Secular Bible Study

[Antlerman]

In the Twin Cities where I live, the Minnesota Atheist organization and the Trinity United Methodist Church have joined together in a joint project bringing together those of diverse points of view to meet and discuss religious belief in our society. Topics expose modern points of view in regards to Biblical scholarship, along with group discussions of our culture and society from a wide range of perspectives: atheistic, philosophical, liberal religious, fundamentalist.

 

To this date I have attended all but two of the 9 meetings and my impression is that of an effort that works to move beyond the rhetoric and politics that plague our society from religious and secular extremes, to meet together in the middle to discuss matters of importance to us as a culture, and as a society. The attendance is to me very telling as to its relevance. The first meeting had an attendance of 45 people, which dropped down to around 35 at the second meeting (at which I first participated). At each bi-weekly meeting, that number has remained within that range, with new faces and at each meeting and consistent regulars.

 

In my personal point of view on those who attend, I would call them a wonderful blend of well educated individuals, both secular and religious, with deeply interested backgrounds, along with people of regular, yet genuine faith who see the world within their traditions and personal experiences. All together, it is a meeting together of those wishing to dialog and understand one another and themselves in this society exposed to the knowledge and ideas that permeate all our worlds. But the overall 'message', is that of interest in understanding the origins of ideas that affect our culture through a history of religious and secular understandings.

 

As a person who sees a more rational and philosophical point of view, I find the dialog inspiring. Inspiring in the sense that there is dialog. Genunie dialog. Not at all like the apologists who come trying to argue their points, not willing to genuniely discuss. There is genuine dialog, from a spontaneous cross-section of individuals who hold widely diverse points of view, but a common interest in understanding. That, alone, gives me hope for us as a society. We are humans who live with one another, and what I see demonstrates, to me, that is what is of true importance to those who hold to diverse points of view in their perceptions of this world we live in together. All systems aside, we are human beings.

[Antlerman]

That's awesome, Anterman. I reckon I'd enjoy that, too.

 

Phanta

What's great about this is that there is virtually no proselytizing that happens. People are allowed, and welcomed, to share their perspectives with each other as means of open dialog. What few times someone, either from the religious or secular leanings gets a little "preachy" about their point of view it pretty much gets responded to with a reasoned and respectful approach from members of the smaller groups. Those members have continued to come and genuine dialog is growing. To me, it's not just about having the religious side understand the secular side better in all its diversity of thought and attitudes, but the other way around as well. Behind all the "camps", there are the individuals who are humans doing what they need to do to live their lives through various ways of looking at the world.

 

To me this is an amazing social experiment, whether its organizers from the MN Atheist and the Methodist church realize this or not. That at this point, that even after 6 months of this novel group that there is continued interest like this, with even new attendees each time (there were at least two new faces there this week from the religious communities), it says that there is a greater social interest throughout society in moving forward together in our differing approaches to life. People are not there to make converts to themselves, but something greater.

 

In very many ways it's like a live version of this community here on the site. In what I observe as a participant here, this site becomes a place not only for people to come to sort out the mess of the tangle that religion caused for them in their lives and to be supported by each other here, but also to not only disentangle but to build new foundations in order to navigate their social landscapes as an individual. This all is part of what I see as part of a greater social development that we as individuals all are part of and contribute to. The past is getting shed off and people are wanting to move forward together rather than in further opposite directions. But we have to work through the issues of the past to get there, and opening up dialogs of understanding is in that spirit.

[Neon Genesis]

I wish my parents' church would do something like this instead of that stupid read the bible in 90 days program thing. They're up to Jeremiah now and so far no one has even bothered to re-think their fundamentalist views of the bible or to consider alternate ways of looking at scripture. I just don't see how you can make it through the OT and still be a fundamentalist at the end of it.

[R. S. Martin]

From the article:

 

 

The weekly class will focus on the Bible's historical and cultural context. Organizers have drawn up a set of ground rules designed to keep participants from proselytizing, but that doesn't mean that they want to discourage disagreement. Just the opposite.

 

"We've discerned that people have lost or lack the skills to engage in constructive and respectful dialogue in the context of profound disagreement," O'Gorman said. "An emphasis will be placed on dialogue among the group of small groups."

 

This, and A-man's posts, sound a lot like what happened at the seminary where I did my Masters in theology. While there was a majority of Lutheran students (maybe 50%) because it was a Lutheran seminary, there were a lot of other denominations, too. I understand I was not their first atheist. Though I deconverted while there, I was by no means a traditional or orthodox Christian when I started; I just needed to do a degree in something and that program was available and interesting. I loved it.

 

 

Like these meetings in Minnesota, the emphasis was on things like the cultural and historical context in which the biblical text was written--in which the characters of the Bible lived, moved, and had their being. There was no proselytizing and there was discussion in small groups for some classes. Class discussion happened in all the courses. From that article and A-man's posts here, it appears to me like the biggest difference between my seminary courses and this secular Bible Study in Minnesota is that the seminary was formal courses that could be graded and evaluated formally, while the Bible Study is more casual and conducted on whatever level the interest of participants takes it.

 

 

 

On William Lane Craig's forums Christians often ask why atheists are so interested in what other people believe. We point out that when wars are fought and laws are made impacting the education of our children and when health regulations are impeded because of a certain religion's beliefs, it interests us very much. They always fail to engage us on these issues. I get the feeling that this secular Bible Study has a strong and healthy atmosphere where serious issues like this can eventually be addressed, if not directly perhaps indirectly. If relationships can be improved and understanding nurtured, much has been accomplished.

 

I would guess the Christians involved are not fundamentalist or of a very conservative stripe. However, they seem to be interested in Bible study and serious conversation. That is encouraging--there IS dialog. Thanks for posting this, A-man.

[Antlerman]

I wish my parents' church would do something like this instead of that stupid read the bible in 90 days program thing. They're up to Jeremiah now and so far no one has even bothered to re-think their fundamentalist views of the bible or to consider alternate ways of looking at scripture. I just don't see how you can make it through the OT and still be a fundamentalist at the end of it.

When I first read through the OT as a fundamentalist it shook my tree of faith pretty hard. It was difficult to wrap my heart's conception of what God was with the image of God on those pages. It created conflict between the heart and the head. The heart said 'no, this isn't right', but reason was being told to argue against it that somehow these are the facts on the pages and I shouldn't let my heart confuse me. That of course was backward, and an idea instilled by the guardians of the dreadful secret that we should not trust anything but the Word of God (interpreted through them, of course), that doubts were the slyness of Lucifer to steal the truth they had the corner of the market on.

 

I think for your folks' church to do something like this, to extend themselves beyond the confines of their doctrines, it would have to possess a level of "faith" that can allow for multiple perspectives. I don't think they're secure enough in their beliefs to entertain other ideas. That's a sign of emotional maturity, a mature faith, if you will.

 

On William Lane Craig's forums Christians often ask why atheists are so interested in what other people believe. We point out that when wars are fought and laws are made impacting the education of our children and when health regulations are impeded because of a certain religion's beliefs, it interests us very much. They always fail to engage us on these issues. I get the feeling that this secular Bible Study has a strong and healthy atmosphere where serious issues like this can eventually be addressed, if not directly perhaps indirectly. If relationships can be improved and understanding nurtured, much has been accomplished.

You've mentioned this other forum before. Is it a fairly liberal forum? I might wish to engage in some discussions there if so. Would you provide a link?

 

Chester, one of the organizers is planning to have a discussion on ethics which I feel will open up probably one of the most meaningful issues confronting this society in the perceptions of one another in where we stand. You have the voices of the far right filling the air waves with their rhetoric and political maneuverings, and you have the flip side of the coin lambasting the entire religious world as narrow-minded, backwards, ignorant and delusional, etc. Whereas the reality of the matter is we are all far more alike than dislike.

 

It would be quite interesting to see in that group once the dialog is opened to see how much our values systems are actually the same. I've always believed that, and have learned to see past the language of religion and secularism to the heart of the humans behind it. It's the radicals who unfortunately obfuscate all that for the sake of politics. I suppose its my hope that this level of meaningful respect across the isles will bring down so many of these false barriers defined by the extremes.

 

 

I would guess the Christians involved are not fundamentalist or of a very conservative stripe. However, they seem to be interested in Bible study and serious conversation. That is encouraging--there IS dialog. Thanks for posting this, A-man.

Actually, you'd be surprised. There are quite a few conservatives there. Yet, they are listening to others, as well as others to them! That is probably for me the most surprising, and my own greatest personal challenge in the face of the religious world. As long as they show the respect to listen to others, they will be afforded the effort of understanding as well. But to dismiss and judge, that is not received well. It's all about seeking dialog, and someone blocked from listening won't be minded much in return. It's the voices of the majority that will define the day. That has always been my belief. And to be seeing conservatives engaged in respectful dialog is most impressive to me indeed.

[The-Captain]

"We've discerned that people have lost or lack the skills to engage in constructive and respectful dialogue in the context of profound disagreement," O'Gorman said. "

 

An interesting observation, and in my experience a true one. At best we get silent, hostile, tension at worst vitriolic argument with little prospect of satisfactory resolution. That somewhere out there people are willing to try a different tack does my jaded heart good. I hope you continue to enjoy these meetings Antlerman.

[Franko47]

Most encouraging. The last time I went to something along these lines, sponsored by a local college, it quickly deteriorated into an emotional quagmire.

 

 

And I live in Canada.

 

 

However, I can relate to the element of where thoughtful and mature Christians, who have more of a philosphical bent, can politely and harmoniously discuss the various perspectives. This is usually more attainable in small groups, so it's good to see something like this happening in a larger arena.

[R. S. Martin]

And I live in Canada.

 

There's a lot of people in the part of Canada where I live that I don't want to talk religion with. The seminary I attended was not fundamentalist, though it was traditional, and I did run into problems after my deconversion. In retrospect, I think the problems were caused in large part because the Christians felt threatened by an atheist in their midst. Also, I was of the impression that I could now ask all my questions without fear of being "excommunicated" because I wasn't a Christian anymore. (Since I was not a Lutheran they could not have excommunicated me formally but they could have seen me as not a good enough Christian, which would have been almost as bad in my mind.) Since I wasn't trying to be a Christian anymore (after my deconversion; I deconverted partway through my studies), I assumed all questions were up for grabs. Fundamental error on my part and it caused me some grief from the profs.

 

I think if I went back to do it over, I could do so with less conflict now that I have a better understanding of the hot-spots. I simply had no idea how vulnerable Christians felt. I assumed that it was only stupid little me that couldn't "get" the Christian doctrine, and that seasoned systematic theologians knew it all even though they couldn't tell me the stuff they knew by faith. I conclude that their faith was not as strong as they would have had me think.

 

If both sides go into the meeting with the insight that the other side might feel vulnerable and easily offended, then there might be more sensitivity of wording and subject matter...That's just my thinking now that I put all of this together...I don't know if I'm right.

[Franko47]

And I live in Canada.

 

 

If both sides go into the meeting with the insight that the other side might feel vulnerable and easily offended, then there might be more sensitivity of wording and subject matter...That's just my thinking now that I put all of this together...I don't know if I'm right.

 

 

 

No, I think that is a very reasonable way to approach it. It's interesting to note that I "walk on eggshells" when having little talks with some of my Christian relatives and friends. However, on many occasions, they still "blurt out" the inane absurdities I've gotten used to, forgetting that I was once a serious Christian believer, and that I fully understand "their experience" to some degree.

 

At other times, it's like trying to bridge two worlds. I've got a little bit of experience with public seminars on religion and faith and issues, it often depends upon the makeup of the crowd. When I was a Christian I was interested in the ecunemical stuff anyway, an indication that there are some Christians who are willing to think outside the box. I was trying to bridge understanding between protestants and Catholics, and even include Mormons as well. "My father's house has many mansions" didn't quite go down in the end, though.

 

People love their "cliques".

[Antlerman]

If both sides go into the meeting with the insight that the other side might feel vulnerable and easily offended, then there might be more sensitivity of wording and subject matter...That's just my thinking now that I put all of this together...I don't know if I'm right.

I think that's a good observation. As you were describing the discomfort you were seeing by some in the seminary I was speculating that some of the reason might be because of the setting, that inside the walls of their seminary there are certain assumptions of like-mindedness and you were challenging them in their 'safe zone'. If they were accustomed to atheists in that environment all the time the reactions might have been different. Don't know, just speculating.

 

One thing that was interesting in the last meeting we had regarding the impact of ideas outside the traditions of certain faiths and people's response to them, a guy at the small group I was in didn't discuss much the whole until near the time we needed to end when we asked for his thoughts. His response has really stuck with me. He said he grew up in a Catholic home and church and hadn't gone for several years, but was interested in this setting discussing the Bible and the history of the faith. Being exposed to the modern scholarship presented there; the mythologies the stories draw off of, the translation issues, the various sects of early belief, etc, has caused him to feel confused about everything he has assumed from what he understood growing up. His sincere question was, "So now what?"

 

I don't necessarily see for him that this means he's bent on becoming an atheist or anything, and my response to him was that its all about making sense of things and finding meaning for ourselves in them. When certain assumptions are challenged and we have to look at things differently, its all about finding a new truth for ourselves, and that can take many forms and directions. Just because its not one thing over here, it doesn't mean its now this one thing over there.

 

But the point I was trying to make is that in that environment, a small table group of 2 atheists, 2 evangelicals, 1 Bahi, and 1 catholic, this man felt safe enough to be sincere and open about his faith and the challenges he has at this time. In a different setting, the faces we might see could look quite different from the outside. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the whole of society felt so safe with each other to be as sincere?

[Guest October s Autumn]

Sounds awesome! I'd love to see it because it is almost impossible to believe that that diverse of group of people could get together and actually have a discussion!

[RisenTree]

This sounds really cool. I'd gladly participate in such a venue if I knew that the Christians would actually be willing to hear out opposing views (which, surprisingly, some do).

[Antlerman]

This sounds really cool. I'd gladly participate in such a venue if I knew that the Christians would actually be willing to hear out opposing views (which, surprisingly, some do).

I actually attended a church service at the sponsoring church today. The purpose for this was to get a few of the participants of the study group to speak to their congregation what our impressions of it were. Four of us spoke, myself included, with about eight of the 30 some-odd participants from the group also present.

 

The ensuing dialog with members of the congregation following the service, was for lack of better words, inspiring. There was genuine respect shown to others of different points of view, without some need to try to convert. In fact, in a long discussion about philosophy, religion, culture, etc, we talked about their sister church up the road, a couple of the parishioners from there said they would really enjoy having me be their preacher there. Hmmm... Intriguing thought...

 

Like I said... there is common ground and goals with most of your mainstream religions, and it's more a case of getting past the language and attitudes that cause division. I would consider this a huge success for me personally to be received this way, while being clear of my views with neither compromise nor excuse. It's the spirit of humanity and inspiration that drives the creation of the systems expressing this, and beyond the language is the heart of people who share common desires and values.

 

What I had to say about the study group to the congregation was simply that what they were doing was significant. It's success on this level after many months running now shows that our society is ready for dialog, and tired of the extremes of polarizing rhetoric. It is possible to learn from each other, and grow together as a society, and that it's those who are willing to make the effort together can achieve this. I thanked them for supporting this groups effort.

 

Those churches are struggling financially, as the younger members were mostly sucked away into your more Evangelical churches, leaving an aging congregation. Them sponsoring this group, this effort, is part of them hoping to be a part of their community in ways that opens their doors for interest from the community.

 

I shared with those two members the sorts of responses I have heard from others from all over the nation and elsewhere on this site the sorts of comments as above. They were both left speechless hearing me tell them this. I repeated what I said earlier why what they happened upon is significant. The fact of that is apparent in these sorts of responses and interest it's receiving.

 

There is genuine interest and desire to share respect for one another as we embrace our differences and move forward together in shaping our communities. Churches like this are not your Evangelical flare which wages war on society, not love. Truth comes from inside people, and needs not be dictated to them from outside.

[godsfavoritecolor]

For anyone reading this who lives in the Kansas City area, there is a weekly secular Bible study at the “Community of Reason.” Other religions are discussed as well. Google “Community of Reason” for more information. Pass this along to anyone you know who might be interested.

[Neon Genesis]

In fact, in a long discussion about philosophy, religion, culture, etc, we talked about their sister church up the road, a couple of the parishioners from there said they would really enjoy having me be their preacher there. Hmmm... Intriguing thought...

 

Speaking of atheist preachers, have you heard of the atheist bishop, Richard Holloway of the Episcopalian church? Dawkins mentioned him in his article Atheists For Jesus: http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins