Not only the methodists and episcopals anymore ...

[Berean Todd]

The top members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) will meet later this week to prepare resolutions on two pivotal questions regarding homosexuality in the church: Should same-sex relationships be blessed? Should the ordination of actively homosexual individuals be allowed?

http://www.christianpost.com/images/banners/chpost.jpg (http://www.christianpost.com/mails/stat_analyzer.php?issue=crossmapnet&url=http://www.crossmap.net)The Church Council meeting, slated for April 9-11 at the denomination’s Chicago, Ill headquarter, is the penultimate step in a four-year-long effort to clarify the church’s stance on the controversial issue.

“The question on homosexuality has been around forever in one form or another,” explained Frank Imhoff, Associate Director for the ELCA news service. “Or at least since 1988 when the denomination was formed”

According to Imhoff, the specific questions were raised during the ELCA’s 2001 Churchwide Assembly –the highest representative body of the five-million-member denomination – and a 2005 deadline was set for the answers.

Since then, a 14-member task force was elected to study the various opinions regarding the issues and to draft a recommendation of action for the church.

After three years, the task force in January 2005 released their recommendations, which were broken down into three parts. The first called on the church to find ways to live faithfully in the midst of disagreements. The second recommended the church continue to refrain from blessing homosexual relationships. The third recommended the church continue the current standards expecting unmarried ministers – including homosexuals – to abstain from sexual relationships, but added that the ELCA may choose to refrain from disciplining those who break the codes of conduct.

Reactions to the recommendations were mixed across the church, but those at the theological poles rebuffed the resolutions for lacking clarity and sensibility.

Conservatives and liberals especially criticized the third recommendation for its forthright contradictions: the church is calling on clergy to abstain from homosexual relationships but with no enforcements.

Conservatives said the third resolution “looks like a duck and quacks like a duck” while liberals slammed it for not providing sufficient rights for homosexual clergy.

Meanwhile, the synods – or districts – of the nationwide church responded in various ways. According to Imhoff, of the 65 synods of the ELCA, 35 responded with resolutions recommending a wide range of possible courses of actions -- from keeping the church's current standards intact to making changes in the church's standards beyond the recommendations of the task force.

“I read over the resolutions and what I found was that there is no one direction,” explained Imhoff.

These synod resolutions, as well as the task force recommendations, will be presented to the Church Council when it meets in Chicago. The Church Council will then prepare resolutions that will be placed on the agenda for the ELCA Churchwide Assembly this August.

The Churchwide Assembly is the only body that can adopt or reject any resolution on behalf of the entire church.

“The church council will draft a resolution to be placed before the Assembly,” said Imhoff. “It can use the recommendations or not – it can decide.”

According to Imhoff, once the resolutions are before the Assembly, they can be passed, rejected, appended or amended. Any combination of the four would apply to the resolutions drafted by the Council this week.

“The churchwide assembly can take a number of different approaches. There are three recommendations on the issue, and they can amend one and pass the other. It decides for itself what it wants to pass,” said Imhoff. “The churchwide assembly can do whatever it wants with the recommendations.”

The Church Council is expected to complete their resolutions by Monday.

God help us. "For in the last days men will not stand sound doctrine but seeking to have their ears tickled will gather teachers in accordance to their own desires" 2 Tim 4:3

[Jezz]

God help us. "For in the last days men will not stand sound doctrine but seeking to have their ears tickled will gather teachers in accordance to their own desires" 2 Tim 4:3
I am not in the least bit surprised. Great theologians of the Church have been predicting that this would happen upon severing communion from the Church for centuries.

If once a licence of impious fraud be permitted, I shudder to think how great will be the risk of religion being destroyed and wiped out. For if any part of the Catholic doctrine be laid aside, then another part, and also another, and likewise another, and yet another, will go as a matter of course and right. But when the parts one by one have been rejeted, what else will follow in the end but that the whole be equally rejected?

The above was written circa AD 434.

This is, of course, exactly what has been happening in Protestant churches (and even before that in the Roman church) since they first split off as separate entities. The problem is that, ultimately, all these churches have one founding feature: the assumption that everyone else in Church history might have been wrong. Once this assumption is granted, anything goes: They might have all been wrong Real Presence in the Eucharist. They might have all been wrong about who wrote the books of the Bible. They might have all been wrong about sex being reserved for marriage. They might have all been wrong about their take on homosexuality. They might have all been wrong about what "resurrection" meant. They might have been wrong about God existing at all...

The Lutheran Church of Australia is still fairly conservative, but I suspect that it won't be too many more decades (maybe only years) before it either splits into a confessional (more like Missouri Synod) and liberal (ELCA) synod, or before the whole synod becomes like the ELCA.

The simple reason for this is that these churches are not part of the body of Christ and do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them and guiding them into all truth...

[George Murphy]

I am not in the least bit surprised. Great theologians of the Church have been predicting that this would happen upon severing communion from the Church for centuries.

If once a licence of impious fraud be permitted, I shudder to think how great will be the risk of religion being destroyed and wiped out. For if any part of the Catholic doctrine be laid aside, then another part, and also another, and likewise another, and yet another, will go as a matter of course and right. But when the parts one by one have been rejeted, what else will follow in the end but that the whole be equally rejected?

The above was written circa AD 434.

This is, of course, exactly what has been happening in Protestant churches (and even before that in the Roman church) since they first split off as separate entities. The problem is that, ultimately, all these churches have one founding feature: the assumption that everyone else in Church history might have been wrong. Once this assumption is granted, anything goes: They might have all been wrong Real Presence in the Eucharist. They might have all been wrong about who wrote the books of the Bible. They might have all been wrong about sex being reserved for marriage. They might have all been wrong about their take on homosexuality. They might have all been wrong about what "resurrection" meant. They might have been wrong about God existing at all...

The Lutheran Church of Australia is still fairly conservative, but I suspect that it won't be too many more decades (maybe only years) before it either splits into a confessional (more like Missouri Synod) and liberal (ELCA) synod, or before the whole synod becomes like the ELCA.

The simple reason for this is that these churches are not part of the body of Christ and do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them and guiding them into all truth...

Whereas in reality all true believers know that Christians in the 1st century knew everything that was to be known about human sexuality, authorship of biblical books, &c. & even though the church is the Body of Christ it's a completely static entity that never changes.

Perhaps instead of calling it the Body of Christ, those who hold this view should be more precise and call it the mummified corpse of Christ.

(None of which should be taken to indicate my agreement with the recommendations of the ELCA task force, which will probably not be accepted by the Church Council or the Churchwide Assembly this summer.)

Shalom,
George

[spl_cadet]

Moral truth does not change.

[George Murphy]

Moral truth does not change.

Which is why it's still OK for Christians to own slaves, as Philemon did.

Shalom,
George

P.S. I can guess how a response may go & could probably write the ensuing exchange now will go but will let the thing play itself out.

GLM

[spl_cadet]

Slavery is not inherently sinful. Chattel slavery, of the kind practiced in America, is.

[Berean Todd]

Slaves in Roman times had more upward mobility in society and a much better life than the vast majority of the citizenry, simple as. As allready said, the type of slavery practiced in Ameica of the Africans was wrong and sinful, but bore absolutely ZERO resemblence to slavery in Biblical times.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Which is why it's still OK for Christians to own slaves, as Philemon did.



That's an overly simplistic view of Philemon's (and Onesimus') case.

For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.


Paul directed Philemon to accept Onesimus back in a new relationship, one that equaled Philemon's relationship with Paul and that Paul specifically called "above a servant, a brother beloved". Too many people try to make much of Paul's lack of a "You must free him from his slavery" statement to mean that Paul did not reject slavery. His approach was, "Make the spiritual relationship right, and the economic/legal aspects will straighten themselves up."

Can you truly believe that Philemon, a Christian of whom/to whom Paul wrote, "For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother" (Philemon 7), would continue to keep in slavery a "brother beloved"?

Slavery was an integral part of the Roman world, and while the earlier replies which highlighted the vast difference between Roman slavery and chattel slavery based on race are correct, Paul's acceptance of it was, if anything, on a par with his acceptance of Caligula as a ruler whom Christians must obey in everything not directly in opposition to God's commandments (his description of God's role in appointing rulers, and therefore Christians' role in obeying them, in Romans 13 makes no exceptions such as "excepting the madman who is currently Caesar"). Paul understood, and wanted Philemon to understand, that the true basis for relationships between people must come from their relationships with Christ -- and if both are brothers to Christ, how then can one enslave the other? And while this does not directly apply to Christians keeping non-Christian slaves, a true follower of Christ, who understands Christ's sacrificial relationship on the behalf of all men, could not for long continue to keep other men in bondage.

Paul didn't tell Philemon "free all your slaves" any more than a doctor would (or at least should) prescribe on the basis of symptoms alone. He went to the fundamental problem that underlay the slavery issue, knowing that a correct solution to that problem, and a correct understanding of how men stand in relation to each other because of how they stand in relation to God and Christ, would in time solve the symptomatic issues.

There's a great discussion in The Robe about early Christian attitudes about slavery. Paraphrased, it goes something like, "It's not difficult for a slave to be a Christian. But the man who keeps a slave, he has difficulty reconciling that with the Christian concept of the brotherhood of man." To some extent, that was what Paul was trying to get Philemon to recognise.

The (for we are all slaves to Christ) Curtmudgeon

[Rdr. Arsenios]

God help us. "For in the last days men will not stand sound doctrine but seeking to have their ears tickled will gather teachers in accordance to their own desires" 2 Tim 4:3


I asked my priest about beards the other day - One of my friends said that to wear a beard is the Orthodox thing to do - And I am emerging from a previous life in which wearing a beard was part of doing wrong things, so I raised a flag. My good father affirmed beards, but as a masculinity issue, which threw me... And then he went on to say how the Orthodox men are generally more masculine than are their counterparts in other religions, and a part of it is that they wear beards, and Orthodox women do NOT! :-)

And more, how it is that the division of the sexes in Orthodoxy stresses their differences, and does not cling to vaguely unisex role models. And besides, he thought that the little hands-held in prayer fashion as one walked in a Church was pretty 'sissy' - When an Orthodox man walks from one place to another in the Church, he just 'goes' there, and he does not hold himself in some funny little ['prayer'] posture...

And to repeat again the Russian story, of the priest who scheduled a marriage in a Russian Orthodox Church, only to find out when the celebrants arrived that the two getting married to each other were both men... So to save everyone the embarassment and time wasting of halting the proceeding, he went ahead and married them. And when the archdiocese found out, it had that church bulldozed to the ground, never to be raised again, the ground barren and accursed...

So the Lutherans and the Episcopalians are waffling in the throes of debates and human rights and over homosexuality and clergy, but the Eastern Orthodox Church has no such hesitation, let alone waffling. If a man wants to marry his boyfirend with whom he is living carnally, he is OUT of communion with the Orthodox Church. Plain and simple... He cannot receive the Body and Blood of our Lord until such time as he turns away from his glorification of and self-indulgence in un-natural [eg never-child-creating] fleshly passions. God and mammon just don't mix...

I am sorry for your Church, Berean Todd...

Arsenios

[Amazing Rando]

That's cool George. I guess the deterioration of many Protestant denominations comes from running the church like a secular democracy. Majority rules or something. :doh:

[George Murphy]

The last 3 posts here represent, respectively, an attempt to pretend that slavery in the Roman world wasn't "chattel slavery," a bit of fantasy about the happy condition of slaves, and some wishful thinking.

The 1st 2 can be disposed of easily if one is willing to read some real history. I pulled out Michael Grant's The World of Rome (Mentor, 1960) just because it was at hand. Slavery is discussed on pp.130-147. On p.138 we read, "The slave was, in principle, a human chattel which could be owned and dealt with like any other piece of property." So much for spl's dodge.

Berean Todd ought to read this whole section (or the equivalent in some other real history book) to see if there was "zero resemblance" between slavery in the Roman Empire & African slavery in America. Of course not all slaves were treated badly - in either situation - & there was a consistent trend in Rome toward laws requiring more humane treatment. But the following paragraph of Grant's (pp.138-139) describing (based on Tacitus) something that happened at about the same time that Philemon was written, will suffice here.

"The occasion is the murder, in A.D. 61, of the City Prefect Lucius Pedanius Secundus by a male slave whom he had either broken a promise to liberate or disappointed in a love affair. According to tradition, reaffirmed by a senatorial decree of Augustan date, such a happening meant the torture and execution of every slave in the dead man's household - including, by a decree of Nero, those who were due for liberation in his will. The decision to inflict this penalty in A.D. 61 caused great public outcry, but the Senate was not to be moved."

(The executions were carried out in spite of public protests.)

Now for more substantive, though wrong, arguments of Curtmudgeon. I should point out 1st that the evidence for acceptance of slavery in the NT isn't limited to Philemon, which I mentioned just for brevity. doulos, which is often translated "servant" in, e.g., KJV, is often better rendered as "slave" - as, e.g., both NRSV & NIV do in Col.4:1. "Masters, treat your slaves fairly" (NRSV). In Eph.6:5, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling." Yes, masters are to treat their slaves fairly but the slaves remain slaves.


That's an overly simplistic view of Philemon's (and Onesimus') case.

For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.


Paul directed Philemon to accept Onesimus back in a new relationship, one that equaled Philemon's relationship with Paul and that Paul specifically called "above a servant, a brother beloved". Too many people try to make much of Paul's lack of a "You must free him from his slavery" statement to mean that Paul did not reject slavery. His approach was, "Make the spiritual relationship right, and the economic/legal aspects will straighten themselves up."

Can you truly believe that Philemon, a Christian of whom/to whom Paul wrote, "For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother" (Philemon 7), would continue to keep in slavery a "brother beloved"?

"Can you truly believe... " is a lame argument. Not knowing Philemon personally, I can only argue on the basis of the text. But even if we accept the argument here, nothing at all is said about the status of slaves that weren't Christians. If only Christian slaves are to be freed (& that's all your argument shows at best) then slavery is still aaccepted.


Slavery was an integral part of the Roman world, and while the earlier replies which highlighted the vast difference between Roman slavery and chattel slavery based on race are correct

Slavery in the Roman Empire was indeed not based on race but other than that the "earlier replies" are vacuous, as I've noted.



Paul's acceptance of it was, if anything, on a par with his acceptance of Caligula as a ruler whom Christians must obey in everything not directly in opposition to God's commandments (his description of God's role in appointing rulers, and therefore Christians' role in obeying them, in Romans 13 makes no exceptions such as "excepting the madman who is currently Caesar").

Which is simply to say that Paul accepted the existence of slavery as legitimate in society. I never said that he liked it.



Paul understood, and wanted Philemon to understand, that the true basis for relationships between people must come from their relationships with Christ -- and if both are brothers to Christ, how then can one enslave the other? And while this does not directly apply to Christians keeping non-Christian slaves, a true follower of Christ, who understands Christ's sacrificial relationship on the behalf of all men, could not for long continue to keep other men in bondage.

Paul didn't tell Philemon "free all your slaves" any more than a doctor would (or at least should) prescribe on the basis of symptoms alone. He went to the fundamental problem that underlay the slavery issue, knowing that a correct solution to that problem, and a correct understanding of how men stand in relation to each other because of how they stand in relation to God and Christ, would in time solve the symptomatic issues.

What you're actually doing is reading into Paul the way Christian thought developed over the centuries, finally coming to a head in the 19th. The NT does establish initial conditions for a trajectory which eventually led Christians to realize that owning slaves was incompatible with a Christian view of the world. Philemon plays a significant role in that. But there is no justification for thinking that that belief was clearly present in Paul's mind. He had no hesitation about telling people when he thought certain behaviors were wrong for Christians & if slaveowning had been so he would have told Philemon that.
If the writer of Colossians had thought that he wouldn't have told masters to treat their slaves fairly but to free them.


There's a great discussion in The Robe about early Christian attitudes about slavery. Paraphrased, it goes something like, "It's not difficult for a slave to be a Christian. But the man who keeps a slave, he has difficulty reconciling that with the Christian concept of the brotherhood of man." To some extent, that was what Paul was trying to get Philemon to recognise.

If Paul was trying to tell Philemon that (& as I've indicated, that's highly questionable), he did it with such subtilty that ~1800 years of Christian civilization failed to realize that with any clarity.

Too many Christians imagine that the Church from its inception had been given a complete set of unambiguous & absolute moral propositions. It wasn't. That doesn't mean that God has no absolute moral principles but they haven't all been communicated to us. He apparently expects us to use our brains as well as the Bible. It is Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today & forever, not the church's understanding of ethics.

Shalom,
George

[Amazing Rando]

That's an overly simplistic view of Philemon's (and Onesimus') case.

For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.




Well said, Curt.

I like the way the NIV phrases it:
5Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good– 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.

It's pretty clear to me that he's urging Philemon to set Onesimus free.

[Mark_S]

Sadly, its becoming a trend.... (A glimpse into the RCA)

http://reformedrevival.blogspot.com/2005/02/idolatry-of-personal.html

and

http://randomresponses.blogspot.com/2005/01/martyrdom-of-st-norm.html

[George Murphy]

Well said, Curt.

I like the way the NIV phrases it:
5Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good– 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.

It's pretty clear to me that he's urging Philemon to set Onesimus free.

Of course it is because you would have.

Now try the Ephesians & Colossians texts.

Shalom,
George

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Of course it is because you would have [wanted him freed].


This is from the NIV on site:

8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what
you ought to do,

9 yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul— an old man
and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus—

10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was
in chains.

11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to
you and to me.

12 I am sending him— who is my very heart— back to you.

13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your
place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel.

14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any
favour you do will be spontaneous and not forced.

15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was
that you might have him back for good—

16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is
very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a
brother in the Lord.

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome
me.

18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.

19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back— not to
mention that you owe me your very self.

20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord;
refresh my heart in Christ.

21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do
even more than I ask.


I haven't looked at the Greek, but in this version, the matter is pretty clear.

Onesimus has become a [spiritual] son of St. Paul, as is Philemon [eg (19) "not to mention that you owe me your very self." (That is evidence of spiritual fatherhood par excellance)] And more than this, that Onesimus has become VERY dear to Paul, and Paul desires Philemon to free him voluntarily, for that is proper, and even as a matter of obedience to his spiritual father [eg to Paul] if he doesn't wish to free him, but either way, Onesimus is to be freed by Philemon - The matter is not optional on Philemon's part... Paul is not leaving Philemon any other option or even cause for hesitation whatsoever.

Do you really think that Paul is not asking for, and indeed requiring if need be, the freedom of HIS son from Philemon? Perhaps there is something in the Greek that is not apparent [to me] in the English, or perhaps in THIS English...

Arsenios

[Jezz]

The last 3 posts here represent, respectively, an attempt to pretend that slavery in the Roman world wasn't "chattel slavery," a bit of fantasy about the happy condition of slaves, and some wishful thinking.
I have to agree with George to a substantial extent. Roman slavery was not all fun and games. Very many slaves lived harsh lives at the whims of harsh masters.

However, it is equally true that not all slavery was harsh, whips-and-chains stuff. Many slaves were upwardly mobile (but not all had such opportunities). It depended largely upon the master. Slaves on the farms or in mines were usually a lot worse off than their urban counterparts.

The relative proportions are not easy to determine, and all we have are estimates. The examples that history have left to us tend to be by their very nature the exceptional ones, thus we have examples of extreme cruelty and extreme kindness. The everyday life of most slaves was likely in-between.

Slavery is a topic that simply can't be dealt with adequately in such a small space, and it's not really on-topic for this thread. Suffice it to say that I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with slavery, nor with the Church's attitude to it over the centuries.

[George Murphy]

I have to agree with George to a substantial extent. Roman slavery was not all fun and games. Very many slaves lived harsh lives at the whims of harsh masters.

However, it is equally true that not all slavery was harsh, whips-and-chains stuff. Many slaves were upwardly mobile (but not all had such opportunities). It depended largely upon the master. Slaves on the farms or in mines were usually a lot worse off than their urban counterparts.

The relative proportions are not easy to determine, and all we have are estimates. The examples that history have left to us tend to be by their very nature the exceptional ones, thus we have examples of extreme cruelty and extreme kindness. The everyday life of most slaves was likely in-between.

Slavery is a topic that simply can't be dealt with adequately in such a small space, and it's not really on-topic for this thread. Suffice it to say that I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with slavery, nor with the Church's attitude to it over the centuries.

1) Yes, as I already noted, not all slaves in the Roman Empire were treated badly. Nor were we in the American south. That isn't really the issue & I provided a counterexample only because of a rather naive claim that was made.

2) The topic of slavery is germane because it toucches on the question of whether or not moral standards held by the early church are always & everywhere applicable. To say that they sometimes aren't doesn't imply that they never are. The issue of homosexuality, e.g., should be discussed on its own merits. I agree that some churches have gone too far in what they have been willing to accept in this area but churches should not be condemned for re-opening the question because of the emergence of putative new understandings of sexual orientation, significance of biblical texts, &c.

3) Putting the question as one of whether or not slavery is "inherently sinful" makes it an abstraction. The Church has in fact changed its views on this matter. I doubt that any reputable Christian leader today would write to Christians being held in slavery some place in the world, "Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh" (I Peter 2:18 NRSV).

4) Those who wish may continue to comfort themselves with the belief that Paul was telling Philemon to free Onesimus. If so, he was doing it with considerable subtilty. As I've already noted, Ephesians, Colossians & I Peter clearly accept the practice of slavery.

Shalom,
George

[Jezz]

1) Yes, as I already noted, not all slaves in the Roman Empire were treated badly. Nor were we in the American south. That isn't really the issue & I provided a counterexample only because of a rather naive claim that was made.
I agree. I wasn't disagreeing with your post in that sense.


2) The topic of slavery is germane because it toucches on the question of whether or not moral standards held by the early church are always & everywhere applicable. To say that they sometimes aren't doesn't imply that they never are. The issue of homosexuality, e.g., should be discussed on its own merits. I agree that some churches have gone too far in what they have been willing to accept in this area but churches should not be condemned for re-opening the question because of the emergence of putative new understandings of sexual orientation, significance of biblical texts, &c.
Well, I simply disagree with the last sentence, for two reasons:

1. I don't think we could possibly have any significant new "understandings" of the Scriptures after 2000 years. To claim that we could have a "new insight" into the Scriptures that all those before us missed is somewhat arrogant.
2. I also disagree that we could have legitimate "new understandings of sexual orientation". Because, of course, we must ask where this new understanding came from. Clearly, it cannot have been from Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition (see point 1). But if our revelation was not received from either of these two sources, then where does it come from? There is only one other source: a "tradition of men", not from God.


3) Putting the question as one of whether or not slavery is "inherently sinful" makes it an abstraction. The Church has in fact changed its views on this matter.
If, by "Church", you mean Christianity in general, then I suppose you are right. But I don't think that the Orthodox Church has really changed its opinion on this matter.

I discovered a very interesting thing in the liturgy of St Basil today - in one of the prayers, there is a prayer for "those who are working in the mines and who are under bitter slavery". Even when they were still giving the OK to slavery in general, they frowned upon harsh treatment of slaves.


I doubt that any reputable Christian leader...
Where "reputable" is defined as "someone who wouldn't write to slaves quoting 1 Peter"? :smile:


...today would write to Christians being held in slavery some place in the world, "Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh" (I Peter 2:18 NRSV).
I would (but then, I am not a reputable Christian leader). I think it is excellent advice. There is no better witness for Christ than to suffer unjust punishment and forgive the one who punishes you for Christ's sake. Of course, only those who are spiritually very advanced can actually heed this advice. We don't tend to understand this level of self-sacrifice today - we're too busy thinking about self-preservation...

Some examples of this advice working elsewhere is in the non-violent protests against racial segregation in the South of the US.

Mind you, I think that I would also be writing to the masters, if they were Christian, and ordering them to stop unjustly treating their slaves, and even strongly hinting that they should release them when they can. Much as St Paul did in his letter to Philemon (see below).


4) Those who wish may continue to comfort themselves with the belief that Paul was telling Philemon to free Onesimus. If so, he was doing it with considerable subtilty.
I agree that it was subtle, but I do believe St Paul was nudging Philemon in that direction. Verse 21 is the key: "Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask." St Paul had already ordered Philemon to take Onesimus back as a friend and a brother in Christ and to forgive him anything he had stolen when he fled. Yet St Paul says that he knows that Philemon will do even more than all of this. What more was there for Philemon to do?

The tradition of the Church supports this, as it says that Onesimus was actually freed and later became a bishop (I forget which city).

Why did St Paul not simply order Philemon to free Onesimus, if that is what he wanted? Many in the secular world criticise him for this. The answer is hinted at in 14, where he writes "But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced." St Paul wants Philemon to free Onesimus of his own free volition, and not be cause St Paul had ordered him to.

At the end of the day, freeing a slave costs someone money, and hence it is a form of charity. If you are the master of the slave, this is no less a form of charity than if someone else was (as you must bear the cost of losing a worker that you had paid for). Early Christians did not force Christian masters to free slaves for the same reason that they did not force people to give alms to the poor - because charity cannot be forced.


As I've already noted, Ephesians, Colossians & I Peter clearly accept the practice of slavery.
I agree, but again I don't think this is an issue. I have no problem with slavery per se. I really don't see what is the problem with two people entering into an agreement whereby one of them pledges their life-long service to another. Indeed, service is one of the fundamental roles of a Christian.

[George Murphy]

1. I don't think we could possibly have any significant new "understandings" of the Scriptures after 2000 years. To claim that we could have a "new insight" into the Scriptures that all those before us missed is somewhat arrogant.

Nothing at all "arrogant" about it. E.g., there have been plenty of discoveries about ancient near eastern cultures, languages &c that Christians simply didn't know about in the past & that have improved our understanding of the context of biblical writings & thus of the writings themselves. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, not that he'd drop it all down on the church in A.D. 30.


2. I also disagree that we could have legitimate "new understandings of sexual orientation". Because, of course, we must ask where this new understanding came from. Clearly, it cannot have been from Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition (see point 1). But if our revelation was not received from either of these two sources, then where does it come from? There is only one other source: a "tradition of men", not from God.

It seems unlikely that St. Paul & other biblical writers had any concept of "sexual orientation" in the modern sense at all so it wouldn't be too surprising if we had some new understanding in this area. Such new understandings, as
in other areas, come from scientific investigation. If you're not willing to accept the idea that our understanding of matters dealt with in scripture can be improved in that way then you're stuck with 6 day creation & the heavens as a dome over the earth. (Yes, I know that the Greek fathers had a better understanding of astronomy than that but that's the way Gen.1 describes it. & the astronomy of the Greek fathers is out of date too.)


If, by "Church", you mean Christianity in general, then I suppose you are right. But I don't think that the Orthodox Church has really changed its opinion on this matter.

I discovered a very interesting thing in the liturgy of St Basil today - in one of the prayers, there is a prayer for "those who are working in the mines and who are under bitter slavery". Even when they were still giving the OK to slavery in general, they frowned upon harsh treatment of slaves.

An excellent reason for the liturgy to be updated.



Where "reputable" is defined as "someone who wouldn't write to slaves quoting 1 Peter"? :smile:

The smiley should be turned upon a person who imagines that every verse of scripture can be quoted appropriately to a person in any situation in life. If you will reflect for a minute on Genesis 22:2 you will see the absurdity of that idea.



I would (but then, I am not a reputable Christian leader). I think it is excellent advice. There is no better witness for Christ than to suffer unjust punishment and forgive the one who punishes you for Christ's sake. Of course, only those who are spiritually very advanced can actually heed this advice. We don't tend to understand this level of self-sacrifice today - we're too busy thinking about self-preservation...

You skate quickly over the part of the verse that is most questionable today, the idea that the master exercises legitimate authority over his/her slaves. Do you really think that slave laborers under the Nazi regime at Auschwitz &c should have been enjoined to "accept the authority of your masters"?


Some examples of this advice working elsewhere is in the non-violent protests against racial segregation in the South of the US.

& they did so because they didn't believe that states had the right to enforce oppressive laws.


Mind you, I think that I would also be writing to the masters, if they were Christian, and ordering them to stop unjustly treating their slaves, and even strongly hinting that they should release them when they can. Much as St Paul did in his letter to Philemon (see below).[

& if they weren't Christian?


I agree that it was subtle, but I do believe St Paul was nudging Philemon in that direction. Verse 21 is the key: "Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask." St Paul had already ordered Philemon to take Onesimus back as a friend and a brother in Christ and to forgive him anything he had stolen when he fled. Yet St Paul says that he knows that Philemon will do even more than all of this. What more was there for Philemon to do?

The tradition of the Church supports this, as it says that Onesimus was actually freed and later became a bishop (I forget which city).

The bishop of Ephesus when Ignatius wrote to that church was named Onesimus but there is no reason to think that they were the same person. Tradition counts for little in such matters.


Why did St Paul not simply order Philemon to free Onesimus, if that is what he wanted? Many in the secular world criticise him for this. The answer is hinted at in 14, where he writes "But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced." St Paul wants Philemon to free Onesimus of his own free volition, and not be cause St Paul had ordered him to.

At the end of the day, freeing a slave costs someone money, and hence it is a form of charity. If you are the master of the slave, this is no less a form of charity than if someone else was (as you must bear the cost of losing a worker that you had paid for). Early Christians did not force Christian masters to free slaves for the same reason that they did not force people to give alms to the poor - because charity cannot be forced.

Totally avoiding any question about justice for the slave.


I agree, but again I don't think this is an issue. I have no problem with slavery per se. I really don't see what is the problem with two people entering into an agreement whereby one of them pledges their life-long service to another. Indeed, service is one of the fundamental roles of a Christian.

"Two people entering into an agreement"? Do you really imagine that that was the normal way that people became slaves in the Roman Empire? (Note the word "normal." People could sell themselves into slavery.) Can you conceivably imagine that slaves in the American south or in Nazi Germany were there because they had "entered into an agreement" with their masters?
Or that their service was contingent upon "one of them pledg[ing] their life-long service"? Do you think that after the slave ships got to America they asked the Africans if they wanted to pledge their life-long service & if they didn't they got sent back to Africa to be freed? I have to wonder if it's worth spending any time debating with a person capable of saying things like this.

Shalom,
George

[Jezz]

Nothing at all "arrogant" about it. E.g., there have been plenty of discoveries about ancient near eastern cultures, languages &c that Christians simply didn't know about in the past & that have improved our understanding of the context of biblical writings & thus of the writings themselves.
Yes, it is true that our interpretations have improved relative to our previous ones by recovering some of the context. But do you really think that writers of the early centuries need to be reminded of the cultural context, given that they lived in that culture? This is my point. As our interpretations improve, they asymptotically approach the limit defined by the understanding of the early Christians. But we can't improve on them.


Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, not that he'd drop it all down on the church in A.D. 30.
No, actually - Christ said that the Holy Spirit would lead the Twelve into all truth. The Bible says nothing about the Spirit guiding you or me into the truth. Are you one of these people who "...imagines that every verse of scripture can be quoted appropriately to a person in any situation in life"? :wink:


It seems unlikely that St. Paul & other biblical writers had any concept of "sexual orientation" in the modern sense at all so it wouldn't be too surprising if we had some new understanding in this area.
I have to disagree.

The biblical writers and early Christians may not have spoken specifically about sexual orientation, but they definitely spoke in more general terms of "the passions" (a concept shared by highly moralistic pagan philosophers like the Stoics), which were the feelings and emotions that influenced a person's behaviour. It is clear that "sexual orientation" is a passion - as it is about what a person feels like doing, as opposed to what they ought to do. The goal of the Christian is to become the master of one's passions (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) - not to yield to them.


Such new understandings, as in other areas, come from scientific investigation.
But still, it is the traditions of men. The Church does not reevaluate her tradition in the light of new scientific theories, but evaluates new scientific theories in the light of her tradition. Especially in an area as complicated and as important as psychology - the study of the psyche (ie, the soul). I mean, most modern psychologists even deny the existence of the soul, and you think the Church should be taking advice on the soul from them? :smile:


If you're not willing to accept the idea that our understanding of matters dealt with in scripture can be improved in that way then you're stuck with 6 day creation & the heavens as a dome over the earth. (Yes, I know that the Greek fathers had a better understanding of astronomy than that but that's the way Gen.1 describes it. & the astronomy of the Greek fathers is out of date too.)
I don't think your example is a good one. For a start, I don't know that the "dome" interpretation is mandated by the text, or even that it was ever interpreted that way. Besides which, cosmology really isn't a matter of comparable importance than something like morality. Compare with homosexual acts, which is a moral matter and for 4000 years have always been considered sinful by the Judeo-Christian religion.


An excellent reason for the liturgy to be updated.
Why??? Do you think that we should no longer pray for people who work in mines or under conditions of harsh slavery???


The smiley should be turned upon a person who imagines that every verse of scripture can be quoted appropriately to a person in any situation in life. If you will reflect for a minute on Genesis 22:2 you will see the absurdity of that idea.
Where did you get the idea that I imagined every verse of scripture can be quoted appropriately to a person in any situation in life?


You skate quickly over the part of the verse that is most questionable today, the idea that the master exercises legitimate authority over his/her slaves. Do you really think that slave laborers under the Nazi regime at Auschwitz &c should have been enjoined to "accept the authority of your masters"?
Depends. As I said, it could be an extremely powerful witness for the Gospel for someone to suffer unjustly and yet without complaint (and even joyfully). Even if the authority was not legit, by willingly submitting to it it is a strong witness to the Gospel. That was St Peter's point, and I happen to agree.

But of course, not all are spiritually advanced to follow through with such advice. Some will put their own welfare above that of their captors/oppressors, and will try and escape oppression. The Saints of the Church would have (and did) gladly accepted the oppression - for myself, I'd probably try and escape it (I gather that you probably would too). That's why they're Saints and I'm not.



Some examples of this advice working elsewhere is in the non-violent protests against racial segregation in the South of the US.

& they did so because they didn't believe that states had the right to enforce oppressive laws.
Agreed. How does that change the fact that non-violent protest was effective?


& if they weren't Christian?
I'd give them the same advice, but I don't see what reason that'd have to listen to me.


The bishop of Ephesus when Ignatius wrote to that church was named Onesimus but there is no reason to think that they were the same person. Tradition counts for little in such matters.
Tradition counts for little in such matters - why? Because you say so?

What reason is there to think that they weren't the same person? Was "Onesimus" a common name in that time? If it was a common name, then it was probably a name for a slave, given its meaning - it which case, my point still stands.


Totally avoiding any question about justice for the slave.
That's because you and I (along with most) agree on the answer to that question, so there is little point in discussing it. I agree that the slave should ideally receive justice. I also agree that ideally noone in the world should starve to death. That is also unjust.

However, the question that you are totally avoiding is the question of who is going to pay for that justice. Freeing a slave costs someone, somewhere, something. I don't believe that anyone should be forced to pay for another person's freedom. Encouraged, yes - but not forced. You seem to think that the master should be forced to pay for it.


"Two people entering into an agreement"? Do you really imagine that that was the normal way that people became slaves in the Roman Empire?
No.


(Note the word "normal." People could sell themselves into slavery.)
No.


Can you conceivably imagine that slaves in the American south or in Nazi Germany were there because they had "entered into an agreement" with their masters?
No.


Or that their service was contingent upon "one of them pledg[ing] their life-long service"?
No.


Do you think that after the slave ships got to America they asked the Africans if they wanted to pledge their life-long service & if they didn't they got sent back to Africa to be freed?
No.


I have to wonder if it's worth spending any time debating with a person capable of saying things like this.
I have to wonder if it's worth trying to explain my position, when you in your passion attribute conclusions to me that I never stated. :smile:

What you are failing to distinguish, is that there is a difference between "slavery" in and of itself, and how one becomes a slave. That there is indeed a difference you admit by acknowledging that there is more than one way in which a person became a slave.

I agree, unequivocally, that kidnapping and reducing a free person to slavery is wrong. And you will note that here, I am quite in-line with St Paul, who ranks slave-traders alongside murderers and liars and perjurers and is contrary to the gospel (1 Timothy 1:10-11).

You have argued (and I agree) that making someone a slave against their will is wrong. But that is quite separate from the question of slavery itself, and you have failed to give me a reason why slavery is wrong in and of itself.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Here is an article on the Episcopalian Gay Bishop's embrasure of Planned Parenthood and their abortion mill program - There is a very definite and strong 'agenda' here to bring this secular element into the Episcopal Church from the top through this bishop... And there seems little resistance in the US to him -

If such a thing were to happen in my Church...

Lord Have Mercy!

I would not want to be that bishop...

Arsenios
________________________________________

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Planned Parenthood should target "people of faith" to promote abortion rights and comprehensive sex education, the Episcopal Church's first openly homosexual bishop told a gathering in the District yesterday.
"In this last election we see what the ultimate result of divorce from communities of faith will do to us," New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson said during Planned Parenthood's fifth annual prayer breakfast.
"Our defense against religious people has to be a religious defense. ... We must use people of faith to counter the faith-based arguments against us," he said.
Bishop Robinson's comments at Planned Parenthood's national leadership conference took aim at traditional interpretations of the Bible.
"We have allowed the Bible to be taken hostage, and it is being wielded by folks who would use it to hit us over the head. We have to take back those Scriptures," he said. "You know, those stories are our stories. I tell this to lesbian folk all the time: The story of freedom in Exodus is our story. ... That's my story, and they can't have it.
"This current administration notwithstanding, the world is not black and white," Bishop Robinson said. "We need to teach people about nuance, about holding things in tension, that this can be true and that can be true, and somewhere between is the right answer. It's a very adult way of living, you know.
"What an unimaginative God it would be if God only put one meaning in any verse of Scripture," he said.
Mr. Robinson left his wife and two young daughters in 1986 and moved in with another man. He was elected bishop by state and clergy delegates in June 2003 and affirmed by the national convention two months later.
Abortion, he said yesterday, is "not just a matter between a woman and her body. This is not like removing a mole. On the other hand, no one should interfere with a woman's right to choose."
The Episcopal Church stated its position on abortion in a resolution during its 71st General Convention in 1994: "While we acknowledge that in this country it is the legal right of every woman to have a medically safe abortion, as Christians we believe strongly that if this right is exercised, it should be used only in extreme situations.
"We emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience," the resolution states.
Planned Parenthood officials said they do not disclose publicly statistics on the number of abortions they perform, but provide that data to the National Institutes of Health. Statistics were not available yesterday.
However, the group performed 244,628 abortions last year, and has performed 3.5 million abortions since 1970, according to David Bereit, national director of Stop Planned Parenthood (Stopp).
Stopp espouses the belief that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder.
Mr. Bereit said his organization is "not going to allow Planned Parenthood to hijack Christianity."
"We cannot stand idly by and allow these subtle but seductive and secular messages to creep into the church," he said at a press conference Wednesday across the street from the Planned Parenthood conference at the Washington Hilton.
Stopp is starting a campaign to export grass-roots activism from College Station, Texas, to communities across the country. Mr. Bereit said his efforts in College Station helped strip Planned Parenthood in 2003 of $13 million in annual state funds.
He said his group will work to build coalitions of churches who will then try to remove Planned Parenthood materials from public school sex education courses and lobby government against funding the group.
Bishop Robinson encouraged Planned Parenthood leaders to fight their opposition.
"I know, in the end, that I'm going to heaven, and so are you," he said. "You and I can do this work no matter how hard it gets, because we know we're going home."
Planned Parenthood operated 849 clinics last year, down from the 866 it ran in 2003. A spokeswoman said the group consolidated some clinics and was "serving more clients" than in 2003.
Private donations to the group dropped from $230 million in fiscal 2002 to $191 million in fiscal 2003.
Gloria Feldt, the group's president for eight years, resigned in January after Planned Parenthood's first endorsement of a presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, and their unprecedented voter-registration efforts failed to yield results.
The Rev. Ignacio Castuera, a Methodist and Planned Parenthood's national chaplain, said he is trying to increase the size of their clergy network, which currently has 1,400 pastors and clergy.
Working with clergy on the West and East coasts is easy, Mr. Castuera said, "but when you move further into the country it gets harder. ... In the center of the country we have a lot more conservative perspectives on the Bible and sex."

[George Murphy]

you have failed to give me a reason why slavery is wrong in and of itself.

I move this from the end of your post to the beginning here because I can thus highlight something that you might have thought of yourself if you'd been willing to try. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is a commandment of torah that Jesus said was the 2d most important. Jesus also said, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." I will leave it to you to decide whether treating another person as property (which is what slavery is) is consistent with those authoritative statements.

It may be of interest - for Christians who respect the teachings of the RCC even if they do not consider them automatically binding - that Paragraph 2414 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns slavery without qualification.


Yes, it is true that our interpretations have improved relative to our previous ones by recovering some of the context. But do you really think that writers of the early centuries need to be reminded of the cultural context, given that they lived in that culture? This is my point. As our interpretations improve, they asymptotically approach the limit defined by the understanding of the early Christians. But we can't improve on them.

In the 1st place yes, it's possible for Christians today, guided by the Holy Spirit, to give deeper insight into biblical texts than the writers themselves had. Even with secular texts, where inspiration (in the narrow sense) doesn't come into the picture, that can happen. Dorothy Sayers, in The Mind of the Maker, gives a good example of this from one of her own novels. & if one really takes inspiration seriously, there's no reason to think that the Holy Spirit might not have intended more than what the human writer did. It's clear, e.g., that Matthew saw a deeper meaning in Hosea 11:1 than the prophet himself did.

But the question has not to do just with the original meaning of the text but the way it's been understood in intervening centuries. The transition already in the 1st century from a Jewish to a Gentile milieu is very important in this regard. I am NOT criticizing the "hellenization" of Christianity a la Harnack, but it is true that the significance of some Jewish thought patterns and ways of speaking was largely lost to the church for quite awhile. (& to some extent they were lost to the Jews themselves because of A.D. 70.)

Thus we need to be open to the possibility that some NT texts have a significance that we haven't been aware of. One that is of some importance for discussions of ethical issues is what some NT scholars have argued about the authority given to the church to "bind and loose" (Mt.16:19 & 18:18). They argue that this does not refer to confession & absolution (for which the appropriate text is Jn.20:23) but to the church's authority to declare precepts of torah binding or non-binding in particular situations. I can give you some references if you'd like to follow up on this.


No, actually - Christ said that the Holy Spirit would lead the Twelve into all truth. The Bible says nothing about the Spirit guiding you or me into the truth.

1st, he was speaking to the eleven since Judas had left.

2d, if your argument is correct, none of the things Jesus says applies to Paul, who makes it clear in Galatians 1 that he did not receive the gospel that he preached to the original apostles.

3d, if your argument were correct, none of the promises that Jesus made in his farewell discourse in John apply to any but the "12" - including the promise of the Holy Spirit. So presumably it was a slip of the tongue when he promised "another Advocate, to be with you forever." He should have said "to be with you until the death of the last of the "12."

4th, in any case the point I made was thhat the church (including the apostles) would be led into the truth, not instantly presented with the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth. The way in which understanding of basic Christian truths like the Trinity & Incarnation developed over the course of time is illustrative of this.

So your argument is wrong to the 4th power. Jesus' farewell discourse is directed to the church as a whole - as in the prayer which follows it, in which he explicitly says that he is praying "on behalf of all those who will believe in me through your word."

Of course I can see you working here in an attempt to limit the ability of Christians to discern the truth to EO bishops, but the attempt is stillborn.

Please realize, however, that I am not claiming an individualistic right to discern spiritual truth. The promise is to the Christian community.


Are you one of these people who "...imagines that every verse of scripture can be quoted appropriately to a person in any situation in life"?
No. What's your point?


The biblical writers and early Christians may not have spoken specifically about sexual orientation, but they definitely spoke in more general terms of "the passions" (a concept shared by highly moralistic pagan philosophers like the Stoics), which were the feelings and emotions that influenced a person's behaviour. It is clear that "sexual orientation" is a passion - as it is about what a person feels like doing, as opposed to what they ought to do. The goal of the Christian is to become the master of one's passions (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) - not to yield to them.

You dodge the point that there were things that the NT writers didn't know, things that are germane to a discussion of homosexuality. Instead, you want to speak in terms of generalities - & not very good generalities. Christianity isn't Stoicism.


But still, it is the traditions of men. The Church does not reevaluate her tradition in the light of new scientific theories, but evaluates new scientific theories in the light of her tradition. Especially in an area as complicated and as important as psychology - the study of the psyche (ie, the soul). I mean, most modern psychologists even deny the existence of the soul, and you think the Church should be taking advice on the soul from them?

It should not take advice from them but it should give serious consideration to scientific results and such consideration may indeed result in some changes from "tradition." In connection with the soul this is certainly appropriate because many biblical scholars and theologians have come to realize that scripture is not nearly as supportive of a dualist anthropology as has often been thought. You might look at the collection of essays edited by Warren Brown et al, Whatever Happened to the Soul? (Fortress, 1998).


I don't think your example is a good one. For a start, I don't know that the "dome" interpretation is mandated by the text, or even that it was ever interpreted that way. Besides which, cosmology really isn't a matter of comparable importance than something like morality.

My example is an excellent one. The Hebrew raqia` in other places refers to something made of metal. LXX stereomatos & V firmamentum refer to something solid ("firm") followed of course by KJV "firmament." Westermann in his critical commentary translates it "solid vault" in 1:6. & by your own earlier argument - that the biblical writers knew what they were writing - this is what the writer of Genesis 1 meant. & that's quite consistent with the cosmologies of the ancient near east. See the article "Cosmogony" in the IDB.

& there are other examples. I already mentioned the 6 days. More on request.

& this is important precisely because it gets rid of your notion that science can't help us to gain better understanding of things spoken of in scripture. It is in the nature of a reductio ad absurdum of that idea.


Compare with homosexual acts, which is a moral matter and for 4000 years have always been considered sinful by the Judeo-Christian religion.

Here the question of sexual orientation (which you would like to avoid) becomes important. For if the biblical writers were in fact not aware that some people do have a non-volitional homosexual orientation then they're not necessarily talking about the same things that we are today - unless you think that that sexual morality is exclusively about where people put their genitals.

Please note that I am not arguing here that the church should approve of homosexual activity. The point is simply that the issues do need to be examined and cannot be dealt with simply by an appeal to tradition.


Why??? Do you think that we should no longer pray for people who work in mines or under conditions of harsh slavery???

For a start, one might add a prayer for their freedom.


Where did you get the idea that I imagined every verse of scripture can be quoted appropriately to a person in any situation in life?

Because you said that there wouldn't be anything wrong with quoting the verse from I Peter to someone enslaved today.


Depends. As I said, it could be an extremely powerful witness for the Gospel for someone to suffer unjustly and yet without complaint (and even joyfully). Even if the authority was not legit, by willingly submitting to it it is a strong witness to the Gospel. That was St Peter's point, and I happen to agree.

Yes - if they can't gain their freedom. But if they can?


But of course, not all are spiritually advanced to follow through with such advice. Some will put their own welfare above that of their captors/oppressors, and will try and escape oppression. The Saints of the Church would have (and did) gladly accepted the oppression - for myself, I'd probably try and escape it (I gather that you probably would too). That's why they're Saints and I'm not.

There is nothing virtuous about accepting oppression when one can avoid it. The church has condemned those who try to become martyrs. Would you encourage a woman with an abusive husband to stay home and let her husband beat her? Would it be spiritually immature for her to go to a battered women's shelter?

& I'm sorry you don't consider yourself a saint - i.e., a believer in Christ.


Agreed. How does that change the fact that non-violent protest was effective?

Because their protest was based on the fact that they thought the existing laws were morally wrong.

..................


That's because you and I (along with most) agree on the answer to that question, so there is little point in discussing it. I agree that the slave should ideally receive justice. I also agree that ideally noone in the world should starve to death. That is also unjust.

However, the question that you are totally avoiding is the question of who is going to pay for that justice. Freeing a slave costs someone, somewhere, something. I don't believe that anyone should be forced to pay for another person's freedom. Encouraged, yes - but not forced. You seem to think that the master should be forced to pay for it.

1st, to be frank, I think that ignoring justice for the slave shows a bit more moral obtuseness than does lack of concern for the slaveowner's investment.

& since you're so enthusiastic about people being willing to suffer oppression, what's wrong with suggesting to a slaveowner that he accept some economic damage?

& if slavery is wrong then holding slaves is. & the slaveowner has the status of a receiver of stolen property.

But of course for any large-scale manumission to be carried out peacefully there would have to be some payment made for slaves by, e.g., the government. Lincoln was prepared to make such an offer to the South but that couldn't be carried through.

........................

I have to wonder if it's worth trying to explain my position, when you in your passion attribute conclusions to me that I never stated.

Since you did in fact speak about slavery without qualification as in terms of ""Two people entering into an agreement," any misrepresentation is due to your lack of clarity. If you had said, "Since in a very small fraction of cases slavery may be the result of two people entering into an agreement, slavery in the abstract cannot be condemned" it would have been another matter. You'd still have been wrong though. (See my initial comment.)

[quote]What you are failing to distinguish, is that there is a difference between "slavery" in and of itself, and how one becomes a slave. That there is indeed a difference you admit by acknowledging that there is more than one way in which a person became a slave.[quote]

& as I said, the number of people who have voluntarily become slaves in the strict sense - not indentured servants, persons under vows of obedience, or anything of the sort - but property, & have done that without any economic constraint or conditioning as slaves (such as those who were born & grew up in slavery) is very small. It would be interesting to see if you have any examples.

Shalom,
George

[Jezz]

Dear George,

I hadn't responded to this because you misrepresented me more than once during the course of this thread. I have now decided to respond again, given your comments in another post about me abandoning threads "because I couldn't maintain the argument". But if you are unwilling or unable to cease representing me, I will abandon this thread for good. It's not that I'm angry or anything, I just don't see it as fruitful for either of us to continue - especially when I have other people complaining (as you are) that I haven't responded to their posts.


I move this from the end of your post to the beginning here because I can thus highlight something that you might have thought of yourself if you'd been willing to try. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is a commandment of torah that Jesus said was the 2d most important. Jesus also said, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." I will leave it to you to decide whether treating another person as property (which is what slavery is) is consistent with those authoritative statements.
I disagree that slavery is essentially "treating another person as property". If I have a piece of property, I can do anything I want to it - damage it, destroy it, etc. Even in the Greco-Roman world in NT times there were limits to what a master was allowed to do to a slave, and of course for a Christian master these limits were much more strict. No, "treating another person as property" is not necessarily what slavery is.

We are commanded to become slaves to Christ. If slavery was wrong in and of itself, then this command would be immoral.


It may be of interest - for Christians who respect the teachings of the RCC even if they do not consider them automatically binding - that Paragraph 2414 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns slavery without qualification.
Fair enough. If, by slavery, they mean what you are taking it to mean (having the absolute right to dispose of the slave as they wish), then I agree. But the whole point I am trying to make is that this is not a defining characteristic of slavery in the abstract. It is a characteristic of most actualised slavery systems, but not a necessary one.


In the 1st place yes, it's possible for Christians today, guided by the Holy Spirit, to give deeper insight into biblical texts than the writers themselves had. Even with secular texts, where inspiration (in the narrow sense) doesn't come into the picture, that can happen. Dorothy Sayers, in The Mind of the Maker, gives a good example of this from one of her own novels. & if one really takes inspiration seriously, there's no reason to think that the Holy Spirit might not have intended more than what the human writer did. It's clear, e.g., that Matthew saw a deeper meaning in Hosea 11:1 than the prophet himself did.
I believe that St Matthew saw a deeper meaning because Christ revealed it to him (along with the other apostles) directly after the resurrection. If any Christian alive has had a similar quality of education, then I will gladly hear any revelations that they might have had about hidden Scriptural meanings. Otherwise, your Matthew example is invalid.

Of course, the Gnostics also thought that they had seen a deeper meaning in the NT than was actually there...

CS Lewis once remarked that he was amused at how many people thought they had found hidden meanings in his works that he didn't put there. In reality such people were inventing these interpretations so that they could pat themselves on the back about their own discovery. Just like people who write PhD theses proving that Christ Himself was a homosexual do it for their own intellectual aggrandisement.


But the question has not to do just with the original meaning of the text but the way it's been understood in intervening centuries. The transition already in the 1st century from a Jewish to a Gentile milieu is very important in this regard. I am NOT criticizing the "hellenization" of Christianity a la Harnack, but it is true that the significance of some Jewish thought patterns and ways of speaking was largely lost to the church for quite awhile. (& to some extent they were lost to the Jews themselves because of A.D. 70.)
I disagree. In my opinion, they were lost to the West, but not to the East. I have some concrete examples in mind, but rather than go into detail (as this will take us off-topic), I will simply note my disagreement on this point and move on.


Thus we need to be open to the possibility that some NT texts have a significance that we haven't been aware of. One that is of some importance for discussions of ethical issues is what some NT scholars have argued about the authority given to the church to "bind and loose" (Mt.16:19 & 18:18). They argue that this does not refer to confession & absolution (for which the appropriate text is Jn.20:23) but to the church's authority to declare precepts of torah binding or non-binding in particular situations. I can give you some references if you'd like to follow up on this.
I believe it refers to the Church's authority to let people in to the Church (which is the kingdom of heaven on earth) and to kick them out. That is the simplest way to make sense of the metaphor of the gate and the key. Of course, this is closely related to confession and absolution, but not identical with it.


1st, he was speaking to the eleven since Judas had left.
Point taken, though it is obviously a trivial one.

Note that there are places in the NT itself where it refers to the Eleven as the Twelve. 1 Corinthians 15:5 comes to mind. Perhaps you'll see fit to correct St Paul, too, when you see him next... :teeth:


2d, if your argument is correct, none of the things Jesus says applies to Paul, who makes it clear in Galatians 1 that he did not receive the gospel that he preached to the original apostles.
Christ met with St Paul directly on a different occasion to when He met with the Eleven. Has he appeared to you in this manner?


3d, if your argument were correct, none of the promises that Jesus made in his farewell discourse in John apply to any but the "12" - including the promise of the Holy Spirit. So presumably it was a slip of the tongue when he promised "another Advocate, to be with you forever." He should have said "to be with you until the death of the last of the "12."
I certainly agree that the covenant Christ made was not limited to the apostles. But the question is, given that it was obviously given only to the apostles in the first instance, how does this covenant pass from them to others? In St Paul's case, we can argue that it was opened to him when Christ appeared to him, but what about others? Do others simply claim the covenantal rights for themselves (ie, do they justify themselves)? Or do those already in the covenant community confer it upon them (ie, God justifies them, through His chosen people)? And do those in the covenant have the right to expell people from the covenant community if they are found to be heretical or unrepentant?

As this is at the core of most of our disagreements, I have planned to do a thread on this soon. So I won't go into detail with it here. I'm just giving you some food for thought. How does the promise to "guide us into all truth", as made to the apostles, pass to you or me? What makes you think that it even does?


4th, in any case the point I made was thhat the church (including the apostles) would be led into the truth, not instantly presented with the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.
Well, I can agree with that to an extent.


The way in which understanding of basic Christian truths like the Trinity & Incarnation developed over the course of time is illustrative of this.
I disagree that the doctrines developed, but as we are discussing this elsewhere I won't go into it here.


So your argument is wrong to the 4th power.
No, you simply jumped to a conclusion that was erroneous to the 4th power, based on my simple comment. You assumed (incorrectly) that I meant to imply that the promise was intended only for the apostles. That's not what I meant. I'm pointing out that it was originally only given to the apostles. They incorporated (ponder the significance of the etymology of that word) others into their assembly, which was the assembly of God. Some of these they authorised to do the same.


Jesus' farewell discourse is directed to the church as a whole - as in the prayer which follows it, in which he explicitly says that he is praying "on behalf of all those who will believe in me through your word."
As per above, I agree.


Of course I can see you working here in an attempt to limit the ability of Christians to discern the truth to EO bishops, but the attempt is stillborn.
I do not limit the ability to discern the truth to Orthodox bishops. You're confusing Orthodox ecclesiology with Roman.

I limit the ability of Christians to properly discern truth to the entire New Covenant community. And I limit the right of admission to the New Covenant community (ie, the office of the keys) to the New Covenant community. I cannot make myself a member of that community - rather, the community (which is the incarnation of Christ on this earth) must make me a member.


Please realize, however, that I am not claiming an individualistic right to discern spiritual truth. The promise is to the Christian community.
I agree that the promise is to the Christian community. But then, what makes you so sure that you're part of that community?


No. What's your point?
I have none. Just like you had no point when you used the statement against me.


You dodge the point that there were things that the NT writers didn't know, things that are germane to a discussion of homosexuality.
I guess I disagree that we've discovered anything new that is germane to the discussion. Modern science which has "discovered" these things typically starts from assumptions that are fundamentally unbiblical, unChristian and just plain uncorrect (yes, I know that is spelled incorrectly but I was just playing with the alliteration :smile:). Scientific reductionism, for example, is the underlying assumption behind the whole "nature v nuture" argument, and it completely ignores the question of free will, and assumes that a person's actions are wholly determined by their genes or their environment. I reject much of such modern science that starts from these assumptions, because it is not true science - rather, it is attempts at self-justification. "I can't help it - it's the way I am" is a lie from Satan that scientific reductionism seeks to justify. It is not science that I object to, per se, but science falsely so-called.


Instead, you want to speak in terms of generalities - & not very good generalities. Christianity isn't Stoicism.
Now you're clutching. You know as well as I do that the early Christians spoke in terms very similar to the Stoics, as regards the concept of passions and their denial (or at least, if you don't, then you should). The early Christians knew of lust. Whether that lust be for food, wealth, or sex (and yes, even within marriage it is possible for sex to become lustful), it was seen as a passion to be overcome - not something to be indulged.


It should not take advice from them but it should give serious consideration to scientific results and such consideration may indeed result in some changes from "tradition." In connection with the soul this is certainly appropriate because many biblical scholars and theologians have come to realize that scripture is not nearly as supportive of a dualist anthropology as has often been thought. You might look at the collection of essays edited by Warren Brown et al, Whatever Happened to the Soul? (Fortress, 1998).
Given that "dualist anthropology" has a number of different connotations, I'm not quite sure which of these you are implying here. Assuming the most usual of these (Platonic dualism), I will say that (at least as far as I understand) the Orthodox do not believe in a dualist anthropology. The soul is that which distinguishes a live body from a corpse. Assuming I've understood you correctly, this would just be yet another case of these "biblical scholars and theologians" finally rediscovering that which the Orthodox never forgot. :smile:

If you're interested in hearing a little bit more about my view on this, you might want to follow the abortion thread in Christianity 201.


My example is an excellent one. The Hebrew raqia` in other places refers to something made of metal. LXX stereomatos & V firmamentum refer to something solid ("firm") followed of course by KJV "firmament." Westermann in his critical commentary translates it "solid vault" in 1:6. & by your own earlier argument - that the biblical writers knew what they were writing - this is what the writer of Genesis 1 meant. & that's quite consistent with the cosmologies of the ancient near east. See the article "Cosmogony" in the IDB.

& there are other examples. I already mentioned the 6 days. More on request.

& this is important precisely because it gets rid of your notion that science can't help us to gain better understanding of things spoken of in scripture. It is in the nature of a reductio ad absurdum of that idea.
I'm not about to get into yet another sidetrack over cosmogony, so let me grant your point for the sake of argument (you may well be right).

The problem with your example is that the Bible is not intended to be a cosmogony textbook. It is, however, intended to be a book which talks about the nature of God, the nature of man, man's relationship to God, and sin's effect on that relationship. Psychology and anthropology is one of the core subjects of the Bible. It's one thing to say that the Bible was a little mistaken on side-issues that it addresses. It is quite another to claim that it is quite seriously mistaken on its core subject matter.


Here the question of sexual orientation (which you would like to avoid) becomes important. For if the biblical writers were in fact not aware that some people do have a non-volitional homosexual orientation then they're not necessarily talking about the same things that we are today - unless you think that that sexual morality is exclusively about where people put their genitals.
For a Christian, there is no such thing as "non-volitional orientation" for anything. When a person is baptised into Christ, they are freed from bondage to sin. Any sin they commit thereafter is volitional. To quote one Christian writer (whose name escapes me): "For a Christian, there is no such thing as "I can't", only "I won't"." That is the essence of the Gospel, and we are to reject any "scientific" conclusions which seek to overturn this position as a "contrary Gospel".


Please note that I am not arguing here that the church should approve of homosexual activity. The point is simply that the issues do need to be examined and cannot be dealt with simply by an appeal to tradition.
I do realise that you haven't argued that homosexual activity should be approved. I've never accused you of that.


For a start, one might add a prayer for their freedom.
That is assuming that freedom is what is best for them. Much wiser to simply pray for God's mercy on them and let God in His wisdom decide what form that mercy will take.


Where did you get the idea that I imagined every verse of scripture can be quoted appropriately to a person in any situation in life?

Because you said that there wouldn't be anything wrong with quoting the verse from I Peter to someone enslaved today.
I can't help but feel that my question has remained unanswered.


Yes - if they can't gain their freedom. But if they can?
If they actually can gain their freedom, and yet continue to willingly submit to slavery, then they are truly free. Free in the spiritual sense - in the sense that they are not controlled by earthly desires for worldly freedom.

Worldly freedom, like many things in this world, is a blessing from God. But like all blessings from God, it can be made into an idol. The danger for a slave is that worldly freedom becomes an idol, and the irony is that in idolising worldly freedom they become spiritually enslaved to their idol. This is the danger that St Peter (and later Christian writers) were worried about.

The Stoic philosopher Epictetus (a freedman himself) spoke at length about the true nature of freedom, and he also argued that true freedom was a state of the inner being - not of external, worldly freedom. His advice for slaves was similar to St Peter's. I suppose you're going to accuse him of not being concerned for justice for the slave too? :ahem:

It's a pity that Epictetus and St Paul never got to meet. I think that they would have had a lot to talk about.


There is nothing virtuous about accepting oppression when one can avoid it.
Now you're ridiculously overgeneralising in order to try and justify your position. Let me ask you three questions:

1. Did Christ have the power to avoid the oppression of the Cross?
2. Was His crucifixion not a virtuous act?
3. Do you acknowledge that the above two questions combined indicate that your original statement was overgeneralised?

The virtue of accepting oppression depends (as does the virtue of any human act) on its intention. Is one accepting oppression for their own glory? Or are they accepting it in the hope that their oppressors (or others) will see the light of the Gospel in their sacrifice and be drawn to God? In short, it boils down to one thing (as does the virtue of every human act): is it a selfish motivation, or a selfless one?

Christ was certainly in a position to avoid oppression if He had so desired. In the end He accepted oppression willingly. This was virtuous because He did not do it to glorify Himself, but to save the world and to glorify God. His voluntary crucifixion, like all His actions, were completely selfless.


The church has condemned those who try to become martyrs.
Not quite. The Church condemned those who actively went out to seek martyrdom for their own glory. Ie, their intentions were not pure, but selfish - they were not doing it for the sake of Christ, nor for the good of the Church, nor for the sake of those outside the Church.

The Church did not condemn those who refused to flee martyrdom, as you implied. I hope you'll appreciate that this is a subtle yet important difference between actively seeking martyrdom for your own glory, and refusing to flee martyrdom. For example, St Ignatius did not actively seek martyrdom, but when he was arrested he went willingly to his death and requested that the Christians not try and rescue him from his fate.

Another reason your comment is not strictly applicable in context is because we're not strictly talking about a death sentence with slavery, but a "soft" martyrdom.


Would you encourage a woman with an abusive husband to stay home and let her husband beat her? Would it be spiritually immature for her to go to a battered women's shelter?
That depends on many factors, as per above.

I also did not say that it is spiritually immature for a slave to seek freedom. I said that only the spiritually mature could follow St Peter's advice. Again, a subtle difference. It would be spiritually immature for a spiritually immature person to attempt something that only the spiritually mature should attempt.


& I'm sorry you don't consider yourself a saint - i.e., a believer in Christ.
Come now, George - now you're just trying to be adversarial for the sake of it. We've had this discussion before (at least, you and George B have). "Saint" is used in more than one sense, and you know exactly which sense I was using it. Don't equivocate.


Because their protest was based on the fact that they thought the existing laws were morally wrong.
What their motivation was doesn't change the fact that their protest was effective. That is my point - passive resistance in the face of oppression is an effective witness. Oppressors rely on the fear of oppression to control the oppressed. When the oppressed willingly submit to the oppression, the oppressors lose that control - the oppressed take it away from them.

(Btw, were those engaging in non-violent protest virtuous? After all, they could have avoided oppression if they'd wished...)


1st, to be frank, I think that ignoring justice for the slave shows a bit more moral obtuseness than does lack of concern for the slaveowner's investment.
:sigh: And you wonder why I couldn't be bothered replying to you when you blatantly misrepresented me like this?

Allow me to quote myself: "I agree that the slave should ideally receive justice. However, the question that you are totally avoiding is the question of who is going to pay for that justice."

Please do not misrepresent me again by insinuating that I am ignoring justice for the slave. I am concerned with justice for the slave. You and I are in agreement on this point. If I do not mention it from here on in, it's not because I'm not concerned about it, but because I take it as a given and I expect that you do. There's no point continually discussing a topic that we both agree on. If you misrepresent me on this point again, I will not respond further in this thread.

Having agreed that justice for the slave is a good and desirable goal, we are left with an equally important question (which is the same question I asked in my last post): who should pay for this justice?

You seem to assume that the slaveowner should pay. I am challenging this assumption. Why must it be the slaveowner? Why not you, or me? Or indeed, why can't the slave himself pay for it, where this payment takes the form of working for his master?


& since you're so enthusiastic about people being willing to suffer oppression, what's wrong with suggesting to a slaveowner that he accept some economic damage?
It depends. In Philemon, I believe St Paul refrained from making that suggestion because he wanted to give Philemon the opportunity to take that initiative under his own steam, rather than under the whip. God loves a cheerful giver, and all that.

Also note that I shouldn't suggest that someone do something that I wouldn't be willing to do myself - otherwise, in judging him I am judging myself. If I am not willing to pay for the slave's freedom myself, then I have no right to insist that the slaveowner does. Or for that matter, why can't the slave accept the economic damage, in the form of the economic worth of his labour? Indeed, some early Christians actually did this - rather than insisting that the master free a slave, they sold themselves into slavery so that they could raise the funds to free others.

In an ideal Christian community, the question of who pays for it (me, the slaveowner, or the slave) is moot anyway, because all economic output by which slaves might be freed in effect belongs to God, and not to any individual in the community. Thus, God pays for it.


& if slavery is wrong then holding slaves is. & the slaveowner has the status of a receiver of stolen property.
So it would be better to leave them in the custody of the slave trader?


But of course for any large-scale manumission to be carried out peacefully there would have to be some payment made for slaves by, e.g., the government. Lincoln was prepared to make such an offer to the South but that couldn't be carried through.
Well, you're in effect conceding a major portion of the essence of my point - which is that justice for the slaves, while desirable, does not come for free - it has an economic cost.

Having agreed that freeing slaves has an economic cost, can you justify your insistence that this ecomonic cost should have been borne only by the slave owners? Because this is the remainder of our disagreement. I do not see why this burden should automatically fall on slave owners (not all of whom were exceedingly wealthy). It should be equally the responsibility of anyone who could afford it.


Since you did in fact speak about slavery without qualification as in terms of ""Two people entering into an agreement," any misrepresentation is due to your lack of clarity. If you had said, "Since in a very small fraction of cases slavery may be the result of two people entering into an agreement, slavery in the abstract cannot be condemned" it would have been another matter.
What, so it's my fault that I couldn't anticipate the unwarranted conclusions that you would jump to? What did you think I meant when I said "slavery in and of itself", if not "slavery in the abstract"???

No, the misrepresentation is not due to any lack of clarity on my part, but due to the emotional baggage you are importing into your argument. I never said that kidnapping people for slavery was acceptable, for example - you passionately jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. This is one of the reasons I didn't want to bother responding to your post.


You'd still have been wrong though. (See my initial comment.)
See my intial response.


& as I said, the number of people who have voluntarily become slaves in the strict sense - not indentured servants, persons under vows of obedience, or anything of the sort - but property, & have done that without any economic constraint or conditioning as slaves (such as those who were born & grew up in slavery) is very small.
I know that you said that. That doesn't change the fact that it is not relevant to my main point - which is that slavery in and of itself (and just so that you can't accuse me of misrepresentation again, by this I mean "slavery in the abstract" :wink:) is not wrong. Like many things, it becomes wrong when depending on how it is used - eg, if slaves are mistreated, or people are made slaves involuntarily. But neither of things are essential to slavery.


It would be interesting to see if you have any examples.
St Clement writes of Christians who sold themselves into slavery in order to raise the funds to free others in his Epistle to the Corinthians.

Shalom.

[BoundWill]

I just wanted to offer myself up to/for this thread. I'm in training to be a pastor in the ELCA, so I'm keenly aware of the issues going on in this church surrounding this topic (homosexuality, not slavery). I also have my definite opinions on it. If you want the inside view, just ask. There's too much in this thread right now for me to post anything in response, but I wanted to offer some insight.