What Theological Contributions Have Protestants Made?

[Mosacked]

For heaven’s sake, we’re not talking about adding to or taking away from scripture.

St Augustine neither added to nor took away from scripture, but he sure as heck deepened our understanding of it immeasurably!

THAT is what good theology does and THAT is the sort of contribution we are discussing.

That is not contribution. That is interpretation. And really, if you think someone else can interpret scripture for you, go ahead. You can go PICK your interpreter.

As for those who follow God, Jesus promised them exclusively the Holy Counselor.
**
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.**

The only interpreter we need is the Holy Ghost. Whatever ‘contributions’ you are attempting to drive at is apostasy.
.

 

[Padrej]

That is not contribution. That is interpretation. And really, if you think someone else can interpret scripture for you, go ahead. You can go PICK your interpreter.

As for those who follow God, Jesus promised them exclusively the Holy Counselor.
**
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.**

The only interpreter we need is the Holy Ghost. Whatever ‘contributions’ you are attempting to drive at is apostasy.
.

Are you saying that even though our Protestant Bible (say like today’s King James) has removed books that we removed that that keeps us from being apostate? The Roman Catholic Church has kept a complete Bible the Protestants have not. We (the old Bible Societies) started removing them in the 1800’s in order to save money so that more Bibles could be distributed on less money. The books in question called “the apocrypha” were not considered by some to be part of the inspired cannon because they were not written in Hebrew but in Greek. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, there these books were in Hebrew looking at us demanding to be viewed a canonical once again.

There are some who say that the New Testament does not quote these books, but if one looks they are fully quoted MANY times and were well known to Paul as more quotes of them appear in his writings. I can remember one of my seminary classes giving out over 300 cross references from these books. AND YET we Protestants dare to claim that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox added to when we are the ones who removed not them. Now you were saying about the Book of Revelation saying something about adding to or taking away??? Be very careful how you answer!!!

 

[Contarini]

I know I may catch flack for posting this BUT, has anyone thought of the contributions of the African Americans to the Protestant movement.
ones like …

I certainly have. The existence of the African-American Protestant tradition is one of the vindications of Protestantism. Of course, the racism of white Protestants is another side of the coin. (The Catholic Church’s history of racism is bad enough, but not as viciously segregationist as far as I can tell–there was always a clearer recognition that people of all races are fully human and essentially equal.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Fr. John,

I began a post yesterday and lost it. This will be somewhat less detailed.

Can you cite for us the “significant amount of textural variation” that you speak of?

Not really, because its significance is primarily quantitative–hence my phrase “significant amount” rather than “significant degree.” But just for instance, in Matt. 1 there are seven passages where my critical New Testament (the United Bible Societies edition, copyright 1966, ed. Aland et al) cites textual variants. That’s one every 3-4 verses.

You mention students here, do you teach seminary?

My fulltime job is teaching undergrads in an evangelical liberal arts college. I am a church historian by training but was hired in the Bible and Religion department, so I teach some Biblical studies courses to nonmajors. I also occasionally teach church history online for Asbury Theological Seminary.

What “Higher Critical” issues do you want your students to worry about?

I don’t *want *them to worry per se. But obviously some of them are going to worry when they encounter challenging ideas. And my point is that the questions posed by “higher criticism” are far more challenging than those posed by text criticism. There are plenty of examples, but one place to start is with the issues surrounding the composition of the Four Gospels–their date, sources, relationship to each other, historical accuracy, etc. Another classic example would be the formation of the Pentateuch, which in my opinion raises far bigger questions in the sense that the Pentateuch, unlike the Gospels, was clearly written hundreds of years after the events it describes, and it’s harder to defend its historical accuracy. The questions are less central insofar as the Pentateuch’s historical accuracy is somewhat less central to our faith than that of the Gospels–but the Torah is certainly one of the pillars of Christianity as well as Judaism, so the issues are still very significant. Since I teach undergraduate nonmajors and my courses are fairly general and non-technical, I try not to get too bogged down in these issues but to focus on content and relevance. However, some coverage of the historical issues is important in any course dealing with the Bible.

Why would you want to continue and argument over a section of scripture such as Mark chapter 16 Verses 9-20?

Because the textual evidence indicates that this passage was not part of the original manuscript.

Early church fathers already settled the debate that these verses were correct.

No, they didn’t. Their testimony certainly indicates that this passage was added early, and in my opinion it also establishes that this passage should be considered part of the canon (even if, as with the Apocrypha/deuterocanonicals, we put relatively less weight on it for doctrinal purposes). But patristic evidence, however important, can’t simply close an issue in the face of other evidence.

It does not seem likely that Mark would end his gospel on a note of fear (verse 8).

The fear (or awe) produced by Jesus’ miracles has been a constant theme in Mark (specifically, the women’s reaction reverses the pattern found throughout Mark in which Jesus tells people not to spread news of his miracles and they disobey–this ending is indeed ironic and rather unsettling, but it fits with the rest of Mark as far as I can see). Furthermore, it seems disrespectful and presumptuous (both toward Mark as the inspired writer of Scripture and Mark as the author of a powerful and unusual literary text) to make assumptions in the face of the evidence on the basis of what seems “likely” to us. Don’t you ever allow Scripture (and other works of literature too, for that matter) to surprise you? Do you demand only what you expect? Why bother to read any text if you can predict in advance what it will say?

It is only two 4th century manuscripts that omit these verses but space was left for them so the copyist must have known of their existence.

This seems an odd argument. You don’t in fact know that the space was left for that particular ending. And the fact that the copyist knew of their existence (which does indeed seem likely) does not prove them authentic. The copyist may have intended to add them but refrained out of respect for what he discovered to be more authentic manuscripts. I can’t see how this argument works in favor of authenticity. If the copyist had considered these verses authentic, you would think he would have added them. Why would he “leave space for them” but never fill the space in?

Also, it’s not quite true that only these two manuscripts omit the passage in question. They are the oldest evidence, but they are not alone. Besides one later minuscule (12th century), my apparatus indicates that some manuscripts of the Georgian, Ethopic, Armenian, and Syriac translations of the NT omit this passage–and of course there is the evidence of Jerome (even if Jerome was copying Eusebius, that’s still evidence from the same era as the codices themselves). It is of course possible that for some strange reason the passage dropped out. But it’s much easier to see why someone would add the passage (many people clearly share your discomfort with the odd ending) than to see why a scribe would simply omit the ending to one of the Gospels.

 

[Contarini]

NOW if you want to argue, as some do today whom I would consider apostate, that there was no resurrection then leave those verses out.

I wish you would see your way clear to having a respectful, substantive discussion instead of introducing irrelevant, below-the-belt remarks like this. The textual evidence is in question here, not the doctrine of the resurrection, which is of course the main pillar of the Christian faith. Are you going to accuse the vast majority of evangelical and Catholic Biblical scholars of not believing in the resurrection? Or do you think you get to make these accusations against me because I am an Episcopalian? Why do you and Padrej single out Bishop Spong, out of all the bishops of the Episcopal Church? If you want to know what I or any other Episcopalian believes, you should consult the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. (Of course there are those, like Bishop Spong, who do not believe in the doctrines found there or warp them beyond recognition. But these doctrines remain the norm.)

Back to the topic of Mark 16: a further reason why your statement is irrelevant is that the undisputed material clearly proclaims the resurrection, and proclaims it in the form that folks like Spong find most unacceptable–the empty tomb. We don’t need Mark 16:9-20 to establish the resurrection, though of course if the passage did turn out to be authentic (in the sense of being part of the original manuscript) that would be all to the good.

Edwin

 

[Padrej]

Contarini
Evidence for inclusion of Mark 16:9-20
The patristic writings that indicate acceptance of the verses as genuine are remarkably extensive. From the second century, Irenaeus, who died c. A.D. 202, alludes to the verses in both Greek and Latin. His precise words in his Against Heresies were: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God” (3.10.5; Roberts and Donald¬son, 1973, 1:426). It is very likely that Justin Martyr was aware of the verses in the middle of the second century. At any rate, his disciple, Tatian, included the verses in his Greek Diatessaron (having come down to us in Arabic, Italian, and Old Dutch editions) c. A.D. 170.
Third century witnesses include Tertul¬lian, who died after A.D. 220, in his On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ch. 51; Roberts and Donaldson, 1973, 3:584), Against Praxeas (ch. 30; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:627), and A Treatise on the Soul (ch. 25; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:206). Cyprian, who died A.D. 258, alluded to verses 17-18 in his The Seventh Council of Carthage (Roberts and Donaldson, 1971, 5:569). Additional third century verification is seen in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Verses 15-18 in Greek and verses 15-19 in Latin are quoted in Part I: The Acts of Pilate (ch. 14), and verse 16 in its Greek form is quoted in Part II: The Descent of Christ into Hell (ch. 2) (Roberts and Donaldson, 1970, 8:422,436,444-445). De Rebaptismate (A.D. 258) is also a witness to the verses. All seven of these second and third century witnesses precede the earliest existing Greek manuscripts that verify the genuineness of the verses. More to the point, they predate both Vati¬canus and Sinaiticus.
Fourth century witnesses to the existence of the verses include Aphraates (writing in A.D. 337—see Schaff and Wace, 1969, 13:153), with his citation of Mark 16:16-18 in “Of Faith” in his Demonstrations (1.17; Schaff and Wace, 13:351), in addition to the Apostolic Constitutions (5.3.14; 6.3.15; 8.1.1)—written no later than A.D. 380 (Roberts and Donaldson, 1970, 7:445,457,479). Ambrose, who died A.D. 397, quoted from the section in his On the Holy Spirit (2.13.145,151), On the Christian Faith (1.14.86 and 3.4.31), and Concerning Repentance (1.8.35; Schaff and Wace, 10:133,134,216,247,335). Didymus, who died A.D. 398, is also a witness to the genuineness of the verses (Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189), as is perhaps Asterius after 341.
Patristic writers from the fifth century that authenticate the verses include Jerome, noted above, who died A.D. 420, Leo (who died ! 461) in his Letters (9.2 and 120.2; Schaff and Wace, 1969, 12:8,88), and Chry¬sos¬tom (who died A.D. 407) in his Homilies on First Corinthians (38.5; Schaff, 1969, 12:229). Additional witnesses include Se¬veri¬an (after 408), Marcus-Eremita (after 430), Nestorius (after 451), and Augustine (after 455). These witnesses to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 from patristic writers is exceptional.
The evidence for inclusion that comes from the ancient versions is also diverse and weighty—entailing a wide spectrum of versions and geographical locations. Several Old Latin/Itala manuscripts contain it. Though Jerome repeated the view that the verses were absent in some Greek manuscripts—a circumstance used by those who support exclusion—he actually included them in his fourth century Latin Vulgate (and, as noted above, quoted verse 14 in his own writings). The verses are found in the Old Syriac (Curetonian) as well as the Peshitta and later Syriac (Palestinian and Harclean). The Coptic versions that have it are the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Fay¬yumic, ranging from the third to the sixth centuries. The Gothic version (fourth century) has verses 9-11. The verses are also found in the Armenian, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic versions.
From apologeticspress.org/articles/2780

Check this link
studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html
“Their argument, though, is further undercut by the fact that one of these two, Vaticanus, actually contains an entire blank column after v. 8 which is close to the right size to fit vv. 9-20, suggesting that the scribe who copied this manuscript was aware of the existence of this ending, and was unsure whether to omit the passage, so leaving a space should it need to be filled in later. It should also be noted that the four uncial manuscripts given above as containing the shorter, alternative ending after v. 20 each also refer to the longer ending by itself as an alternate reading, indicating some uncertainty on the part of their scribes”
From the same site
“Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 outright14 (~177 AD), and Tatian the Assyrian included the ending in his Diatesseron15, a document attempting the harmonisation of the four Gospel narratives (~175 AD). Tertullian refers to Mark 16:19 around 215 AD16, and Tregelles reports17 that Hippolytus (~235 AD) quotes Mark 16:18-19 at least twice. In Cyprian’s account of the 7th Council of Carthage (256 AD), he records a strong allusion made by Vincentus of Thibarus to Mark 16:17-1818. The Apostolic Constitutions (3rd-4th c. AD) quote Mark 16:1619, as well as alluding to Mark 16:15 twice elsewhere. Macarius Magnes (~390 AD) reports that Mark 16:18 was an object of attack by the Neoplatonist Porphyry or his student Hierocles (whose works are generally dated about a century earlier), discussing both their objections to the message of the verse (but not its authenticity) and Macarius’ own defense of the same20. The Syrian patristic Aphraates (~345 AD) cites the ending as well21, showing that it was accepted within Syriac Christianity.”

 

[larkin31]

I wish you would see your way clear to having a respectful, substantive discussion instead of introducing irrelevant, below-the-belt remarks like this. The textual evidence is in question here, not the doctrine of the resurrection, which is of course the main pillar of the Christian faith. Are you going to accuse the vast majority of evangelical and Catholic Biblical scholars of not believing in the resurrection? Or do you think you get to make these accusations against me because I am an Episcopalian? Why do you and Padrej single out Bishop Spong, out of all the bishops of the Episcopal Church? If you want to know what I or any other Episcopalian believes, you should consult the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. (Of course there are those, like Bishop Spong, who do not believe in the doctrines found there or warp them beyond recognition. But these doctrines remain the norm.)

Back to the topic of Mark 16: a further reason why your statement is irrelevant is that the undisputed material clearly proclaims the resurrection, and proclaims it in the form that folks like Spong find most unacceptable–the empty tomb. We don’t need Mark 16:9-20 to establish the resurrection, though of course if the passage did turn out to be authentic (in the sense of being part of the original manuscript) that would be all to the good.

Edwin

I appreciate your contributions to this thread. I have learned from your entries the backgrounds of my family’s beliefs.

 

[Padrej]

I wish you would see your way clear to having a respectful, substantive discussion instead of introducing irrelevant, below-the-belt remarks like this. The textual evidence is in question here, not the doctrine of the resurrection, which is of course the main pillar of the Christian faith. Are you going to accuse the vast majority of evangelical and Catholic Biblical scholars of not believing in the resurrection? Or do you think you get to make these accusations against me because I am an Episcopalian? Why do you and Padrej single out Bishop Spong, out of all the bishops of the Episcopal Church? If you want to know what I or any other Episcopalian believes, you should consult the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. (Of course there are those, like Bishop Spong, who do not believe in the doctrines found there or warp them beyond recognition. But these doctrines remain the norm.)

 

[Padrej]

Not really, because its significance is primarily quantitative–hence my phrase “significant amount” rather than “significant degree.” But just for instance, in Matt. 1 there are seven passages where my critical New Testament (the United Bible Societies edition, copyright 1966, ed. Aland et al) cites textual variants. That’s one every 3-4 verses.

 

[Contarini]

With all due respect, I think what was pot forth about what an Episcopalian believes is a fair question.

Of course you do. The two of you are a tag team

Coming from a person who was ordained Episcopalian I would want to know what side of the fence you would stand on.

Yes, you clearly have a bee in your bonnet about Episcopalians. I’m really not on this forum to gratify your curiosity or your prejudices. I would like to have substantive discussions. Insofar as you and Fr. John take part in these discussions, I will enjoy your virtual company. Insofar as you make substantive discussion difficult (which both of you have done several times now), I will oppose you.

The 79 Prayer book, while it may be a tool of worship, is hardly a statement of what the whole of the Episcopal church believes.

There are certainly those who dissent from the doctrines found therein. And there are those who separate worship from doctrine in the manner you imply. But it is commonly said among Episcopalians that if you want to know what we believe, you should worship with us. Was this not something said in the Episcopal circles of which you were a part?

There are many members of the Roman Communion who dissent from its doctrines. I do not know enough about your particular subdivision of conservative Anglicanism to know if you have that problem. It can be avoided for a time by the expedient of making up one’s own church and keeping it small enough to control. From my perspective, that’s a cure worse than the disease–and it’s only a temporary cure anyway, as the endless splitting of small conservative denominations shows.

Bishop Spong espouses the 79 BCP and look what he believes.

Where in Spong’s recent work (since the publication of Why Christianity Must Change or Die) do you find an endorsement of the 1979 BCP? Spong speaks disparagingly of the creeds and liturgies used in the Episcopal Church, and brags of being in “exile.” To take Spong as representative of Episcopalianism is an act almost as devoid of reason as it is of charity.

There are conservatives in the Episcopal Church like Bishop Jack Iker and that gets you thrown out on your ear from an “inclusive” church.

Bishop Iker left the Episcopal Church of his own free will. What the Episcopal Church did was to declare him no longer the rightful bishop of his diocese. There’s a genuine disagreement here about church polity, and I’m on the side of Bishop Iker, although I think both sides would gain the moral high ground if they stopped fighting over property. If I lived in Fort Worth, I would submit myself to Bishop Iker and not to whoever the Episcopal Church put in his place. Same in Pittsburgh or the other dioceses. The Episcopal Church ought not to be a centralized body with direct jurisdictional control over dioceses. I have little or no loyalty to the Episcopal Church as an institution. (It isn’t a “church” at all in any theological sense.) My loyalty goes to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, to my own bishop (Ed Little, of Northern Indiana), and to the Anglican Communion as a fellowship of local churches within the (unhappily divided) Catholic Church–in that order. The Episcopal Church takes a back seat to all of these.

I was told in one diocese that would not be ordained there because I was not black female or homosexual and was not welcome because I held to conservative values. Does that sound like “inclusiveness” in your book?

Why is that relevant to anything we are discussing? I understand that you are bitter (at least, that certainly is how you sound), but that doesn’t make the question of “inclusiveness” relevant to the present discussion.

The presiding bishop is not classically trained as a theologian, she is a marine biologist.

Again, I do not recall having made any claims about the theological competence of the Presiding Bishop. Certainly the most charitable thing that can be said about some of her utterances in recent years is that they lack theological nuance (even when I agree with at least one interpretation of the point being made, as in the attack on individualism).

But it seems more convenient for you to rail against the faults of the Episcopal Church than to discuss the matters supposedly under consideration. Why?

The point that was made is the leaving out of the passage from Mark 16 is convenient for those who wish to not believe in the basic tenants of the Christian faith.

But that’s an irrelevant point. A question of textual criticism can’t be settled by trying to determine who might find one position or the other “convenient.” Furthermore, as I said, plenty of orthodox scholars hold to the consensus view on this. Fr. John’s question was irrelevant–just as your and Fr. John’s ridiculous attempt to smear me as a racist for not recognizing a quotation from an African-American hymn (which was clearly also a quotation from Scripture) was irrelevant. This seems to be a pattern in your posts, and it’s not a pattern that does you much credit.

If you had said, I believe in the resurrection and disagree with those who do not then nothing more would be said and the matter dropped. By raising a fuss all you have pushed forward is an avoidance of the question.

Nonsense. What I am “pushing forward” is a protest against the dirty tactics used by the two of you. Questions of the kind “have you stopped beating your wife yet” need to be resisted, because they degrade the tone of any discussion.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Curiosity question: Do you refer mostly to the Critical text or the majority text when studying the sacred texts?

I use a critical text, but of course such a text indicates the majority readings.

Is Asbury still fairly conservative in its views?

Depends on your standards. From your posts so far, I suspect you would consider it a hotbed of liberalism! My wife’s grandfather, who was president in the 70s and early 80s, got the school’s accreditation back and in the eyes of some folks took the seminary in a more liberal direction (hiring a lot of faculty who believed in “infallibility” rather than “inerrancy,” for instance). But that’s relative–Asbury is still more conservative than any of the official United Methodist seminaries, though Duke under Greg Jones has moved considerably to the right and my wife (who earned seminary degrees from Asbury and a Ph.D. from Duke) thinks that the difference between the two institutions is not that great these days. (Note that I’m talking about Duke Divinity School, not Duke University as a whole.)

Do you teach the Torah from Jewish sources or Judeo-Christian sources? I am curious on this one myself as I teach this from a Jewish perspective. I am fortunate to have a scribe living nearby who is a wealth of information.

I’m not sure how one can theologically defend teaching the Old Testament from a purely Jewish perspective in the context of Christian theology. If one accepts the rabbinic Jewish interpretation of the Torah, one ought not to be a Christian. However, I treat the Jewish interpretation of the Torah (and the TaNaKH generally) with great respect and try to keep my students aware that the Christian interpretation is not the only one. (For instance, when we read the prophets they tend to want to jump to a messianic interpretation, ignoring the original context.)

I think the best way to describe my approach is that I don’t see it as an either/or. I don’t think we have to choose between Jewish and Christian interpretations (except of course insofar as Jewish interpretations simply reject the Christian interpretation), or between historical-critical and traditionally theological interpretations. However, as I’ve said I am a church historian by training and teach only basic Biblical studies courses to nonmajors. My training is largely in the history of Biblical interpretation (I studied with David Steinmetz at Duke) and that shapes how I teach the Bible.

Edwin

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Edwin,

Since it was asked about, wouldn’t we have to say the critical text has been largely a Protestant contribution?

 

[Padrej]

Of course you do. The two of you are a tag team

 

[Padrej]

I use a critical text, but of course such a text indicates the majority readings.

 

[jmcrae]

Do you teach the Torah from Jewish sources or Judeo-Christian sources? I am curious on this one myself as I teach this from a Jewish perspective. I am fortunate to have a scribe living nearby who is a wealth of information.

What on earth for? Jewish synagogues are open to the public, and the Jews are competent enough to teach from their own point of view. My belief is that one should present one’s material from one’s native point of view - a Christian should teach from the Christian point of view. Let us leave the Jewish point of view for the Jews to explain. Otherwise, we run the risk of cultural misappropriation.

 

[Padrej]

What on earth for? Jewish synagogues are open to the public, and the Jews are competent enough to teach from their own point of view. My belief is that one should present one’s material from one’s native point of view - a Christian should teach from the Christian point of view. Let us leave the Jewish point of view for the Jews to explain. Otherwise, we run the risk of cultural misappropriation.

From post 393
My students are doctoral level, so they already know the Christian side, so I broaden their minds with the Jewish thoughts. In doing so they get an even broader meaning. They already have the basics of what you already describe, I want them to get the Jewishness of the scriptures that Jesus would have known. After this then tie in the types and shadows, For example you really cannot understand the 7 “I Am” statements of John’s Gospel without understanding the types and shadows of the Hebrew tabernacle.

The problem with your theory is also that we do not get to know the Jewishness of Jesus and why certain phrases and things are left in the gospels. If you don’t learn your roots you will be ignorant of them and will soon become prejudice towards them.

 

[GKC]

As I observed above, it’s good to get to know Contarini a little.

GKC

 

[FrJohnB]

What on earth for? Jewish synagogues are open to the public, and the Jews are competent enough to teach from their own point of view. My belief is that one should present one’s material from one’s native point of view - a Christian should teach from the Christian point of view. Let us leave the Jewish point of view for the Jews to explain. Otherwise, we run the risk of cultural misappropriation.

It would hardly be “cultural misappropriation” to learn the Old Testament from a Jewish side. I have had a wonderful experience in doing such. The Jesuit university at Georgetown outside of Washington DC now has a Jewish Rabbi (Harold White) on staff to train the new seminarians in the Jewish culture and the Jewishness of Jesus. Something that has been missing from Roman Catholic teachings. If the Jesuits, don’t have a problem with it why would you?
Don’t believe me here is a link
campusministry.georgetown.edu/33829.html

 

[larkin31]

It would hardly be “cultural misappropriation” to learn the Old Testament from a Jewish side. I have had a wonderful experience in doing such. The Jesuit university at Georgetown outside of Washington DC now has a Jewish Rabbi (Harold White) on staff to train the new seminarians in the Jewish culture and the Jewishness of Jesus. Something that has been missing from Roman Catholic teachings. If the Jesuits, don’t have a problem with it why would you?
Don’t believe me here is a link
campusministry.georgetown.edu/33829.html

Indeed.

MCrae’s pov is like telling me that I should not talk to my two sons about the way women may feel about their actions or words. Sure, I can just say, “Your mother’s door is open; I should only teach you what is native to me.” Or, I can expand my understanding a bit, and show my sons that I have tried to do so, to widen my knowledge and empathy, and talk to them about what I have seen and learned from my own experience.

 

[FrJohnB]

I certainly have. The existence of the African-American Protestant tradition is one of the vindications of Protestantism. Of course, the racism of white Protestants is another side of the coin. (The Catholic Church’s history of racism is bad enough, but not as viciously segregationist as far as I can tell–there was always a clearer recognition that people of all races are fully human and essentially equal.)

Edwin

I think we all have a long way to go in race relations on BOTH sides.

Edwin,
If you feel that I am trying to use “dirty tactics” that is not my intentions at all. There are times the debates on this thread get spirited and as I have said before the printed word often does not come across the same as would the spoken dialogue. Even a love letter read when a person is angry can be perceived as being mean spirited. I think we all me you and Padrej need to step back and start fresh.