Again, an important reason for people attending Connie's church would be the connections they find there to other people in a faith community which also makes connections to spiritual, personal and other needs.  One of my hopes for worship is that it provides, from time to time, an opportunity to recognize, accept and love self with all of our peculiarities and warts aided by confidence in God's love and acceptance.

Reflect away!

Grace and peace to you.

John

[/quote]

Now it's "Connie's church"? 

Also, just wondering,  should our opinions be allowed to change what God wants us to know?

This is the part of Rev. DenBok's reply that got my attention.

I trust her congregation finds themselves being fed by encounter and story.

I have a different perspective on 'other' if i am understanding Connie correctly. I think the stories tie us together in common human experience. I think the stories lend themselves fo seeing that we are tied together. The 'other' we engage with are people who share different points of view- recognizing that they too are brothers and sisters who share the common human experience even if they don't practice the same religion. God is the 'parent' of the whole human family (we all come from the same source of life). We are connected. Jesus shows us that- he allows us to see what God looks like manifest as human- and that at our best we share those traits- he is not so 'other'. At our worst, we disconnect ourselves from the greater good of the human family- we become 'other'. Especially when we choose to see ourselves as seperate because of 'tastes'. But that is a big reason why we see ourselves as 'other' sometimes, isn't it? Spiritual engagement doesn't mean, for me, a relationship with God who is an other- but a God who is part of us. I believe the church should be working for more unity not more seperateness. If that means recognizing that the 'other' is not so different from me, and the perceived differences are often superficial, I agree. If it means creating more mental divisions, and maintaining existing ones, in the human family, because of our different 'tastes', I don't agree. Time to put the pieces together.

Hi waterfall,

Shorter than saying "Christ's Church which the Reverend X serves."  In all but the rarest of circumstances Churches are not personal property.

It does serve as a reminder that there is phenomenon like personality cults that can exist in mainline denominations where the Charisma of  individual leaders is more of a catalyst for community than shared values.

Should they?  Could they?  Would they?

My expereince is that God's persuasion outstrips my ability to be stubborn.  And some opinions formerly held presented no real obstacle to lessons taught.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi All,

The Reverend denBok claims that one reason people come is that they are hungry for God.  She does not claim that they are hungry for the God of Olde Time Religion which would be God of a specific flavour although it might be safe to suggest that folk actually aren't looking for the God of Olde Time Religion.

There is something traditional still at play.  The notion of God as alien, something other.  A God composed of something different from what makes me comfortable.  A bigger kind of God than what stereotypes offer.

The Reverend denBok suggests that some folk want a God which is actually something of a challenge.  If that is true then folk are coming to the congregation she serves because that challenging God is presented.

Is the Reverend denBok's description of God unique?  By no means.  She may articulate that description better than others but we don't, in the space given to the article, have a means to test that.

The Church the Reverend denBok serves is healthy because it meets an expressed need.  On the face of it that doesn't appear to be radically different from what the Reverend Vosper describes.

Both are meeting the needs of a particular constituency.

Grace and peace to you.

John

[quote=The Observer}

Observer: Connie, your church is pretty healthy. Why are people coming to your place? 

denBok: Mine was a 1950s suburban church that reached the end of its lifespan. Early on, I did 50 funerals in one year. Today it is a reforming church with the younger generation that’s moving into the subdivision. In spite of the story-line that we have outgrown God and religious practice, I’m finding a generation hungry for God and for a spirituality that engages them in an encounter with the Other. The God story is very much focused on somebody who is not me, who is in relationship with me; someone whom I cannot remake according to my particular tastes; someone who has thoughts and opinions that are different than my own.

[/quote]

Sure, there is a spiritual hunger out there, but Connie's definition of what people hunger for is hers. A separate, supernatural, humanoid God, who has humanoid thoughts and opinions and has a particular love for the human species, is not everyone's definition of what people hunger for.

In my opinion, Connie's archaic defintion of God is no longer popular. It drives people away from church rather than attracting them. The church does itself a disservice by clinging to such a definition.

Hi Arminius,

Unless she is honestly relating what she has found right?  No possibility of that at all is there?

And wouldn't your definition of what people hunger for be yours?

What in your mind/experience makes your definition selfless and the Reverend denBok's selfish?

While true the Reverend denBok wasn't articulating what everyone is hungering for it is an articulation of those who find their way to the Church she ministers at.  Is that somehow unfair?

So popularity is the test of truth and goodness is it?  Slavery, for example, was good when a majority of people approved of it.  How does it ever become bad then, wouldn't the initial minority that opposed it be determined to be bad and violently resisted?

Is your opinion only worhtwhile when it is shared by a majority?

And the fact that the Reverend denBok's church is recognized as healthy and is welcoming younger people in is a function of that driving away and not attracting right?

We should probably abandon definitions altogether then.

I mean the only definition that the Reverend denBok has lifted up is a God who is other, resists being pigeon-holed and doesn't think exactly as she does.  Should that definition be rejected for one of God who is exactly the same as we are?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi John:

Sure, Connie is honestly relating what she thinks is right. And no, I don't think Connie's defintion is more selfless or selfish than Gretta's.

No, popularity is not the test for goodness or truth.

Of course we can't abandon definitions; it would be ridiculous to suggest that. But it might be good to abandon the absolutism with which we define our concepts, and regard our definitions as more relative or metaphorical than absolute.

I think it is absolutism that is hurting the traditional Church, not definitons.

Sure you want to use that one? Slavery is condoned in the bible. It was people moving past the biblical stories who resisted slavery.

As Arminius self-identifies as an atheist as well as a Christian, I have never read his state that he thinks that, and I sincerely doubt that he thinks like that, as atheists are still in a minority position. I have had Christians on this site explain to me that not enough people disbelieve in gods for my position to be taken seriously.

The way I see what Arminius wrote, is that our population is growing up and growing away from the traditional supernatual definitions of "God". It's a massive shift in the way young people perceive the world, and it's a shift away from Connie's archaic God and the distrust and hatred religion has fostered, and toward a more naturalistic way of appreciating our world. If I'm wrong, Arm, please correct me.

So using that argument Chansen, does that mean all Human Traffickers are Christians?

Slavery has existed since 11000 years ago and continues to exist unfortunately. There are many, many reasons why slavery was implemented in different societies in human history. Christianity began during a period in history when it was already in existence. Rome wasn't built in a day.

???

No, it means what I wrote - that slavery is condoned in the bible, and that the Christians who resisted slavery were met with bible-based opposition.

Funny how you have to interpret sections of the NT and ignore other parts to get an anti-slavery message from the bible, but the rule against eating shrimp is clear as day.

LMAO

So, Jesus was a rabble-rouser who spoke truth to authority...but slavery was kinda needed so he let that one slide. Is there anything in the bible that you refuse to try to justify?

First, I don't accept your premise that slavery was a necessary evil. I'm more of a "slavery is just plain evil" type. My excuse is that I'm just an atheist with no basis for my sense of morality.

Second, if the bible is going to be static for a couple thousand years, and that's something you expect an omniscient deity to know...why not put a clause in there about how slavery is okay, until, say, steam power is invented and we can feed everyone more easily? What a concept. But no, let's have Jesus say nothing about slavery, and then hope someone can make the case almost 2000 years later.

Just to review the slavery question, I did a quick Google search. What I came up with was hilarious. Look at this top search result: 146 Bible Verses About Anti-Slavery. Look at the most "helpful" verse:

That's a punishment for stealing! Not slavery!

Do you and other Christian not understand the amount of damage you do to your faith, just by trying to argue these points so ineffectively? It's embarrassing.

I am arguing the facts. Unfortunately slavery has been aroud FOREVER. I am NOT condoning, nor excusing it's existence during biblical times or any other time. Obviously though, we as human beings are still putting up with its existence even today. Christian or not. It just has never completely gone away, EVER!

.

And I never said slavery was a necessary evil. It existed/exists. It's evil.

Right, and Christianity had a long history of condining it, and you're defending Christianity's past of condoning it by saying there were many reasons why.

Was slavery at least partly responsible for, say, the rapid expansion of the US economy? Absolutely. Was it necessary and justifiable? I don't think you'll find many historians who would go that far, and those who do, will likely be Christians trying to justify Christianity's role.

Hi Arminius,

Do you know something about the people who attend her congregation that she doesn't then?

I didn't ask if the Reverend denBok's definition was more selfless or selfish than the Reverend Vosper's.  I asked if it was more selfless or selfish than yours.  But now that you bring it up why would you think that the Reverend denBok's impressions of why folk attend her Church is less trustworthy than the reasons the Reverend Vosper gives for folk attending hers?

So?

Out of curiousity where do you see the Reverend denBok advocating for absolutism?

Absolutism is a rather broad term what absolutism are you pointing to?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi chansen,

If I didn't think it was appropriate I wouldn't have brought it up.  If you want to make a case for slavery using literal interpretation of scriptures be my guest.  If you want to pretend that scripture nowhere points to a relationship beyond slavery then you are being ignorant about what scripture contains and how it is read.

It was.  Slavery is also discouraged in the bible.

Tell that to William Wilberforce.  Tell that to Martin Luther King Jr.  Both of whom relied heavily on the biblical stories as they resisted slavery and the notion that black people were lesser people than white people.

But never mind them, they apparently accomplished nothing in regard to either.  Nothing worthy of note at any rate.  Certainly nothing which actually supports your point.  Lets go back to ignoring both because it is such a more honest  conversation that way.

That's a rather generous interpretation.  Argumentum ad populum and all.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Right, so it only took Christians 1800 years for some of you to discover this message and get around to resisting slavery. Well done, Christians. You are really on the ball.

I don't think either of us are saying it's more valid, it's just increasingly popular. It's a definite demographic shift, and I think it's a positive one, but there's nothing about validity based on numbers in our posts.

Not condoning anyone participating in slavery. I trust you are actively fighting slavery today. How much time do you need to end it Chansen? More than 3 years?

Ahhh....Christianity gets a pass for 1800+ years of silence on or acceptance of slavery because I'm not working against it. Got it.

Remind me again how your faith is any basis for morality.

Hi chansen,

To be fair.  It wasn't universally practiced for those 1800 years either.  And while I know that fact gets little shrift when you want to attack Christianity as a whole if you care to take a look at the history of any Western nation you will find that the vast majority of the population did not have the finances to own a slave.

Of course it is easier to suggest that slavery was all about the faith of the slavers than it was the economics of slavers.  We could far more accurately say that the rich supported slavery far more than did the poor but that isn't the axe you choose to grind so why not ignore that aspect of reality.  It shows just how on the ball you are.

I'm sure you would have caught your mistake, your 150 year mistake a lot sooner even if I hadn't bothered to point it out to you.  That's how on the ball you are eh?

Appeals to popularity are the only appeals that have been made.  Surely you understand how that logical fallacy works right?  Other than that determining another position archaic is an appeal to novelty and is a logical fallacy in its own right.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I'm not saying that Christians owned slaves like Canadians own tuques. I've been trying hard to be clear that I'm not saying that. But Christianity, if it has anything to do with a real, all-loving deity, really messed up by not addressing slavery from the get-go. If it did, I still may not believe depending on any new evidence, but at least I'd have more respect for it.

Your just being wilfully ignorant if you think there was silence or acceptance of slavery from every Christian or Atheist for that matter. Do you have an atheist hero that spoke out against it?

Well at least have some respect for how long it takes to change public opinion without any media like we have today. It was a different world. Speaking out may have meant you looked good for doing so, but it could also cause those being defended to be put to death and the one speaking out against it also.

Christianity has ready-made arguments in favour of slavery. Atheism has no codes or dogma to draw upon. It sucks in that area, but the good news is that humanism can march forward, while Christianity keeps getting pulled back by the bible. Watching John and others debate theology with some other members of this site is like watching a tug-of-war match. No matter how far Christians advances the cause of humanity, the bible is always there in the background, waiting to be taken literally by someone new who will use it to kick your own legs out from under you.

Ahhh...so Jesus wasn't so much pro-slavery, as much as being anti-slavery was going to be...you know...hard.

And as I recall, wasn't he put to death anyway? If he spoke out against slavery as well, how much more put-to-death was he likely to be?

I love it when you accuse me of ignorance and then ask me a question you're ignorant about.

How about this quote?

Sorry, this guy is in favour of women voting as well as being against slavery and arguing against the bible as a moral guide. I hope women voting is okay with you.

There were freethinkers back then arguing against slavery, but they were often shut out of the public square. By Christians, typically. Only one man in Boston would let William Lloyd Garrison speak in his hall. Boston. He wasn't a Christian, either.

His dying spoke to all inequalities.

Read Exodus 20

Yes, the Ten Commandments, which are at least half crap, and Moses leading the Israelites out of slavery in Eqypt, which likely never happened, and doesn't speak of slavery being bad in general terms.

And still, "no coveting thy neighbour's donkey" made the cut, but slavery was part of some catch-all?

Garrison was highly influenced to be an abolitionist after listening to Benjamin Lundy preaching against slavery, he was a Quaker.

Hi chansen,

Fair enough.

From Christ in the Gospels.

Would you think that slavery was being endorsed by the phrases, "to proclaim release to the captives" and "let the oppressed go free" or rejected?

The Greek word that the translation renders into servant is doulos.  Doulos or the plural douloi is normally translated into English as "slave."  I suspect most translations sanitize because of the context (Jesus talking to the apostles).

Be that as it may here we have Jesus rejecting the term "slave" for the term "friend."  Would you read that as an endorsement of slavery or its rejection?

In this text Jesus refers to lords and tyrants.  Typical technical terms for those who owned slaves.  The Apostles are not to be like that.  Instead they are to be servants.  Here the Greek word doulos is not used but rather the Greek word diakonos from which we get the word Deacon or steward.  Slaves could be Deacons or Stewards, when that happened they were typically second in household authority to the Master only.

Again, this text does not endorse slavery.  It actually calls for a slavery model to be rejected.

Outside of the Gospel material we have the Pauline literature.  Depending upon the scholar some place Paul's writings at an earlier date of composition than the Gospels.  At any rate they are contemporary to one another and we have nothing uniquely Christian earlier than either.

Paul writes to Timothy (an apprentice minister) about why he has left Timothy in Ephesus and what he expects Timothy to do while he is away.  Namely Timothy is to combat false teachings and rebuke the ungodly and sinners.

To give Timothy a better job description Paul lists some specific sinners that Timothy is to opposes

I find the text pretty clear.  Slave traders are contrary to sound teaching.  There is no way that can be considered an endorsement of slavery.

Elsewhere in his letter to the Church in Galatia Paul writes:

Which, while not explicitly anti-slavery does demolish the notion of privilege.  Jews are no better than Greeks.  Free men are no better than slaves.  Men are no better than women.

There is also no way one can build this passage into an apology for slavery.

To be more clear Paul writes further

Paul actually is teaching the Galatians to resist any future attempts to enslave them.  Not a ringing endorsement of the slave trade and if nobody has privilege over another as is made clear in Galatians 3:  28 then not only must the Galatians resist future attempts to enslave them they have no safe ground from which to attempt to enslave another.

Finally I would commend you to the book of Philemon.  It is really short, you should be able to read it in all of two or three minutes.  Philemon is a slave owner with a problem.  One of his slaves, Onesimus, has run away and gone to Paul for assistance.

It is a very powerful letter and Paul really throws his apostolic weight around.

The central point of the book is here:

Paul makes light of Onesimus's action.  He ran away, and by the law of the day he was due at least a beating.  And according to Paul Philemon could beat him if that is how Philemon would treat Paul.

That Paul would seek to elevate Onesimus to his position as Apostle (in terms of respect and honour owed) suggest that Paul is rejecting the conventional norms of slavery. 

Onesimus is returning to Philemon, not as a slave, but as a brother.  At minimum a man who should be freed and not one who should be kept a slave.  There is nothing in this text which suggests that Paul endorses slavery and everything suggests that Philemon is going to have to adjust to no longer owning Philemon.

Grace and peace to you.

John

We could go on like this for days, but here goes:

Here we have a parable from the gospels that explains the conditions under which Jesus says it's permissable to beat slaves, and how hard.

So, Paul is for slaves fearing and trembling before their masters, as they would in front of Christ. I think these passages attributed to Paul are more clear and unambiguous than yours are.

So, where do these leave us? If you want to defend slavery, and you take the bible seriously, you have plenty of backup without even venturing into the OT.

Again, I'm not saying Christianity is the root cause of slavery, but just because some abolutionists were Christians, and focused on parts of the bible which can be thought of as anti-slavery, does not excuse that other parts of the NT and most references in the OT are pro-slavery or neutral on the subject.

Here was an opportunity to be clear and unambiguous and be firmly on the "right" side of history and morality, and Christianity blew it.

Hi chansen,

If I can do it with airclean33 or unsafe why would it be different with you?

Is this text a teaching about slavery or is slavery used as an example?  Is this text an endorsement of slavery?  What is the context of the passage about?  At best the text tells us that slavery was a reality it doesn't tell us that Jesus is advocating  for it.

I do.

Paul writes to a Gentile audience.  An audience that is heavily influenced by Rome and slavery is the backbone of the empire.  Slaves were turning to Christianity not because it endorsed their situation but rather because it promised an end to it.

Since Christianity is, at best, suspect by the Roman Empire and condisered seditious slaves claming freedom in Christ's name gain the freedom of the grave it is a treasonous act.

Paul is advocating a form of subversion with a better track record and one that will not get them killed by practicing it.

Neither is this an endorsement of slavery.  Again the slave is exhorted to a different form of subversion, one that will not get them killed.  Even the slave owner is being addressed in v9 and it isn't a thumbs up to business as usual.  The whole point of mentioning that both the slave and the owner have the same Master (no privileged standing) is to put the slave owner on the hotseat.

Provided you are ignorant of what is being said sure.

You aren't but you are.

So some passages are only thought of as anti-slavery?  It really is just our imagination that these passages don't endorse slavery.  Rather than your insistence that the rest of the NT and most references in the OT are proslavery.  And yet you don't want to say Christianity is the root cause of slavery so you just will but not.

Just like you clearly aren't making Christianity responsible for slavery but . . . .

Nothing unambiguous about that.

And the image of a black man critical of black Christians is of course, more of you not tarring all Christians with the same brush.
 

Martin Luther King Jr. was a black Christian. 

What the hell was he thinking eh?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Yes, chansen, I agree that there is massive shift away from the archaic God, and away from any religion or denomination that demands unquestioning belief in such a God.

I was pointing to the unquestioning belief in doctrine.

And I don't think Connie's definitions are more trustworthy that Gretta's, or that anyone's definitions are more selfish than anyone else's.