Paul's Writings Underpin Western Thought

[SteveII]

Hey Steve,

First of all, it's perplexing to hear someone laud Paul for fighting against the evils of slavery when he wrote this:

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. 

A few things. 
1. I never said Paul fought against slavery. However, I would contend that the doctrines that he promoted entail the end of chattel slavery. If we are equal in Christ, love your neighbor as yourself, are incredibly valuable to God, etc. --eventually the grounds for chattel slavery erode to where you cannot justify it anymore. 
2. Beyond the short letter to Philemon, why wasn't Paul more opposed to slavery?
     a. Opposition to slavery would have been considered insurrection. The Romans were very keen on not having yet another bloody and costly slave revolt and would not have tolerated one bit a group telling slaves they were being wronged.
     b. Related to that, most of the recipients of the letters would not have been slave owners--and more probably would have consisted of slaves. What logic would there be to preach "contentment in all things" (Philippians 4:12-13) and then say--BTW...
     c. He thought the end was not that far--certainly not far enough to envision a change in the very fabric of Roman society. He preached on personal reformation--not societal reformation.
3. The test would be could we conceive of Paul--knowing all he preached--ever owning a slave? I think it is clearly no. The why is the answer to this objection.