Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I had a wonderful discussion with a Bible Professor who offered the
    image of Jesus as a brother.
    
    That image has stayed in my head for the last week and I thing of it in
    terms of the Mary/Martha story.  I am Martha in that story and my
    brother Jesus scolds me for telling Mary to get back in the kitchen and
    help me.  I scold back as only a sister could and say, "well get off your
    doff then and come into the kitchen and help" so that we all can have the
    leisure to think great thoughts.  And the story works.  The Jesus of two
    thousand years ago who washed his disciples feet would have no problem 
    today washing dishes and changing diapers.  That Jesus is an active 
    proponent of the equality of all people.  That Jesus would look back
    and evaluate scripture based on its ability and usage to help define
    the equality of all people.
    
    
    Patricie

"Jesus loves me, this I know..."

We've probably all sung this catchy little song at one time or another.  Where
I congregate, we still do sing it on occasion.

But my perceptions about Jesus have expanded and deepened with time.  I've
come to appreciate that singing, "They are weak but he is strong," is not
about physical strength.  (It would be an intriguing experiment, though,
to cast Arnold Schwartzenegger in the lead role of a film version of the
life of Jesus.)

I've matured to the point that I realize that believing in Jesus is not
going to make everything "all better."  Believing in Jesus is not going to
make me immune to pain or sorrow or trouble or loneliness.  Believing in
Jesus is not a panacea for every condition of the heart and mind.

Richard

Re: .2  Richard

>(It would be an intriguing experiment, though,
>to cast Arnold Schwartzenegger in the lead role of a film version of the
>life of Jesus.)

I can see it now.... "I'll be back!"

				-- Bob

re .0
	Richard,

	I was brought up to believe that Jesus was a defenseless little
	baby in a manger, but this perception was not based on anything
	solid. Jesus may have once been born a defenceless human baby,
	but he is now a king in the heavenly realm and should be portrayed
	as such so that others can come to have an accurate knowledge of him.
 
	Since studying the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, I am now convinced 
	as Peter was that Jesus is indeed the only-begotten Son of God (Matthew 
	16:16). As Christ, he is Jehovah's "Anointed One" and has been given 
	authority over heaven and the earth (Matthew 28:18) and will soon 
	exercise that authority to it's full extent over the earth, clearing 
	away those in opposition to God's kingdom (Psalm 2,Daniel 2:44) and 
	the wicked who do not want to subject themselves to this kingdom
	(Psalm 37:10). The "meek ones" left will gain full benefit from
	being subjects of this kingdom, in that they "will possess the
	earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the
	abundance of peace." Psalm 37:11 NWT

	This is some of the things Jehovah God is communicating to mankind 
	through the pages of the Bible. Today, the majority of people in
	the earth can obtain a Bible, and if they can't read they can 
	learn for free from other Bible students. Jehovah God through his
	mercy wants people to come to have an accurate knowledge of Him
	and his Son, for this means everlasting life (John 17:3) Ofcourse
	today, many reject this form of communication and by doing so are
	rejecting God's provision for life itself (Revelation 22:17).

	Phil.

  >That Jesus would look back and evaluate scripture based on 
  >its ability and usage to help define the equality of all people.

Jesus has already evaluated Scripture.  However, it doesn't
match your criteria of picking and choosing what promotes "the
equality of all people".  Jesus seems to be much more concerned
with giving and sacrifice than achieving equality.  Slaves
remain slaves and citizens and non-citizens remain subject to the
government.

It sounds to me that you are the one pushing an agenda onto Jesus.

Collis

    It would also be wrong to claim that Jesus endorsed the status quo,
    though .5 seems to make it sound as though that's exactly what he did.
    
    Richard

  >It would also be wrong to claim that Jesus endorsed the status quo,
  >though .5 seems to make it sound as though that's exactly what he did.
   
Not sure why you read this into what I said.  I re-read what
I wrote and it doesn't seem to me that it addresses the issue
of "status quo" at all.

According to what I have heard and read about Martin Luther
King, I would say that equality was important to him.

According to what I have heard and read about feminism, equality
is important to those that espouse that cause.

According to what I have heard and read about Jesus and the prophets, 
equality was not a major issue.  Seeking "equality" was not only not 
encouraged, if anything it was discouraged.  We are to be content in
our circumstances.  We are to trust God.  We are to serve and submit
without regard for ourselves.

I don't see the relationship of this to the status quo (do you 
think that this is how people were actually acting 2000 years ago?)

It does appear that a radical position is taken by Jesus and the
prophets.  However, this radical position doesn't appear to match
what is being claimed, at least as I see it.

Collis

P.S.  All this is not saying that "equality" is a bad thing.  In
many cases, I think it is very diserable.  However, I think that
we should in this as in all matters, look closely at what the
prophets of God actually said and not base our actions simply on
our own understanding. 

    If the morality of slavery was irrelevant to Jesus, then he was 
    committing Pilate's sin of washing his hands of an evil.  Slavery is
    not, and was not, a morally neutral institution. 

    Many Christians were inspired by their faith to oppose slavery in the
    United States during the nineteenth century.  Fortunately those brave
    individuals did not take the stance that equality was unimportant to
    them or to God.

    -- Mike

Regarding the morality of slavery

I never said that this was irrelevant to Jesus or to
anyone else.  What I said (or attempted to say) was that
the fight for equality was at best a secondary issue
according to the prophets (including Jesus).  Certainly
those who believe that this is an important issue must
have some Biblical references (if for no other reason than
to persuade people like me who accept inerrancy).  I'm
more than willing to listen.  What do you find the
prophets (as recorded in the Bible or anywhere else for
that matter :-) ) have said on this issue?

Collis

    If opposing evil was a secondary issue to Jesus, then Jesus was in a
    sense an accomplice of evil himself.

    -- Mike

    Shall we start with Isaiah 58.1-12 or Amos 5.21-24?
    
    Equality is quite relevant in matters requiring justice.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard, Amos 5:21-24 is one of my favorite passages in the Bible.
    
    -- Mike

>    If opposing evil was a secondary issue to Jesus, then Jesus was in a
>    sense an accomplice of evil himself.

	So what you are saying is:

	It is evil to prioritize?
	Anything that Jesus did not explisitly condemn he supports?
	Something else again?

			Alfred

    There was an accusation that a certain agenda was being pushed on Jesus.
    I say that the agenda which was so easily dismissed as merely secondary
    in importance was very much a part of Jesus' agenda.
    
    Richard
    

    I would have thought that Jesus wanted us to eschew *all* evil. "Be
    perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect"
    
    -- Mike

    Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God.  The second most
    important commandment was to love our neighbors as ourselves.  So I
    would say that although human equality might be a secondary issue, it
    is subordinate only to our love of God.  Jesus was all for changing the
    hearts of men... He just espouse non-violence as the mode of change.
    
    Eric   

    re .13

    > Anything that Jesus did not explisitly condemn he supports?

    And conversely the question begs:
    	Anything that Jesus did not explicitly support he condemns?

    I realize that this is not what you were implying, Alfred; I just
    wanted to add to what you already stated.  I feel that it is important
    to keep BOTH questions in mind when we try to come to terms with the
    message of Jesus.

    Eric 

    RE: .17 My .13 was asking for clarification of what someone else
    said. That clarification has not been forthcoming unfortunately. I
    was implying nothing by my note other than that I didn't understand
    someone elses.

    		Alfred

    re .18

    Sorry if I stepped on your toes, Alfred. :^)  Such is the nature of
    notes, at times.  I thought that you were implying that it was
    inaccurate to infer that Jesus supported something merely because he
    did not EXPLICITLY condemn it, hence your question.  My mistake.  

    I was agreeing with this point (absence of condemnation != support) and
    attempted to add that the converse is also true (absence of support !=
    condemnation).  In any case, I thought I agreeing with you, but I
    guess it was my own biases getting in the way when I read your note.

    Sorry about that.

    		Eric 

Re:  617.10

  >If opposing evil was a secondary issue to Jesus, then Jesus was in a
  >sense an accomplice of evil himself.

I respectfully disagree.

I woud say, rather, that we *all* have issues of secondary importance
that oppose evil.  We can not be all things to all people or to all
issues.  Neither could Jesus as a person.

Re:  617.11

  >Shall we start with Isaiah 58.1-12 or Amos 5.21-24?

Thanks for the references.  Indeed, these are quite good and give me pause
to think.  

On the other hand, I don't see Jesus spending his time quoting these or
similar passages.  Equality and justice certainly are important.

  >Equality is quite relevant in matters requiring justice.

It is also likely that our ideas of justice do not match up with God's.
(Certainly we differ in this notesfile about what is just and we can't
all be right. :-)

Re:  617.14        

  >There was an accusation that a certain agenda was being pushed on Jesus.
  >I say that the agenda which was so easily dismissed as merely secondary
  >in importance was very much a part of Jesus' agenda.

Then why can't we come up with even one instance of Jesus pursueing this 
issue during his earthly ministry?

Re:  617.15

  >I would have thought that Jesus wanted us to eschew *all* evil. "Be
  >perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect"

He does.
    
Commentary:

Focusing on "equality" and "justice" is exactly what Liberation Theology
does.  This is why it raises a flag with me.

Liberation Theology indicates that it is of *primary* importance that
all people be "free" in terms of rights, wealth, etc.

This is the *opposite* message of the gospel which says that we are to
be *content* in our circumstances, that we are to *submit* to others,
that we are *not* to demand our rights but be concerned about our
*witness*.  Where is the equality and the justice of Jesus telling us
to turn the other cheek?

Yes, equality and justice are important.  But fighting and/or demanding
*our own* equality and/or *our own* justice (particularly when it leads
us into more wealth and/or power where the desires tend to be much more
motivated by the world than seeking righteousness for God's kingdom)
is the wrong focus.  But this *is* the focus of many who *demand*
equality/justice.

It appears to me that the balanced position I have presented is changed
into an extreme position and then challenged.  Let me clarify again
what I'm saying:

  - Equality and Justice are important to God
  - Equality and Justice were NOT of primary importance to Jesus
    when He was here on earth
  - In fact, asserting individual rights in an attempt to gain
    equality or justice was *explicitly discouraged* both by
    Jesus and other New Testament writers
  - Our opinions of what constitute equality or justice don't
    necessarily match up with God's
  - Looking out for equality/justice for *others* IS an important
    issue in the New Testament.  Particulary, for example, for
    the poor, the widows and the helpless (such as the fetus!!!!!)
  - Having something as a secondary issue does not mean that you
    are necessarily sinning.  It is only sinning if God has explictly
    called you to work on it as a primary issue and you ignore Him.
    The sin here, of course, is disobeying God, not the lack of
    work on a particular issue.  The reason that this is so is
    because we each have limited time, energy and abilities.  If we 
    had unlimited time, energy and abilities (like God), it would
    indeed be sinful to ignore *any* issue of sin.

Agree or disagree.  I believe that each of these statements is
easily supportable through Scripture and I welcome more Scripture
that would indicate otherwise (as I am perfectly willing to conform
my view to Scripture should it need to be changed).

Re:  .16

  >The second most important commandment was to love our neighbors
  >as ourselves.  So I would say that although human equality might
  >be a secondary issue,

Loving someone does not make them "equal" (if indeed that is what
you are implying).

I love my daughter but she is NOT my equal.  I have authority
over her.  Perhaps this is not what you mean by equality, but
there are those (some who call themselves Christians) who do mean
exactly this by equality.

In what are unequal situations (master/slave), they are each
*still* to love one another.  This does not make them equal.
(Nor does it make slavery right.)

A third example that is very popular in third world countries.  
The *poor* are to love the *rich*.  They are NOT equal to the
rich (and have not received "justice") which they claim is their
*God-given right* (because we are all to be "equal").  This is
what liberation theology is all about.  God's justice can not
rule the world until we are all "equal".  Unfortunately, this
equality is/has become defined more by the world than by God.
And the focus is ALL WRONG when it focuses on wordly equality
that benefits self rather than personal submission.

Collis

>That clarification has not been forthcoming unfortunately
    
    That is not true.  I answered your question.
    
    -- Mike

    re .21

    > Loving someone does not make them "equal" (if indeed that is what
    > you are implying).

    However, the command was to love your neighbor as *yourself*, not
    simply love your neighbor.  This, to me, explicitly indicates that we
    should treat people with equality.  Jesus didn't say "love your
    neighbor in accordance to his position".

    > I love my daughter but she is NOT my equal.

    I believe that Jesus and the Scripture writers have addressed
    parent/child relationships specifically :^)  For the moment let's just
    stick to adult human relationships.

    I'm not suggesting that we have a "God-given-right" to all be of equal
    means, to live in equal homes, to drive equal cars.  What I am
    suggesting is that we have an obligation to treat each other, to love
    each other, as equals.  A man of means can't say that he loves the poor
    to the degree that he would expect if he were poor.  No.  The rich man
    is called upon to love the poor as he loves HIMSELF.  That means that
    we can't treat people differently, or to impose different standards of
    liberty, if you will, based on some human idea of one's "station in
    life".

    Eric
      

.20

>On the other hand, I don't see Jesus spending his time quoting these or
>similar passages.

I haven't the time to play right now, Collis.  The passages I cited were off
the top of my head and you *did* request Bible passages - not specifically
the quotes of Jesus.  There are plenty more examples which are both implicit
and explicit in nature.

Luke 4.18-19 just came to mind.  These 2 verses echo Isaiah, of course.

Richard

>>That clarification has not been forthcoming unfortunately
>    
>    That is not true.  I answered your question.

	You did not answer my question in any note in this string. And I
	went back and checked. 617.15 isn't even close and doesn't seem
	related to my .13 at all. If that was an answer it hardly gualifies
	as clarification.

			Alfred

    I agree with Collis that slaves should love their slave owners (we are
    called to love our enemies, and to oppose evil without hating those who
    do evil.)  Working to overturn an evil institution does not mean hating
    those who participate in them.  This is the principle behind nonviolent
    civil disobedience--you should always bear in mind that you must love
    those who participate in evil institutions.  Nevertheless, because
    slavery is evil, it should be opposed.  To remain silent in the face of
    evil is, in a sense, to be guilty of complicity with it.  Did the New
    Yorkers who witnessed the Kitty Genovese murder sin by doing nothing? 
    It is the passive sin of doing nothing in the face of evil that Pilate
    committed.

    Are slave owners also called to love their slaves?  Certainly!  And the
    way they do this is, first and foremost, by freeing them.  And the way
    all of us show our love for slaves, whether we own any or not, is by
    working to free all slaves.  The way we express our love for the
    victims of an evil is by seeking to end that evil so that people stop
    being victimized by that evil.

    That doesn't mean that we can all devote all our energies equally to
    eliminating all evil.  Some of us can work to eliminate the death
    penalty; others can work to eliminate sexism; others racism.  With our
    finite resources, we all have only so many crosses we can bear, but we
    can lend our moral support to others who are fighting for other ways of
    implementing Jesus's ethics in specific ways that are part of their
    individual calling.  We all do what we can.  If what we do tacitly
    supports an evil, then we are in a sense guilty of that evil as well. 
    This was the principle that John Woolman embodied in his lifestyle, by
    avoiding doing anything that might tacitly support slavery.  Each of us
    has our individual calling, our individual way of implementing what
    Jesus taught. 

    -- Mike

    Re .25
    
    >You did not answer my question in any note in this string. 
    
    Yes, I did answer your question in a note in this string.
    
    -- Mike

    Ah.  Once again the story of Kitty Genovese used to malign New
    Yorkers...

    The story promoted by a newspaper and was grasped by all who want to
    believe the worst of people or New Yorkers in particular.

    Neighbors heard heard her screams and reported it to the police and the
    police were slow in their response.  The police misinformed (or lied if
    you prefer) to the reporters.  Much later, authors contacted neighbors
    who said they called. The police reluctantly produced records which
    showed the calls and showed that they gave it a low priority.
    
    It's a persistant myth.

    Well, regardless of the details of the Kitty Genovese incident, I am
    sure that New Yorkers still have plenty of other reasons for being
    maligned.
    
    However, the point remains the same--passive acceptance in the face of
    evil is a sin.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .27 Well, good, perhaps someone who can find the answer will
    mail me a pointer. I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
    
    		Alfred

    617.15 was a reply to 617.13.  If you do not find the answer there,
    then perhaps, Grasshoppuh, you should look for the answer within
    yourself.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .26

I agree with much of what you say, Mike.

Collis

Re:  .24

Thank you, Richard, for the references you did supply.
I do in fact appreciate them and recognize that there
is validity in them whether or not they are directly
referenced in the New Testament.

I hope you do not take it as belittling either your
efforts or your references if I continue to hold to
the original point which was that equality was not a
primary focus of Jesus, a point which no one has been
able to refute with direct evidence (in my opinion
since no such direct evidence exists).

Your reference to Luke 4:18-19 is a good reference.  In
light of what Jesus actually did, there is no evidence
that he was trying to change the social structure so that:

 - the Romans no longer dominated the Jews
 - women were treated as full equals
 - slavery was abolished

The freedom that is referred to is, in my opinion,
primarily related to the freedom from *sin* which is a
*major* focus of Jesus' life and the entire reason for
his coming to earth and dying.

I'm disappointed that you think I'm just making life
difficult for you rather than espousing a well thought-out
and consistent Biblical theology (which is what I think
I'm doing).  

Collis

    There are many ways to interpret the writings within the bible.  It is
    the household codes that we are discussing here.  Interestingly they
    appear throughout Paul's writings and the Post Pauline writings.  They
    are not even mentioned in the four Gospels.  These are the code that
    tell women to submit to their husbands and Slaves to submit to their
    masters.  They promote a specific androcentric style of living.  People
    who espouse a doctrinaire reading of the bible are using the bible to
    defend the hierarchical status quo.  Men over women, Christian over
    non-Christian, Master over slave.  
    
    This clearly demonstrates why the bible cannot be believed as the
    literal word of God.  For 1860 years many used the bible to support
    slavery.  Other Christians used the bible to demonstrate how abomitable
    slavery is.  Fortunately the non fundementalist perspective won. Today
    many people are clearly using these Pauline statements to descriminate
    against women.  The Roman Catholic Church clearly descriminates against
    women based on these statements and other 'biblical evidence'.
    
    Of course we can ask why Paul thought these statements were necessary. 
    Many historians now believe that women had a great deal of equality as
    early disciples of Jesus.  They were very much a part of the early
    Christian church before it became institutionalized in a patriarchal
    mode.  What ever happened to the Gospel of Mary? 
    
    As I have stated before, I believe that revelation is continuous. 
    Revelation did not end with the Patriarch, Paul.
    
    It is appropriate to look at contemporary issues and judge the human
    recordings of revelation based on the recordings ability to offer
    contemporary guidance.    If we do not do this then the bible is
    useless at best to meet today's needs.  At worst it can be used as a
    weapon of intolerance and oppression.  This is liberation theology at
    least my brand of liberation theology.  The equality of all people is a
    essential goal.  The bible either is used to suppport this goal or else
    it is irrelevent or worse.  There is much in the bible including the
    gospels that support liberation theology. The rest needs to be judged
    against this liberating influence.
    
    Patricia

.33 Collis,

I'm not going to quibble over what was primary, secondary or tertiary to
Jesus.  I do maintain that by his words and actions, matters of justice
were inextricable from Jesus' vision, message and mission.

Richard

Re:  617.34

  >These are the code that tell women to submit to their husbands...

and husbands to submit to their wives...

  >...and Slaves to submit to their masters.

Do you believe that slaves should not submit to their masters?

  >Men over women, Christian over non-Christian, Master over slave.

Indeed, there are those believe authority is the ultimate.  Unlike
Christ and his disciples (such as Paul) that taught submission
is more important.
    
  >Other Christians used the bible to demonstrate how abomitable slavery 
  >is.  Fortunately the non fundementalist perspective won. 

What a bunch of baloney.  If it's in the winning side and you agree
with it, it's the "non-fundamentalist perspective".  Of course,
"fundamentalism" as a movement didn't exist until after the Civil
War.  If you mean people that actually believe the Bible, you will
find many of them on both sides of the issue seperated not by their
theological convictions, but rather by their geographical location.

  >Today many people are clearly using these Pauline statements to discriminate
  >against women.

The definition of discrimination is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
Indeed the RCC does not believe that an acceptable role of women is in
the ordained clergy.  Having equal access to all roles does not
guarantee equality (nor does it conform to what Jesus has for each
of us).
    
  >Many historians now believe that women had a great deal of equality as
  >early disciples of Jesus.  

Incredible isn't it.  Equality *and* believing the prophets of God.

  >What ever happened to the Gospel of Mary?

:-)
    
  >This is liberation theology at least my brand of liberation theology.  
  >The equality of all people is a essential goal.  The bible either is 
  >used to suppport this goal or else it is irrelevent or worse.  There is 
  >much in the bible including the gospels that support liberation theology. 
  >The rest needs to be judged against this liberating influence.
    
Thank you for defining your position so clearly.

Collis

Re:  .35

  >I'm not going to quibble over what was primary, secondary or tertiary to
  >Jesus.

I can respect that.

If there was not a movement around that placed equality near or
at the top of the list much above personal holiness and
submission, I don't think that this discussion would even
be taking place.

Since there is such a movement, however, my own viewpoint is
that this is an issue well worth addressing in detail and being
very clear what our priorities should be.  Particularly when
"equality" is defined in such a way that it is almost synomonous
with "give me more (money, power, choices, etc.)".

Collis

    It is not a matter of equality being mutually exclusive with other
    matters of religious faith such that there is some sort prioritizing
    process, where one must choose one over the other.  Belief in equality
    is an expression of religious faith, specifically the religious impulse
    to support good as preferable to evil, to right wrongs, to "let justice
    flow like water".  The principle of equality is embodied in the
    reciprocity expressed in the Golden Rule.  It is an expression of love.

    Slaves don't exactly have a lot of choice with respect to obeying their
    masters.  If they don't obey, they are probably going to be beaten. 
    Slavery is meaningless unless it is enforced by violence; if the slave
    can simply pick up and walk away when given a request by the master,
    then the slave is not a slave but a free human being.  Slaves therefore
    don't have the ability or the right, by definition, of not obeying
    their masters.  Slavery is an inherently evil, cruel, vile system that
    degrades human beings.

    During the 19th century, many courageous Americans operated an
    Underground Railroad that assisted runaway slaves in their escape to
    Canada.  Were the slaves who ran away disobeying their masters? 
    Certainly!  They did it in the only way a slave can--by ceasing to be
    slaves, by escaping the brutality of the slavery system.  Were those
    slaves justified in doing so?  Certainly.  Were those Americans who
    operated the Underground Railroad justified in helping liberate slaves,
    in giving them new lives, free of the yolk of oppression?  They were
    not only justified, what they did was an important act of civil
    disobedience against the evil of slavery.

    One could suggest that it is not particularly loving to a slave owner
    when one works to undermine their sinful behavior, but that sounds like
    the apologist's justification for the perpetuation of sin.  According
    to that logic, we should never prevent anyone from victimizing another
    person because that would not be "loving".  If we see a murder about to
    happen, do we do nothing to prevent it because that would not be loving
    to the person about to commit the crime?  Of course not.  That would be
    a rationalization for Pilate's sin of washing his hands.  Slavery *was*
    evil.  To oppose evil  is our mandate as people of faith.  If Jesus
    stood for good against evil, if he was indeed good, then opposing evil
    was certainly what his ministry was about.

    -- Mike

    RE: Slave's
    
    			I think the original point of Jesus has been
    overlooked.  What he is saying is *PUT GOD FIRST*!!!  When slavery and
    the fight against it takes your vision away from God then *IT* has 
    become your God.  Never will I be convinced that Jesus believed that
    slavery was/is good.  It isn't and I believe that there are very good
    scriptures to back me up but it *IS* secondary when placed beside the
    belief in God.
    
    
    Dave

    My feeling is that while it is certainly possible to oppose slavery and
    not put God first (one could have been an atheist and an abolitionist),
    I don't believe that the converse is the case, or at least it shouldn't
    be--when one puts God first, opposition to an evil like slavery should
    follow.  Opposing slavery and fighting for equality comes from
    following God's will, and is an expression of faith.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .39

Agreed, Dave.

Indeed, this is the real issue as I have talked around it
a few times.

Equality is the banner for seeking redress for oneself rather
than for seeking God's Will for all (at least that is the
generally true for Liberation Theology adherents in my opinion).
It is also true that "equality" as defined by those who hold
this position is not always a Biblical equality - particular
by those such as Patricia who want God-given equality but
want it equality defined differently than the prophets of
God have revealed it.

Meanwhile, who other than me has discussed the importance
of *SUBMISSION* - an attribute that is given *far* more
play in the New Testament than equality, particularly by
Jesus.

Although Richard believes that this is quibbling, I think that
the focus we choose is very important.  A focus on equality
can lead us *away* from God instead of toward God - not
because equality is a bad thing, but rather because it is
sought for with the wrong motives and because equality is
twisted to encompass the current social cause rather than
true Biblical equality.

Collis

re Note 617.34 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     It is appropriate to look at contemporary issues and judge the human
>     recordings of revelation based on the recordings ability to offer
>     contemporary guidance.    

        Patricia,

        This is my understanding of the advice "to confront the
        claims of Scripture."

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    It is good to know that we are in agreement then.
    
    
    Patricia

    Collis,
    
    The people you refer to as the 'prophets of God' are the male prophets
    of God.  The women prophets have been either written out of the bible
    all together or defined by men and marginalized.  If we truly desire to
    understand God's revelation, we need to recover the words and the lifes
    of the women who have been written out of the bible.  Your call for
    submission is as biased as my claim for equality.  The major difference
    is that I am willing to acknowledge my own bias. as a member of the
    dominant group, your call for submission to 'God's will' is a disguised
    call for the continued dominance of that dominant group.
    
    Patricia

    This is semiotics not theology.  There's no conflict between the love
    of God and seeking to end slavery.  If there was, then we'd have
    something to discuss.  The expansion of slavery by the British into the
    Western Hemisphere was not in accord with Christianity in my opinion.

    I'm also interested in this conspiracy to write women prophets out of
    the Bible that Patricia alleges.

Re:  617.44
    
  >The people you refer to as the 'prophets of God' are the male prophets
  >of God.

It is true that God typically (although not always) chose males.  You'll
have to take up your disatisfaction about this with God directly.  :-)

  >The women prophets have been either written out of the bible all together or 
  >defined by men and marginalized.  If we truly desire to understand God's 
  >revelation, we need to recover the words and the lives of the women who have 
  >been written out of the bible.

Indeed this is quite an interesting theory.  Feel free to share more
about this.  Historical facts preferred, but whatever input you have on
this issue is welcome.

  >Your call for submission is as biased as my claim for equality.

I recognize no bias in God except His "bias" for truth and love.

Individuals are called from the beginning (of recorded revelation) to the end 
(of recorded revelation) to submit to God and to authorities (which include
church, family and government as primary authorities).  We are also to
submit to others (such as husbands and wives to each other) and put aside
our own self-will in agape love for the well-being of all.

I'm surprised if you really believe that this is the wrong way for us
as individuals to act.  I'm not surprised that you disagree with anything 
written in the Bible.

  >The major difference is that I am willing to acknowledge my own bias. 

It is true that I reject the unfounded belief that God wrote "bias" into
the Scripture (unless you believe that bias can be truth as well).

On the other hand, I do acknowledge a lot of bias within me.  Since I don't
know exactly what you're referring to, I don't know if I have acknowledged 
my bias or not.  I do acknowledge that the Scriptures are inerrant.
Perhaps that's the bias that you're referring to.  But since I acknowledge
this, perhaps this isn't it.  :-)

  >as a member of the dominant group, your call for submission to 'God's will' 
  >is a disguised call for the continued dominance of that dominant group.

I don't think you fully comprehend.  *Everyone* is to submit.  Including
us white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males!!!  And the key point is that the lack
of submission by someone else does *NOT* mean that I no longer need to
submit.  God calls me to submission.  (He also at times calls me to
leadership as in my family or church, for example.)

This is not a cultural issue.  It is not (ideally) a dominant/subordinate
group issue.  Unfortunately, our individual and corporate sin get in the
way.

The call to personal holiness is at the *center* of our following Jesus.  The 
call to correct and appropriate social and governing structures is secondary.

When's the last time you heard personal holiness (and submission) as a rallying 
call?  For me, it was 1-1/2 weeks ago at church.  And the week before that.  And 
the week before that.  (Our pastor's doing a "Lordship" series. :-) ) But
I don't think you'll find many social movements that stress this 
(although Crisis Pregnancy Centers are an exception, praise God!).  Why?  
Because, for the most part, they are looking after *themselves*.  Which does
not mean that what they are striving for is wrong.  But are their priorities
in order?  Have they submitted themselves as individuals and as a group to 
God-ordained authorities?  Rarely - and this is a problem.  It is the problem 
that I have been trying to point out over the last several days worth of 
replies.

Collis

    >There's no conflict between the love of God and seeking to end slavery.  
    
    Whew, that's a relief.
    
    Collis has implied that there was a conflict between the love and God
    and the actions of the Underground Railroad, since the runaway slaves
    were obviously not "submitting" to the slave owners.
    
    -- Mike

Collis,


>>   <<< Note 617.46 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON "Roll away with a half sashay" >>>
                           -< submission - by *all* >-


Perhaps the misunderstanding here is what submission means to each of 
us.  I submit to the Holy Spirit; something I try to do consciously 
all the time (although I don't always 'remember' to do it).  For me
that submission means asking the Holy Spirit to speak through me
rather than the voice of my ego/personality.  I have faith that this
voice will never fail and therefore if it speaks out against misogyny,
homophobia, racism, or bigotry of any kind then that is what God is
calling me to do.  So to you it may look like I was not submitting to 
God's will, when in fact to me that is exactly what I'm doing 'letting 
Thy will be done'.

Ro

    The basic problem with the idea of empowered people and disenfranchised
    people having an equal responsibility of mutual submission is that the
    very definition of empowerment defines a one sided relationship of
    submission by one party to another.  To the extent that one party
    exists in a relationship of power over another, it is by definition not
    submitting to the other party; put another way, it is only meaningful
    to define the relationship in that way to the extent that one party
    has the prevailing authority to exercise power over another.  

    To exercise power over another is not to submit.  Only when the
    relationship is one of equals is a relationship of truly mutual
    submission possible.  When one person commands another, then the second
    party is submitting, and the first party is not.  The first party is
    only submitting to the extent that the first party relinquishes power
    over the second.

    Perhaps the empowered party can "voluntarily" submit--i.e., he or she
    can have power but choose not to exercise it.  However, the powerless
    party obviously doesn't have that option--certainly not as long as he
    or she remains in this kind of relationship with the empowered party. 
    If *both* parties in a relationship are truly free to choose to submit
    or not submit to one another, where both parties can freely submit out
    of love and not out of fear of punishment, then the relationship is not
    one of authority but of equality.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .46
    
    Very well stated! 
    
    Marc H.

.41 Collis,

>A focus on equality
>can lead us *away* from God instead of toward God - not
>because equality is a bad thing, but rather because it is
>sought for with the wrong motives and because equality is
>twisted to encompass the current social cause rather than
>true Biblical equality.

At least now I know what your underlying assumptions are.  I think you've
perhaps confused the participants here with people possessing the
particular paradigm to which you allude.

Richard

    Also see Note 369.36 - 369.40
    
    Richard
    

     >>There's no conflict between the love of God and seeking to
     >>end slavery.  

  >Collis has implied that there was a conflict between the love and God
  >and the actions of the Underground Railroad, since the runaway slaves
  >were obviously not "submitting" to the slave owners.
    
I did not state the means that were acceptable to accomplish this.

I grew up thinking of those involved in the Undergroud Railroad
as heroes.  And I do respect them for acting on their beliefs in
a way they believed was right.  I do not know how I would act and
I don't have a clear belief as to what is right/wrong in this
situation.  I believe at this time that this is an issue where
Christians can legitimately come down on different sides depending
on what gets emphasized.

Re:  .50

It appears that your solution to the problem is "equality".

I do not believe that this is a Biblical solution.  God has
*never* proposed that everyone be equal in terms of roles
and responsibilities.  He is to be the head and we are
each delegated roles and responsibilities as he sees fit.
Some get 5 talents, some 2 and some 1.  Equality is not
the way it gets dished out.

It is a *social* goal of some groups (invariable one of the
have-nots in some way) to achieve "equality" so that they
will become one of the haves.  This is one of the issues I've
tried to address.

The second one is, what about the inequalities that should
NOT be there (assuming that some inequalities are God-given
as I've tried to show).  What should we do about them?

As individuals, we are to turn the other cheek, we are to
love those who hate us and push us down and we are to submit
to the governing authorities even when the system is corrupt
(although not in every single instance, e.g. Daniel).

As followers of God we are to fight injustice and *Biblical*
inequality (a distinction I make because I sense that Patricia
and I view what an "inequality" is differently) in social
structures, particularly focusing our energies on those who
cannot help themselves (rather than focusing our energies on
improving the situation for ourselves) such as the weak,
the crippled, the widowed and the helpless.

Collis

Summarizing our priorities (and borrowing from Jesus),
I believe that we should get the beam out of our own
eye in terms of submitting to God and proper authorities 
before we attempt to get the splinter out of the social 
system which improperly uses authority at times.

Collis

    .56
    
    I agree.  But I've noticed that a lot of Christian folk use that
    very same expression as an excuse to keep from doing anything about
    systemic ills.
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .57

Great.  I would suggest that this be done by having
the *organization's* priority be submission to God
(glorifying Him) and secondarily Biblical social 
change.  This I would gladly support.

We don't need to be perfect to start to work.  We
just need to recognize that the priorities start with
changing ourselves and work on this as we work together
to better God's world.

Collis

I heard this last night at Bible Study:

	"What God blesses as a supplement he curses as a substitute."

I suspect that God is less interested in what we can do for him than with
how we are letting him conform us to the image of his Son.

Faith without works is dead so we will be concerned about doing what he has
asked us to do, but the works are an evidence of an ongoing process of salvation
where the work is all done by him and not us (Eph 2:8-9).

--
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

>It appears that your solution to the problem is "equality".

    I am not offering a solution to a problem; I am exploring the meaning
    and implications of our values.  I am arguing that the perpetuation of
    inequality contradicts the principle of of mutual submission that you
    advocated, as well as the principle of mutual reciprocity embodied in
    the Golden Rule.  The more unequal a relationship, the more one sided
    submission characterizing that relationship.  An extreme example of a
    relationship in which mutual submission is impossible is slavery.

>It is a *social* goal of some groups (invariable one of the
>have-nots in some way) to achieve "equality" so that they
>will become one of the haves.  This is one of the issues I've
>tried to address.

    Perhaps that is true.  Then again, many of those who oppose the concept
    of equality also wish to perpetuate the state of affairs because that
    would benefit *them*.  There are two sides to the coin, and it is
    unfair to single out for criticism only those who benefit from change
    and not those who benefit from the status quo.  I do agree with your
    later comment that we should work to help the weak, the crippled, the
    widowed, and the helpless.  That is why we seek to improve upon unjust
    social institutions that victimize the weak.  It is love and compassion
    that inspires us to help those who suffer.  It is love that inspires us
    to oppose violence, racism, sexism, prison brutality, torture, and a
    host of other evils.  It was love that inspired abolitionists in the
    nineteenth century to oppose slavery and to operate the Underground
    Railroad.  When someone is being victimized, love commands that we do
    not sit idly by and accept that the victimizer has authority that
    should be respected; on the contrary, love tells us to act to help the
    victim, whether the problem be an isolated incident or an institutional
    evil.

    Of course, if the victim accepts our help, then the victim is acting to
    better him or herself; so if acting to improve one's condition is a
    sin, as you've suggested, then it would be morally impossible for any
    of us ever to help another person, since it would be immoral for the
    other party to accept our help--unless we can get people to accept our
    help without them knowing that we are helping them.

    -- Mike

>Summarizing our priorities (and borrowing from Jesus),
>I believe that we should get the beam out of our own
>eye in terms of submitting to God and proper authorities 
>before we attempt to get the splinter out of the social 
>system which improperly uses authority at times.
    
    The two are not mutually exclusive; in fact, I would suggest that they
    are essentially one and the same thing.  Thus there would be no
    prioritization between the options.  One of the ways that we sin is in
    our complacency in the face of evil.  One of the ways we submit to God
    is through our actions and behavior towards the world.  The way we get
    our own house in order is by changing our behavior and outlook away
    from purely selfish concerns and towards a loving concern for the world
    we live in.  Getting the beam out of our eye *implies* that we express
    ourselves in a loving way towards the world we live in.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  617.60

  >...so if acting to improve one's condition is a sin, as you've suggested...

I have indicated that (sinful) self-interest is a *possibility* for grasping 
for  equality that needs to be watched very carefully.  

Collis