<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/l6vXR5iqReE?start=786″ frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>me to this point so I I do think it’s12:33a it’s a good bright line to draw John12:37Jefferson knew that part and this is in12:40your book all these codes about12:42partisanship I mean he was pretty12:44dedicated to engagement and political12:47issues but what would he think of the12:49type of partisanship we have now at this12:52moment I think he would recognize it12:54honestly he once said divisions of12:58opinion have convulsed human societies13:00since Greece and Rome divisions of13:03opinion were the oxygen of a free13:06government I’m a skeptic of the a13:08prevailing scholarly view that the13:10founders had this vision of a one-party13:14one-party state and we would all be on13:17Olympus with powdered wigs and13:19solving problems they may have had that13:22vision we all had that vision and but13:26they understood reality oh if you if you13:28worry if you’re worried about or if youdoubt me about whether they understoodreality read the Constitution which isentirely about reality constitute ifJefferson was an Enlightenment documentthe Constitution is a Calvinist documentas looms we are all Despres sinful anddriven by appetite and ambition andwe’ve done everything we cansince then to prove them right so I13:55think you know this is a the Hemings the13:59story about Sally Hemings was first14:01publicized in 1802 and we with all love14:07and respect to a net we don’t know that14:09much more than that first piece doing it14:20wasn’t seen as a historical or cultural14:22document it was a partisan attack yeah14:25you know right and and continued during14:27that you know during his presidency and14:29in a few times afterwards there’s been a14:32big debate recently coming out of the14:34New York Times 16:19 project how much do14:37we need to revise our concept of the14:39founding of this nation do you think14:41that makes sense or has it gone a bit14:44too far the pendulum is historians have14:48been writing about this down for quite14:50some time but what we haven’t done as14:54much as to think about what that means14:55for us today14:56that the legacy of slavery is still with14:59us there’s a tendency there has been a15:01tendency on the part of many people to15:03say oh well we knew that but that’s over15:05I think that’s the that’s the15:07contribution of the magazine of 1619 is15:11not to tell us something many things we15:14didn’t know but to say there is a15:17connection to this that is continuing15:20you don’t get rid of hundreds of years15:23of slavery in a century or so and we15:26really don’t get going as legally full15:29citizens until 1965 the passage of the15:32vote15:32that’s not in the history you know15:35that’s a blink of an eye so they even in15:37total blink of an eye in history and15:39thinking that this stuff is all in the15:41past has been the problem and that’s I15:44think that’s what the project was trying15:45to do is to say no this isn’t over John15:50I was struck I believe it was the15:54remarks at the signing of the Civil15:56Rights Act and in July July 2nd 196416:00Lyndon Johnson grounds his remark at the16:04bill signing not on Philadelphia but on16:07Jamestown it which which I was struck by16:11talk about a complicated figure well you16:16know were the Democratic nominee for16:19president is a 77 year old white man who16:25was the vice president of the first16:28african-american president incredibly16:30loyal and eulogized Thurmond and16:33Eastland you know so well if you’re16:36looking for simplicity if you’re looking16:38for straightforward figures good luck16:42I don’t know who they would be I think16:46what an it just said is absolutely16:47essential I have a theory16:49aboard Walter with this I think16:51privately actually that we’re only a 6016:56year old nation right the country we17:01have right now the polity we have which17:04is soon going to be majority diversity17:07whatever phrase it is was really created17:11in 1964-65 not only with the Civil17:16Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act but17:18with the Immigration Act yeah which17:20totally changed the nature of the17:24country and so no wonder this is so hard17:28no wonder we’re having such a ferocious17:30white reaction this is kind of the 1830s17:35in a way and so it’s not to excuse it17:40but I do think it explains it a little17:42bit and this idea of Prague17:45and I know it sounds tinny to people and17:48look if you look like me you can talk17:49about progress right I’m the boring Lee17:52heterosexual white southern Episcopalian17:54right I mean things tend to work out for17:56me in America so I stipulate that but18:00but it’s simply the lesson of history18:04that we are in fact a better country18:09than we were yesterday doesn’t mean18:12we’re perfect doesn’t mean we stop up18:15but our are enough of us devoted to18:21doing all we can as citizens and as18:24leaders to try to create a country that18:27more of us can be proud of and if we are18:30then let’s get to it yeah and and I18:34would throw in women the changing role18:37of women from the 1960s and this is18:39that’s a good point I wouldn’t I agree18:42with 60 years again a short time in18:47history where everything everybody’s18:49sort of in place it’s like Ken Burns18:51said that he found it difficult to call18:53talk about the Golden Age of baseball18:56and there were no black players in the19:00major league how do you how do you do19:02that and this is a similar situation19:04where you have blacks legally allowed to19:08vote and those rights are protected I19:11mean there’s issues with voter19:12suppression but sort of on paper19:14equality is there and it’s hard is19:17wrenching for people who have had you19:20know power who are used to a certain19:23hierarchy a certain way things are were19:25or they think about their grandparents19:27or good old days it’s hard to get used19:29to all of that and so you’re right19:32there’s no wonder that there’s a people19:33Annette gordon-reed Jon Meacham thank19:37you for joining us to be here19:42[Music]19:50[Music]19:53you
Cynthia Bourgeault has spent years studying Mary Magdalene, one of Jesus’ closest apostles, often conflated with a prostitute. Cynthia reclaims Magdalene’s significance as Jesus’ beloved companion and a model of authentic love.
Christ is not Jesus’s last name—an obvious but so-often overlooked truism. It means “the anointed one.” And however much his followers may have wished for the ceremonial anointing that would have proclaimed him the Davidic Messiah, the fact is that he became “the Anointed One” at the hands of an unidentified woman who appeared out of nowhere at a private dinner bearing a jar of precious perfume and sealed him with the unction of her love. . . .
I believe that the traditional memory of Mary Magdalene as Jesus’s anointer . . . holds the key to . . . understanding . . . the Passion as an act of substituted love. It also . . . offers a powerful ritual access point to the Christian pathway toward singleness and “restoration to fullness of being.” If we are fully to avail ourselves of Mary Magdalene’s wisdom presence today, it will be, I believe, primarily through recovering a wisdom relationship with the ritual of anointing—that is, coming to understand it . . . as an act of conscious love marking the passageway into both physical and spiritual wholeness.
Her passion has transformed her into one of the initiated ones. And in The Cloud of Unknowing, the author recognizes this same quality of passion as the key element that not only frees Mary from her sins but catapults her into unitive consciousness and a state of continuous beatific communion:
When our Lord spoke to Mary as a representative of all sinners who are called to the contemplative life and said, “Thy sins be forgiven thee,” it was not only because of her great sorrow, nor because of her remembering her sins, nor even because of the meekness with which she regarded her sinfulness. Why then? It was surely because she loved much.
. . . Even though she may not have felt a deep and strong sorrow for her sins . . . she languished more for lack of love than for any remembrance of her sins. . . .…
“When I act against my own will, then it is not my true self doing it, but sin which lives in me” (Romans 7:20, Jerusalem Bible). Somehow, he knew there was a part of him that was authentic, steadfast, and true to its God-given and loving nature.
Paul then contrasted the true self with what we are calling the false self and he called “sin” (7:14-25). It is the self that is always passing away.
.. The false self is not really bad or evil, but just inadequate to the big questions of love, death, suffering, God, or infinity. God allows and uses all our diversionary tactics to get us to move toward our full and final destination, which is divine union—and thus wholeness. That is how perfect and patient divine love is: Nothing is wasted; even our mistakes are the raw material to turn us back into love.
.. The True Self will surely have doubts about the unknown. But the True Self is the Risen Christ in you, and hence, it is not afraid of death. It has already been to hell and back. The Risen Christ in us knows that it will never lose anything real by dying. This is the necessary suffering of walking the full human path. That is what Jesus did and why we are invited to “reproduce the pattern of his death,” each in our own way, so that we can also take our place in the “force field” of God’s universal resurrection (see Philippians 3:10-11 and Acts 3:21).
In Thich Nhat Hanh’s words, “Enlightenment for a wave is the moment the wave realizes that it is water. At that moment, all fear of death disappears.” 
And in Stephen Levine’s:
But water is water, no matter what its shape or form. The solidity of ice imagines itself to be its edges and density. Melting, it remembers; evaporating, it ascends. 
So do not be afraid. Death to false self and the end of human life is simply a return to our Ground of Being, to God, to Love. Life doesn’t truly end; it simply changes form and continues evolving into ever new shapes and beauty.
Love is who you are. When you don’t live according to love, you are outside of being. You’re basically not real or true to yourself. When you love, you are acting according to your deepest being, your deepest truth. You are operating according to your dignity. For a simple description of the kind of love I am talking about, let’s just use the word outflowing. .
.. John the Evangelist writes, “God is love, and whoever remains in love, remains in God and God in them” (1 John 4:16). The Judeo-Christian creation story says that we were created in the very “image and likeness” of God—who sets the highest bar for this kind of outflowing love (Genesis 1:26-27). Out of the Trinity’s generative and infinitely flowing relationship, all of creation takes form, mirroring its Creator in its deepest identity.
.. We have heard this phrase so often that we don’t get the existential shock of what “created in the image and likeness of God” is saying about us. If this is true, then our family of origin is divine. It is saying that we were created by a loving God to also be love in the world. Our core is original blessing, not original sin. Our starting point is “very good” (Genesis 1:31). If the beginning is right, the rest is made considerably easier, because we know and can trust the clear direction of our life’s tangent.
.. We must all overcome the illusion of separateness. It is the primary task of religion to communicate not worthiness but union, to reconnect people to their original identity “hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3). The Bible calls the state of separateness “sin.” God’s job description is to draw us back into primal and intimate relationship. “My dear people, we are already children of God; what we will be in the future has not yet been fully revealed, and all I do know is that we shall be like God” (1 John 3:2).
Henceforth, all our moral behavior is simply “the imitation of God.” First observe what God is doing all the time and everywhere, and then do the same thing (Ephesians 5:1). And what does God do? God does what God is: Love. God does not love you if and when you change. God loves you so that you can change!
If you walk around with hatred and prejudice in your heart and mind all day, morally you’re just as much a killer as the one who pulls out the gun. That seems to be what Jesus is saying. The evil and genocide of World War II was the final result of decades of negative and paranoid thinking among good German Christians, Catholic and Lutheran. The tragic fascism of Nazi Germany was fomenting in people’s hearts long before a political leader came to catalyze their hate and resentment. Now it seems we are seeing the same in the United States.
Jesus tells us to not harbor hateful anger or call people names even in our hearts like “fool” or “worthless person” (Matthew 5:22). If we’re walking around all day thinking, “What an idiot he is,” we are already in the state of sin. Sin is more a state of separation and superiority than any concrete action—which is only the symptom. How we live in our hearts is our real truth.
.. Jesus insists that we love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44). For Jesus, prayer seems to be a matter of waiting in love, returning to love, trusting that love is the unceasing stream of reality. Prayer isn’t primarily words; it’s an attitude, a stance, a state that precedes “saying” any individual prayers. That’s why Paul could say, “Pray unceasingly” (1 Thessalonians 5:17). If we think of prayer as requiring words, it is surely impossible to pray always.
Large companies, churches, and governments get away with and are even applauded for killing (war), greed, vanity, pride, and ambition. The capital sins are rewarded at the corporate level but shamed at the individual level. This is our conflicted Christian morality!
Instead of legitimating the status quo, liberation theology tries to read history and the Bible not from the side of the powerful, but from the side of the pain. Its beginning point is not sin management, but “Where is the suffering?”
The world tends to define poverty and riches simply in terms of economics. But poverty has many faces—weakness, dependence, and many forms of humiliation. Essentially, poverty is a lack of means to accomplish what one desires or needs, be it lack of money, relationships, influence, power, intellectual ability, physical strength, freedom, or dignity.
Terry Pratchett has a character define sin thusly: “Sin, young man, is when you treat people like things.”  . . .
.. I don’t believe hell or heaven to be post-life destinations. I believe they are states of consciousness largely visible here and now. A world of objects is a kind of hell. A world of subjects—divine beings honoring the divinity in the other—is surely heaven.