RE: Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought
July 28, 2018 at 12:30 pm
(This post was last modified: July 28, 2018 at 6:57 pm by vulcanlogician.)
Hey Steve,
First of all, it's perplexing to hear someone laud Paul for fighting against the evils of slavery when he wrote this:
I'm not trying to throw this verse in your face or anything. I can see that, in its historical and religious context, it might even be seen as a compassion-driven verse. After all, abolition of slavery in classical Rome/Judea was simply not a realistic agenda item to push. The common assumption was that slavery was an inescapable component of civilized society, and I don't blame Paul for sharing this common assumption. But by the same token, if this passage is supposed to be unblemished, timeless moral truth, it fails miserably. A call for the abolition of slavery would have been a bullseye, regardless of how impractical it was. In his idealism, Paul missed the mark there because (as we know in modern times) civilization can exist without ownership of human beings.
But one can find some positives in the epistle, if one looks carefully and reads charitably.
Though Paul advises slaves to be obedient, he urges them to spiritual serenity. And he expresses empathy for them in their predicament. Again, one cannot fault Paul for showing what appears in modern times as a callous acceptance of slavery. The verse is deeper than what a surface reading reveals. But at the same time, this is hardly a depth charge against what is the greatest evil that one human being can inflict upon another (IMO, slavery is just as evil as rape, because slavery contains rape; it's just as evil as murder because slavery is no less the taking of a life than murder is).
What we prize in the West (as champions of individual liberty and inalienable human rights) is not the spiritual freedom described by Paul in his epistles, but rather actual freedom from the bondage of unjust laws such as slavery. Paul's message was not "free the slaves." Rather it was: "slaves in this life will be free in the next." HUGE difference in sentiments there, and one might even go so far as to say that Paul's words inspire complacence--not action.
The Christian attitude toward slavery is hardly cut and dried. Here is a wiki article with some gritty details concerning Christian Europe's supposed abolition of the old Roman institution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in...val_Europe
Perhaps Europe's de facto abolition of slavery had little to do with Christian ethic. Maybe it had more to do with Europe's plunge into utter ignorance (the Dark Ages) whereby knowledge of math and science that was available even to the Babylonians faded into obscurity. There was simply no infrastructure to support slavery, though serfdom was a vague semblance. Inasmuch as as a lack of intellectual resources was responsible for slavery's lapse, Christianity was responsible. As soon as the lost knowledge was returned to Europe (via the Enlightenment) the good Christians resumed the selling of men, women, and children like chattel. Paul's verse was even used to justify slavery in the American South.
The deeply Christian American South was not urged by its Christian ethos to dismantle the evil institution; the slaves of the South had to be wrested from Southerners' hands by force. Abolitionism was a cultural phenomenon of the North, whose religiosity was lukewarm by comparison to Southerners. Admittedly, Christ's teachings were an inspiration for many abolitionists in the day, but the ultimate demise of the slave culture had more to do with secular progress than an adherence to religious values.
If you or I want to laud someone for speaking against the evils of slavery, we'll have to find actual abolitionists, and resist the temptation to superimpose an abolitionist ethic where one does not exist. Seneca (a hero of mine) was a moral thinker who advocated for humane treatment of slaves, but he was no abolitionist. So it is with Paul. Henry David Thoreau was a genuine abolitionist, and you don't have to run his words through a meat grinder to produce a condemnation of slavery: "I did not pay a tax to, or recognize the authority of, the State which buys and sells men, women, and children, like cattle, at the door of its senate-house." There isn't any ambiguity in that statement, let alone any "slaves, obey your masters" crap. If you're looking for Christian heroes, you'll find many of them in the Quaker movement. But then again, many evangelicals denounce Quakerism as doctrinal heresy.
Historically speaking, Christianity has found itself on the anti-Enlightenment side of almost every issue. In retrospect, it would seem that the less power and control that religious institutions have, the more Enlightenment values are realized by society. Yet Christianity still claims credit for each advance in human rights because it still had some power when whatever injustice was finally abolished. Let's not forget that sodomy laws (laws with an obviously religious motivation that infringed upon consensual relations between adults) were only declared unconstitutional not much over two decades ago. Christianity was no catalyst to the Enlightenment. It was, and continues to be, its most persistent stumbling block.
First of all, it's perplexing to hear someone laud Paul for fighting against the evils of slavery when he wrote this:
Paul Wrote:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.
I'm not trying to throw this verse in your face or anything. I can see that, in its historical and religious context, it might even be seen as a compassion-driven verse. After all, abolition of slavery in classical Rome/Judea was simply not a realistic agenda item to push. The common assumption was that slavery was an inescapable component of civilized society, and I don't blame Paul for sharing this common assumption. But by the same token, if this passage is supposed to be unblemished, timeless moral truth, it fails miserably. A call for the abolition of slavery would have been a bullseye, regardless of how impractical it was. In his idealism, Paul missed the mark there because (as we know in modern times) civilization can exist without ownership of human beings.
But one can find some positives in the epistle, if one looks carefully and reads charitably.
Though Paul advises slaves to be obedient, he urges them to spiritual serenity. And he expresses empathy for them in their predicament. Again, one cannot fault Paul for showing what appears in modern times as a callous acceptance of slavery. The verse is deeper than what a surface reading reveals. But at the same time, this is hardly a depth charge against what is the greatest evil that one human being can inflict upon another (IMO, slavery is just as evil as rape, because slavery contains rape; it's just as evil as murder because slavery is no less the taking of a life than murder is).
What we prize in the West (as champions of individual liberty and inalienable human rights) is not the spiritual freedom described by Paul in his epistles, but rather actual freedom from the bondage of unjust laws such as slavery. Paul's message was not "free the slaves." Rather it was: "slaves in this life will be free in the next." HUGE difference in sentiments there, and one might even go so far as to say that Paul's words inspire complacence--not action.
The Christian attitude toward slavery is hardly cut and dried. Here is a wiki article with some gritty details concerning Christian Europe's supposed abolition of the old Roman institution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in...val_Europe
Perhaps Europe's de facto abolition of slavery had little to do with Christian ethic. Maybe it had more to do with Europe's plunge into utter ignorance (the Dark Ages) whereby knowledge of math and science that was available even to the Babylonians faded into obscurity. There was simply no infrastructure to support slavery, though serfdom was a vague semblance. Inasmuch as as a lack of intellectual resources was responsible for slavery's lapse, Christianity was responsible. As soon as the lost knowledge was returned to Europe (via the Enlightenment) the good Christians resumed the selling of men, women, and children like chattel. Paul's verse was even used to justify slavery in the American South.
The deeply Christian American South was not urged by its Christian ethos to dismantle the evil institution; the slaves of the South had to be wrested from Southerners' hands by force. Abolitionism was a cultural phenomenon of the North, whose religiosity was lukewarm by comparison to Southerners. Admittedly, Christ's teachings were an inspiration for many abolitionists in the day, but the ultimate demise of the slave culture had more to do with secular progress than an adherence to religious values.
If you or I want to laud someone for speaking against the evils of slavery, we'll have to find actual abolitionists, and resist the temptation to superimpose an abolitionist ethic where one does not exist. Seneca (a hero of mine) was a moral thinker who advocated for humane treatment of slaves, but he was no abolitionist. So it is with Paul. Henry David Thoreau was a genuine abolitionist, and you don't have to run his words through a meat grinder to produce a condemnation of slavery: "I did not pay a tax to, or recognize the authority of, the State which buys and sells men, women, and children, like cattle, at the door of its senate-house." There isn't any ambiguity in that statement, let alone any "slaves, obey your masters" crap. If you're looking for Christian heroes, you'll find many of them in the Quaker movement. But then again, many evangelicals denounce Quakerism as doctrinal heresy.
Historically speaking, Christianity has found itself on the anti-Enlightenment side of almost every issue. In retrospect, it would seem that the less power and control that religious institutions have, the more Enlightenment values are realized by society. Yet Christianity still claims credit for each advance in human rights because it still had some power when whatever injustice was finally abolished. Let's not forget that sodomy laws (laws with an obviously religious motivation that infringed upon consensual relations between adults) were only declared unconstitutional not much over two decades ago. Christianity was no catalyst to the Enlightenment. It was, and continues to be, its most persistent stumbling block.
