The word sarcasm comes from the Greek term for the ripping off of flesh--which is a fitting image for John Mark Reynolds recent sarcastic post.
Earlier this week Dr. Reynolds gave us "Ten Commandments for Evangelical Leaders in Politics" from the group L.O.S.E. (Lovingly Opposed to Sin and Evil). Now L.O.S.E. (full disclosure: I'm the group's "Facilitator of Loving Academic Computer Instruction and Dean" (FLACID)) has released its first position paper. In it Reynolds rips the flesh off the silly notion that God is neutral on political matters:
As an organization L.O.S.E. is committed to being fiercely non-partisan, just like God. It is self-evident that if political independence is good enough for the Almighty it ought to be good enough for us.
There are many implications of applying this principle universally that some Christians (afraid of consistency) will dislike. The beauty of being a political organization run by academics is that L.O.S.E. is not afraid of appearing absurd to most in order to achieve academic respectability.
The statement “God is not a Republican or a Democrat” can be understood one of two ways.
More fundamentalist readers of this statement within L.O.S.E. take it literally and believe we should do nothing God would not do. God pays no taxes. We should not pay taxes. God does not obey speeding laws. We should not obey speeding laws. In fact, God is not an American so we should not be Americans.
This causes our members that take their bumper stickers less literally (and more poetically) some difficulties. They point out that God also has no gender or single location. It has proven hard for some L.O.S.E. members to be metrosexual and omnipresent.
As a result these more “liberal” L.O.S.E. members understand the holy bumper sticker to imply that Christians can be in a political party, but cannot believe that God favors one party over any other or that one party is more godly than another.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3813
1
Clever, but Bush is no Lincoln.
posted on 08.03.2007 1:59 PM2
Both suspended habeaus corpus though...
posted on 08.03.2007 2:01 PM3
Unlikely to be convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with its conclusions. In that sense, it preaches to the choir far more than it attempts to defend a particular position.
posted on 08.03.2007 3:20 PM4
I'm afraid Mr. Reynolds doesn't know much about Lincoln's views on the aims of the war, religion and politics and has conveniently ignored the Bible's position on slavery.
It's hard to argue that God was on the side of the North when the Bible Belt was then, as now, in the South. Christian slaveowners (a redundancy, as virtually all slaveowners were Christians) often accused abolitionists of being atheists for opposing the God-ordained institution of slavery. The Old Testament, Jesus, Paul, the church fathers, and almost all church leaders for the first 1800 years of Christianity thought that slavery was part of God's will. It was only after the Enlightenment and its emphasis on human rights that a number of Christian non-slaveholders decided that God was against slavery.
Lincoln himself was certainly no evangelical (he was a quasi-deist) and never appealed for support on religious grounds. He recognized that both sides appealed to God for sanction and he refused to claim that God was on the North's side.
Although slavery certainly was the underlying cause of the war, Lincoln stated over and over that he saw the primary aim of the war as restoring the Union. He said that he was willing to keep slavery legal if that would save the Union.
posted on 08.03.2007 4:12 PM5
On Lincoln and Northern Evangelicals "expreacher" might want to read Lincoln: A Life of Purpoes and Power (Knopf, 2006). It agues that Lincoln drew his political power from an appeal to Northern Evangelicals. This is by an Oxford scholar and no religious right tract.
As to the "Bible Belt," expreacher might want to be a bit more careful in his history. The recent disappearance of the Midwest and Northern Evangelical has made him believe it was always so . . . but he has forgotten the old key to Republican power. Nixon replaced fading Northern Evangelicals with Southern ones . . . see my post here: http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2006/08/09/evangelicals-and-the-republican-party/ for another point of view.
As to the Bible and slavery, expreacher might want to ponder why slavery died out in most Christians nations long before the Enlightenment. I also assume he has read the Bible saturated Locke and his work on apologetics.
posted on 08.03.2007 5:09 PM6
John Mark,
posted on 08.03.2007 5:57 PMXP also, apparently, hasn't done much exegetical on Philemon.
7
Yes.
Our friend also makes the common error of conflating race based slavery with economic or Roman slavery.
I am not in favor of either, but to mix the two is sloppy. The Bible makes the proper, though difficult, real world ethical call that immediate abolition of Roman-style slavery (which often was a better deal than "freedom" in the pagan/secular society of the time) would be more harmful than undercutting the economic benefits of it and gradually causing it to die as culture became more Christian.
By making all slaves "brothers," there was no way Roman slavery could long survive.
Race based slavery which depended on the notion that some men were not men and conflated Roman/ancient slavery with Southern evil was never consistent with the facts or with the Bible.
In any case, XP does not deal with the Battle Hymn or Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.
And of course, this is all beside the central point of the post (not about Bush) . . . but about the history of religion and politics in the US.
The secularized version so widely believed by some of my atheist friends is as contrary to the obvious facts (if one reads primary source documents) as the naive America=Christendom view held by a few on the fringes of the right.
Most Americans are Christians. Most Americans have always been Christians. Movements like abolition and (sadly) Prohibition cannot be understood apart from this fact.
Secularists often try to have it both ways by having religious appear as if out of no place for causes they dislike (anti-evolution laws) and then vanish when causes they like (child labor laws, animal cruelty laws) were passed using Evangelical arguments and votes.
XP should go read an UNEDITED version of Locke on government. It contains more Biblical arguments and Bible verses than many Bible studies I have attended.
(Pardon the hasty typing of my last . . . I am in the middle of writing/book project and my aging eyes are giving out on me!)
posted on 08.03.2007 6:18 PM8
Part of me would love to respond point by point, but I don't have the time or interest and I sense that Brother John Mark is not open to the possibility that his reading of both the Bible and history are mistaken. As Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
I appreciate your condescending comments, but I have studied quite a bit of the Bible and history in the process of acquiring my M.Div, D.Min. and PhD in American History. I think you and I both know that the Bible nowhere condemns slavery (even in Philemon, where Paul returns an escaped slavery into bondage). It's cute that Christians today like to think that the Bible was subtly condemning slavery. Odd that it was so subtle that no one got it until after the Enlightenment and even then many missed it. It's funny how Jesus and Paul never thought to come out and condemn it. Ah, the beauty and mystery of the faith. Did God not know that Christians would "misunderstand" the Bible's teachings on slavery from 1619 to 1865? Or maybe he just ddn't care. It's also amusing how Christians like to pretend that ancient slavery was all sweetness and light, unlike that really bad slavery in the South.
As for Lincoln, I am well aware of what he said on the subject of God and slavery. I have read scores of books on Lincoln, almost all of which deal in part with his religious views and his views on slavery. Suffice it to say that I don't think Lincoln would see much of value in your "humorous" satire.
I am well aware of the positive contributions, as well as negative influences, made by people of faith throughout American history. I have no problem ackwoledging both sides of that coin. I fully agree that American history cannot be understood apart from the deep religiosity of most of its citizens. What does bother me is the effort by some Christians today to use the government and tax dollars to prop up their religion. You and I may actually not be that far apart on this issue - I honestly don't know. Perhaps you could come out and say what mean by your article. Are you saying that God is a Republican?
posted on 08.03.2007 10:36 PM9
Expreacher,
I agree why don't they come out and say what they mean? I know it's some sort of satire slamming liberals or something, but I don't find it funny and I would like to know what their point is too.
Rhetorical question for L.O.S.E. people, John Mark and Joe Carter. I guess you won't be joining the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq the next time they come to Washington, DC to speak out against some specific evils and tell our political leaders to stop it? Am I right?
posted on 08.04.2007 1:05 AM10
To ex-preacher:
I am sorry you are an ex! I wanted to be an ex, tried hard to be, but found my mind getting in the way.
I did not mean to be condescending, just point out that your claim about Evangelicals and Lincoln was wrong. He did appeal to them and needed their votes. I gave a source for my views and you did not refute that don, just cited your own education.
You are also wrong that no Christian condemned slavery before the Enlightenment. As soon as it was in a position to do, the church began condemning the slave trade and increasing the rights of slaves. (This began by the middle of the 5th century.) Several popes spoke against the slave trade. Slavery was basically gone in Europe by the 14th century. Major figures like Anselm were opposed to it. Augustine was no fan. John Chrysostom condemned slavery.
To be "free" a slave need only be baptized. No Christian could be held as a slave. It was a weird throw back in the South that being a Christian did NOT make you free.
It did take longer for the wider views of men like Augustine to be applied to prisoners of war and non-Christians. Economic slavery for p.o.w was considered acceptable since prisons (given the wealth of the era) were even less humane.
This is a very good record considering that slavery was a universal feature of the ancient world and that secular thought had defended it. Sixteenth and Seventeenth century era views on slavery were a natural out growth of the centuries of development of Christian doctrine.
People are slow learners . . . .look how long monotheism took to "stick." Generally, God allows us to learn over time as rapid social change (revolutions) generally do at least as much harm as good.
The God I serve allows for a constant dialectic with humanity where His truth comes into tension with our practice and we slowly learn.
Cotton Mather was no "Enlightenment" secularist but he pressed the evils of black slavery. The same thing is true of the Methodists and other groups. Is John Wesley and his Methodist movement secular?
Finally, it is just a basic error to conflate Roman slavery with race based slavery. Neither (as has been said) was acceptable to Christian ethics, but "slaves" in the ancient world were often better off than "free" men. That is just a fact. Immediate abolition would not have improved their lot.
Roman slavery (pagan and secular) did not claim the slave was not human and gave them rights . . . again sometimes more rights than other captive peoples. You have said nothing substantial against this.
Again this is not much like the evils of race slavery in the South which depended on the slave being NOT "a man and a brother."
As to misunderstanding the Bible . . . it is hard to imagine any book with sophisticated reasoning not being misunderstood. Every time someone looks for Atlantis such a mistake has been made with Plato!
Finally, since I believe in a small and limited government, I cannot imagine we disagree on much. Christianity does not need government to prop it up . . .
----
As to the last comment, I am sorry that the satire missed the mark for John W. I had fun writing it . . .
Peace rally?
Christians always long for peace. This side of Paradise, I don't think peace can always "be." The point of the article is to say that it is good and right for Christians to take positions . . . even if I think them wrong. I don't agree with the rally organizers (I assume) that War in Iraq is unjust, but I am glad they are arguing it is. I think pretending Christians should not make such "partisan" arguments is silly.
So I agree with their having a rally, but think the content misguided.
Now we can have a good argument about their view. Hurrah for arguments!
posted on 08.04.2007 3:02 AM11
John Mark
posted on 08.04.2007 5:27 AMWhat a joke...slavery is one of the most christian idea that ever was...the whole of christianity is predicated on being the favored pet of some 'alledgedly' loving god. Every human is supposadly created to be a SERVANT to his every whims. And whats more,humans are blamed for his failure to create a perfect servant. What grotesque rot! christianity is really the product of the terminally insane.
12
John Mark,
Thanks for clarifying the point of the article: "it is good and right for Christians to take positions" even if there are disagreements. I agree. Also, I could tell you had fun writing it and I think it is kind of funny.
A few observations though. Amoung some evangelicals do you ever notice if someone disagrees too much with the "correct" evangelical thinking on something, the person is simply dismissed as not really being a christian?
Also, it sounds like you would agree that it is a bad thing that in our society today, for the average non-christian, being an evangelical means being a staunch supporter of the republicans and neo-con policies. I agree christians should always be for peace, it saddens me that evangelicals have been the staunchest supporters of a war causing so much needless death and devastation. I think thirty years from now, these same evangelicals will look back to this period and be ashamed, just like they look back on the period of the civil rights movement in the 1960's.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying being an evangelical should suddenly change into meaning being a liberal democrat. Both parties are not showing much integrity right now on the issues that concern the average American.
I don't know if you live or work in DC like Joe Carter does, but perhaps you and Joe could meet with the Christian peace protesters the next time they are in town.
posted on 08.04.2007 10:37 AM13
Ludwig:
I serve a God who loves liberty so well that He placed humankind in a garden with only one law. Even when he was trying to teach broken man back to wholeness all the "rules" of the Bible he made to try to help the ancients begin to see what was best are less than our culture has regarding taxes!
They required thought to apply. He left guidelines and images that provoke men to be better than they are.
His goal, as always, was to make man as much like Himself as could be for finite beings.
We worship and serve Him out of love and because it is fit for free men to do so. There is a natural order to things . . . and He is our loving Creator and so piercingly good, true, and beautiful that the natural act of a free man is to bow the knee. Having bowed there . . . no real slavery is possible elsewhere.
If one sees God, then the petty state that demands we say, "Caesar is Lord" will get no cooperation!
In fact, that is the deepest point of this discussion. Slavery was never going to survive a Jewish or Christian culture. The Bible taught that all men are (literally) family and loved by God. This is the deepest truth of Scripture. The New Testament tore down all the divisions between humans at the deepest level and brought healing to our broken hearts that was the same for all.
Unlike the ancient secularists and the ancient pagans, Jews and Christians could only practices slavery as an accommodation to human weakness. (See Jesus on plural marriages.) It was never going to last . . . and did not.
I actually appreciate Evangelical clarity on what is to be believed. It makes it possible to carry on a discussion and make intellectual progress rather than the fuzzy "whatever" that other groups have.
Of course, following the good example of Socrates we should (all of us) live the examined life. This life has led me to a traditional Christian faith.
As to where it has led me politically, that journey has made me a Burke-Lincoln style conservative. I am skeptical of utopian schemes . . . I don't think we are going to turn the Middle East into New Jersey soon . . . but I also am skeptical of utopian beliefs in "peace" this side of paradise. I supported the War and still do because if we can get a Jordan out of Iraq (I know the problems in Jordan my church is mostly Arab), it would be amazingly good for the US.
posted on 08.04.2007 12:16 PM14
Ludwig,
I had you in Christian Theology 101 a few weeks back. You walked out and I flunked you on the test. But I'll let you back in if you'll behave.
Let's begin.
At the time of their creation, human beings were created perfect in kind.
Their perfection required that they be free, for it is better for one to freely love the Lord than to have that love forced.
The first humans misused their freedom and ruined that initial perfection. We today live with the consequences of their acts.
We are not created simply as servants of God. Rather we were created so that we might enter into communion with him. The first humans possessed this communion as a birthright but freely gave it up. We today possess it only through the grace of God through Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
Ludwig, this thing that you call "Christianity" is not really Christianity, and when you reject it, you reject something no one believes. Please google "straw man".
posted on 08.04.2007 2:46 PM15
XP,
posted on 08.05.2007 7:44 AMLet's go back to Philemnon. Onee perspective presented (v. 16) is that being brothers transcends their master-slave relationship. The implications are significant but rarely explored.
The next statement, verse 17, is especially powerful:
"If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me."
No, it's not calling for an end to the institution. But Yes, it is calling for the end of Christians enslaving Christians -- a big step in the Roman world dependent on slavery. And a big theological step, seeing all men and women as ontological equals.
The matter of slavery is a strong sub-theme of Philemon.
16
OK, so I don't have my PhD. Yet. But ...
http://philosophyforchristians.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-testemant-position-slavery.html
Now, should we as Christians seek to impose our values (against slavery) on society? How about a theology against the mistreatment of women? How about a theology against economic abuses? The Left is as filled with Theology as is the Right. Feminist and Revolution theology are critical to the Left, to win the Religious Left, to justify their work. Even YKos has its seminars on coupling faith and politics, all the while deriding the Religious Right for its involvements.
posted on 08.05.2007 8:19 AM17
"At the time of their creation, human beings were created perfect in kind.
Their perfection required that they be free, for it is better for one to freely love the Lord than to have that love forced.
The first humans misused their freedom and ruined that initial perfection. We today live with the consequences of their acts."
posted on 08.05.2007 8:37 AMActually,you are the one who is flunking at reality. Like most christians,you dont even understand the subject you are discussing so allow me to educate you on the matter of perfection. Perfection is not a spectrum that travels from one end to another and then back again. Perfection is a universal absolute...weather physical,theoratical or potential,perfection always remains perfect...thats its nature...to be utterly unchanging. So once you understand that,that you understand that humans could not have been made perfect and through their own actions destroyed that perfection...a perfect being can only exist in universal perfection...and that universal perfection keeps the being pefect...hence the absolute. Any being created perfect in this perfect universal harmony can no more render itself imperfect than i could for instance disintegrate my body and then reconstitute it moments later...here endeth the lesson
18
Ludwig,
So I take it that hold that, if anything is perfect for a time, it can't latter lose that perfection.
A perfect omelette, then, will always remain perfect. Even if it were allowed to sit on the counter for a week.
I take it too that the perfection of all perfect things is just the same.
A perfect omelette, then, is perfect in just the same way as is, say, a perfect man.
(I think I'll quite now. I think Ludwig's absurdity meter is broken.)
posted on 08.05.2007 9:51 AM19
Ludwig:
Supposed I wanted to create a perfect dog . . . I could create it as a dog (assuming I was all powerful) or because puppies are cute . . . and have their own value, I could create a perfect puppy with the potential to become a perfect dog and watch it develop.
Now if someone tampered with the development of my puppy, then it might never actualize its potential for "dog" perfection.
If we suppose further that the beast had "free will," then we can see that there are two reasons it might never actualize its potential for a second type of perfection.
A perfect puppy cannot stay a puppy, but could become an imperfect or perfect dog.
Finally, more open minded readers might note that there is 2,000 years of serious Christian philosophy to read. Street-level skeptics always amaze me when they act as if they can write a short blog post and "refute Christianity" or there is something so obvious that if only Augustine or Aquinas had been as smart as they are. . . they would have left the faith.
Of course, the same thing applies to most serious, older, sophisticated views of reality. Kantianism isn't going down (based only on philosophical argument) any time soon. . .
Religious experience (therefore) becomes an important part of the puzzle. I have experienced Jesus Christ. When attacked my experience can be defended rationally in a sophisticated way. . . and even shown to be probable. This is just not true of every religious view.
I have good friends who are agnostic/atheist and left-of-center. I don't think they are dumb . . . just wrong. I have never, ever understood the wretched tendencies of Internet atheists/skeptics/left-of-center types to assume that all traditional Christians are stupid.
posted on 08.05.2007 11:34 AM20
ex-preacher
I am afraid your understanding of Christians and slavery will require some support.
First, the Biblical position - at least the New Testament one - is that slaves should obey their masters; and not that slavery was some kind of natural order. That is even though slavery, like capitalism today, was the predominant economic system of the day - feudalism had not arisen yet. That is why it is legitimate for current Christians to change "obey your masters" to "obey your employers".
Second, slavery nearly disappeared from the Christian world prior to the Enlightenment:
It is difficult to describe the modern emergence of slavery without first correcting the popular notion that slavery was gradually overcome by the forces of Enlightenment, having survived antiquity and the Middle Ages due to the ignorance in whch the world was held bondage. The true picture is much more complicated than can be presented here, but fundamentally the Christian lands first yielded to the pressure of the Church in its prohibition of slavery. Slave trade and slave holding went into eclipse for more than half of a millennium. The invective of the Church against slavery was severe. Early adherents of Christianity (a "slave religion:' as it was called by the Romans) convincingly preached that Christian anthropology did not permit slavery or any such traffic in human flesh. - A.J. Conyers, The Listening Heart
That is one of the reasons that feudalism arose in Europe with its bonding of laborers to a piece of land - in exchange for the protection of the feudal lord - rather than being owned by a master.
Next, the chattel slavery of the European colonies arose alongside of the Enlightenment and capitalism. The Enlightenment didn't destroy slavery - it gave birth to its most horrific historic form: the African slave trade and race-based slavery. That African slave trade, and race-based slavery, were ended by the actions of Christians. The US was the third country in the entire world to outlaw the re-born version of slavery, behind England and France - all because of the actions of (primarily) Christians. You are aware, of course, that slavery (and even the African slave trade in fact) still exists in the non-Christian world - right?
I will probably write something long on this at my place today or tomorrow (or at least in the near future) - so if you would like a chance to influence that post you are welcome to email me whatever support you have for the "popular notion" you espoused at [screen name][at]verizon[dot]net if you think the above general history is inaccurate.
posted on 08.05.2007 2:29 PM21
I serve a God who loves liberty so well that He placed humankind in a garden with only one law. Even when he was trying to teach broken man back to wholeness all the "rules" of the Bible he made to try to help the ancients begin to see what was best are less than our culture has regarding taxes!
They required thought to apply. He left guidelines and images that provoke men to be better than they are.
His goal, as always, was to make man as much like Himself as could be for finite beings.
But He knew that these finite beings would never measure up, and perfection is the only standard that mattered. So He intentionally created a race of flawed beings who could not save themselves of their own will, no matter how hard they tried. So he granted undeserved salvation to his favorites, who learned to mouth the right platitudes and affirm the right creeds. Goodness has nothing to do with it. Being better gains man nothing. The least flawed person is as guilty as the most evil.
It's not a faith that incents men to goodness, only to slavish obedience. When Christians envision a god that rewards goodness and punishes evil irregardless of faith, then I'll believe you.
posted on 08.05.2007 4:19 PM22
John Mark wrote: “I did not mean to be condescending, just point out that your claim about Evangelicals and Lincoln was wrong. He did appeal to them and needed their votes. I gave a source for my views and you did not refute that don, just cited your own education.”
Certainly every president elected has needed the support of Christians to be elected. My point is that Lincoln never appealed for votes on the basis of his religious views. I feel pretty confident that he never would have claimed that God supported the Republican Party. Of course there were evangelicals in the North, but after the Second Great Awakening, the South had clearly become the Bible Belt. Already, southerners viewed northern Christians, especially Republicans, as too liberal. Most Protestant denominations split prior to the Civil War – with slavery as the main issue, but a general feeling also that northerners were becoming too liberal. You might want to read up on the origins of the Southern Baptist Convention.
JM: “You are also wrong that no Christian condemned slavery before the Enlightenment. As soon as it was in a position to do, the church began condemning the slave trade and increasing the rights of slaves. (This began by the middle of the 5th century.) Several popes spoke against the slave trade. Slavery was basically gone in Europe by the 14th century. Major figures like Anselm were opposed to it. Augustine was no fan. John Chrysostom condemned slavery.”
Go back and read post #4. I didn’t say “no Christian condemned slavery before the Enlightenment,” I said “almost all church leaders for the first 1800 years of Christianity thought that slavery was part of God's will.” Yes, you can find a handful who opposed it, but this begs the question – what about the thousands upon thousands of church leaders who didn’t oppose it?
As for why and how slavery diminished in late antiquity and the early middle middle ages, don’t listen to me, listen to the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
“Nevertheless, remarkably few people found the institution of slavery to be unnatural or immoral until the second half of the 18th century. Until that time Christians commonly thought of sin as a kind of slavery rather than slavery itself as a sin. When concern was expressed for slaves, it was for their good care, not for their unfree status.
“Frequently, when slavery passed from the scene, it did so with little fanfare. In most societies, such as ancient Babylonia, Israel, Egypt, or Athens, the institution of slavery had little or no connection with the society's rise or demise. In Rome, on the other hand, slavery began to yield to tenancy and the antecedents of serfdom before the fall of the empire, as the diminishing supply of slaves and the rise of their price coincided with the disintegration of the olive oil- and wine-producing plantations of southern Italy and loss of markets in the face of competition from Spain, Gaul, and North Africa.”
The re-birth of slavery on a grand scale took place after 1492, when European Christians needed workers in the Americas. The natives were dying off, so they hit upon the idea of using Africans. Ten million Africans were transported with funds from Christian Europe, under the direction of Christian merchants, sailing with crews of Christians and delivering slaves to Christian owners. You are correct that Christians thought it was perfectly fine to enslave non-Christians (such as African and Arab Muslims and animists). In the same way, the OT God allowed Hebrews to enslave foreigners (race-based slavery, anyone?). American Christian slaveowners were a bit ambivalent about letting their slaves convert to Christianity, until church leaders decided that white Christians could own black Christians. The they went all out to convert their slaves and teach them to obey their masters. Of course, as everyone does, the slaves latched on to the part of the Bible they fit their needs – the Exodus.
JM: “People are slow learners . . . .look how long monotheism took to "stick." Generally, God allows us to learn over time as rapid social change (revolutions) generally do at least as much harm as good. The God I serve allows for a constant dialectic with humanity where His truth comes into tension with our practice and we slowly learn.”
The problem here is that Jesus and Paul taught many radical concepts that were immediately upsetting to society – such as abandoning idol worship. Didn’t Paul care that he was hurting the livelihood of the silversmiths in Ephesus?
The Bible is so vague – and generally approving – on the subject of slavery that most honest Christians thought one could be a good Christian and a good slaveowner as long as you treated your slaves the way you would want to be treated if you had to be a slave. Jesus or Paul could have eliminated the massive suffering of untold millions with one simple sentence such as “Do not keep slaves,” or “Christians – free your slaves” or “Philemon – set Onesimus free!”
You would be very interested to read “A Bible Defense of Slavery” by Josiah Priest. It was written prior to the Civil War but has been re-printed and is available in any good library or on amazon.com.
JM: “Again this is not much like the evils of race slavery in the South which depended on the slave being NOT "a man and a brother." “
It is a common misconception that southern slaveowners did not believe their slaves were human. Not so. They believed they were very human, but believed that they were too immature to be free – much as they viewed women and children (or as Joe Carter views Arabs on the subject of democratic self-rule). Slaveowners’ beliefs in the humanity of their slaves was tied directly to their efforts to convert their slaves and make them into docile Christians.
Jchfleetguy: “Next, the chattel slavery of the European colonies arose alongside of the Enlightenment and capitalism. The Enlightenment didn't destroy slavery - it gave birth to its most horrific historic form: the African slave trade and race-based slavery.”
Um, no. Europeans began enslaving Africans and bringing them to the Americas in the early 1500s. The first slaves were brought to Jamestown in 1619. The Enlightenment was an 18th century (that’s 1700s) phenomenon. The ideas of the Enlightenment didn’t become influential on a wide scale until the late 18th century.
Incidentally, the first major European country to abolish slavery was France in 1794 under the influence of Deistic and atheistic Enlightenment leaders. France re-established slavery in 1802 after Christians had regained power (under Napoleon). The first major abolition movement in the US was led by none other than deist Benjamin Franklin. Slavery opponents John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams were Unitarians. Thomas Jefferson, though a slaveholder himself, was a deist who saw that slavery was wrong. I wonder how Patrick Henry felt about the Bible and slavery? Hmmm.
While many abolitionists were fervent Christians – the Tappen brothers and the Beecher family come to mind – many other abolitionists were barely Christian or anti-Christian. Lincoln himself never claimed to a Christian and his step-mother, wife and law partner said that he wasn’t a Christian. It must also be remembered that at its height the abolitionist movement represented only 5% of the North’s population. Most northerners had no problem with slavery as long as it was confined to the South.
JM: “Unlike the ancient secularists and the ancient pagans, Jews and Christians could only practices slavery as an accommodation to human weakness. (See Jesus on plural marriages.) It was never going to last . . . and did not.”
I beg to differ. The argument that Jesus subtly planted principles that would lead to the abolition of slavery is so elastic that it proves both everything and nothing. You could use the same argument to say that Jesus also supported women’s rights, the invasion of Iraq and same-sex marriage. Also, some of the ancient Greek philosophers spoke out against slavery. So why couldn’t Jesus? The real reason is that Jesus and Paul both operated under the delusion that the world was about to end. That’s why they never advocated any political involvement or overt attempts to change society by their followers. They both even discouraged marriage.
I wasn’t aware that Jesus (or anyone else in the Bible) ever condemned plural marriages as such. I think you meant to say divorce. It is true that the writer of Matthew has Jesus saying that the allowance of divorce in the OT was a concession by Moses. That is such an outrageous cop-out by Jesus. The law was supposedly given by God, not worked out as a compromise based on what people could actually achieve. The law is filled with exact instructions in excruciating detail about the minutiae of worship – no compromises to human weakness there. The law is praised over and over by David as fully perfect. But now Jesus says “Oh, that part God didn’t really want in there. Now I can reveal that God doesn’t really care for divorce.” That’s funny.
posted on 08.05.2007 5:38 PM23
Robert says:
But He knew that these finite beings would never measure up, and perfection is the only standard that mattered.
John Mark says:
Have you confused finite with imperfect? Angels are finite, but good ones are not imperfect. Dogs as dogs are finite, but not thereby imperfect.
What do you mean be "perfection?" Not making mistakes? Or not willfully sinning? Perfection for a child would be different than that required of an adult.
God wanted people capable of experiencing more and more of the joy of heaven, but men refused to "grow up" and change. Our problem is not that we are merely "imperfect" (since if by that you mean in process it would be o.k.), but that we are so broken that we are getting more broken and so unfit and unable to live in Paradise.
Robert says:
So He intentionally created a race of flawed beings
John Mark says:
He did not create flawed beings . . . unless you think having potential (without yet actualizing that all that potential) is a flaw. My kids are not yet adults, but I don't think my wife and blew it in having them.
Some kids decided NOT to actualize their potential . . . they harm themselves and others. This NEED not be their parents fault . . . anymore than God needs to be to blame that humanity short circuited its development.
Robert says:
who could not save themselves of their own will, no matter how hard they tried.
John Mark says:
Once broken is it so astounding that we might not be to fix self? I break plenty of things I cannot fix just by willing it . . .
Robert says:
So he granted undeserved salvation to his favorites, who learned to mouth the right platitudes and affirm the right creeds.
John Mark says:
Good news! Humans are his favorites. Bad news: mouthing the right platitudes and creeds will not (Our Lord points out) do. Our problem is not JUST epistemological (as your point implies), but ontological. Ontological problems cannot be fixed by affirming better ideas.
Robert says:
Goodness has nothing to do with it. Being better gains man nothing. The least flawed person is as guilty as the most evil.
John Mark says:
Right, because we are "wired wrong" at the most basic level. You cannot fix our problem by mere external actions . . . . though it is good (and helpful to others) when we do.
Some people are less externally flawed . . . but all are internally broken. We are not ready/capable of receiving the joys of Heaven.
Shouldn't you read some basic Christian doctrine before opining on it and creating a straw man?
posted on 08.05.2007 5:58 PM24
You're making it too complicated John Mark. Here's Christianity in a nutshell:
1. God loves you very much.
2. If you don't believe this, He will send you to burn in hell forever.
posted on 08.05.2007 6:11 PM25
I will leave the reader of this blog to determine if ex-preacher has fairly summarized Christianity.
He seems to confuse the human problem as one of "wrong beliefs" (epistemology) and not brokenness. He is entitled to his view of Christianity, but I am also duty bound to point out that phrases like "born again" do not just mean "changing your mind!"
I don't know ex-preachers views or background, but his view of history here seems a secular reaction to a narrow Christian view of history. He seems intent on arguing against a Christian of the sort I am not and not against me.
I have never said Lincoln was a Christian. I did say that he was elected using Evangelical votes and arguments. To quote Carwardine:
The orthodox Protestantism which underpinned the ethical stance of Republican and much of the wartime Union coalition, and which flourished in New England and its Yankee diaspora,
was not Lincoln's religious faith. But he shrewdly harnassed the power of the most politically influential and energetic members of that constituency, both to win the presidency and to rally support behind his national vision and the war's purposes."
Like Reagan, but even more so, Lincoln governed out of an Evangelical base using their language and arguments. It is utterly irrelevant to me what Lincoln's private religious views might be.
This is the problem with what might be called Internet secularism and history. It is stuck in the 1950's secularization thesis of history (now largely disproved) and a tendency to speak in epochs as if they were divided from what came before.
Ex-preacher seems intent on "periods" like the "Enlightenment" as if there was a weird secular enlightenment that did not itself have roots in religion and did not find most of its real world success (America and Britain) because of those roots.
It is better to speak of the seventeenth century, which had some deists and some assaults on very narrow versions of orthodoxy. These assaults had mostly failed by the early eighteenth century . . . witness how traditionally religious the early Victorians were!
What did not fail were good ideas from both traditional Christians (like the Wesley brothers), less traditional though very conservative Christians (like the Quakers), and deists/Unitarians. True secularists?
They were almost missing. Ex-preacher glosses over the many seventeenth century thinkers who owned slaves and profited from slavery basing their arguments on Aristotle. So did some Christians. Both Christians and deists eventually followed the force of centuries of Augustinian thought and became abolitionists. Surely it less "triumphalist" and more modest to assume (as I do) that the disappearance of slavery before 1492 and the European angst about it after 1492 was not somehow "new" but as a result of deep seeded cultural and Christian reservations about the institution.
Did Southern slave holders misuse terms anchronistically (as ex-preachers does) to justify slavery from the Bible? Yes.
However, equating their accusations that their Northern brethren (who would produce D.L. Moody in the next generation) were "liberal" with our modern categories of theological liberals is also anachronistic. The liberals of that day (when they were liberal) would be very, very conservative today.
So conservative was the theological atmosphere in the 1800s that many Unitarians heard sermons that were as pervasively Christian as many preached in mainline churches and could be used profitably.
Ex-preacher keeps missing modern uses of terms with those of the period. A "liberal" of the 1800's Southron speak is much like todays Evangelical. One has to be careful about this! (It would be like speaking of "Republican" views on the tariff without pointing out that those have changed radically since the nineteenth century!)
Again: my point is that ex-preacher somehow imagines non-traditional theists (like Franklin) being the main change agents in a culture of traditional theists. Wouldn't it be simpler to cite Franklin's Quaker roots (and their long time abolitionism) and his ability to translate his quaint (and by the standards of time weird) religious views into Evangelical-speak and categories?
In short, it less important to list the private views of every abolitionist than to bluntly state: if the majority of American Evangelicals hadn't become some form of anti-slavery voter, that abolition would have failed. The Northern Evangelical population was larger than the South . . . and the burned over district of the Finney revivals was up-state New York not Alabama.
Otherwise the success of abolitionism is cut off from the average-Joe and Harriet who did the work.
I love much of the "Enlightenment" (meaning the dates usually lumped under this "period") and I am a traditional Christian like almost all Europeans of that period.
Christians (in pop culture) are giving up too much when they accept that it was "secular." Periods aren't that simple and Wesley was as much a man of the age as Hume . . . and on the whole perhaps more practically influential in his day. Even Hume, who was no Christian, is reacting too (and accidentally accepts many) Christian ideas. He could not help it. It was the cultural air he breathed.
Secularism is blind to this, because for some reason it is reacts (almost violently) to Christian ideas.
Some secularists seem unable to deal with the Christian content of some of their favorite thinkers fairly. They keep trying to censor or dismiss it.
Locke was, for example, saturated in Biblical language and arguments. Whatever the merits of his views, he wrote Christian apologetics.
Basically, those of us who are academic sometimes become too fixed on "academic" writers . . . and for a while secular writers have been fixated on the most secular thinkers with out noticing that their views worked best after being domesticated and returned to their Christian roots.
Ex-preacher fails to mention Wesley or Methodism as important to abolition, because they do not fit his simple secularization thesis. The Methodists did more to advance practical (and Christian) ideas of eighteenth century than any group of philosophers.
Good news: as a Christian I know non-Christians (even atheists) are in the image of God and develop good ideas. These ideas can be appropriated and historically have been appropriated in mostly Christian countries to make good changes.
Bad news: most ex-s don't seem able to accept that they are heirs to a culture that was overwhelmingly Christian and still is so Christian that to get anywhere good ideas from secularists have to be shown compatible with the Faith! They keep looking for secular geniuses and giving them the credit for broad cultural change.
posted on 08.05.2007 8:32 PM26
I should add that it is very, very hard to get the right tone in a blog comment box. I assume it is hard for ex-preacher too.
I think I get the spirit of point of view he defends as I have been "in" then "ex" and finally (really) "in" the faith again during my 44 years. I can only say it would have easier for me professionally to stay "ex" and every single desire of my heart (at the time) made me want to be a proud "ex."
I could not stay "ex", but then perhaps I grew up in an intellectually stimulating Christian atmosphere . . . unafraid of atheists or pagans and loving the best of them. I read nearly as much Isaac Asimov as a kid as C.S. Lewis, but I outgrew Asimov in a way I could not outgrow Lewis.
I did not face the hurdle of pain so many have to face as they look at their own previous experience of Christianity. To the contrary, in my youth I was the problem not my faith. It pains me that my errors and sins produced the kind of shallow Christian image so many reject.
In short, where ex-preachers is motivated by the love of truth, skepticism, and hatred of shallow answers, then we are in agreement . . . as are all the Faithful.
Arguments led me away from my shallow faith to paganism, but arguments (thanks Socrates!) led me back. But then, I did not have to believe that Christianity was the parody some seem to think it is, because of bad early exposure.
I could not believe in the god they reject. I could not accept they faith they deny.
Thank God for the long discussion of Paul, Justin, Augustine, Chrysostom, Anselm, Aquinas, and many others who allow me to engage with all my heart and mind in a constant open ended dialectic.
I feel almost ashamed to report (since it is so politically incorrect) that this open ended Socratic dialogue has made me ever more a conservative, traditional Christian.
Really!
posted on 08.05.2007 9:04 PM27
John Mark,
Excellent paragraphs these ...
Christians (in pop culture) are giving up too much when they accept that it was "secular." Periods aren't that simple and Wesley was as much a man of the age as Hume . . . and on the whole perhaps more practically influential in his day. Even Hume, who was no Christian, is reacting too (and accidentally accepts many) Christian ideas. He could not help it. It was the cultural air he breathed.
Secularism is blind to this, because for some reason it is reacts (almost violently) to Christian ideas.
and
Bad news: most ex-s don't seem able to accept that they are heirs to a culture that was overwhelmingly Christian and still is so Christian that to get anywhere good ideas from secularists have to be shown compatible with the Faith! They keep looking for secular geniuses and giving them the credit for broad cultural change.
Collin
posted on 08.05.2007 9:11 PM28
John Mark,
RE Post 13
You are an excellent writer, but frankly your support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq contradicts your beliefs that God loves all men and the importance of freedom & liberty.
You state God loves freedom and liberty and say, “The Bible taught that all men are (literally) family and loved by God. This is the deepest truth of Scripture”.
You go on to say, I don't think we are going to turn the Middle East into New Jersey soon...I supported the War and still do because if we can get a Jordan out of Iraq ...it would be amazingly good for the US.
Question: who gave us the right to go over to Iraq, invade and occupy their land to determine of what type of country they have? All that death and destruction is ok, because we can get a "Jordon" in Iraq. This attitude is quite different than the one I see in Christ's Sermon of the Mount.
posted on 08.05.2007 9:39 PM29
John Mark,
You seem like a very nice person and are obviously quite smart. Yet you keep attributing motives, goals and arguments to me that I have not made. In many ways, we probably are not that far apart on our understanding of history. You seem to reacting to "secularists" who want to ignore the role of religion or paint it as always harmful. I am reacting against Christians who act as if Christianity has always been a wholesome influence on society.
Where I'm sure we disagree strongest is on our views regarding the Bible and God. Contrary to what you seem to think, I did not have a bad experience in the church. I loved the church and wish I could still believe in God, but my devotion to the truth outweighs those desires for comfort. I believe you when you say you are a Christian for rational reasons, and I ask that you accept that I am an atheist for rational reasons. I do not think most Christians are stupid, any more than you think most Mormons, Muslims or Buddhists are stupid. I think each is a product of his or her culture and family (among other influences). I also think each is deluded, to a large extent by the desire to be accepted and comforted. As a Unitarian minister friend likes to say: "Whatever gets you through the night."
I do not hate Christians or hate a non-existent god. I do try to get them to face the difficult questions in the hope that they will make an honest examination of their beliefs.
posted on 08.05.2007 10:26 PM30
Really, I am not a Christian for personal reasons. By and large, I would have preferred a "high pagan" universe. I could never make philosophic sense of atheism.
I am fine with good hard debate, but I am not sure your post 24 (for example) fits the Socratic model. Tough argument yes, but not parody.
I think atheism wrong, though most atheists I know are not irrational. Atheism/secularism seems to me to be "parasitic" in the sense that it mostly reacts to traditional cultures and takes what it likes while creating/finding little that is new. Perhaps this take is wrong, but I know of no secular state that I think is thriving in terms of cultural confidence, creativity, or with the hope shown in rising population.
This is a secondary practical worry that atheism/agnosticism has not been, by and large, very good at sustaining culture . . . so we shall have to see if states like Sweden (hardly sixty years into their secular experiment) survive. The Scandinavian states are your best case for culture creating (I will give you a pass on Albania, North Korea, and the rest.) and I must say demographically and in terms of cultural confidence things are not looking so good.
As for facing "hard questions" I have found that Christians in the academy are challenged at every turn while too many atheists/agnostics in the academy have never met a smart traditional Christian.
As to the second question: I have defended the War at my blog extensively. Go there and check it out.
Christ' Sermon on the Mount represents an ideal. I have monastic friends who try to live it out in detail, but for most of us it is a "soon, but not yet." An ideal is not useless just because it cannot yet be achieved fully. . . it is a target to hope for.
Of course, the Sermon on the Mount is also to individuals and not to states. States can do things individuals cannot. If I take your money, it is stealing. If the state does it, it is called taxes!
War is not a good for a Christian, but may be just this side of paradise. I think (on the whole) the Iraq nation is better off without Sadaam and will be better off if they choose to take the chance we are offering them. There was a bill coming due that would have had to be paid by Iraq eventually . . . tensions Sadaam was papering over with murder. IF we can keep Iraq united (and it still is, though barely) and keep Iran out . . . then it will have been better than what could have been reasonably anticipated.
If we fail, and Iran moves in or Iraq falls apart utterly, then it was not a justified war. We will have made a bad choice. So I could be wrong about this . . . if peace and stability (Jordon level) are not attainable, then we should not have gone in. I am still (very) cautiously optimistic.
IMPORTANT: The leaders of my Church have been consistently opposed to the War for the reasons most anti-War people have given. I have tried to think this through the best I can, but my support for the War is at a different level of "certainty" or commitment than (say) my belief in God. Christians are NEVER keen on war (or should not be).
posted on 08.06.2007 12:35 AM31
I just realized that your post 24 may have been parody in the good just-for-fun type . . . ripping too quick secular responses to Christianity like my original LOSE post was spoofing Christian academics that started this fun discussion. If you were just spoofing, then I am sorry to have missed it!
How shameful it that is true!
posted on 08.06.2007 12:42 AM32
I'm not an atheist because I like the cultural products of countries where atheists live. I'm an atheist because I believe atheism corresponds with reality. I don't think anyone chooses a belief because they think that belief results in a better culture. In fact, I don't think anyone chooses their beliefs at all. We can choose our behavior, but not our beliefs.
Post 24 is not a parody. If you like, I can rephrase it slightly to fit your brand of Christianity.
posted on 08.06.2007 1:07 AM33
Right, because we are "wired wrong" at the most basic level. You cannot fix our problem by mere external actions . . . . though it is good (and helpful to others) when we do.
Whose fault is that? If the wiring is wrong, shouldn't the Divine Electrician be called to account? I don't know one person who wired his own mind.
Some people are less externally flawed . . . but all are internally broken. We are not ready/capable of receiving the joys of Heaven.
So we are by default all deserving of an eternity of suffering in Hell? The greatest moral flaw I find with Christian doctrine is that it has no sense of proportion. If someone is 99.99% good and 0.01% sinful, he is as deserving of damnation as someone who is 99% sinful. Whether God wants us to act morally or not, morality is absolutely essential for human flourishing. We have morality because we need it, not because God asks it of us. And as far as human morality is concerned, 20% goodness is better than 10% goodness, and 40% goodness is better than 20%. Proportionality matters. Human society doesn't need perfect morality, it needs good enough morality. Perfection is a pernicious concept that more often than not is the bane of human happiness. More evil has been committed in the pursuit of perfection than just about any other pursuit.
posted on 08.06.2007 1:34 AM34
Franklin Mason
posted on 08.06.2007 1:59 AMYou are right about my absurdity meter...it broke when i got past 10 pages into the bable. if you want a "PERFECT" exemple of absurduty, you need look no further than that. The exemples that have been given in a childish and weak attempt to refute my point were at best laughable. I never advocated that anyone could make a perfect object or a perfect ommelet. Perfection cannot exist in an imperfect universe where the governing law is change. The point i made,which has not been adressed is that beings governed by universal laws cannot change those laws by themselves. Which means that if humans ever were perfect,they could never make themselves inperfect through any action of theirs...no more than i could suddently decide that i no longer need to ingest nutriants in order to remain alive. try to keep up.
35
"I have good friends who are agnostic/atheist and left-of-center. I don't think they are dumb . . . just wrong. I have never, ever understood the wretched tendencies of Internet atheists/skeptics/left-of-center types to assume that all traditional Christians are stupid"
posted on 08.06.2007 2:10 AMI dont assume that all traditional christians are stupid....i concluded,through a lifetime of observation that most of them prefer the figments of their imaginations to the reality they live in and that some of them are downright nuts.
36
ex-preacher
You agree that slavery did indeed disappear in Europe for a half a millienium; and place its re-birth with the founding of European colonies in the Americas. I would tend to agree that it was a colonial need that fired up the re-rise of slavery - indentured servants could not pick up the load, and were free in 7 years - and native Americans could too easily escape and disappear into the countryside. We are near agreement here on at least the economic forces involved - but you have given no evidence of the position of the church on this.
Of course it is (by you) Christian Europe that suddenly needed slaves, but the slaves went away by natural economic forces and not because of Christianity controlled those governments - I think you will find your view that theology drove the re-rise, while pragmatism originally killed it, untenable - but we will see. You, and Britannica, seem to see little Christian propaganda against slavery - while Conyers states
there seems no middle ground there - you or he is wrong. And, if the early church right after the Apostolic period was a magnet to slaves, and decried the morality of slavery, then this destroys your argument against scripture - and how it was viewed in the time.While France, and then Britain, were the first to outlaw slavery - the Atlantic slave trade which fueled it was ended first in England, and then England's navy was turned on everybody else: all under severe pressure from Christians in England. It was the Quakers started the first abolitionist organization in England in 1783.
France ended first the slave trade under pressure from England, and then slavery in its colonies.
However, it was Toussaint's demand that France abolish slavery in the colonies in order to win his support against England and Spain that forced France to act - and Toussaint was a devout Catholic. Are you going to argue that it was his revolutionary side and not his Catholic side that brought him to his position?This timeline makes it clear that England played a major role in almost every treaty and agreement to end slavery between 1807 and 1865 - including payments to other nations to buy them out of the slave trade.
Further, while some slaves were brought in as house servants in the 18th century - at the first chance to clarify their legal position England declared there was no place for slaves under English Common Law. Slaves had not been bought or sold in England itself, and this ruling in 1772 freed all those slaves bought elsewhere and then brought into the country - a "huge" 14000. The test case was, incidentally, brought by the godparents of a baptised slave. Christians again.
As to Franklin in America:
I think the point above about Franklin's Quaker roots is going to be difficult for you to counteract considering he re-invigorated an organization originally founded by Quakers - with Quaker co-leaders.Of course, the question is whether theologically Christianity supported slavery - and your arguments haven't even begun to make that case. I do not blame Christianity for the acts of Christians anymore than I necessarily blame Islam for continued slavery, and trading in slaves, in Muslim countries. One has to see whether it is just another example of folks rationalizing their sin - against the clear teaching of their religion - because they wish to do what they wish to do - and human beings are best, it seems, when it comes to rationalization.
Finally, speaking of rational: I do not think you get to separate the Renaissance
the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment Developing through all three periods was the rising tide of inquiry, exploration, conquest, the rise of state power, and the nation-state: all of which cemented the rise in slavery - which rose as we 'freed' ourselves from the bonds of recieved knowledge - and the church - and increasingly relied on our own reason as an arbitor of right and wrong.posted on 08.06.2007 3:11 AM
37
You comments re Sermon of the Mount are just a cop-out (I guess you can't speak out against abortion following your logic..) You still haven't explained what gives our country the right to agressively invade a country to change what kind of country it is.
posted on 08.06.2007 10:13 AM38
Ludwig
I would think, by your lights, that humans were not created perfect - they were created with free will: the were given the power to freely decide not to obey that one rule.The Bible doesn't say we were created perfect anyway - God said creation was good - not perfect. And we were created in God's image - what does that mean? Obviously not His physical image, or given His strengths and abilities. I tend to go with our free will as being what was "in his image" - the ability to run against nature, against instinct. This gave us the power to be creative and master that around us, gave us the power to love (and hate), and gave us the power to freely obey as well as disobey and rebel. As Paul said, explaining it:
Whether the Garden was allegory or reality - this is what the Fall was.The universal law you are ignoring, BTW, is human free will - and we didn't violate that universal law.
posted on 08.06.2007 11:53 AM39
Talk about a double standard, jchfleetguy. You want to credit Christianity for the reduction in slavery in the middle ages and hold Christianity blameless for the rise of slavery from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. I think it's interesting too that evangelicals only like Quakers when they're talking about how some Christians opposed slavery. Highly selective, wouldn't you say? Never mind that virtually all slaveowners and the apologists for slavery were Christians and that the vast majority of Christians thought slavery was Biblical.
The most sickening part of all this is the clear endorsement and even encouragement that the Bible gives to the institution of slavery. I notice that's also the part that no Christian wants to address.
For a look at some of what the Bible teaches about slaveholding, here's an interesting quiz for you: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/slavery.html
posted on 08.06.2007 11:55 AM40
ex-preacher
Sigh. There is no clear endorsement or encouragement in the New Testament outside of its being the dominant economic system. That criticism is anachronistic - and I actually think you know that. There was no reason for Jesus or the Apostles to advocate feudalism or wage slavery. None. They talked about our relationships to God and each other - not about the technical aspects of running an economy or government. It is just as stupid for people today to say that capitalism is mandated by God, or socialism.What they advocated was that our temporal positions in regards to each other did not affect our positions to each other in regards to be imago dei. We are still not equal in our jobs, our skills, our business and work relationships - yet the point is that our secular, worldly relationships do not impact our spiritual relationships to each other and God.
It was revolutionary then - and we are still not smart enough as a species even get that. It is still revolutionary.
Next, every Christian here has dealt with it - something that you have refused to address. That meme has run its course - deepen it or drop it.
posted on 08.06.2007 2:35 PM41
jchfleetguy
posted on 08.06.2007 2:54 PMThe bible says lots of thing that are illogical and self contradictory if you try to take them literally. The bible states that God is all powerfull...therefore whenever God says something he created is good,it means by definition that this something was created exactly as God wanted it to be,ergo PERFECT. But since God would not be part of linear time,as he created that also,then his statement does not apply to a particular moment in time but to all of creation in all the lenght of time fromt begining to end. In fact,one could say that from the perspective of God,he is creating the universe at this very moment,since to God,today,tomorrow,yesterday,10 years from now or 6000 years ago would be the same thing; a simple mesure of something he's not a part of or subject to. So from that,one must then conclude that God created man with the intent that man would "sin"...not as an inevitable consequence of "free will" but as the actual desired result. and that flies squarely in the face of christian doctrine. When you spoke of allegory you were quite right....thats what the bible pretty much is. The story of Genesis,Adam and Eve,the talking snake,ect...is all an allegory about the pains of growing up. of going from the innocence of childhood to the experience of adulthood. Once you understand that, there really no mystery left to explain.
42
jchfleetguy writes: "What they advocated was that our temporal positions in regards to each other did not affect our positions to each other in regards to be imago dei. We are still not equal in our jobs, our skills, our business and work relationships - yet the point is that our secular, worldly relationships do not impact our spiritual relationships to each other and God."
So you're saying that Jesus didn't care whether slavery existed? It was a "technical aspect" that was just as immaterial as whether a society is capitalistic or socialistic? I think you are probably right, but I am a little surprised to hear you admit it since most Christians today argue (anachronistically) that Jesus really opposed slavery (and favored women's rights, scientific exploration, and the Republican Party), but that he was being very subtle about it. So subtle that many of his most devoted followers for 1800 years thought he really approved of slavery. That tricky Jesus.
You remind of the Christian elder who told me in confidence that if slavery still existed, he would probably buy a couple to keep around the house. I guess to you that would be no different than Jesus caring about whether you hire someone to clean your pool or wash your BMW. Would you oppose slavery if it existed in the US today, jchfleetguy? Would you be willing to kill people to abolish it? Would you be willing to kill fellow Christians to free their slaves? Would Jesus have taken up arms for the Union or the Confederacy? Anachronistic, I know. But for someone honestly asking themselves in 1861 WWJD, I'd like to hear your answer.
posted on 08.06.2007 4:56 PM43
Ex-Preacher,
All this flowery pseudo-intellectual theological talk by John Mark and jchfleetguy is just getting out of control here (and getting on my nerves).
I don't think they would be speaking out against slavery in the 1860 or for civil rights in the 1960. Currently, they have no problems with the slaughter in Iraq-it's worth it because "we just might get a country like Jordon in Iraq". Besides, Romans Chapter 13 says obey the authorities....
posted on 08.06.2007 5:17 PM44
"I could never make philosophic sense of atheism."
That's because atheism is a position on a single issue, not a philosophy. It is just the "none of the above" answer to the "What god(s) do you worship" question.
"Atheism/secularism seems to me to be "parasitic" in the sense that it mostly reacts to traditional cultures and takes what it likes while creating/finding little that is new. Perhaps this take is wrong, but I know of no secular state that I think is thriving in terms of cultural confidence, creativity, or with the hope shown in rising population."
You assume that the prodcts of a predominantly Christian (or, more generally, religious) society are necessarily inspired by that belief. However, correlation does not prove causation. For one thing, in less enlightened times atheists were likely inhibited by fear of persecution, and with good reason. Many probably faked belief to rise to prominence. In twentieth century Great Britain, we saw a great output of literature by atheistic/ agnostic/ freethinking authors. Were they parasitic? I am more inclined to look upon religion itself as the parasite, feeding upon fear and ignorance, passed from generation to generation.
posted on 08.06.2007 6:56 PM45
JohnW,
How do you separate the three Ws (Whitfield, Wesley, Wilberforce) of the 18th & early 19th century from the changing public opinions? The social changes, esp. in England, were phenomenal, were they not?
Collin
posted on 08.06.2007 7:15 PM46
JohnW
You know what they say about assuming - it makes an a__ out of u and me. I was arrested multiple times in the civil rights struggle in the early 70's (I was eight in the 60's). There are very few white folks you have ever met who have been less "intellectual" than me on the issue of racism. One assumption down.
Incidentially, the Southern Baptist Convention (roll that over in your brain) voted like 95% in 1956ish in favor of integration and the civil rights bills then going through Congress. Indeed, they were one of the earliest organizations in favor; and incurred the wraith of the KKK and the White Citizen's Committee (along with every other major Christian denomination in the south) from then through the 60's. We already know that it was primarily Christian-led organizations in England and the US that drove abolition here. Your ignoring of the facts doesn't make them go away. Assumption #2 and #3 down the tubes.
Finally, assumption #4: I opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003; and have no illusions that a Western style liberal democracy is going to be imposed in Iraq. That is why the left's complaining about the theocratic constitution the Iraqi's passed was so silly - it was the worst kind of nationalism and cultural imperialism to criticize the process because it didn't yield a result that fit with their cultural paradigm.
ex-preacher
Your being obtuse.
You have failed to show, in the face of counter-examples, that Conyers characterization of the churches position from the Apostles on was incorrect. Please do so; or stop dissembling. Any quote from any ante-Nicean father, or even a near post-Nicean father would be great. I will offer one up from Gregory of Nyssa (mid 300's AD) from his In Ecclesiastes Homiliae in commentary on Ecclesiastes 2:7: Or Pope Leo X (1513-22) in a papal bull So, I have raised you two very important Christian voices against slavery - it is time to call me with some voices that gave prior to say 1600, or fold your hand.What - the Prince of Peace take up arms? Do you think? Either side? He didn't lead Isreal in rebellion against Rome as He was expected to as the Messiah, so I am guessing no, and of course it is anachronistic for me to guess where I would have been in 1861. I am not a pacifist now, and I have been an anti-racist all my thinking life - having been raised in a border state and seeing it first hand. I have been arrested, and at one time in my life actually taken up arms against racism. However, those are really nonsensical questions. We all have our obligations, roots, family views, etc that help determine our callings/vocation.
It would depend on whether I had been raised, as I have been now, "in the text" - that was not as common in 1861. The German critical school had a profound impact on theology in the 1800's; and I might not nearly been anchored in scripture the way I am now.
posted on 08.06.2007 8:00 PM47
Colin,
I don't know, ask Ex-preacher-he's the qualified historian here.
I wish we had those guys now though-the religous right lovefest with neo-con politicians and blind support of war-mongering would come to an end right quick, I'm sure.
John
posted on 08.06.2007 8:27 PM48
JohnW
Actually no: they all urged the English government to use its status as a naval "super power" to stop the Atlantic slave trade (and the one in the Persian Gulf) with the threat of boarding and arresting slavers from any country involved. The British forced country after country over a 50 year period to stop trading in slaves or risk war with EnglandJust one supporter of imperialist domination after another huh?
posted on 08.06.2007 9:53 PM49
Colin,
So really, if you think about it, we need more imperialism and pre-emptive wars. And Pastor John Hagee should be Secretary of State.
I've misinterpreted the Sermon of the Mount. What Christ really meant was "blessed are those who seek global hegemony and control of oil markets, for they shall see God..."
posted on 08.06.2007 10:19 PM50
Sorry Collin, I meant jchfleetguy on Post 49.
posted on 08.06.2007 10:21 PM51
Ludwig
This
is the start of the problem for me. Why is this? God could have us created with, or without, free will - in his image or not. That God thought that our being created with free will in His image was good, doesn't mean that we were PERFECT - only that He created what He wanted to create. God cannot choose to make something capable of turning away from Him? God in His perfection cannot create something that has the possibility of going bad - and yet still think His choice was good?This creates no quandry for me at all. As a parent, if given the choice at birth of two buttons - one which would have my child love me completely and mind me absolutely; and one that would allow her to love me freely (or not) and choose to obey me (or not) - I would pick the latter without question. Love not freely given is not love at all.
What if he knew that we would turn away? Does that change the decision? Or, His plan? Maybe it is like science fiction stories like the Foundation series where God sees many possible realities stretching out - and one of those was us not using our free will to turn away from God towards ourselves?
I do not know what God knows and doesn't know - I only know what is revealed to me in His son, His word, His creation, and by His Spirit.
posted on 08.07.2007 1:54 AM52
JohnW
Ah, getting silly again. I did mention I opposed Iraq - remember. Now, you have been talking about the evils of slavery: should England have used its military power and hegemony on the sea to stop the Atlantic slave trade? Should they have used military force to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries while enforcing their morality on other cultures?
Or should they have held back their military power and continued to allow innocent lives to be lost on the dark passage; and other imago dei to be sold into a lifetime of bondage?
Now, you can follow the excellent example of ex-preacher and sincerely ask, and answer, questions in order to understand the position of those you talk too - and then have a dialog where you might actually have a chance to impart some wisdom and learn; or you can continue to pop off like a fool. Hey, you have free will to choose.
posted on 08.07.2007 2:05 AM53
jchfleetguy
posted on 08.07.2007 3:24 AMAh but you see you are making a false comparaison between God creating man and you creating a child. In your case,you conceived a child in a world who's laws you do not control and and your child is an individual who's mind you did not design. While it is true that you can have an influence over the mind of your child and an influence over the world it is born in,that influence is extremely limited...specially in the later. Thats not the case where God is concerned....as the all powerfull creator of reality,not only did he create both the world and the people in it,he created the laws governing the world as well as every single impluse that could ever traverse man's mind and decided all the possible results of the interraction between the two. Not only that but since God would have created time as well from begining to end, the entire lenght of history is available to God simultaneously. The is no such thing as past or future to God because her's not part of linear time. If say he was having conversation with Adam 6000 years ago and a conversation with me both now and then 24 years from now, from his perspective those 3 conversations would be taking place all at once,even if all 3 are completely different. Given all that,any attempt to compare what God would do to what anything in the entire universe would do fails utterly from the onset You can say that God could have created something like say an athiest that would turn from him but you cannot says that the athiest actually turning from God is not exactly what God wanted...thats the nature of omnipotence...God cannot not have everything he wants all the time and nothing happens that God did not decide would happen...thats an irrefutable absolute if God does exist.
54
JohnW,
I think there would be some valuable dialogue if those 3 Ws were still around. But they are not. Even if they were, they were of their times, they were not of today.
(Which is why Babe Ruth is still greater than Aaron, Bonds, etc. But that's another thread.)
I parted with the neocons long ago. Leo Strauss was not a converted socialist, he was a modified socialist, a Nietzschean-Hegelian. And the movement has more history within the Dems than in the Reps.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2007/novak.htm
Collin
posted on 08.07.2007 8:26 AMhttp://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
55
Colin,
The democrats are just as morally bankrupt as the republicans. They say they want to end the occupation of Iraq, but won't end it preferring to let it go on to make the republicans look bad (in other words they don't care about the loss of life either). Also, they should impeach Gonzalez, Cheney, and Bush, but they prefer to just let the clock run out on them. No integrity.
jcflletguy, whats up with you?
posted on 08.07.2007 10:41 AM56
Ludwig
You would make a great Calvinist :-)
The Biblical witness doesn't say that. It talks about God remembering our sin on more. Heck, there is the argument in the Old Testament with the angel about the destruction of Sodom - or Moses convincing God not to just destroy Isreal and start over with some new group. God is shown in struggle with some humans, and shown changing His mind.
You have indeed touched on one of the major theological discussions (unresolved) and you are indeed on the side of Calvin and a bunch of others. It is certainly the reason we can sincerely say that Jesus died for my sins - personally - even though I was born 2000 years later; and died for all my sins - past, present, and future.
Anyway, I am not so deterministic. First, I like Lewis's view - it is at the bottom of the chapter.
I would not believe God creates us without choice with our future, including our ultimate destination in heaven or hell - etched in granite. I would indeed stop believing in God - although my lack of belief wouldn't change a thing: there would still be God, I would still have an ultimate destination, and it would be determined however it was determined.
For me, as for Lewis, God creating us as moral operators with free will means He doesn't know how my whole life is going to play out. I agree at any point He can see that final point - but actions I take "in time" can indeed change that picture for Him.
This doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent, it only means God has the power to change what He wants - and doesn't. He could make us do the right thing - but allows us to do as we will instead of what He wills.
I do not view His power such that if He thinks "I want this to happen" it just happens. He can have desires for us that are unfulfilled because He chose to create us in such a way that allows us not to do his will, but our own. He plays by the rules He created in our design. He can restrain His power to become a "deist" rather than a "theist" God - sitting back and allowing the universe to play out until He chooses to take a hand. I do not think that happens as much as some of my co-religionists do. Ultimately, as Christ showed at the Cross, sometimes restraint of power is God's greatest power.
I have a job interview today. I have certainly let God know (as if He wouldn't know) that, if it is His will, I want that job. I have many folks praying for me to get it. Do I necessarily think God will take a hand with the interviewers in order for me to get it? Nope. Will I give credit to God if I get it? Of course, He gave me the mind, the abilities, etc. that got the job - even if He doesn't whisper in the ear of the interviewer. Could the line of my life branch right now based on whether I get it or not? I think so. This job was not mandated for me at birth.
Thank you for this conversation. I have to drop out of it now and work and such - and will have no time until friday to continue it. My email address is above - you may use it if you want to go deeper; but I probably will not respond to that until Friday either.
It has been a true pleasure.
posted on 08.07.2007 11:52 AM57
jchfleetguy,
Hope you get the job.
Sincerely,
JohnW
posted on 08.07.2007 4:10 PM58
jchfleetguy
posted on 08.08.2007 4:24 AMnah i wouldnt make a good calvinist...calvinism requires a belief in heaven and hell...i m convince both concept were born in the fevered imagination...of HUMANS. I dont believe in a God that is in any way impacted by our actions,whatever they may be. I dont believe for an instant that the bible is the result of supernatural inspiration anymore than the words i m typimg to you now. In other wors.i dont believe in what is obviously a MAN-MADE god. I believe that if a god does exist, IT is like nothign that was ever written about on any page,wall or stone tablets anywhere on earth and i have yet to encounter anyone who ever came anywhere near proving me wrong. My point was merely to demonstrate the fatal logical falacies that arises when one try to pretend the bible is anything more than a collection of allegories mixed in with SOME historical facts...and not that many at that.
59
Robert Duquette,
If you want a long but very interesting answer to your objection to God's goodness (in responses 21 & 33 above), look at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html
posted on 08.08.2007 12:14 PM