diana

NT condemnation of slavery as immoral might suggest that any slavery--including slavery to a god or gods so the worshipper could be "free," whatever the fuck that means--was also immoral.

Looks to me like Christianity not only gives the nod to slavery, but depends upon acceptance of the institution for its own philosophical structure (be ye slaves to Christ...). It couldn't very well condemn the practice and require it at the same time.

Oh wait a minute. Strike that. Christianity can do anything paradoxical and get away with it because "God moves in mysterious ways." I keep forgetting that trap door, silly me.

d

Vorkosigan

Welcome to the Board! We are always happy to have new people around to discuss these issues.

Midge, I am not sure I understand the ethical background of this position. Surely, slave or free, one can witness for Christ. Second, if slavery is really a moral wrong, then even if the slave is a witness for Jesus, the master still commits a moral wrong by continuing to own him. Third, while evidence for god(s) is equivocal and contradictory, the evils of slavery are concrete and clear.
Finally, as for "authorizing slavery" the texts implicitly do so when they order slaves not to revolt, and when they refrain from clearly instructing masters to free their slaves.

Vorkosigan

Stephen_BostonMA

As Rev. Peter Gomes of Harvard Divinity School notes in his book, The Good Life,

WinAce

If it's not a private board or one you'd like to keep secret, send me the link

Mentalepsy

It reminds me of a conversation I had once with someone I know. I asked him about the passages in the Bible that command people to kill everyone but the virgins, who shall be taken as (it specifically says) the spoils of war. We all know the standard answer to this one, but I was hoping he knew better than to use it: "They couldn't just leave them there to starve in the middle of a ruined city, could they?"

Fundamentalist idiocy needs to be stomped hard. If only there was a way to do it.

The Midge

It is easy to judge another time and culture with our own values. Slavery was a fact of life in those days. An honest question: Was there an ancient civilisation that did not have some form of slavery at some point in it's rise and development? Even Britain and America had slaves. In someways the Hebrew Laws, even the fact that there were laws at all, were positively enlightened for their time. In other cultures there was no protection for the slave at all. Give credit where it is due.

As for Hebrew Slavery laws: They dealt with a fact of life in just the same ways as our laws deal with car ownership and use. One day a future civilisation may look back at us a think "What an evil and corrupt society- they allowed such indiscriminate use of the internal combustion engine that polluted and devastated the world we now live in" yet there exist those of a green disposition who oppose or wish to limit the use of cars. Oh the benefit of hind site.

In Christ, we are taught,
and it is such passages that inspired the Christians who lead the anti slavery movements.

Another aspect of slavery is that Hebrew slaves were more often prisoners or war (no Genever Convention in those days) or would be more properly refered to as bond servants. Those who had fallen on hard times and had sold themselves into service. It is a form of social security and limited in duration. There are further laws which required the 'owner' of the bond servent to set them up with enuogh so they can start a new life and not end up straight back on skid row. (Dueteronomy 15:12-18)

The Midge

Paul is saying make the best of a raw deal.

Vorkosigan

Yes, in the part addressed to slaves. That is almost an acceptable argument. But Midge, Paul does not take the opportunity to address masters to tell them to free their slaves, in an unmistable way.

Tercel cited this passage from Luke:
"Suppose one of you has a servant who is ploughing or looking after the sheep. When he comes in from the field, do you tell him to hurry and eat his meal? Of course not! Instead you say to him, ‘Get my supper ready, then put on your apron and wit on me while I eat and drink; after that you may have your meal.' The servant does not deserve thanks for obeying orders, does he? It is the same with you; when you have done all you have been told to do, say 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'" (Luke 17:7-10)

as I pointed out, the only real ethical position is what Luke should have written:

"Free your servants, and feed them. You owe them a debt, so help them start a business. He who forces a hungry man to watch him eat is a morally contemptible person."

The NT position on slavery is part of its larger catering to Roman power. Slaves were the basis of the Roman economy.

Vorkosigan

Stephen_BostonMA

However, there were other practices that were a fact of life (realities) in those days, and continue to be realities today: murder, theft, idolatry, adultery, fornication, etc. The Bible seems very clear in it’s condemnation of such practices. Yet, when slavery is mentioned, it’s with a sense of passive acceptance at best.

The Midge

Was Paul Writing to the masters? How could he address such an issue to them.

I have never heard or Tercel and don't see what relevance they have to this discussion. Nor is the passage from Luke relevant to the discussion about slavery simply because Jesus was not talking about the rights and wrongs of enforced labour. He was using the imagery of servants (NIV) to describe the attitude his disciples should have to working for the Kingdom that is not to expect glory for them selves simply for doing what they should.

Please remember that the NT was written at a time when the early Church was but a finge movement in a religion of a subjugated religion and had no onterest in mainstream Roman Society and culture.

There is one letter that is exclusively concerned with the isue of one particular slave and that is Philemon. Philemon was a slave owner of Pauls converts, Onesimus. Paul had converted Onesimus whilst serving time in Rome. He writes a covering letter to the slave owner which presumably Onesimus is to deliver on his return. Philemon would have every right under Roman Law to punish the errrent slave severly. Yet Paul points out that Onesimus is now a fellow believer and should be treated accordingly. "Welcome him as you would me" pleads Paul and later adds "Confident in your obedience, I write to you knowing you will do more than I ask".

Paul does not order that Onesimus be freed because he has no right to interfere with the prevading law. If that is not enough Paul writes in his own hand to be sure that the promise is seen to be coming from him that he personnaly would cover any loss Philemon had incured.

This incident better demonstrates the values of the Kingdom of God than preaching a condemnation because it involved trust and faith in Philemon on the part of Paul and Onesimus that he would respond to the reconciled slave in the way all Christians are responded to by God when they are reconciled through Christ. In this case the voluntary release of a slave speaks more of the value of a loving faith community than an act forced out of compulsion by one of the leaders. By the very fact that this private leter survived would suggest that Philemon took it to heart.

So Paul entrusts that the principles of the Kingdom of God prevail over Roman legal rights. This demonstrates that slavery is not fitting for the fellowship of Christ that is the Church and submission to the law. A diplomatic solution to the issue suitable for the time.

Further more this is in keeping with the servant leadership modeled by Christ. In the Church the greatest are those who serve; as Jesus demonstrated through the washing of feet- the skivvies job because it was so unpleasant. Anyone who leads in the Christian community should put others first- that principle woud obviously extend to their slaves.