Restorative Faith - Race Conversations Virtual Event

[GaryK]

I won't bore you by repeating things I have written and said elsewhere...but basically I do not advocate for using worldly politics or their coercive machinations to correct injustice.

Gary, yes to what you wrote. However no, I don't embrace worldly politics, but instead the KOG as a practical reality on earth as also in heaven.

So, what was the point in using these verses and points to begin with? I thought you were using them to make the point about speaking truth to power and supporting the current protests. Have you changed your mind?

No. I have not changed my mind. I think perhaps the fundamental thing you are not understanding is my perspective on the Kingdom of God. I wrote at length about it in other threads. And I spoke at length about it on the youtube video I did.

In short, a protest is speaking truth and advocating for righteousness. In a similar way early Anabaptists wrote a formal letter protesting slavery in PA in the 17th century. Would you have signed that formal protest to slavery?

My question was not about your perspective on the KOG but rather why you used those verses and points if they don't back up your point about speaking truth to power and supporting current protests. That's what I was asking if you changed your mind on? Do you still believe those verses and the points you made earlier about Jesus speaking truth to power back up your support for the current protests?

I would need to know more about that formal protest to say if I would have signed it.

[ohio jones]

In a similar way early Anabaptists wrote a formal letter protesting slavery in PA in the 17th century. Would you have signed that formal protest to slavery?

Perhaps you are referring to the 1688 Germantown Petition Against Slavery? While that may have been a revolutionary document, a few nits about referencing it in this way:
1. "Early Anabaptists" generally refers to early 16th century Europe, not late 17th century America.
2. If I understand GAMEO correctly, there was one Mennonite family in Germantown at the time; the other 12 families were former Mennonites who had become Quakers.
3. The document was presented to the Quaker Meeting, not to the government. It was hardly "speaking truth to power" in the sense that phrase is being used today.
4. The document was tabled by the Meeting, and forgotten until 1844.

[joshuabgood]

In a similar way early Anabaptists wrote a formal letter protesting slavery in PA in the 17th century. Would you have signed that formal protest to slavery?

Perhaps you are referring to the 1688 Germantown Petition Against Slavery? While that may have been a revolutionary document, a few nits about referencing it in this way:
1. "Early Anabaptists" generally refers to early 16th century Europe, not late 17th century America.
2. If I understand GAMEO correctly, there was one Mennonite family in Germantown at the time; the other 12 families were former Mennonites who had become Quakers.
3. The document was presented to the Quaker Meeting, not to the government. It was hardly "speaking truth to power" in the sense that phrase is being used today.
4. The document was tabled by the Meeting, and forgotten until 1844.

The document was a formal protest against slavery, as described in your link, quoted below. The Anabaptist connection is that 3 of the 4 signers had longstanding strong Mennonite associations. http://www.meetinghouse.info/1688-petit ... avery.html. Here is the Wiki description. The document uses the teachings of Jesus, the Golden Rule, to argue for against slavery, incidentally.

The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery was the first protest against African-American slavery made by a religious body in the English colonies. Francis Daniel Pastorius authored the petition; he and three other Quakers living in Germantown, Pennsylvania (now part of Philadelphia) signed it on behalf of the Germantown Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. Clearly a highly controversial document, Friends forwarded it up the hierarchical chain of their administrative structure--monthly, quarterly, and yearly meetings--without either approving or rejecting it. The petition effectively disappeared for 150 years into Philadelphia Yearly Meeting's capacious archives; but upon rediscovery in 1844 by Philadelphia antiquarian Nathan Kite, latter-day abolitionists published it in 1844 in The Friend, (Vol. XVII, No. 16.) in support of their antislavery agitation.

The Quakers were in fact the ruling party/faction in PA at that time, and making this formal protest and having it work its way up through the meetings (until it was tabled), I think is fairly labeled speaking truth to power. It certainly seems so to me.

[joshuabgood]

My question was not about your perspective on the KOG but rather why you used those verses and points if they don't back up your point about speaking truth to power and supporting current protests. That's what I was asking if you changed your mind on? Do you still believe those verses and the points you made earlier about Jesus speaking truth to power back up your support for the current protests?

I would need to know more about that formal protest to say if I would have signed it.

Sorry for misunderstanding you. No. I have not changed my mind. I think clearly Jesus did speak truth to power. The Sanhedrin in fact clearly wielded power in that society, including political power. Because of them he was arrested. Herod was a politician. It does not follow though, that therefore I embrace the means of the state and should therefore vote. That's a non sequitur in my mind.

Regarding "my support for the 'current protests.'" It should be noted that I support people speaking up on behalf of marginalized oppressed people groups. Such a thing is aligned to the life and teachings of Jesus. (As I have stated elsewhere, I do not align with the formal positions of the organization Black Lives Matter.)

[ohio jones]

Sorry for misunderstanding you. No. I have not changed my mind. I think clearly Jesus did speak truth to power. The Sanhedrin in fact clearly wielded power in that society, including political power. Because of them he was arrested. Herod was a politician.

Did he speak to the Sanhedrin? Possibly to individual members. Did he speak to Herod? See Luke 23:9.

From the New Testament I cannot conclude that Jesus STTP. However, he did speak truth about power.

[joshuabgood]

Sorry for misunderstanding you. No. I have not changed my mind. I think clearly Jesus did speak truth to power. The Sanhedrin in fact clearly wielded power in that society, including political power. Because of them he was arrested. Herod was a politician.

Did he speak to the Sanhedrin? Possibly to individual members. Did he speak to Herod? See Luke 23:9.

From the New Testament I cannot conclude that Jesus STTP. However, he did speak truth about power.

Well we can disagree...but I am curious as to how you would reference comments like this one:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces.

Seems like more than an "individual" statement.