Reconciling the imposition of the "White Man's" religion

[AlteredEgo]

Stronzo, I don't want you to think I am ignoring your intentions, or misunderstanding them either. I believe I understand what you are asking here. I have answered in the way that I have answered becasue your premise is diametrically opposed to my experience.

I come from a religious community as diverse as a Benneton commercial. We are proud people, and would rebel against any perceived imposition. We are Episcopalians because we want to be. We are (as a whole, but not always as individuals) extremely tolerant, because we wish to follow the example of our leader, the Christ. Our building has served as surragate home to islamic congregations, as well as other christians of other denominations. Though our congregation is mostly black, and historically black, we have white and hispanic members wo are extrememly active, and very welcome. A white man is the presedent of our cultural committee, and his little angel daughters are the apples of every eye.

Our minister has not done any same-sex partner commitment ceremonies at our parish, but she's done them before, and would do them again. We actually were planning one, but one of the husbands got gravely ill, too ill to go forward as planned.

My church continues to reach out to an ever-changing community. No longer are we only surrounded by one type of person, but now a range of ethnic backgrounds and economic states. As long as possible, our doors will be open for everyone, even if a few grumble annoyingly about "those sinners". We are reminded that "All have sinned, and therefore fallen short of the glory of God", and that Christ died for us all.

And I don't think it occurred to us even for a second that this news was brought to us by "the white man". I believe it only even occured to us that it was Good News.

You ask a question that does not speak to my experience at all.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Stronzo, I don't want you to think I am ignoring your intentions, or misunderstanding them either. I believe I understand what you are asking here. I have answered in the way that I have answered becasue your premise is diametrically opposed to my experience.

I come from a religious community as diverse as a Benneton commercial. We are proud people, and would rebel against any perceived imposition. We are Episcopalians because we want to be. We are (as a whole, but not always as individuals) extremely tolerant, because we wish to follow the example of our leader, the Christ. Our building has served as surragate home to islamic congregations, as well as other christians of other denominations. Though our congregation is mostly black, and historically black, we have white and hispanic members wo are extrememly active, and very welcome. A white man is the presedent of our cultural committee, and his little angel daughters are the apples of every eye.

Our minister has not done any same-sex partner commitment ceremonies at our parish, but she's done them before, and would do them again. We actually were planning one, but one of the husbands got gravely ill, too ill to go forward as planned.

My church continues to reach out to an ever-changing community. No longer are we only surrounded by one type of person, but now a range of ethnic backgrounds and economic states. As long as possible, our doors will be open for everyone, even if a few grumble annoyingly about "those sinners". We are reminded that "All have sinned, and therefore fallen short of the glory of God", and that Christ died for us all.

And I don't think it occurred to us even for a second that this news was brought to us by "the white man". I believe it only even occured to us that it was Good News.

You ask a question that does not speak to my experience at all.

While I understand your own experience BronxBombshell and I read with due interest your own familial experience, I will repeat again that I'm not interested in a present-day experience as recounted by present-day practitioners. That's another thread topic.

I was, once again, asking for the over-all perspective of those of African American descent who could not help but have asked themselves the question from the historical perspective in which I introduced it. It's 'origin-based' - not American experience-based. You explain today. And I'm asking for a reckoning with yesterday.

I've had any number of people express today's phenomenon which I get.

What few have done is explain how they've been able to reconcile the original imposition of Christianity to the focus group this thread concerns. I don't get what's so difficult for many reading this thread to get about what my question really concerns when I introduced the thread topic.

 

[AlteredEgo]

While I understand your own experience BronxBombshell and I read with due interest your own familial experience, I will repeat again that I'm not interested in a present-day experience as recounted by present-day practitioners. That's another thread topic.

I was, once again, asking for the over-all perspective of those of African American descent who could not help but have asked themselves the question from the historical perspective in which I introduced it. It's 'origin-based' - not American experience-based. You explain today. And I'm asking for a reckoning with yesterday.

I've had any number of people express today's phenomenon which I get.

What few have done is explain how they've been able to reconcile the original imposition of Christianity to the focus group this thread concerns. I don't get what's so difficult for many reading this thread to get about what my question really concerns when I introduced the thread topic.

As I said, my church was founded by slaves. Not the descendents of slaves, but slaves who went back to the docks Monday morning. And they had nothing imposed on them, as best anyone can tell. If it was just something thrust upon them, and not something they wanted desperately, they would not have endured so much.

 

[dreamer20]

Hello again Stronzo.

Thank you for starting this very informative thread. I haven't read this book as yet but I should:

Excerpt from "The Sins of Scripture" by Bishop John Shelby Spong:

http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060762055

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"...texts from the source we call Holy Scripture have been used in the past to defend the divine right of kings and to oppose the Magna Carta; to condemn Galileo and to assert that the sun does indeed rotate around the earth; to justify slavery, segregation and apartheid; to keep women from being educated, entering the professions, voting or being ordained; to justify war, to persecute and kill Jews; to condemn other world religions; and to continue the oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian people."

The Bishop also champions a form of Christianity based on love and not hatred in his book.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VL9EQ4a0c9E&search=redemption%20song

lol dreamer20

.

[/FONT]

 

[b.c.]

While I understand your own experience BronxBombshell and I read with due interest your own familial experience, I will repeat again that I'm not interested in a present-day experience as recounted by present-day practitioners. That's another thread topic.

I was, once again, asking for the over-all perspective of those of African American descent who could not help but have asked themselves the question from the historical perspective in which I introduced it. It's 'origin-based' - not American experience-based. You explain today. And I'm asking for a reckoning with yesterday.

I've had any number of people express today's phenomenon which I get.

What few have done is explain how they've been able to reconcile the original imposition of Christianity to the focus group this thread concerns. I don't get what's so difficult for many reading this thread to get about what my question really concerns when I introduced the thread topic.

...one religion will do just as well as another, no es verdad?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Stronzo, I do understand your question, but getting the answer you seek may have a few hurdles. I doubt any of the slaves brought here originally could read or write. Even if they could have, there is probably little surviving record of a transitional period from their original religious beliefs/practices through their "conversion" to christianity. Several generations later, obviously, their descendants do what most other humans do: believe and practice what they were taught by their parents.

That's just my perception; I do much better with chemistry or music than I do with the history of slavery in America.

 

[B_Stronzo]

...one religion will do just as well as another, no es verdad?

... indeed. Or as poorly.:wink:

Stronzo, I do understand your question, but getting the answer you seek may have a few hurdles. I doubt any of the slaves brought here originally could read or write. Even if they could have, there is probably little surviving record of a transitional period from their original religious beliefs/practices through their "conversion" to christianity. Several generations later, obviously, their descendants do what most other humans do: believe and practice what they were taught by their parents.

I have this habit DC of putting myself in other's shoes. It's with respect to that phenomenon I asked the initial quesiton. I don't think it's an unreasonable one since thinking black Americans must, as a matter of course, ask why all of their background comes to a screeching halt at these shores.

Were it me I know I would.

 

[B_Stronzo]

As I said, my church was founded by slaves. Not the descendents of slaves, but slaves who went back to the docks Monday morning. And they had nothing imposed on them, as best anyone can tell. If it was just something thrust upon them, and not something they wanted desperately, they would not have endured so much.

Yes I read that part first time around.

However, what choice did they have? If not 'thrust' then it was "the only game in town". That leaves no 'choice'.

They had no choice but to 'endure' hence the instigation of my thread Bronx.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I have this habit DC of putting myself in other's shoes.

Granted. But who else do you know who does that? Most especially in regards to their religion, most believers do NOT put themselves into another's shoe, nor do they question the background of said religion. <standard boilerplate disclaimer insertion - if you are one of the christians who does not fit this description,, then it is not describing you>

It's with respect to that phenomenon I asked the initial quesiton. I don't think it's an unreasonable one since thinking black Americans must, as a matter of course, ask why all of their background comes to a screeching halt at these shores.

Were it me I know I would.

Alas, most do not see it as clearly as do you or I. Hell, I'm WHITE and I resent imposition of the white man's religion upon me... or any other religion, for that matter. But there you have it. Evangelicals will NEVER respect the rights of others to be free of any given religion, and they see nothing immoral about that imposition.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Hell, I'm WHITE and I resent imposition of the white man's religion upon me... or any other religion, for that matter. But there you have it. Evangelicals will NEVER respect the rights of others to be free of any given religion, and they see nothing immoral about that imposition.

We're on precisely the same page my friend.

 

[Lex]

Yes I read that part first time around.

However, what choice did they have? If not 'thrust' then it was "the only game in town". That leaves no 'choice'.

They had no choice but to 'endure' hence the instigation of my thread Bronx.

Stronzo--I think you can only expect and accept that others give you the best answers they can given their own experiences.

Bronxy's church has an all together different history than my southern Baptist (post-Methodist conversion roots). Her experiences are as unique to her as mine are to me. You guys are still both a little tense from the other thread and I am happy that you have found a way to come "closer" as it were in this one.

There are African American Baptists, Methodisits, Catholics, Muslims, Aetheists, and the list goes on. On this board, with the few vocal minority (color wise) members that we have--I really do think you have gotten as much as you can reasonably expect.

I consider myself more of an exception than a rule. I stand out in my community for my disdain of organized religion. That goes over like a lead ballon in the AfAm community. About as well as beign queer does. Sigh.

I had hoped the GoneA would have seen this thread as I feel him to be a man of faith as well. But really, I think you have illuminated a lot of rich insight from some very good and diverse people in this thread.

Were the rest of the planet as reflective and introspective as some of the great people on this board the world would not doubt be a more civil place, right?

 

[Freddie53]

Stronzo,

One of the fastest growing churches in the world is the Anglican Communion of which the Episcopal Church is a part. The Church of England the mother church and its sister the Episcopal church are losing members. Both are predominently white and rich white at that.

So where is all this growing happening? In thrid world countries. Non white, not European. Non wester Non anything familiar to American culture. Why?

The third world countires cultures thrive on liturgy and form. And the Anglican Communion has all that. Yet, the Anglican Communion doesn't have Popes and Cardinals saying who can take Communion and all of that.

The United Methodist Church in America which is predonomently upper middle class has lost five percent in the last five years or so. Meanwhile the United Methodist Church outside the United States has grown sixty eight percent in non European, non Western countries.

It is baffline to say the least. Why did that happen several centuries ago in America? Why is it happening now in third world countries?

The answer lies that in the religion itself as it is presented and practiced in that culture obviously provides what the people of that culture and time want and need.

It doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that the Republican Party, the party that is anti government has meddled in personal rights more than any other party in recent history in the US. Opposites attract apparently.

Take the beliefs of the Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church which have almost identical belief systems. Take their views on politics, values etc. In a poll these two churches match up with the belifs of more Americans than do the fundie churches. But the fundie churches are growing rapidly whille the Episcopol and United Methodist Churches decline.

The vast majority of Catholics disagree strongly with the Vatican on many of not most social issues. The Roman Catholic Church is growing in the US.

I can't make any sense of it. Stronzo, I don't think you will either. Humans are funny. Humans gravity to that which is controllling and that which they at least say they don't like.

We humans are a funny lot. Then there is Stronzo, Lex, Freddie, Zora and a host of others I didn't name that don't fit the mold.

As the old hymn says, "We will understand it better, by and by."

 

[B_Stronzo]

Agreed Lex.

I simply don't understand what was so difficult to understand about my thread premise. It's been convoluted and made subjective (when that was not its intent) by more posters than not. It's intent was the subjective view to an objective reality.

You understood it. DC Deep did too. So did dong20. Then so did prepstud. Other's appear to be slightly (if not overtly) defensive and then one even called it 'stupid' and 'racist'.... But you're right about one thing; it takes all kinds.

I find it curious so many felt the need to recount their own present history within the existing Christian church where I never asked about that experience.

We humans are a funny lot. Then there is Stronzo, Lex, Freddie, Zora and a host of others I didn't name that don't fit the mold.

As the old hymn says, "We will understand it better, by and by."

Boy that's the truth.

It's the 'by and by' I have some trouble with mon ami!!:biggrin1:

 

[Freddie53]

Boy that's the truth.

It's the 'by and by' I have some trouble with mon ami!!:biggrin1:

Ninety percent of all people have trouble with the "by and by." The other ten percent of people are lieing.:biggrin1:

To understand the "by and by" is to know the future. Humans don't have access to that information.

 

[dong20]

....To understand the "by and by" is to know the future. Humans don't have access to that information.

GordonUK does...:smile:

http://www.lpsg.org/new-member-introductions/28091-new-member-27-06-06-a.html

 

[b.c.]

Agreed Lex.

I simply don't understand what was so difficult to understand about my thread premise. It's been convoluted and made subjective (when that was not its intent) by more posters than not. It's intent was the subjective view to an objective reality.

You understood it. DC Deep did too. So did dong20. Then so did prepstud. Other's appear to be slightly (if not overtly) defensive and then one even called it 'stupid' and 'racist'.... But you're right about one thing; it takes all kinds.

I find it curious so many felt the need to recount their own present history within the existing Christian church where I never asked about that experience.



Boy that's the truth.

It's the 'by and by' I have some trouble with mon ami!!:biggrin1:

Perhaps the problem here is not the way your premise was being answered, but that perhaps you aren't seeing the answers that you expected to see. Hence, my own reply, one religion as good (or bad) as another.

I say that because despite the various approaches to religious practice, the generally "Christian" concepts of diety are in fact not so different from many ancient African beliefs.

Tribal groups from the Sudan, for example, in particular the Nuer/Dinka groups believed in a supreme being kind of god (Kwoth or Gwandong depending on the individual tribes)... a maker/creator of all things. So for Christian missionaries to later come along and affirm pretty much the same ideology (regardless of the name) was not so much of a jump.

Of course, the missionaries felt it their duties to "spread the word" to the "savage masses" (even while denying the masses their humanity in other ways). Curiously, it was illegal to teach slaves to read or write, but not to teach them about God. Because besides spreading "The Word" they used religion in much the same way that conservative Christians try to use it today in influencing politics and morality-they used it for control.

Also curiously though, while it succeeded in controlling an enslaved people it also became one of their greatest strengths. At times when one could not believe in much anyone or anything else, there was still faith in God. What was supposed to be a shackle became, instead, empowering.

This is what they were trying to tell you, in relating their personal experiences.

Such is the nature of religion. It is divisive, it is conflicting, but also inspiring. Whether Kwoth, God, Allah... one name just as good as another.

In other words, the answer to your question: their is nothing to reconcile.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Yes I read that part first time around.

However, what choice did they have? If not 'thrust' then it was "the only game in town". That leaves no 'choice'.

They had no choice but to 'endure' hence the instigation of my thread Bronx.

Are you kidding me? The only choice? I said of their original congregation that it was the first Episcopal church, not the first church of any type, or only church around when they were founding their own congregation. Even if I excuse you (and I of course do) for not knowing more about the history of the architecture and buildings of Manhattan, I cannot understand your departure from logic. I know you are aware that the English were not the first Europeans to settle Manhattan. I know you are aware that being so full of ports, Europeans from all over were starting new lives on that one tiny island, and that most of them were not going to worship with Anglicans, or anyone similar. The first R.C. church in (America? New York? I don't know.) is directly around the corner, for example. At the time, before the Millenium Hilton was built, before the Fulton St. subway station was laid in, when the road was cobblestone (or maybe still dirt), the Catholic church was diagonally accross the street from the Episcopal Church's graveyard. And that's just one example. Of course they could have simply hunted around for another congregation with which to worship. Of course they could have tried to find another denomination which might not make it so rough for them to start their own congregation. But they were determined to be Episcopalians. I imagine they had similar reasons for staying as I do. Only I have much less passion.

You asked about how some black people (you did mean some, right) can look back at a history of intolerance, religious oppression, (history meaning past) and then take the same religion by which their ancestors were oppressed and use it as justification for oppressing (-ing endings indicating present progressive ) others, especially those in the gay community.

I though you might find it interesting to see a deviation from that formula. I thought you might be curious about a small (in the grand scheme of things, anyway) group of people who do not share that same history (as the antebellum whites in the original church were indifferent at best, and against at worst to the presence of slaves in their worship services) and do not behave that way in the present. Instead, you deign to completely disregard my testimony, as if you could know the story better than I. How arrogant. My church is an official landmark. I was trained as a tour guide when I was 8.

 

[AlteredEgo]

In other words, the answer to your question: their is nothing to reconcile.

This is what I tried to illlustrate though Stronzo chose to reject it. For me, for my family, for most of my congregation, for its leadership, there is nothing to reconcile.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

*sigh* A nigger's been MIA for a couple weeks and a gift awaits him:

"Hello Dr. Dilznick it appears that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks, why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution or just engage in a conversation with another member in any one of our forums?"

So, here's a post:

[...] I'd like to ask others who are black how they reconcile practicing a faith handed them by those of European descent?

I realize the significance of Christianity to those of African descent in a social context in as much as it was the glue which held community together in past generations when there was little else to hold onto. But how can the concept of bigotry and social marginalization be so lost on many in the current generations when only one or two generations ago the same bias was imposed on ethnic peoples in just that same way as homosexuals are challenged and ostracized today? It defies logic and comprehension to me.

The Christians that slaughtered native Americans, established the slave trade and destroyed centuries of knowledge proclaiming it pagan, did all these acts with a bible in hand. If the Bible were continued instead of ended, they would be added as further victories of God's will.

God's will:

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." - Numbers 31:17-18

Etc.

However, my mother disagrees and feels that when Christianity was "misused" for power by "white supremacists," and brought over to the Americas, that "we" lost some kind of understanding of the true message of God and have been trying to find it ever since.

Either way, I agree with the above posters that there is nothing to reconcile. Question: why are Indonesia and Malaysia Muslim countries? Europeans didn't exactly invent the idea of using religion to conquer as much as the world as you can. It had little to with race or continent. Violence and conquering mentality are the default in the absence of a rational social system. Back in the time period we're talking about nobody had one. I wouldn't say there were many groups that had a "humane" look on life.

I still blame Paul and his followers who wrote the New Testament (especially Luke, whoever he actually was), not "The Man." Paul was a snake who was willing to do anything to sell his new religion to Romans. Dude already had won during his lifetime and original Christianity died with James's death.

 

[DC_DEEP]

...I still blame Paul and his followers who wrote the New Testament (especially Luke, whoever he actually was), not "The Man." Paul was a snake who was willing to do anything to sell his new religion to Romans. Dude already had won during his lifetime and original Christianity died with James's death.

Welcome back, Dilz... I've missed your incisive, witty banter. Just cuz you have a newbie in your house, that does NOT give you a sanctioned leave of absence.

Your observations of Paul really paint the entire picture. Why some of these folks can be ignorant enough to call themselves "Christ-ians" and disregard the teachings of Christ in favor of the teachings of Paul, is just beyond me. "Paul-ians" just completely suck. <standard boilerplate disclaimer inserted here: if you are a christian who follows the teachings of christ, rather than the rantings of paul, the above statement does not apply to you.>