremember in mylifetime.”

6

7

In Action

It is often said that parents are their child’s first teachers. Holly Strickland, CRCDSM.Div. student and mother of five, says she was blessed with wonderful parents who taught herhow, with the grace of God, to turn everyday living occurrences into rich learning experiencesin a home filled with “church, travel and books.”

The oldest of seven children, Holly was expected to set a good example for her siblings, all ofwhom went to college or pursued professional careers.

Holly, an avid reader, book collector and writer, says her father’s job as a bookmobile driver forthe Elmira Library System was the catalyst for her family’s life-long love of reading, providingthe family with a seemingly unending supply of books. Holly’s love of books inspired her mem-bership in the Family Reading Partnership of Chemung Valley, which promotes readingappreciation and family literacy.

Holly says her parents deeply admired the courage and hard work of those in the Civil Rightsmovement and strongly believed in sharing their time, talents and blessings with people inneed. 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 siblingscontinue her parents’ legacy of love and giving through community service, volunteering, andhelping 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 lifeare her grandchildren, Kennedy and Emerson.

In addition to her commitment to faith and family, Holly worked as an educator and publicschool administrator for 42 years. She recently retired as the Assistant Principal at Ernie DavisMiddle School in Elmira, New York in order to pursue her studies at CRCDS. She is extremelyactive in her community, serving as Vice President of the Elmira YWCA Board of Directors, VicePresident of AIM (Alliance of Inter-denomination Ministers), and as Board Member of the Cos-mopolitan Club, an organization that mentors middle school students. Holly was recentlyelected 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 beenovercoming self-doubt and learning to listen to that “still, small voice inside that orders mysteps.” Acknowledging God’s call to follow Him, she says, was a defining moment in her life,one that led her directly to CRCDS.

Holly Str ickland (M .D iv . )

CRCDS Student

“Education isthe mostpowerfulweapon whichyou can use tochange theworld.”

—Nelson Mandela

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

Transhumanism is a term used to describe the enhancementof human life through technology, seeking to overcomebiological limits. Teilhard de Chardin has been described as a transhumanist but a closer examination of his ideas reveals hisdistinction 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 thepresence of nature. Today the great and the first philosophical challenge is to think technology. . .and to thinkourselves in the presence of technology.” Technology has become more than creative inventions for practicalpurposes; it has become the mirror of our deepest desires. Transhumanism is “the belief that humans must wresttheir biological destiny from evolution’s blind process of random variation and adaptation and move to the nextstage as a species, favoring the use of science and technology to overcome biological limitations.” The inventorRay Kurzweil claims that the human species will become extinct in the not too distant future (2030), since we areevolving 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. Teil-hard, he claims, envisioned a cyber world as the next level of evolution, anticipating current trends intranshumanist philosophy and inventions. But is Teilhard’s transhumanism on the same level of Kurzweil andothers who anticipate a postbiological era marked by techno sapiens? Here I will discuss Teilhard as a scientistand visionary who saw technology as a positive step in the whole evolutionary process. He described the noos-phere as the next step in evolution, a level of global mind that leads not to trans-humanism but toultra-humanism, a deepening of human life through technologically-mediated collective consciousness. I willhighlight Teilhard’s view of ultrahumanism and compare his view with current transhumanist trends. Finally, I willexplore whether or not technology aids or thwarts the process of Christogenesis which Teilhard saw as the coreof evolution.

Teilhard understood the science of evolution as the explanation for the physical world and viewed Christian lifewithin the context of evolution. Evolution, he claimed, is ultimately a progression towards consciousness; thematerial world contains within it a dynamism toward spirit. Biological evolution begins on the level of physicalconvergence or joining of disparate elements to form new entities; life prefers increased life. Throughout itsprocess it takes advantage of what it chances to find and puts it to its own use. In the course of evolution, the

8

I l i a Del io , OSF, Ph .D .

Transhumanism or Ultrahumanism?Te ilhard de Chard in on Technology , Rel ig ion and Evolut ion

— Excerpted with permission from Theology and Science (2012)

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 theevolution of mind. He did not view mind apart frommatter but mind is the withinness of matter from thebeginning of evolution.

For Teilhard, consciousness is active at all levels ofreality. The mental enters the material reality in a naturalway. He considered matter and consciousness not as twosubstances or two different modes of existence. . .but astwo aspects of the same cosmic stuff. The within is themental aspect and the without is the physical aspect ofthe same stuff, physical and psychic are co-related in theevolutionary movement of convergence and complexity.He links evolution of the mind with the concept of physi-cal and psychic energy. The human person is integrallypart of evolution in that we rise from the process, but inreflecting on the process we stand apart from it. Hedefines reflection as “the power acquired by a con-sciousness to turn in upon itself, to take possession ofitself as an object...no longer merely to know, but toknow that one knows.” Following Julian Huxley, Teilhardwrote that the human person “is nothing else than evo-lution become conscious of itself.” The human person is“the point of emergence in nature, at which this deepcosmic evolution culminates and declares itself.” Ultimately, Teilhard indicated, evolution is the unfoldingof consciousness through the dual processes of com-plexification and convergence. His use of the word“convergence” differed markedly from current use inbiological, especially evolutionary, science. When evolutionary scientists speak of “convergence” they generally are referring to the phenomenon of similartypes of organisms evolving in a parallel fashion fromdifferent evolutionary lines of development. For Teilhard,convergence is a grouping of cells in a living body or agrouping of individuals under the influence of a greatlove. Convergence is the ongoing process of complexifi-cation and the process of convergence and complexity isthe unfolding of consciousness in evolution.

Teilhard recognized that there is a unifying influence in the whole evolutionary process, a centrating factorthat holds the entire process together and moves itforward toward greater complexity and unity. Theprocess of evolution from the physical sciences may be one of cosmogenesis and biogenesis but from thepoint of Christian faith it is “Christogenesis,” a “coming-to-be” of Christ. His faith led him to positChrist, the future fullness of the whole evolutionaryprocess, as the “centrating principle,” the “pleroma”

and “Omega point” where the individual and collectiveadventure of humanity finds its end and fulfillment, andwhere the consummation of the world and consumma-tion of God converge. What we anticipate as the futureof evolution is “the mysterious synthesis of the uncreatedand the created—the grand completion of the universein God.”

Teilhard did not view evolution with a naïve realism butwas acutely aware of internal forces that could thwartthe direction of evolution toward the Omega Point. In anarticle on “The Directions and Conditions of the Future”he had begun to worry not so much about the humanrace blowing itself up or a pandemic disease wiping outall human life but the problem of enough food to prop-erly feed the world’s exploding population, which hethen predicted would reach 2.5 billion within the next

quarter century or so. He was concerned whether or notan expanding population would be able to live amiablyand in peace with each other under conditions which heno longer described as “convergence” but “externalcompression.” He saw the choice to be between politicaltotalitarianism or some new breakthrough into a newstate of human “unanimization,” the emergence of an“ultra-humanity.” Hence he did not see evolution as aforward movement without resistance. Rather the forcesof history acting on humanity must either complexify itcausing humanity to evolve or force humanity to wither.

Teilhard described humanity as facing an insurmount-able “wall” and the human reaction as being either theextroversion of “escape” or else the introverted pes-simism of Sartre’s “existentialism.” The evolutionaryvigor of humankind, he indicated, can wither away if weshould lose our impulse, or worse, develop a distaste forever-increased growth in complexity–consciousness. Thedanger he worried about most is that humanity, in losingits faith in God, would also lose what he called its “Zestfor Living.” He questioned whether or not the humanrace having experienced “a scientific justification of faithin progress was now being confronted by an accumula-

9

Technology has become more thancreative inventions for practicalpurposes; it has become the mirrorof our deepest desires.

tion of scientific evidence pointing to the reverse—thespecies doomed to extinction.” The only solution he indi-cated is not “an improvement of living conditions”—asdesirable as that might be; rather Teilhard saw the innerpressures of history as the catalyst for evolution towardmore being. The evolution of humanity therefore is notonly an evolution of consciousness; rather it is a newphase of life in the universe toward unification of mindby which the whole cosmic evolution progresses towardgreater unity.

The evolutionary ascent of human beings occurs instages, according to Teilhard. In the first stage of its evo-lution, humanity expanded in both quantity (number ofpersons) and in quality (psychological and spiritualdevelopment). During the long period of expansion,physical and cultural differences isolated the peoples of

the Earth from each other as they spread to fill the Earth.At the beginning of our present century, with most of thehabitable surface of the Earth occupied, the races beganto converge. Teilhard points to the heightening organo-psychic human development (that is, the process ofsocialization) which began 30,000 years ago, as anindication that evolution marches on. The birth of thetribes, of the empires, and of the modern states is theoffspring of the great movement of evolution towardssocialization or collectivization. We have reached theend of the expanding or “diversity” stage and are nowentering the contracting or “unifying” stage. The humanis on the threshold of a critical phase of super-human-ization: the increasingly rapid growth in the humanworld of the forces of collectivization, the “superarrangement” or the mega-synthesis. At this point, Teilhard’s theory runs counter to Darwin’s in that thesuccess of humanity’s evolution in the second stage willnot be determined by “survival of the fittest” but by ourown capacity to converge and unify. The most importantinitial evolutionary leap of the convergence stage is theformation of what he called “the noosphere.” In his Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard describes the noosphere:

The idea is that the Earth [is] not only becomingcovered by myriads of grains of thought, butbecoming enclosed in a single thinking envelopeso as to form a single vast grain of thought onthe sidereal scale, the plurality of individualreflections grouping themselves together andreinforcing one another in the act of a singleunanimous reflection.

The noosphere is a psycho-social process, a planetaryneo-envelope essentially linked with the biosphere inwhich it has its root, yet distinguished from it. It is a newstage for the renewal of life and not a radical break withbiological life. Before the human emerged, it was naturalselection that set the course of morphogenesis; afterhumans it is the power of invention that begins to graspthe evolutionary reigns. If there is no connection betweennoogenesis and biogenesis, Teilhard said, then theprocess of evolution has halted and man is an absurdand “erratic object in a disjointed world.” Teilhard envi-sioned the noosphere like “the living membrane which isstretched like a film over the lustrous surface of the starwhich holds us.” Just as Earth once covered itself with afilm of interdependent living organisms which we call thebiosphere, so mankind's combined achievements areforming a global network of collective mind. Hence, thenoosphere is a sphere of collective consciousness whichpreserves and communicates everything precious, activeand 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 super-convergence and unification. The formation of thenoosphere begins with a global network of trade, communications, accumulation and exchange of knowl-edge, cooperative research, mixture of populations andproduction of energy—all go into the weaving of thematerial support for a sphere of collective thought.Although mass communication technology was just begin-ning to develop in Teilhard’s time, he appreciated the roleof machines in the emergence of the noosphere. In hisFuture of Man he wrote of “the extraordinary network ofradio and television communications which, perhapsanticipating the direct intercommunication of brainsthrough the mysterious power of telepathy, already link usall 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 thenext step of evolution. He writes:

Here I am thinking of those astonishing electronicmachines (the starting-point and hope of theyoung science of cybernetics), by which ourmental capacity to calculate and combine is rein-forced and multiplied by a process and to adegree that herald as astonishing advances inthis direction as those that optical science hasalready produced for our power of vision.

10

Teilhard’s theory runs counter toDarwin’s in that the success ofhumanity’s evolution in the secondstage will not be determined by“survival of the fittest” but by ourown capacity to converge and unify.

His anticipation of what computers would do for us wastwofold: first, they would complete our brains throughinstantaneous retrieval of information around the globeso that what one person lacks is immediately providedby another, and second, they would improve our brainsby facilitating processes more quickly than our ownresources can achieve them. Teilhard’s vision of thenoosphere as cybernetic mind anticipated the emer-gence of cyberspace as a field of global mind throughinterconnecting computer pathways. With the rise oftechnology he saw a forward movement of spiritualenergy, a maximization of consciousness and a complex-ification of relationships. Technology extends theoutreach of human activity but it depends on a broaderuse of human activity and how humans control psychic,spiritual energy needs and powers.

Transhumanism is a term used today to describeenhancement or alteration of the human person throughbiomedical technology, genetics, artificial intelligence andnanotechnology. The World Transhumanist Associationsees technology as the panacea for human ills and limits.However, some scholars lament the enlarging role ofmachines in human socialization. The philosophical and religious heritage of the west, according to NaomiGoldenberg, leaves westerners predisposed to formharmful attitudes toward the technologies overtaking theirlives. This heritage has taught us “that human life is arough copy of something out there—something better,wiser and purer.” As a result, westerners possess a culturalproclivity to respond to machines not as tools to use butas role models to emulate. As people act upon this proclivity, she states, the isolation and loneliness ofmodern life are being increased. We are becoming morecomfortable with machines than with people. Is technol-ogy enhancing human socialization or alienation?

Teilhard saw the role of technology as one of conver-gence, that is, a drawing together of hearts and minds,forming a collective mind. Although the noosphere is thelayer of global mind, it is not an intellectualization butan amorization of human life that is unified throughtechnology. This is a radically different view from con-temporary transhumanists who see technology not as ameans of collective unification but as self-perfection. Ray Kurzweil, for example, anticipates an increasinglyvirtual life in which the bodily presence of human beingswill become irrelevant. Kurzweil claims that machine-dependent humans will eventually create the virtualreality of eternal life, possibly by “neurochips” or simplyby becoming totally machine dependent. As we movebeyond mortality through computational technology, ouridentity will be based on our evolving mind file. We will

be software not hardware. By replacing living bodieswith virtual bodies capable of transferral and duplica-tion, we will become disembodied superminds. RobertGeraci states, “our new selves will be infinitely replica-ble, allowing them to escape the finality of death.” Thisfuturistic “post-biological” computer-based immortality isone also envisioned by Hans Moravec who claims thatthe advent of intelligent machines (machina sapiens) willprovide humanity with “personal immortality by mindtransplant.” Moravec suggests that the mind will be ableto be downloaded into a machine through the “eventualreplacement of brain cells by electronic circuits andidentical input-output functions.” Michael Benediktbelieves that cyberspace is an extension of religiousdesires to escape earthly existence. The “image of theHeavenly City,” he writes, “is. . .a religious vision ofcyberspace.” The pursuit of cybernetic heaven meansthat we will be able to overcome the limitations of thebody, including suffering and death—and attain artificialeschatological paradise. Thus just as human beingsmust give up their bodies to attain the heavenly city, so

too artificial intelligence transhumanists view relinquish-ing the human body for artificial mediums as a positivestep in the evolution of techno sapiens.

Daniel Crevier argues that artificial intelligence is con-sistent with the Christian belief in resurrection andimmortality. Since some kind of support is required forthe information and organization that constitutes ourminds, Crevier indicates, a material, mechanicalreplacement for the mortal body will suffice. Christ wasresurrected in a new body, he states, why not amachine? Antje Jackelén notes that the developmenttoward techno sapiens might be regarded as a steptoward the kingdom of God. What else can we say whenthe lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, and thedead are at least virtually alive? The requirements of theGospel and the aims of technical development seem tobe in perfect harmony. Geraci states: “Only by eliminat-ing the physical and embracing the virtual can we returnto the undifferentiated wholeness of the good.”

Just as Earth once covered itselfwith a film of interdependent livingorganisms which we call thebiosphere, so mankind’s combinedachievements are forming a globalnetwork of collective mind.

11

(continued on page 20)

12

I have come to appreciate what Marcus Aurelius, the stoicEmperor of Rome in the second century, had to say on thetopic. He wrote in his Meditations, “Everything we hear is anopinion not a fact, and everything we see is a perspective, notthe truth.” So I hope you, too, will keep all of this inperspective, just as I tried to do 34 years ago when this schoolmade it clear to me that it is never too late to learn. When myhusband, Ken, and I left India, he very generously asked mewhere I would like to live. I told him I would be happy to gowherever he decided to practice surgery, but that I would like ayear in Rochester at the Divinity School to study with J.C. Wynnand update the psychotherapy I had studied in graduateschool. 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 fullMaster of Divinity course, followed by a 12-year staff position.So actually, I never left.

Changing perspectives have shaped this school which we alllove. I could list many: the decision of thirteen Baptists inHamilton, NY, in 1817 that ministers should be educated,later that pastoral training could best be carried out in a boomtown on the Erie canal, that the theological and secular partsof the university could remain twins but not Siamese twins, andthat the orthodoxy of Augustus Hopkins Strong could give anod to progressive thought by inviting Walter Rauschenbuschto join the faculty. (Speaking of Strong, perspectives canchange even at sea. In his autobiography, Strong admittedthat when sailing to Europe he drew an imaginary line in themiddle of the Atlantic Ocean which when crossed would allowhim to enjoy a cigar and a glass of wine— a surprising shift fora Baptist of his time.)

Some of the greatest changes of perspective came in the ‘60sunder CRCDS President Gene Bartlett with the welcoming ofthe BMTS women to full ministerial training, the defense of

academic freedom in the face of the Death of God contro-versy, the protection and support of our black students duringthe lockout, and the widening of ecumenism with the meet-ings of the central committee of the World Council ofChurches on this campus, the anticipated arrival of BexleyHall, and the inclusion of St. Bernard’s in what became theinterfaith Center for Theological Study. The role of theBartletts, and I am including both Gene and Jean, continuedafter their return to the Hill in the ‘80s when Gene taughtand served as Pastor in Residence. During that time, theBartletts quietly opened their home for meetings of gay students and supporters. Fortunately, changes in perspectivehave continued to be defining marks of Colgate RochesterCrozer Divinity School, and I appreciate what you, PresidentMcMickle, and Bishop McKelvey, Chair of CRCDS Board ofTrustees, 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 reallydoesn’t take two eyes to see both sides of a question, though itreally helps when applying tooth paste to a brush. Perspectiveschange as we mature, and as institutions mature. I am not thesame person I was in my early years, but how fortunate I wasto be exposed to some of the great graduates of this school inmy formative years.

I still have a small New Testament given to me on my thirdbirthday by alumnus Roy B. Deer, class of 1919, who per-formed the wedding ceremony for my parents. A BaptistMissionary Training School graduate, missionary to India,stayed in our home when I was six or seven. I decided, at thattime of childish romanticism, that I would like to be a mission-ary. Three other BMTS graduates, in succession, served asDirectors of Christian Education in my church. The man whobaptized me, who immigrated to this country from Denmarkwhen he was 16 years old, was a 1932 graduate of ColgateRochester Divinity School.

I have been thinking a great deal about perspective the last couple of years and will try very hard to keep this honor in perspective.

Dr . Sally Dodgson (CRDS ‘84 )

“Perspective”Dr. Sally Dodgson (CRDS ’84), above, and Rev. Lawrence Hargrave (CRCDS ’00), right,were the recipients of the Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School DistinguishedAlumni/ae Award on April 8, 2015. Following are the remarks given by Dr. Dodgsonduring her acceptance of the award.

13

While in high school and early college, I attended theBaptist youth conferences at our national assemblygrounds in Green Lake, Wisconsin, for three years. Drs.Gene Bartlett (class of 1935) and Charles Boddie (class of1936), were perennial favorite leaders during those years.They both influenced me greatly. I remember playing softball with Rev. Boddie—we called him Chuck. Later he hada 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 of1954), longtime Director of what was then this school’sDevelopment Office. Too, I was a Franklin College class-mate of former CRCDS President, Leon Pacala (class of1952). I could name other influences. Is it any wonder thatI 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 funof it, for my ministry came before my studies here and Ihad no intention to seek ordination. I was older than mostof my professors. I have been grateful ever since for thestimulus and new perspectives which I gained as a student.

As we give thought to the great changes that are takingplace in society and as we sometimes worry about thefuture of the church, I would hope that the perspective ofthis school might place even more emphasis on the train-ing of lay persons. What a difference that would make inthe life of the church.

Promot ing the educat ion of women for leadersh ip in m in istry

The Baptist Missionary Training School

Rev. William J. Merriman(CRDS ’59)Bill has lived with amyotrophic lateralsclerosis (ALS) for over twenty years. Herecently published a book about living withthis chronic disease entitled ALS: The Giftof a Designer Disease, available onAmazon.com. Through the process ofdiagnosis, life adjustments and learning tobe a kid again, Bill’s book takes athoughtful and entertaining look at life. He hopes it will benefit people living with chronic disease, as well as their familymembers and caregivers.

Dr. Thomas Rugh (CRDS ’66)Thomas' retirement project culminated in the first comprehensive biography of artistFranklin Booth, an illustrator of books,magazines and advertisements. Thomas isin the process of donating his book to asmany libraries as possible, beginning inIndianapolis. To view or purchase the book,see: www.FranklinBooth.com. Thomas saysattending CRDS in the mid ’60s was animportant career-setting event: his “serviceplacement” as a youth minister in Brockport,NY and as a nursing home chaplainprepared him for a career in humanservices. He was Settlement House Directorand administrator of the NeighborhoodCenter Central Agency, March of Dimes,and the Indiana Association of United Ways,retiring from there in 2007 after 25 yearsservice. Thomas received a Ph.D. inPhilanthropic Studies from Union InstituteGraduate School.

Mr. J. Douglas Archer(CTS ’72)Doug has been elected to a three-yearterm on the governing Council of theAmerican Library Association and to a two-year term as a Trustee of the Freedomto Read Foundation. He has also beennamed the Hesburgh Libraries’ liaison tothe 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 TaborCollege (Hillsboro, KS), where he is adistinguished visiting professor. He alsoworks as an active partner in the marketingand educational processes of the newMaster of Arts in Entrepreneurial MinistryLeadership degree program.

Rev. Paul A. Hanneman (CRDS ’74)Paul, one of the North Carolina’s bestknown advocates for the homeless, retiredApril 30, 2015 as program director atCharlotte’s Urban Ministry Center. Paulworked with the agency for 15 years but isbest known for directing the ministry’sRoom in the Inn program during the pastfour years. Room in the Inn recruits churchcongregations to house homeless men,women and children at night during thewinter. This past winter, it provided 17,000beds at 135 houses of worship andYMCAs. Among those helped were 90families with 127 children. Paul willcontinue to serve the community as aconsultant and teacher, encouragingcongregations to help low income andhomeless people.

Paul’s wife of 35 years, Evelyn, retired inFebruary as operations director of theBaptist Peace Fellowship of North Carolina.

Rev. Thomas G. Bayes, Jr. (CRDS ’75)Tom is currently serving as the interimminister at First Baptist Church, Gastonia,NC.

Rev. Larry R. Baird (CRDS ’75)Larry is retiring from the United MethodistChurches in July.

Dr. Thomas G. Poole(CRDS ’77)Dr. Poole has been appointed to theCRCDS Board of Trustees.

Dr. Peter Fabian (CRDS ’79)Peter was promoted to the position ofAssociate Dean for Graduate Psychology/Marriage and Family Therapy Program atEdgewood College, Madison, WI.

Rev. Dr. Brad J. Donahue (CRDS ’80)Brad will celebrate 20 years of ministry atLorain Christian Temple Disciples of Christ(Lorain, OH) in July.

Rabbi David Spitz (CRDS ’80)Rabbi Spitz was honored with hisclassmates from HUC-JIR, class of 1965 ata ceremony conducted at the annualconvention of the National Association ofRetired Reform Rabbis in Phoenix, AZ, forhaving served as Rabbi for 50 years.

Rev. Susan S. Shafer (CRDS ’82)Susan will be retiring from Asbury FirstUnited Methodist Church (Rochester, NY) in July.

Dr. Sally L. Dodgson (CRDS ’84)Sally received the 2015 CRCDSDistinguished Alumni/ae Award in April.

Rev. Alicia Conklin-Wood (CRDS ’86)Alicia has been appointed to the SyracuseCity United Methodist Churches (BellevueHeights, 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 inaddition to his current appointment atWestside in Elmira, NY.

Rev. John E. Holt(CRDS ’88)John is now pastor at Osterville UnitedMethodist Church (Osterville, MA).

Rev. Nancy A. Tripp-Leport (CRDS ’90)Nancy just published her first book, ASabbath Journey: and a little child shalllead them. The book is available onAmazon.com. It is a monthly devotionalabout rediscovering the joy of the fourthcommandment as taught to her by her fouryear old granddaughter.

Updates , Newsand Notes fromCRCDS , CTS andBMTS Alumn i / ae

14

Outin theWorld

Rev. Lawrence Hargrave (CRDS ’00)Lawrence preached his last sermon atAsbury First United Methodist Church(Rochester, NY) this past April to begin hisretirement. Lawrence oversaw the church’smany outreach ministries, including theDining and Caring Center, the Storehouse,and the URWell Clinic. He has also playeda vital role in maintaining and enhancingAsbury First’s reputation in the GreaterRochester area through his service onnumerous city- and county-wide task forcesand committees.

Lawrence received the 2015 CRCDSDistinguished Alumni/ae Award in April.

Pastor Nancy L. Goff (CRCDS ’01)Nancy served 15 years in variouschurches in the Susquehanna Conferenceof The United Methodist Churches. After atwo month retirement in 2012, she wascalled to serve two churches in ShermansDale, PA.

Rev. Kathleen Brumbaugh (CRCDS ’04)Kathy has been appointed as an elder toanother denomination to Schenevus UnitedMethodist Church in July.

Rev. Rachel McGuire, Ph.D. (CRCDS ’04)Rachel successfully defended her Doctoraldissertation “The Dangerously Divine Gift:A Biblical Theology of Power” in April.

Rev. Caroline Simmons (CRCDS ’05)Caroline has been appointed as a full elderto Bridgeport United Methodist Church, inaddition to her current appointment atCollamer United Methodist Church.

Rev. Carla M. Kline(CRCDS ’08)Carla is working full-time for DelawareNorth Companies and is bi-vocationalPastor with Island Presbyterian Church(Grand Island, NY).

Rev’s Russell and Marjory Roth (CRCDS ’09)Russell and Marjory welcomed their thirdchild, Trevor Allan, on February 27, 2015.

Rev. Carolyn S. Stow(CRCDS ’11)Carolyn has been appointed as a full elder to Kidder Memorial UnitedMethodist Church in Jamestown, NY.

Rev. Dr. Michael Ford (CRCDS ’12)Michael has been appointed to the CRCDSBoard of Trustees.

Mr. Scott Hayes (CRCDS ’12)Scott joined the Baptist Peace Fellowship ofNorth America (BPFNA) as OfficeManager. BPFNA is the largest network ofBaptist peacemakers in the world. He waspreviously Pastor of Parma Baptist Churchand Assistant Pastor of Greece BaptistChurch, as well as a supply pastor at FirstBaptist Church, Rochester, NY.

Rev. Emily B. Huyge (CRCDS ’12)Emily has been appointed as a full elder toFirst Methodist Church in Mexico, NY.

Rev. Dr. Mary J. Korte (CRCDS ’13)Mary has been appointed by the EpiscopalBishop of Kansas to the board of EpiscopalSocial Services, Wichita, KS. She serves onthe program committee and is helpingbring a spiritual element to client-basedwork. She has also been appointed asexamining Chaplain for the EpiscopalDiocese of Kansas and works on standardsfor the Bishop Kemper School for Ministry.

Mr. Jimmy Bedgood (CRCDS ’14)Jimmy has adopted 17 month old twins,Elijah and Aaron.

Rev. Raymond H. Allen (CRCDS ’15)Raymond is senior pastor at BethanyBaptist Church (Niagara Falls, NY).

Rev. Dr. Deborah Duguid-May (CRCDS ’15)Deborah is pursuing ordination in theEpiscopal Diocese of Rochester.

Minister Nicole Iaquinto (CRCDS ’15)Nicole is currently assistant pastor atGreece Baptist Church (Greece, NY).

Rev. Brett Johnson (CRCDS ’15)Brett is an ordained Elder in the UnitedMethodist Churches.

Ms. Patricia M. Kinney (CRCDS ’15)Patricia is pursuing ordination in theEpiscopal Church.

Mr. Gary Kubitz (CRCDS ’15)Gary has been appointed as a provisionalelder to the Sidney, NY United MethodistChurch in addition to his currentappointment at the Afton/BainbridgeUnited Methodist Churches.

Rev. Rebecca Naber (CRCDS ’15)Becky is pastor of congregational care atBaker Memorial United Methodist Church(East Aurora, NY).

Mr. Michael N. Okinczyc (CRCDS ’15)Michael is the Executive Director ofGamaliel of Western New York State.Gamaliel trains community and faithleaders to build political power and createorganizations that unite people of diversefaiths and races.

Rev. Sebrone O’Neil Johnson(CRCDS ’15)Sebrone is IT Director at the Urban League(Rochester, NY) and pastor at GreaterHarvest Church.

Ms. Nancy Raca (CRCDS ’15)Nancy has been appointed as aprovisional elder to the Sophia Communityand Covenant United Methodist Church(Rochester, NY).

Rev. Jacquelyn Ross Brown (CRCDS ’15)Jacquelyn is pastor at New CovenantUnited Church of Christ (Buffalo, NY).

Rev. Andrew D. VanBuren (CRCDS ’15)Andrew was ordained as a transitionaldeacon by Bishop Singh at the Church ofthe Good Shepherd, in Webster, New York.He will also prepare for ordination topriesthood in the future.

Rev. Dr. Ellen B. Vanderzwan (CRCDS ’15)Ellen is associate pastor at WebsterPresbyterian Church (Webster, NY).

15

1616

In Christ, there is no abled or disabled…Inclusion, accessibility & belonging.

Lectures , Reflect ion , and Worsh ip

October 5 -8 , 2015

Save the Date

Highl ights include :

Monday, October 5

9:00 am – 3:00 pmVeterans, Moral Injury & Soul Repair Rita N. Brock, Ph.D.Co-Director of the Soul Repair Center, BriteDivinity School

12:00 NoonCommunity Lunch

4:00 pmAfrican American Chapel ServiceGarth Kasimu Baker-Fletcher, Ph.D. preaching

7:00 pmAfrican American Legacy LectureGarth Kasimu Baker-Fletcher, Ph.D.

Tuesday, October 6

10:30 amAfrican American Legacy WorkshopGarth Kasimu Baker-Fletcher, Ph.D.

12:00 noonCommunity Lunch

7:00 pmChristian Faith and LGBT Experience LectureChris Hildebrant, Chief Operating Officer of Finger Lakes Health Systems Agencies, Co-Lecturer TBA

Wednesday, October 7

9:00 am – NoonJanice Lynn Cohen SymposiumUR Medical CenterMichael A. Scharf, M.D.Associate Professor, University of RochesterMedical Center School of Medicine andDentistry

7:00 pmThe Gene Bartlett Lectureship Gail Ricciuti, D.D.Associate Professor of Homiletics at ColgateRochester Crozer Divinity School

Thursday, October 8

10:30 amGene Bartlett Chapel ServiceGail Ricciuti, D.D. preaching

12:00 noonCommunity Lunch

1:30 pmThe Gene Bartlett LectureshipGail Ricciuti, D.D.

Join us in October!

Mark your calendars today!

Rita N. Brock,Ph.D.

Gail Ricciuti,D.D.

Michael A.Scharf, M.D.

17

What i s Your Legac y ?

What is your legacy? Take care of yourself and help take care of CRCDS. For more informationon how you can help us grow, contact Tom McDade Clay, Vice President for InstitutionalAdvancement, at (585) 340-9648 or email tmcdadeclay@crcds.edu.

My late spouse, Brenda, and I started our married life whenI became a student at Colgate Rochester Crozer DivinitySchool (CRCDS) in 1973. We were both shaped andformed by the ethos of the School—academic rigor, intensemutual caring and positive impact on the world. When Igraduated in 1976, I was ready—learned, pastoral, andprophetic. And, so was Brenda. We earned my degreetogether, entered ministry together, and, in the way of Provi-dence, our career path circled back to Rochester. Brendabecame Director of Development at CRCDS in the late1990’s just as I was becoming Executive Minister of theABC/Rochester-Genesee Region. No one loved better thanBrenda, no one was more loyal. She took delight in herdaily interchanges with alumni/ae, and in representing theSchool at events across the land. Brenda considered it thehighest of honors when the Baptist Missionary TrainingSchool made her an honorary alumna.

I support CRCDS with an annual gift as an act of faith andlove, which is ultimately an act of gratefulness. I have alsomade a planned gift to the School as testimony to the age-lessness of gratefulness—gratefulness that will provide for athriving future for CRCDS. God is still speaking, still calling,earnestly seeking souls who are willing to be shaped for alife of grateful service through novel ministries. CRCDSplays a vital role in preparing these souls for successfulservice. Including CRCDS in my will is a tribute to Brenda’switness for peace, justice, and the ideal of the BelovedCommunity and is also a recognition of the important workof CRCDS in preparing leaders committed to those sameideals and values.

Peg Nowling was one of Brenda’s best friends. AfterBrenda’s death, our lives slowly began to merge, leadingultimately to our marriage. One of our many common com-mitments was to the mission of CRCDS. Peg has served theSchool as adjunct faculty, teaching Baptist Polity, and also

pastored a congregation that met on the CRCDS campusfor a time. We have realized that our story of love rising outof grief is a metaphor for the Church today: give thanks forthe ways of God made known in heritage and history. Givethanks for the ways of God yet to be made known.

It takes courage to believe when so much is changing atonce and it takes courage to continue to have faith andlove in the face of so much unknown. Our gratitude is atangible sign of our faith in the future and a witness to thepresence of God’s love in the midst of change. We aregrateful for CRCDS, for its legacy and for the promisingfuture it holds in the midst of this great change.

Please join me and Peg by showing your gratitude forCRCDS by including the School in your estate planning.

—Ken Williams (CRCDS ‘76) and Peg Nowling Williams

Horizon Society

Ken Williams (CRCDS ’76) and Peg Nowling Williams

LivingGratitude:

The Rev’d Dr. W. Kenneth Williams and Rev. Peg Nowling Williams

The Fund forCRCDS

In Memory of:

Dr. James B. AshbrookRev. Charles B. MercerDr. C. Jack Richards

Dr. Oren H. BakerRev. Merle S. Arnold

Dr. Gene E. BartlettRev. Mahlon Gilbert, D.Min. Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe SaucerRev. Nancy A. Tripp-Leport

Ms. Jean BartlettRev. Mahlon Gilbert, D.Min.Rev. Roanne C. MacEwan

Dr. Russell H. Bishop Rev. Russell H. Bishop, Jr.

Rev. Wesley BourdetteRev. Dr. Ralph Anderson

Rev. Emmanuel S. Branch, Jr. Rev. Harry B. Parrott, Jr.

Rev. Henry A. BuzzellMs. Eleanor Pope

Mr. W. Douglas CallAnonymous

Rev. Dr. Paul Cameron IVMs. Janet I. Cameron

Rev. Arthur E. CraneMs. Kathryn Ketcham

Dr. Vinjamuri E. DevaduttMs. Chelli Devadutt

Ms. Dorothy A. EllmoreRev. Edward D. Ellmore

Rev. E. Robert Ferris, Jr.Ms. Susanna Ferris

Rev. Jerry C. FreiertRev. Barbara A. Freiert

Dr. Milton FroydRev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer

Rev. Edward B. GrevattWayne and Wanda HigginsRichard and Ruth MyersMs. Barbara M. Thomas

Dr. William HamiltonRev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer

Rev. David B. HammarMs. Linda Hammar

Rev. Bruce E. HansonMr. Donald S. ChapinMs. Mary V. FisherMs. Paula G. Gianforti

Rev. Kenneth HardyMs. Deborah Blauw

Dr. Winthrop S. HudsonRev. Glenn Loafmann

Rev. J.D. Jackson, Sr.Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer

Ms. Heather M. JanesDeena and David HarkinsMs. Beatrice E. Smith

Rev. Dr. Leardrew L. JohnsonMs. Audrose BanksMs. Gloria A. BattleDr.’s Kenneth V. and Sally DodgsonGenesee Baptist Church (Rochester, NY)Rev. Lawrence Hargrave and Ms. Brenda LeeRev. R. LeRoy MoserMr. Alfred Neelands

Dr. Theodore KeatonRev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer

Rev. Joseph A. KingMs. Marietta P. King

Rev. Ruth LackerRev. Barbara J. Lacker-Ware and Rev. Michael A. Ware

Dr. Werner LemkeMs. Anne CampbellRev. G. Travis NorvellRev. Donald D. Turk

Rev. Archie LeMoneRev. Larry W. Dobson

Rev. Harold LoughheadMs. Claire Elizabeth Loughhead

Ms. Margaret C. MalmquistRev. Dr. Richard C. Malmquist

Dr. Floyd Massey, Jr.Rev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer

Dr. Floyd W. McDermottMs. Lorena M. Ritter

Dr. William T. McKeeRev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer

Ms. Agnes J. MorrisonMs. Epp K. Sonin

Mr. Justin W. Nixon, Sr.Mr. Robert Nixon

Rev. Melvin PhillipsRev. Ruth E. Phillips

Dr. Walker PipkinRev. Lawrence Hargrave and Ms. Brenda Lee

Leroy and Dorthea PullenDr. Bruce R. Pullen

Rev. G. Todd RobertsMs. Lou G. Roberts Eckle

Mr. Robert RowsamMs. June Morin

Rev. James R. RoyChildren of James R. Roy

Rev. Roland V. SanteeMs. Lorena M. Ritter

Dr. Michael ScroginRev. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer

Ms. Tanya SextonMr. James S. Badger

Ms. Alice ShaeMs. Maxine Bascom

Rev. Gerald SmithMr. Gary Clinton

Mr. Gary D. TalbotRev. M. Kathleen Talbot

Ms. Leona Macro TefftMs. Carol Hellwig

Dr. Charles Thurman Ms. Mattie Thurman

Dr. James E. Townsend Ms. Billie Jean Townsend

Wayne and Beulah WagnerRev. Gary W. Wagner

18

Memorial & Appreciation Gifts

19

Rev. Ronald H. WebbMs. Lois A. Webb

Ms. Edina G. WeeksRev. Edwin F. Weeks

Mr. MacDonald WestlakeMs. Jennie A. Findley

Ms. Dorothy Wilder FlorinDr. Wiliam L. Malcomson

Ms. Brenda WilliamsThe Rev'd Dr. W. Kenneth Williams and Rev. Peggy Nowling Williams

Dr. J.C. WynnDr. Peter Fabian

In Honor of:

Baptist Missionary TrainingSchool

Ms. Margery Wahler

Rev. Winifred CollinMr. Robert Goeckel

Rev. Claudine P. CrooksMs. Margaret Ackley

Rev. Dr. Andrew C. DavisonRev. Thomas G. Bayes, Jr.

Friends of BarnabasRev. Charles B. Hunt

Rev. Lawrence HargraveMs. 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 KilpatrickDr. David M. Kilpatrick

Ms. Virginia KullmanMs. Michele Kaider-Korol

Dr. Barbara A. Moore, RSMMr. James S. BadgerRev. Janet A. James

Ms. Margaret A. NeadMr. Samuel Bishop

Rev. Hugh D. OuttersonRev. Robert H. Calvert

Rev. Paul RaushenbushMr. Walter Raushenbush

Rev. Susan S. ShaferMr. Samuel Bishop

The Rt. Rev. Prince G. SinghDr. Walter Szymanski

Dr. Gardner TaylorDr. and Mrs. Bobby Joe Saucer

OTHER FUNDS

BMTS Professorial Chair

In Memory of:

Suzanne Rinck ArmstrongMs. Marian “Katie” GereckeMs. Cheryl C. KnightMs. June E. Jacobson

Gene E. Bartlett and Jean Kenyon Bartlett MemorialScholarship Fund

In Memory of:

Jean Kenyon BartlettHenry and Tish AllenBob and Paige BartlettMr. Robert BartlettMr. Scott Bartlett, Esq.Mr. Donald BeechRev. Bruce E. BillmanRev. and Mrs. Edward I. CareyMichael and Shirley CondonRev. Dr. Andrew C. Davison and Dr. Beverly DavisonMs. Deborah DiederichDr.’s Kenneth V. and Sally DodgsonRev. David Evans and Ms. Grace L. EvansMr. Daniel E. EvesMs. Deborah FergusonRev. Dr. Lowell H. Fewster and Rev. Julie P. FewsterMs. Sara Greenfield CulpMrs. Barbara HallDr. and Mrs. Paul L. HammerMichael and Susan Harrison

Dr. and Mrs. William JonesMr. and Mrs. William R. KenyonDr. H. Darrell LanceRev. and Mrs. Donald L. LawrenceRev. G. Rheanolte LeBarbour and Dr. Annie Marie LeBarborRev. Sandra J. LemkeRev. Carol Holtz-Martin and Ms. Dana MartinThomas and Maranne McDade ClayMs. Kelly McLaughlinMs. Margaret A. NeadMs. Virginia S. PacalaBill and Doris PerkettMr. Dale W. PetersonRev. Phyllis ReedRev. Gail A. Ricciuti, D.D.Mr. Ray SheroMs. Marion B. VanArsdellKen and Colleen WeisbeckRev. and Mrs. Lawrence WitmerMs. Rachel Wynn

The Martin Luther King, Jr.Endowed Chair for Social Justiceand Black Church Studies

In Memory of:

Rev Dr. Leardrew L. JohnsonRev. Lawrence Hargrave and Ms. Brenda Lee

Dr. Charles Thurman Ms. Mattie Thurman

In Honor of:

Rev. Lawrence HargraveMs. Enid Graham-Raad and Mr. Scott T. Graham-Raad

The Janice Lynn CohenMemorial Fund

In Memory of:

Robert “Chick” KaneMs. Bernard S. BaronJerry and Susan MarksMs. Eleanor Levy

Anna RazzanteMs. Eleanor Levy

September 24 , 2014–June 1 , 2015

Many transhumanists look to a postbiological futurewhere super informational beings will flourish and biolog-ical limits such as disease, aging and death, and perhapseven sin, will be overcome. Bart Kosko, a professor ofelectrical engineering at the University of Southern Cali-fornia writes: “Biology is not destiny. It was never morethan tendency. It was just nature’s first quick and dirty wayto compute with meat. Chips are destiny.” KatherineHayles, in her book How We Became Posthuman writes,“In the posthuman, there are no essential differences, orabsolute demarcations, between bodily existence andcomputer simulation, cybernetic mechanism and biologi-cal organism, robot technology and human goals.” Sheconcludes with an admonition: “Humans can either gogently into that good night, joining the dinosaurs as aspecies that once ruled the earth but is now obsolete, orhang on for a while longer by becoming machines them-selves. In either case…the age of the human is drawingto a close.” Similarly Robert Jastrow claimed, “humanevolution is nearly a finished chapter in the history of life,”although the evolution of intelligence will not endbecause a new species will arise, “a new kind of intelli-gent life more likely to be made of silicon.” While artificialintelligence transhumanists aim toward a new virtualbody, they also anticipate a new virtual creation where theearthly garden will wither away and be replaced by amuch greater world, a paradise never to be lost.

Although Steinhart and others have drawn a sympatheticlink between Teilhard and artificial intelligence transhu-manists, I find little in common between them. artificialintelligence transhumanists such as Kurzweil andMoravec explore transhumanism as a means of individ-ual apocalyptic triumph. Through informationtechnology, the human will be able to transcend thecontingencies of suffering and death. However, techno-

logically-perfected life, especially transcending the limits ofsuffering and death, were not part of Teilhard’s vision. Hedid not see the evolution of a new techno sapien species asthe replacement for biological life; rather he saw the deep-ening of biological life through techno sapiens.

While Moravec’s “mind children” may evoke the horror ofa human-machine convergence threatening dehumaniza-tion and the survival of the human species, Teilhard sawthe convergence of human and machine intelligence ascompleting the material and cerebral sphere of collectivethought. His hopeful vision of transhumanism was a richerand more complex domain, constructing with all mindsjoined together, a collective or global mind for theforward movement of cosmic evolution.

Teilhard did not see evolution as a disruption in theorganic whole but instead a greater unification of thewhole in and through the human person. The humanperson is the growing tip of the evolutionary process;thus “we should consider inter-thinking humanity as anew type of organism whose destiny it is to realize newpossibilities for evolving life on this planet.” artificialintelligence transhumanists look toward the emergenceof techno-sapiens as a new species derived fromhumans but different from humans, privileging informa-tional patterns over embodiment, a seamless fusion withintelligent machines. Teilhard did not anticipate the per-fection of being through artificial means; rather, for himevolution is progression toward more being. He wrote:

. . . it is not well being but a hunger for more-being which, of psychological necessity, canalone preserve the thinking earth from thetaedium vitae . . . it is upon its point (or super-structure) of spiritual concentration, and not uponits basis (or infra-structure) of material arrange-ment, that the equilibrium of Mankindbiologically depends.

Teilhard distinguished “more being” from “well being”by saying that materialism can bring about well beingbut spirituality and an increase in psychic energy or consciousness brings about more being. He imaginedpsychic energy in a continually more reflective state,giving rise to ultrahumanity. He insisted that technologyis the means of convergence and the noosphere is theevolutionary convergence of mind through technology;humankind does not dissipate itself but continually concentrates upon itself. Hence the noosphere is asuperconvergence of psychic energy, a higher form ofcomplexity in which the human person does not becomeobsolete but rather acquires more being through inter-connectivity with others. In this respect the Noosphere isnot the realm of the impersonal but conversely it is therealm of the deeply personal through convergence or

20

While Moravec’s “mind children”may evoke the horror of a human-machine convergence threateningdehumanization and the survival ofthe human species, Teilhard saw theconvergence of human andmachine intelligence as completingthe material and cerebral sphere ofcollective thought.

(continued from page 11)

the bringing together of diverse elements, organisms,and even the currents of human thought. The noosphereis not merely a cyber world of virtual being but amedium of collective consciousness that enhances morebeing. Teilhard wrote: “It is a mistake to look for theextension of our being or of the Noosphere in the imper-sonal. The Future universal cannot be anything else butthe hyperpersonal.”

Teilhard saw the techno-cultural knitting together ofhuman society not as a para-biological epiphenomenoninferior in organic value but as the vital arrangements ofmatter, a new psychic temperature rising proportionally tothe degree of complexity. In his Future of Man he wrote:“We are witnessing a truly explosive growth of technologyand research, bringing a…mastery…of cosmic energy...the rapid heightening of psychic temperature…the growthof a true ultra-human.” A higher state of consciousnessdiffused through the ultra-technified, ultra-socialized,ultra-cerebralized layers of human mass needs a Centerof Reflection for a real power of love to emerge at theheart of evolution, a love stronger than all individual ego-tisms and passions. Otherwise, he asked, how can thenoosphere ever be stabilized? A world culminating in theimpersonal, he indicated, can bring us neither warmth ofattraction nor hope of irreversibility [immortality] withoutwhich individual egotism will dominate and rebel. RonCole Turner states that technologies of the self “are self-asserting rather than self-transforming, enhancing the egorather than surrendering it to a greater reality andpurpose.” “The danger of technology,” he writes, “is thatit offers the illusion of a managed grace whereby the selfcan fix itself up without changing and remaining incontrol—so we think.” Technology is not out of controlbecause it is a real power, he states, but because “wecannot control what is supposed to control it: namely,ourselves.” Without a true center, Teilhard writes, a “veri-table Ego” at summit of the world, evolution cannotprogress toward its ultimate consummation.

Teilhard repeatedly used the language of ultra-humanityto emphasize the need for humanity to enter into a newphase of its own evolution. As he saw it, the first phasehappened long ago when our ancestors first emerged intothe state of reflective consciousness. Man is psychicallydistinguished from all other animals, he wrote, by the factthat he not only knows, but knows that he knows. Thesecond phase of human evolution, as Teilhard saw it,involved not just this reflective consciousness, but whatTeilhard termed a “co-consciousness,” a collective aware-ness brought about by the convergence of human beings(the noosphere) over the surface of the earth. Finally, heenvisioned, fast approaching on the horizon, a third, even

more critical phase facing humanity which he describedas “a completely new mode of phylogenesis,” a “mega-synthesis”elaborated in terms of a “planetization.”

Teilhard saw that science would face its own limits andthe human person would have to choose betweenscience and unanimity. The scientific route had alreadyprogressed from a simple exploration of nature (“knowl-edge for its own sake”) into a “conquest of matter put tothe service of the mind” to “increased action forincreased being.” He realized the limits of science, as hewrote: “However far science pushes its discovery of theessential fire and however capable it becomes somedayof remodeling and perfecting the human element, it willalways find itself in the end facing the same problem—how to give to each and every element its final value bygrouping them in the unity of an organized whole.”Science is not an end in itself, according to Teilhard, but

aids the deepening of spirituality. The knowledge ofscience increases mind and mind deepens spirit. Hencescience is at the service of religion.

Teilhard saw the insufficiency of science to effect thetransition to superconsciousness. “It is not tête-à-tête ora corps-à-corps we need; it is a heart to heart.” Henceintegral to the noosphere is the necessary role of loveand “the rise of our inward horizon of a cosmic spiritualcenter...the rise of God. A theogenic process of love atthe heart of cosmic evolution, now at the level of thenoosphere, is far different from the transhumanist trendof individual perfection or posthuman techno sapiens.Whereas artificial intelligence transhumanists view con-sciousness as an epiphenomenon in the evolutionaryprocess, Teilhard described evolution as the process ofunfolding consciousness. He indicated that ultimateknowing is love which draws together and unites in sucha way that new complexified being transcends individualbeing; it is the emerging body of Christ. The evolution ofnoosphere is a new collective consciousness thatenables a more profound union in love and thus adeepening of being that reflects more unified soul andgreater wholeness.

Teilhard saw that sciencewould face its own limits andthe human person would haveto choose between scienceand unanimity.

21

While artificial intelligence transhumanism can seemself-serving at the expense of community or cosmicwholeness, Teilhard saw ultrahumanism less as alterationof the human person (trans-humanism) than as the nextlevel of evolution and expansion of community throughgreater unity. Philip Hefner states that technology iseither pointless in the long run or an expression of thefundamental self-transcending reality of God. Teilhardtoo saw the evolution of the noosphere and the emer-gent ultrahumanism as fundamentally religious innature. The whole of evolution is christogenesis; Christ isthe Omega Point, the goal of the universe and also theevolver of the universe in its convergence toward unity.Through the inner law of convergence-complexity, Godis being born from within; salvation is “becoming onewith the universe.”

A fundamental difference between Teilhard’s ultrahu-manism and artificial intelligence transhumanism is the role of religion in evolution. Artificial intelligencetranshumanists such as Kurzweil see technology as thefulfillment of what religion promises; however, techno-salvation is centered on the individual. Teilhard did notsee technology as self-perfecting or self-asserting; rathertechnology furthers religion which is the heart of evolu-tion. “Religion, born of the earth’s need for thedisclosing 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 Universeas such, of collective consciousness and human actionin the process of development.” As we advance fromindividual consciousness to collective consciousness, wesee that reality is a single organic evolutionary flowing.For Teilhard, the noosphere is not simply a new level ofglobal mind; rather the new level of global mind is theemergence of Christ because the human person is “thearrow pointing the way to the final unification of theworld in terms of life.”

Technology not only advances noogenesis but noogene-sis continues Christogenesis. Through a collectivizationof consciousness, Teilhard saw the possibility of a new

global unity in love which is the birth of Christ fromwithin. Reflecting on the future of humanity, he envi-sioned an eventual convergence of religions so that theemergence of Christ would ultimately not be limited to asingle religion but would be the convergence of psychic,spiritual energy, the unification of the whole. In a 1950talk to the Congrès Universel des Croyants he stated that“…the various creeds still commonly accepted havebeen primarily concerned to provide every human withan individual line of escape” and for this reason they failto “allow any room for a global and controlled transfor-mation of the whole of life and thought in their entirety.”This stance, Teilhard insisted, can no longer be: “Nolonger is it simply a religion of individual and of heaven,but a religion of mankind and of the earth—that is whatwe are looking for at this moment, as the oxygen withoutwhich we cannot breathe.”

Teilhard describes the noogenic Christ as “a generalconvergence of religions upon a universal personalcenter of unity who fundamentally satisfies all religions.”Technology plays a key role in evolutionary conver-gence, enabling the emergence of global mind andcollective consciousness; however, the endpoint is nottechnology or techno sapiens. For Teilhard the end isOmega, the total unification of being-in-love. The tran-shumanist Christ does not supercede biologicalevolution; rather as biogenesis yields to noogenesis, sotoo 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 collectiveconsciousness, he posited a mega-synthesis, a conver-gence of interplanetary consciousness or complexificationof intergalactal consciousness. Teilhard thought wide anddeep, much more broadly than prolonging human brainpower or overcoming disease. His was a cosmic vision,an evolution of religious spirit towards the fullness ofunion in love. We are still in Christogenesis, he pro-claimed, and technology enables a new genesis of Christwho continues to evolve. With technology, Teilhard envi-sioned a new unity in love through a collectivization ofmind. 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 becauseevolution is a daring adventure in love.

Although technology plays a keyrole in evolution, Teilhard saw thatevolution is larger than the scope ofthe human person alone.

2222

Baptist Missionary Training School

Lillian Conrad Ulrich ‘50

Jeanette Dolk ‘57

Colgate Rochester Divinity School

Leardrew L. Johnson ‘50

Douglas W. Hill ‘52

Janice Kuehn ‘52

Bruce E. Hanson ‘54

James N. McCutcheon ‘56

Wesley Bourdette ‘61

Edward B. Grevatt ‘61

Charles Hess ‘67

Colgate Rochester CrozerDivinity School

Britt Starghill ‘09

William S. Ellis ‘14

Friends of CRCDS

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

In Memoriam

23

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

Non-Profit Org.US Postage

PAIDRochester, NYPermit No. 1588

Spr ing / Summer 2015

Faith. Critically engaged.

Bullet in of the Colgate Rochester Crozer D iv in i t y School