It was commonly accepted by southern slave owners that God does support slavery. Denominations were even formed over it. Modern proponents of gay marriage use this as part of their argument to discard Biblical teaching and millenia of consistent church teaching on homosexuality. The argument goes- the Bible, specifically the New Testament condones slavery and condemns homosexuality, we no longer accept the teaching on slavery, therefore we should discard the teaching on homosexuality, too. But, is it that simple?
I. Logical Leap #1- They assume that what the apostles referred to as slaves (Greek word doulos) equate to the enslaved people in the United States (north and south) until 1865. Specifically, they assume that they were either captives or descendants of captives. I Corinthians 7:23 calls that into question. Paul gives some instructions to Christians including "do not become slaves (douloi) of men". Could the douloi that Paul is referring to be more akin to the indentured servants that committed to serve a patron for a few years in exchange for paying for their travel to the new world or to the debtor prisoners that settled Georgia? If these people were always enslaved through no fault of their own, why give this instruction? We may not have private debtors prisons anymore, but it's a stretch to say having them is immoral or inherently unjust.
II. Logical Leap #2- Even if Paul and Peter were talking to slaves as we think of them, that does not mean they were endorsing slavery when they commanded them to obey their masters. If the slaves did the opposite of what they were instructing, what would happen? Look at how the Sparticus slave revolt had ended a century before- 6000 rebels were crucified for it. Slave revolts have a bad track record for the rebels. John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter also welcomed soldiers. I think we can agree that they did not also love the job they knew the soldiers did. They simply told people how to live as God would have them in bad situations.
III. A cultural problem- Westerners are raised with these narratives that show a struggle for freedom such as the colonials leaving the British, emancipation, the Civil Rights Movement, WWII, etc. Jesus did not seem to care too much about defending our rights to life, liberty, and property in the secular realm. Instead, he tells his followers to do things like turn the other cheek if someone slaps them. If a Roman soldier attempted to impress or conscript someone to carry their burdens for a mile (as they claimed the right to do), Jesus said to go two miles. He commanded us to love those that mistreat us with actions. How are Peter and Paul telling slaves that are also in an unjust situation to love their masters any different?
IV. Omitted teachings- I Corinthians 7:21, in addition to telling Christians to avoid becoming slaves, he tells those that already are to become free if opportunity presents itself. In Philemon 16, Paul tells a slave's master to receive him as "no longer a slave but more more than a slave, a beloved brother". Paul either meant for Philemon to free his slave Onesimus or he was telling him to love a slave which is a far cry from the atrocities committed in the Americas. This may offend our sensitivities, but there are plenty of commands in the New Testament a part of me wishes were not there, too. I don't want to turn the other cheek or go the extra mile, but Jesus says to. I don't want to love my enemies, but Jesus says to.
No comments:
Post a Comment