Anti-gay college snubs Baptist youth choir
flockwoodCumberland College in Kentucky has let a group of Texas high schoolers know that they’re not welcome on campus because they attend a Baptist Church that critics say isn’t sufficiently anti-homosexuality.
The choir, from Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, will travel to Nashville instead, according to a story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
h/t: Caleb Powers
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I’m sure you all know what I believe about marriage, but this is just ridiculous…really.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
David, this is the same college that expelled a gay student back in about 2004. A group, including my son (who is not gay, but like me, interested in equal rights for all), protested there. Apparently it didn’t take.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Yes but this isn’t even an example of gay people being excluded. It’s not even an example of straight people who publicly support gay rights being excluded. It’s an example of (outwardly) straight people from a church that does not openly support gay rights being excluded, because they don’t hate gays *enough*.
I think elements of the relgious right have passed over some kind of ideological hate event horizon, where they are now just spiralling down to a null point of hate where no light at all will be able to escape, and where no level of hatred will be enough to satisfy them.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Actually, it is about excluding the CHILDREN of straight people from a church that does not openly support gay rights, but don’t hate gays “enough.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Niall–what happens in the event horizon, stays in the event horizon…
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Sounds like a territory dispute to me.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
The protestant Bible is very clear; that homosexuals are committing sins equal in severity to fornication and just like everybody else in the world who doesn’t say the correct prayer, and live the correct religious life are ALL going to hell to burn for eternity and suffer unimaginable pain without hope of redemption.
You don’t have to believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures to see this reading of the word either. Even a liberal naive un-American non-white heathen from some false religion like Islam, Hinduism, or mysticism (witchcraft in disguise), can easily see the hard-line stance taken by God himself when they read these passages.
But just like the role of women in the Church and home, which has now been reversed by feminist education, and just like the proper beating of children with a “rod” (so they aren’t spoiled), and many other important ethical rules, educated (aka, brainwashed) people are trying to really bend the scriptures to fit their “scientific” understanding of psychological health and emotional honesty (hypocrites trying to make an apple into an orange, if you ask me!)
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 am
Look, Paul, I don’t believe any more than you do that homosexuality is something that is OK with the scriptures, or with God. I believe it is contrary to the commandments. However, to tell a bunch of kids that they cannot sing songs that praise God in a certain location is just ridiculous. We have enough reasons to debate and argue with making something up because you think you’re trying to be righteous. Do you think that Jesus himself would ever tell one of his brothers or sisters, “You know what, you’re gay, so I don’t want to spend time with you and I definitely don’t want you to sing a hymn for me, even though your voice is beautiful.”
Just me, but I can’t see him saying that. I think he’d put his arms around that person, because he wouldn’t be afraid of him, and say, “Sing with all your heart, my brother. I’ll listen because I love you.”
And, that being said, we’re not even talking about a “gay” group, but a bunch of students who belong to a church with a “different” view of gays and lesbians than the previously show sponsoring church.
Just my two cents.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 am
Hi David,
Thank you for a courteous and most graciously polite response.
Please accept my apologies though. It’s obvious to me now, I was not being clear enough (in my negative portrait of the far right zealot), and in addition, I never included a statement of my own personal beliefs, which like you (and more so) are rather contrary to extremist and ‘literal meaning’ camps. I was merely attempting to relate an accurate theological interpretation of typical current evangelical beleifs and how they may be congruent or may diverge from a strict and orthodox interpretation of ancient man-made collections of stories such as the Bible.
Personally though, I’m not technically a Christian now, though I was for many years (I am a PK). In fact, I unnecessarily bore a frequent existential crisis much longer than I needed to, even after I had studied many other religions and philosophies, in the process developing my critical reasoning skills and inner comfort level when accepting uncertainties (the greatest hurdle for me). For me, allegiance to a book (set of positions) was easier, simpler, and more reliable than allegiance to a process — that of making no claims to certainty, beyond what sound rational arguments can justify, reinforced by empirical science whenever possible.
It wasn’t until I had children, and began interacting more frequently with highly educated and quite confidently outspoken women (eventually marrying one) that I became convicted at my own hypocrisy and cowardly blind loyalties and prejudices. For a long time, I was that person I spoke of in my first post above, trying to make an apple out of an orange. As of today though, my current perspective is that the Bible holds no different status than the Koran, Vedas, etc. It is mostly mythological in character, with probably many real details built in, such as Geography – a common style before our current methodologies in historical research. However, I find the misogynist, racist, hate and fear based ideologies of past cultures (documented in some of the Christian scriptures) to be incompatible with my own conscience and sense of ethical right and wrong in context of today’s society.
Like you, I believe in the power of love and empathy to heal social problems. But above love, above faith, and above even reason and science, I personally value honesty. It was the very first step for me, trapped within a self-important and immaturely stubborn personality. Lack of this honesty blocked me from admitting I’m not perfect, I could be wrong, and that I probably am wrong on a frequent basis (like everyone). That’s hard to do if you are really insecure, like I was.
In summary, I believe that the Bible is very clear that homosexuals are hell bound, evil, and lost souls doomed to an eternity of suffering. However, I do not believe that in one teeny tiny bit personally, because I believe the Bible is frankly wrong on that point. In addition, I think the Bible is often quoted by hateful cowards, to justify racial, sexual, gender, and other prejudices.
Respectfully,
Paul
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
Hey Paul, nice post. Couple of things I would like to shake around with you, Do you believe that being gay is an option or genetic? The reason being, if its genetic that would mean it is part of God’s plan and we just haven’t figured it out. It not then surely the gay community is a bunch of liars and they are without a doubt condemned to hell. Secondly, the concept of the Bible and its teachings were started by whom, in your opinion? The whole concept of the Bible was brought into mankind for what purpose? This is no joke, man its nice to read thought provoking material, I need it to keep my brain working.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Paul (Joe) sez:
“In summary, I believe that the Bible is very clear that homosexuals are hell bound, evil, and lost souls doomed to an eternity of suffering. However, I do not believe that in one teeny tiny bit personally, because I believe the Bible is frankly wrong on that point. In addition, I think the Bible is often quoted by hateful cowards, to justify racial, sexual, gender, and other prejudices.”
Every time I say something like this, they accuse me of ruining the Diocese of Newark.
Though you didn’t direct your excellent question at me, Perplexed, I’ll give my answer to it anyway. Those of us in the apostolic churches, that is, those churches that believe their bishops to be in the apostolic succession (including the Catholic Church), tend to put much less emphasis on the Bible than do evangelical and fundamentalist churches. We Anglicans view the Bible as one element to be considered in determining matters of faith, but certainly not the only element, or necessarily the most important one. Where, as Paul (Joe) points out, the Bible is so clearly wrong on something, we tend not to follow it.
And before anyone gets in a dander about suggesting that the Bible can be clearly wrong, look at what it teaches about slavery: It condones slavery as it existed during biblical times, and the passages condoning it were used by “Christian” slaveowners to justify slavery centuries later. This teaching is clearly wrong, and has been abandoned by even the fundamentalists, none of whom (as far as I know) own slaves today, at least not in the United States.
As to more philosophical question of where the Bible came from and for what purpose, my own view is that the books of the Bible were written at various times and places, and reflect the beliefs of those writing them. The early church put together the books that make up our New Testament, and suppressed the rest, to the point that to this day we don’t have good texts of some of the gnostic writings. I think taking all the early Christian writings together gives us a far greater picture of early Christianity, which was, in turn, far more diverse than we could imagine from the Bible, as we have it, alone.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Caleb, some folks say that the plain word of God as written in the Old and New Testaments must apply still today, verbatim. To say otherwise would be heresy– either God was wrong or God is changing or something like that. But there is another possibility, an explanation for why acting faithfully now is not the same as it was before. Even though God is unchanging, the human race and human society has evolved and matured. Is it so implausible to contend that divine guidelines for humankind today might be a little different from those three thousand years ago? As an analogy, think of how your relationship with your children changes as they age. I am still father to my children and I love them as much as ever, but now they are grown the way in which I support them is not the same as when they were toddlers or teens.
Some things like slavery and diminished legal status of women are considered downright sinful today. However, the Bible basically shrugs a shoulder. Was the Bible incorrect? Was God wrong? Or are those ancient practices still acceptable, and instead we are arrogant and vain for daring to second guess God’s wisdom? The correct answer is “None of the above”. We are being faithful when we use our God-given noggins to discern how best to live in a 21st century world, and recognizing when the playing field has changed so much that the rules need some reinterpretation. There was not an outright prohibition on war and pollution for the folks in the Bible times, but then again they were not capable of entirely destroying God’s earthly creation like we can.
Jesus the teacher often challenged us to understand not just the “what” but the “why”. Yes, we are called to follow but sometimes we must use more than our feet. We must use our eyes and and brains too.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
All that’s true, Jose, but you don’t get there until you get past the idea that the Bible is the be all and end all of theology, which was the point I was making. Once you get past that point, you can do your analysis. The argument by fundamentalists always is that if you don’t believe that the Bible is inerrant, then what is? And the answer, sadly, is nothing. This is not easy. There’s no magic litmus test, other than to test every action and every doctrine to see if it promotes the love of God and benefits people. And that leaves a lot of room for debate, which I imagine is what God intended.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
What really is missing from the Bible are books about today, now, this era. How could the religious bodies out there write and agree on a new book of the Bible, and who would be the author?
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Perp, I suspect that our problem would be a surplus of willing authors. We already have far too people who are eager to pass along the Authoritative True Word Of God to those of us who obviously are incapable of hearing the ATWOG on our own.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Hey, if you really want the answer to that question, perplexed, I’ve a few other books for you to read….
(Sorry, Frank, I couldn’t help myself!
)
I’ve said this again and again, Caleb, although I hold the Bible to be the word of God. It is not the end all, be all of what God has said and when we read it, we have to take into consideration the times and places/when and where each thing we read takes place. Who is the audience? Why might God be saying this thing to this people. Does it specifically apply to me in this time and this place.
The Bible is a book that, in and of itself, has now power other than that which it gives unto us by our living its teachings, but rather it us how the pattern of how God deals with man through His covenants and promises in the everlasting Gospel.
I believe that there are too many who give the Bible an authority that it has never claimed for itself.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Wow, I really should have edited that….
“has NO power” and “…rather it SHOWS us the pattern…”
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Guys, what one person could all the entities that claim to be religious, be nominated to, by all the above, to pen the next Book of the Bible? King Charles?
My point is religion is so far apart, so individualised that we have lost the message of why Christ came here in the first place, not to mention the ability to have God to speak to somebody and then not certify them as crazy.
David and Caleb, I think both of you are right on the money about when, where and who. David I have read part of the Koran too. Its similarity to the content of the Bible leaves me to beleive these books are geographical in nature and it only heightens my awareness of the other books that have never come to light. You also have to throw in the Indian factor along with tribal factors that treat the earth as God, to me it means there is much more to consider than just one book.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Man, how did we get so far off the subject? Naill, where are you now?
July 4th, 2009 at 12:08 am
What exactly were we talking about again….
July 4th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Perplexed, to back up and answer your earlier question, that is, can we write new books of the Bible and if so, who would the author be, I think we already have, and the authors vary by the denomination.
The LDS Church has the Book of Mormon. I realize that they also have the Bible, but they’ve added a holy book that must speak to them in some way. Likewise, the Christian Scientists have Mary Baker Eddy’s books and the Seventh Day Adventists have the books of Ellen White. I expect that both of these groups would argue that these books don’t have the force of scripture, but precisely because they were written about and for modern times, I suspect they give more guidance on modern issues than the Bible.
Obviously my own Episcopal Church has the Book of Common Prayer, which is a service book, not a book of scriptures, but when you get as bored as I do during bad sermons and read all that stuff in the back of it, it’s clear that the book includes doctrinal material.
The Catholics have a wide body of literature, including the Church Fathers and all those catechisms and papal bulls and whatnot. Again, they’d say that these things aren’t of the same stature as scripture, but the way they cite them, you wouldn’t know the difference.
So, while no mainstream denomination would say that something they’ve written supersedes the Bible, they’ll all write things that add to it.
July 4th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Perplexed,
Before Gutenberg, I think that one guy, who stood and read the ‘old teachings’, probably did as we are here, interpreting and creating relevance to their modern (and probably quite different) culture and times.
Then (after the printing press) more and more folks could get their own copy, and probably began to decide for their selves. However, as of this century, with highly efficient mechanized processes, then radio, telephone, television, and finally the internet, not only can each person think and reason about morality, but for the first time in the evolutionary history of mankind, his choices have exploded in number.
Rather than trade with the next door neighbor (a few miles away), we’ve got the SuperWalmart of grocery stores, with every flavor of religions, mystical, ethical, and moral perspective on life and it’s meaning, purpose, values and philosophy. In fact, if you don’t like your tribe, you really aren’t doomed to living a hypocritical inner life, separate from a conformist outer life at all (unless you never outgrow cowardice and insecurity). You can simply choose some other tribe, and make them your new family.
Before, the only crisis the tribe had to content with, was ensuring continuity of leadership if the county preacher (or tribal shaman) had not made a solid and publically acceptable apprentice or successor known to all, and ready for office, upon his hopefully well planned for death or retirement. Who would perform the duties of reading and interpreting the sacred texts? Who would sit on the committee of federal advisors to the president, when times of war or economic crisis need include ear to “Gods perspective”?
However, now there is an even worse, perpetual crisis, which is something opposite, and is predicted in the Book of Revelations. There are many false prophets, and many who say they know all the answers. There are indeed TOO MANY choices and options out there, to know for sure that you have chosen the OTWOG. In fact, there are some (rather liberal) choices out there, who will not even give you that meagure reassurance and sense of security, who make absolutely no claim at all to being so dead certain, and neither make any exclusive bid to having the OTWOG. It’s all so terribly frightening.
Imagine if aliens had landed among the frightened and fearful ancestors of ours, who burned, hanged, or tortured anyone who looked, spoke, or behaved slightly different? But then, it need not have gone that way. They might have looked and found a tribe with a religious leader who was more liberal, and who might tell the people (out of kindness, or perhaps just because of dumb love) that he was sure they were angels from the Lord. Those aliens might have gotten a rather kind and decent perception of us humans then, and made a rather pleasant report as to how nicely we were progressing from monkey to mature, empathic, thoughtful beings.
And thus we have arrived at a rather interesting question indeed. Whether (as is to some degree implied in the Bible) we are moving along in history, toward some ultimate goal, in a direction somehow that places subsequent generations closer toward higher responsibilities, and with great ability to live up to our ultimate purposes? Whether you are religious, or an atheist, everyone should at some point consider this a rather crucial question, which bears some impact on how we define our worldview, political beliefs, and personal ethics. Are we mature enough as a society, to begin to think independently, honestly, about right and wrong, without hedonistic bias, or misanthropic/xenophobic spinelessness?
I’ve heard professors say that kids in their classes these days, want 100% detailed instructions for even the simplest tasks. It is as if they are inept morons incapable of even the slightest self-confident risks, and need some mechanism to blame others for any deviation in their work which falls on the backs of instructors and their directions, rather than on their own lack of pursuit of excellence, scholarship, and excellence. Professors complain that students are outraged when required to think creatively, independently, outside the box, with minimal guide rails. Granted, it seems that not only is every generation somehow “better” than the last, but while they are still here, they remind us they are even “better” than those coming after, who have fallen down on the job.
I don’t know the answers to these questions, and I don’t think anyone else really does either. I think what has changed for me personally in the last few decades is that I have become less and less willing to remain silent in regards to these questions, and even less willing to reap the benefits of sitting among, and pretending brotherhood among the proponents of what seems to me to be a major obstacle to our society becoming more ethical, empathic, educated, humanistic, tolerant, and less war-like, less hateful, less violent, less irresponsible.
Warm Regards,
Paul
July 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Paul, in all honesty I wonder if the world can live in peace. If you think about the tower of Babylon in today’s terms, it really makes you wonder if we were predestined to a permanent upheaval.
Kids today have spent way to much time alone in their childhood, they haven’t been with their parents or played outside with peers or had the opportunity to hammer a skate on a 2×4 and ride down a hill. They will pay dearly for this as they struggle in adulthood.
Paul, I have often wondered if these books and scrolls of religion were delivered in some sort of chronological order, seeing as travel was an issue of the day, how did everybody at almost the same time come up with the idea to form rules for life.
Who delivered that idea? Was it delivered in layers of growth?
Since man has always had the desire to worship something or somebody, is this a genetic marker put into by the creator.
Can’t go with the monkey theory, where’s the bridge, we’re here and so are the monkeys.
Don’t think I haven’t thought about ET.
I am concerned we don’t have some sort of unity in religion that is available to the average man to help him on his way as he struggles with the demons of today. I look for direction but only see capital adventures.
July 4th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Perplexed,
It may be that it is precisely this curiosity to consume information, balanced by a need to summarize, compress, and ultimately unify it (pun on Unified Field Theory, ha!), down to a nutshell that may have given humans the potential for 100% incorporeal layers of complexity (at the social level), and allowed for consciousness.
Once we were able to develop purely symbolic (not hinged on the physical) levels of interaction, intentionality, and yet have great personal relevance, language was an inevitability. Consciousness is NOT merely self-awareness, and it’s expansion both forward and backward in time. Animals variously have awareness that fades much more locally in time, both in forethought to plan future actions, and in introspection of what has taken place recently. I think something meta exists, which is more than the sum of part, something emergent.
The bridge will forever be required to fill every pothole, every part of the path less paved by clear evidence and well trod publication, for those whose loyalty is to a position, rather than to a process, in the same way that no logic will move he who has no identity other than that to which he has attached (vice he whose identity is that means by which he moves). Oh no, I will not dig in and defend my truths, because I really don’t have any other than what I can see in each present moment, which have been many more since I left my snug, narrow, tiny hole behind so many years ago.
On the one hand, I admire Caleb Powers, and his desire to help move others beyond a provincial dependency on certitude and false guarantees. It can be painful to accept our condition, after the taking Morpheus’s red pill, and attempts to return to bliss will be haunted by doubt. But take courage, there is a promised land, or maybe not? either way, don’t you want to go and see? Don’t you want to find out? Are you really so content to stay in the wound and sing some lullaby tune that pacifies your ability to risk uncertainty and grow and mature and see what really is? On the other hand, I spent too long lingering at the end of the trenches, waiting for friends, family and others. Telling them that it’s not at all like the stories we’re fed.
M. Night Shyamalan made a movie called “The Village”. This movie was true in ways that very few people realize, because it’s happening NOW all around us, all the time. The problem is not that we cannot see it, it’s that most people don’t want to.
Regards,
Paul
July 5th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Paul, Caleb is a pretty good fellow as are the rest of the gang here. They all help induce thought. As for the other side, my experiences have taught me many things. Number one, dying isn’t the worst thing that can happen to you. On the other side of that, love is the most powerful element ever to exist.Personally I am content being where I am, doing what I’m doing, but always trying to improve my life and position in an upright, moral fashion. I do believe there is a better place,heaven,God, infinity. My present
capacity to understand and conceive hopefully hasn’t peaked yet. The link, what is the link, could it be the mind, maybe love? When I was younger, a person so very close to me died, we spent several years together as I nurtured her health and provided a support that was unconditional love towards her, it made me mature, not that I wanted it, it just had to be done and I was the one that was going to do it. Anyway, when she was gone literally, while holding her hand and I whispered in her ear that I loved her she would rally and come back, it was then that I realized that she was there for me, not me for her. I felt selfish that I wouldn’t let her go, but finally I did. We cheated death, we lived in the moment. To this day almost 30 years later I still long for that kind of love. I have children and their love is equal or greater than that of what I speak of, but its not same. It doesn’t fill the void of that time and person. How can love be that powerful? How can you carry that for so long, not in a bad way, but its like its tucked in a velvet cloth deep in your heart and sometimes you pull it out just to realise how alive you were. Man I don’t know why I telling this, lets move on.
Lets talk about capping our intelligence, do we do it as a reflex, do we just dismiss things because we don’t understand them? Is it our social etiquette that makes us clam up or go along. Or could it be that past has taught us bad behavior that we revert to automatically when processing is required before an answer. In my life I have found very little that truly “is” what it appears to be.
As far as our levels of interaction, did mankind grow at the same rate across the globe. How were we all able to stand up and walk at the same time. The meta is a good point, the Indians were good at communicating across the dimensions either through hallucinogenics or ritual, they seemed to be closer than anyone else in meta physical contact. In closing we as humans, we need more work. Time has taught us events take place ,the world without prior warning, it shape our future, earthquakes, fires, volcanic activity. I wonder if removing the crude from the earth is removing a layer of insulation and that could be causing global warming. Just my 2 cents.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:32 am
I enjoyed reading the posts by Paul (Joe) and Perplexed very much. Quite interesting and thought inducing, particularly Perplexed’s story about love. We tend to forget that the entire basis of Christianity is the rubric that we love God and our neighbor.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I haven’t accused anyone of ‘ruining the diocese of newark’ except the people who have actually done so, including SpongJohn PointyHat.
I object to the specific hermeneutic by which the Christian left wing justifies gay love. It is a hermeneutic that simply tosses the bible out the window. That’s not helpful, necessary, or intelligent.
The choice is simply not between reading the bible like a closet confederate on the one hand; or throwing it out altogether on the other. That is a false, pernicious, illogical set of choices and I will accept neither one.
John Spong has done far more damage to the faith than any Gay Pride parade could ever do.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Let me be clearer yet.
I reject both of these options:
1. The Bible is God’s word as I, a working-class rural American with marginal education and an IQ of 95, read it off the top of my head. Every single word in it is fully binding on me today, expeshally the part about the homos.
2. The Bible is patriarchal, racist rubbish, written by evil males who feared the witchly wisdom of women; and if you read it without a sneer on your face, you are therefore in favor of the slave trade. The Bible must be read only as a formerly-important document among many far cooler ones.
I have heard both of these puke-provoking non-positions on this blog, and reject both utterly. The choice is NOT between John Spong and Fred Phelps. I am sick and tired of kindergarten theology.
I got interested in this website because it told the truth about Genpo. That doesn’t mean I’m going to choose sides in a non-dispute.
Down with Newark!
July 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Dr. Newark, I suppose it should please me that the only way you can deal with any of my posts is to misquote them, but having an education slightly better than marginal, whatever my IQ, I always strive for clarity. So, I’ll flesh out my argument about the slave trade so that it may better be understood.
The bible does not condemn the slave trade, or the institution of slavery itself. I hope one thing we can all agree on today is that the slave trade and the institution of slavery are immoral. Therefore, the Bible does not condemn at least one thing we know today to be immoral, even though the institution of slavery was quite well known in Biblical times. Therefore, the Bible cannot be our sole guide to morality. I realize that some have suggested that the Bible didn’t condemn slavery because the slavery of the Roman Empire was somehow kinder and gentler than the American version. Tell that to the slaves who fought as gladiators, willing to risk death for the chance of freedom. They didn’t do that even in the Old South.
Now, if you want to misquote that to the effect that everyone who disagrees with me supports slavery, so be it, though I have certainly never said that, and don’t believe that. You suggest that you are sick and tired of kindergarten theology; if so, you might resort to it less in your characterizations of the ideas of others.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Hi Perplexed,
Wow, that was a really beautiful story. I had a roommate in college whose grandmother was very close to him. In fact, his real mother had many problems with drugs and alcohol, so his grandmother in many ways had been all the more central and influential, as THE archetypal feminine force and formative emotional persona for him. She developed Alzheimer and he decided to specialize in gerontology and dedicated the rest of his life to that field. He told many stories about those years he spent with her, so although I haven’t experienced anything similar, I sympathize with you completely.
Caleb,
I had never heard of John Shelby before. I’m now glad I had a chance to participate in this forum, as I’ve learned a bit, and look forward to learning more
Best Regards,
Paul
July 6th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I’m glad you’ve joined us, Paul, and I hope you stay around! Your comments are quite interesting, and I expect that the group will learn learn from you, too. And, that would be John Shelby Spong; we need to get the names of our apostate friends correct, so that when the mob arrives with torches and pitchforks, they’ll know whom to attack!
July 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Perplexed -
Interesting question. I think it’s important to keep in mind that the Old Testament and New Testament are both products of catastrophe. The OT as we know it was shaped by the Israelite experience of the Babylonian Exile and the destruction of both Israel and Judah. The New Testament comes out of the catastrophe of Christ’s death on the cross. So one way to answer your question would be: Which and what kind of catastrophe would prompt today’s believers to write a new Bible? First marriages don’t count.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Niall, obviously the Bible was regional when it was written, its survival has spawned part of today’s religion. With religion as a big business with models, I truly wonder what our era will produce that will stand out enough to be considered an historic document in 50 years.
Thanks Paul, similar circumstances, not all the variables are as you described.
July 6th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Your 2008 tax return will be a historic document in 50 years. The bar’s really not set very high when it comes to that.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I don’t know if would be historic or archival. Let me rephrase, what constitutes in today’s time a document or series of articles that could affect how the world views religion.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Niall, many scholars would agree with you that the NT arose out of catastrophe, but they would suggest that the catastrophe was the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Other than the genuine letters of Paul, which apparently lay unread by anyone but their recipients until about 100 AD, nothing in the NT was written until after that destruction. Interestingly, one of the few Christian texts thought to have been written prior to the Temple’s destruction, the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, is nothing like any of the canonical gospels.
As for Perplexed’s question, you’ve got to remember that today we have thousands and thousands of documents, tv shows, web sites, and media sources of all kinds that deal with religion. When the Bible was written, every word that anyone read had been hand written. Therefore, people had few religious documents to read. I would argue that every article we read or tv show we see has the ability to change how we think about religion. I think the world of today is so different than the biblical world that the entire concept of a scripture limited to only one book is foreign to the very way we think.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I’m sure that the earliest Christians started writing things down shortly after Jesus’ death. Certainly Matthew and Luke are based on a common source (the so-called “Q” source) that, logically, has to predate them, though we have never found Q itself. Unless we want to say that all of the Gospels and Acts were based solely on oral tradition, which seems farfetched since we are dealing with two cultures of very high literacy, with long scribal traditions (Jewish and Hellenistic).
Most scholars believe the sayings and parables of Jesus circulated long before the Gospels they were incorporated into. And it makes sense that at least some of these would have been written down.
I’m not sure that gentile Christians would have seen the destruction of the Temple as a problem or catastrophe for them at all. Rather, we know from the NT itself, that the failure of Christ to return in the first generation of believers’ lifetimes was the first real crisis within the Christian churches once they had formed.
My point, however, is a bit more fundamental. I’m saying that Christianity itself was born out of catastrophe, namely Jesus’ death, which was clearly unexpected and quite traumatic for his followers. The need to explain how that could have happened was, I believe, the catalyst for much of what became Christian doctrine and belief.
As for Paul’s letters not being read by anyone but their recipients: As authoritative communications from an Apostle, they would have been distributed far and wide, not just kept by home churches they were written for. Particularly when you take into account that in them Paul delivers authoritative opinions on doctrine and church life that would have been of interest to everyone.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
perplexed, you wrote:
“Hey Paul, nice post. Couple of things I would like to shake around with you, Do you believe that being gay is an option or genetic? The reason being, if its genetic that would mean it is part of God’s plan and we just haven’t figured it out.”
I don’t think this argument makes sense. Just because a disposition has a genetic cause, doesn’t mean the disposition itself is part of God’s plan. We may discover that the predisposition to kleptomania or pedophilia are genetically based. That wouldn’t make these behaviors part of “God’s plan”.
The real problem with arguments like this is that they begin by accepting as valid a presupposition that is obviously invalid. Namely, that we judge the morality of a sexual act or orientation based on its origins. In fact, we don’t. We judge such things based on their outcomes and effects, not on their origins. Only the subject of homosexuality relies so much on questions of origin, which are largely irrelevant. By accepting the centrality of “origin” to the issue, we play into the hands of homophobic conservatives.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Niall, you are getting the cart before the horse. Before the publication (to the extent that a handwritten document can be said to be published) of the Luke-Acts work, no one had ever heard of the Apostle Paul. His letters are not quoted in any document we know of that predates the gospels, including the Q source, and the Gospel of Thomas. Thus, if we date the earliest letters of Paul to about 50 AD, which most scholars accept, and we date Mark at roughly 70 AD and Matthew and Luke at 90-100 AD, there’s a fifty year gap there where Paul’s letters lay unread. As the great scholar Edgar Goodspeed wrote in the 1930s:
“This is the explanation of the fact that the gospel literature we have thus far surveyed—Mark, Matthew, and Luke-Acts—shows no influence of Paul’s letters.
But from this point on the situation is reversed. Every Christian document shows acquaintance with Paul’s letters—the Revelation, Hebrews, I Clement, I Peter, the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp, the Gospel of John. This is, in fact, the key to the later literature of the New Testament; it is all written in the presence of the collected Pauline letters. Over against the total nonacquaintance of the earlier evangelists the difference is positively glaring. Before the publication of Luke-Acts nobody knew them; after the appearance of Luke-Acts everybody knows them.”
Goodspeed’s explanation for this anomaly — that before the publication of Luke-Acts, no one knew Paul’s letters, but afterward everyone knew them — is that Luke-Acts revived interest in Paul, if it ever existed beyond his immediate associates, and turned him into the Apostle we know and love, and that a collection of Paul’s letters was published shortly after the publication of Luke-Acts. This seems logical to me, and does explain the total non-acquaintance of even the author of Luke-Acts, which so glorified Paul, with his own letters.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Good point Caleb on religious material.
Naill, if its not genetic, would you want to imply the gay lifestyle is a choice?
July 7th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Caleb:
“Before the publication (to the extent that a handwritten document can be said to be published) of the Luke-Acts work, no one had ever heard of the Apostle Paul.”
But this is obviously false. Paul was known to the Jewish authorities, since he had been one of them. He was known by all the churches in Asia Minor and Europe whom he wrote to. And, as I’ve already pointed out, his letters were circulated among churches all over the Roman Empire. So I don’t really know what you’re talking about here.
“His letters are not quoted in any document we know of that predates the gospels.”
In other words, prior to the works who cite him we have no works who cite him. Mkay. Just because his letters aren’t cited in some other work, doesn’t mean they weren’t themselves widely read.
““This is the explanation of the fact that the gospel literature we have thus far surveyed—Mark, Matthew, and Luke-Acts—shows no influence of Paul’s letters.”
Er, no. There’s another, far more plausible and obvious explanation. Paul’s ministry existed outside the Palestinian Christian community. He had not been one of Jesus’ original followers, and his outreach to gentiles was considered heretical by Palestinian Christians (e.g., his confrontation with Peter on the subject). Yet the earliest gospels are products of the Palestinian Christian community. Why on Earth would they have cited Paul? It’s like wondering why Jerry Falwell doesn’t cite Teilhard de Chardin. Pauls’ influence does first appear in the writings of the gentile Christian community – Luke and Acts. That’s the real explanation. Not that no one was aware of or read Paul’s letters for 50 years.
I’m not sure where Revelation or the Gospel of John show “awareness” of Paul. Could you be more specific here? Since these are not normally thought of as being Pauline in spirit.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
perplexed:
I didn’t imply that the cause of homosexuality can’t be genetic. All I said was if it turned out to be genetic, that all by itself wouldn’t mean it couldn’t also be wrong.
I made the secondary point that, IMHO, the cause of homosexuality is irrelevant to how we evaluate its appropriateness. So whether it’s nature or nurture is, I think, beside the point.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Learned behavior is much different than genetic behavior. Alcoholism is thought to be genetic, obesity is thought to be genetic. Sexual orientation is thought to be given to you be God. Some scientist argue that you could be genetically predisposed to be gay as the same with alcoholism or obesity. The homophobic conservatives believe homosexuality is a sin, in response, to change the view, you need to change the perception. If it is genetic this would be a big step to acceptance in the religious world otherwise its still considered a sin against God. As we have discussed in previous posts, how do you consummate a gay marriage with an act of sodomy.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Caleb, other than the one of the latter posts Frank put up, the NT pages, I supposed I was looking for something with the weight of the Vatican II ratification back in the 60’s. I wished I had studied Greek now.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
perplexed:
You will never change conservative perceptions about homosexuality. Because you can’t derive an ought from an is. They judge homosexuality by what it is, not by what causes it. Which, by the way, is exactly how liberals should judge it. And if we can condemn alcoholism, even though it might be genetic, why exactly wouldn’t conservatives still be able to condemn homosexuality, even if that turned to be genetic as well?
July 7th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Niall, you can always stop drinking.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Tell that to all the people who’ve drunk themselves to death. And, as I’m sure you’re aware, it is a cornerstone of recovery doctrine that you *never* stop being an alcoholic, even if yous top drinking. Just as a gay person would still be gay even if they stopped having gay sex.
So the parallel is quite exact.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:09 am
So in fact, you have a choice in what you do! Some people can control it, some can’t.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:27 am
perplexed:
Of course you do. And that’s true even if your disposition is genetic. So your dichotomy between genetic = no choice and acquired = choice is obviously false.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Niall,
If light of this view, it would never be accepted into the mainstream religious orders because it viewed as a sin. If your predisposed, the urge exists where if you aren’t it doesn’t, you could almost called it premeditated. Mainstream religion won’t accept it as it is.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:44 am
perplexed:
Well, yeah. So? Showing that a behavior has a genetic basis in no way shows it to be good or irresistible. The only thing that changes people’s minds is a true moral argument, not a flight into genetics.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Reasoning changes the mind of objective people.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
But it’s objectively rational to conclude that just because a disposition is genetically based, doesn’t mean it’s moral or acceptable.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Its a start for an argument for acceptance.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
And to respond to Niall’s earlier comment, I realize that you, Niall, think that Paul’s letters were, at some point, circulated among all the churches of the Roman Empire. Just because you think it don’t necessarily make it so. As Goodspeed and other scholars have shown, prior to the “publication” of Luke-Acts, there is no evidence that anyone but their recipients ever read them. I suppose you can take the view that they read them but just didn’t say anything about it, but that’s unlikely, because they tended to quote what they read.
As far as their influence on the earlier gospels, I don’t know of any evidence that any of the gospels was written in Palestine. Certainly the great church tradition of Eusebius says that the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome, and we don’t know where Matthew or Luke were written, though I don’t know of any scholarly thought they were written in Palestine, though their addition of a post-resurrection narrative has a Jerusalem flavor to it.
As for Dr. Goodspeed’s point about Revelation, I’ll refer you to the source itself: There is a web site called Early Christian Writings, which you can find by googling the name (every time I try to post a link here, the blog won’t take my post), and there’s a link to online books. One of those books is Goodspeed’s 1937 commentary on the NT, which has a chapter on the first collection of the letters of Paul, which he finds to be stylistically similar to Revelation.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
The sharing of Paul’s letters among different Christian congregations, and indeed the exchange of such letters among congregations, is expressly commanded by Paul himself:
Colossians 4:16: “After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.”
As Paul himself describes, his letters came with readers, also sent from Paul. And these readers travelled from church to church sharing Paul’s letters. I Corinthians 16 and II Corinthians 8 also document, in detail, the network of evangelists and messengers that Paul deployed to keep his churches in communication with one another. They would certainly also have been sharing his letters among the various churches. You are depending on a rather modern understanding of a “letter”, where Paul writes something, drops it in the mail box, and only the recipient reads it. That’s not in fact how Paul’s letters were distributed, as the epistles themselves make abundantly clear. Paul was in fact an itinerant preacher – the Billy Graham of his day. That he would only have spoken of the contents of one letter to one church and not to any other is absurd.
The Gospel of Mark is clearly a product of Palestinian Christianity, as every scholar on the subject has concluded. Ditto for Matthew. Which is, as I’ve said, why they would have had no reason to cite Paul, whose ambit was Asia Minor, Greece and Italy.
And it’s interesting you can’t answer why we should see John or Revelation as “influenced” by Paul. You’re the one making the claim, so you’re the one who should be able to back it up.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Well, okay, Niall. I am quite capable of making the argument, but thought that if your goal were to learn something rather than just aggravate someone, you might want to go to the source that I’ve cited, rather than read a couple of stray paragraphs here. But, if you’re unwilling to read the source itself, here is my summary of it:
Dr. Johnson suggests that the author of revelation adopted the literary device of the use of a collection of letters, expressly based upon the collection of Paul’s letters extant:
“Almost the first book to show acquaintance with them is the Revelation of John, written by the prophet of Ephesus in exile on Patmos. His book is so swayed by the newly published corpus of Paul’s letters to seven churches that he actually begins his book with a corpus of letters to seven churches. If any literary resemblance could be more striking and massive than this, it is difficult to imagine what it would be. Yet students of the Revelation have been so engrossed in its apocalyptic atmosphere that this obvious fact about it, which strikes one in the face on the first page, has actually escaped their attention.
But it is most unnatural for an apocalypse to begin with a letter, still less with a corpus of letters—seven letters, in fact—and these letters addressed to Christian churches. Can this possibly be dismissed as coincidence? Not when we observe the further fact that the Revelation corpus is not a real collection of letters that have been sent to their several readers; the collection is avowedly a literary device, and all the letters go to all the churches. It is no actual collection of letters once sent and later collected that meets us in Revelation, chapters 1-3. The letters are written as a collection and made to form the portal of the Apocalypse, and the whole work is sent to all the churches in the list.
We cannot suppose that this artificial corpus of letters preceded the actual gathering-together of Paul’s letters scattered among seven churches. It is clear that the real collection of letters to seven churches must have preceded the artificial one, which was simply an imitation of it.”
So, that’s Dr. Goodspeed’s argument.
As for your statements that the letters must have been circulated because Paul said so, that’s pretty weak, given that there is no supporting evidence. If Paul were indeed the Billy Graham of his age (and that comparison reminds me of the time when, during the presidential election of 1956, Eisenhower suggested that Norman Vincent Peale was “the American apostle,” Adlai Stevenson suggested that, as a Christian, he “found the Apostle Paul appealing and the Apostle Peale appalling”), he managed to do so without a lot of fanfare. It’s awfully easy to read Paul’s letters, and the mostly fictional account of his actions in Acts and believe that everyone in the ancient world knew who he was. It is unlikely that the corpus of Paul’s letters has come down to us in anything like the form in which it was written, and relying on instructions contained therein in the modern versions having been there in the beginning is doubtful at best, and assuming that instructions were carried out is adding an additional layer of doubt to the process.
One of the things I have learned in a lifetime of law practice is that you can never take anyone’s word for anything, particularly when there are written sources to which to look. A hundred years of Baptist Sunday School classes have convinced everyone that Paul was the Indiana Jones of the ancient world, a title he apparently only received after the publication of Luke-Acts, which probably didn’t occur much before the turn of the second century.
Now, why don’t you tell me who some of these biblical scholars who say different are. I’ve revealed my sources, time for you to do the same.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I said Dr. Johnson when I meant Dr. Goodspeed. His middle name was Johnson.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Caleb-
Paul did not invent the epistle. In writing his epistles, he was simply following the accepted forms for written correspondence of his day. So to say that anyone else who writes in an epistolary style can only be consciously imitating Paul is absurd. That Revelation is both an apocalypse and a book of prophecy – both genres Paul never created or worked within – tells us how far from Pauline this book is. Just to take one subject – the legitimacy of Roman authority – we see how diametrically opposed they are. Paul unconditionally affirmed the validity of Roman authority. Revelation is all about how that same authority is demonic and must be destroyed. Etc. So your argument here is very, very weak.
Also, there is no reason to believe that Revelation was written by the same author as the Gospel of John. If you read Greek – as I do – it’s impossible that one and the same person could have written both, since the style of each is completely different. The text of Revelation is famous for being rough, almost uncouth and barbaric. A far cry from the smoothe sophistication of the Gospel of John.
“As for your statements that the letters must have been circulated because Paul said so, that’s pretty weak,”
Ha ha. Thanks for making me laugh. So that fact that I can document Paul actually commanding his letters be shared among different churches isn’t evidence that they were? Give me a break. Particularly when we understand the letters would have been carried by his own servants and proteges. It’s in fact excellent evidence that supports my point.
Reginald Fuller, for one, does not believe that Mark was written in Rome. Indeed, the relation of Mark with Rome is based entirely on the spurious pairing of Mark with Peter’s ministry, for which there is really no historical support.
Eduard Schweitzer represents the critical consensensus on the Gospel of Matthew, that it is very much a product of Jewish Christianity. Matthew uses the Midrash form extensively throughout his Gospel, Jewish customs are assumed rather than explained, etc.
Goodspeed’s theory is a rickety piece of nonsense that is both ahistorical and illogical.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I agree that Revelation and the gospel of John were not written by the same person, and if I implied otherwise, I didn’t intend to.
You say: “So [the] fact that I can document Paul actually commanding his letters be shared among different churches isn’t evidence that they were?”
I don’t know of any documentation other than the current texts we have of the Pauline corpus, which as I’ve said, has no doubt been subject to much change. Just cause the Gideon bible in your drawer (or the Hort-Westcott text) says it doesn’t mean that the ancient texts did. As you know, the older the manuscript, the more deviations from standard it generally has. And, as I’ve said, there is no documentation that anyone actually quoted the letters, as they did everything else.
I didn’t mean to imply that the apocalyptic message of Revelation came from Paul, merely, as Dr. Goodspeed says, that it would be a bit of a coincidence to suggest that, right after Paul’s letters were apparently circulated as a group, another book is written that uses as a literary device — wait, wait, don’t tell me — a collection of letters addressed to Christian churches in the same general area of those to whom Paul wrote.
Now I guess that could just be a coincidence. After all, as you suggest, Paul didn’t invent the letter, and as I would concede, he also didn’t invent the collection of letters, a literary form well known in ancient times. But it seems a bit coincidental to my way of thinking that we get Luke-Acts exploding on the Gentile Christian front, introducing Paul to the masses, then the collection of Paul’s letters posited by Goodspeed, then Revelation, which uses the same literary device, and they aren’t connected. The other thing a lifetime of practicing law has taught me is to be suspicious of coincidence.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Right. So if I can quote you a source that proves my point, the source itself must be corrupt. Again, give me a break. You’re not even trying to make a coherent argument here.
You write:
“As you know, the older the manuscript, the more deviations from standard it generally has.”
No, that’s not true. It all depends on the age of the oldest manuscript we actually possess relative to when we thought the original was written. The chain of manuscript evidence also allows us to compare consistency over time and determine how accurate the transmission of the book has been. For example, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest text we had of the Book of Isaiah dated from 1000 AD. The DSS contained a manuscript of Isaiah dating from the 1st century BC. When the two were compared, only very minor differences were find. Very good testimony to the accuracy of the scribal tradition involved in its transmission. But if you have evidence that the verse I cite is corrupted, please share. Also note that the earliest text of Colossians that we have dates only from the 2nd century AD. So the intervening centuries between then and now are meaningless in terms of contributing “deviations from the standard”.