Larry Arnhart: The Bible endorses slavery. As Mark Noll and Eugene Genovese have indicated in their recent books on the subject, the proslavery folks were able to cite the Bible as supporting their position. But we know this can't be right, because we know that slavery is wrong, and therefore we know that we need to correct the Bible. Doesn't this illustrate how we have to appeal to a natural morality to correct the Bible and other sources of revelation? Similarly, we know that when Abraham was commanded by God to kill Isaac, this was wrong. Otherwise, we would have to agree with Kiekegaard that Revelation teaches "the suspension of the ethical."
VR: I had overlooked this comment from Larry Arnhart. I appreciate someone of his influence commenting here. However, he seems to assume that the only way that Scripture can influence morality is by specific statements or proof texts. The case against slavery, for me at least, doesn't stem from "natural morality" but rather from the extension and development of biblical concepts. If we believe that every human being was created by God for eternal fellowship with God yet while on earth they are the property of others in virtue of the color of their skin, is this coherent? Without endorsing Newman's use of it as an apologetic for Catholic doctrines like the Immaculate conception, I do think the idea of doctrinal development is a useful and valuable idea for understanding theological (and other) concepts. You might want to complain that this is a poor way for God to reveal things--why not save the world a lot of trouble by adding a slavery ban to the Ten Commandments? But, as a Christian I believe that God has, for whatever reason, chosen to do it this way. There are other ethical systems that might provide a basis for the rights and dignity of human beings, (Aristotelian natural purpose, Plato's forms) but these seem to be just as unacceptable from the point of view of philosophical naturalism.
Of course, if it could be proven that traditional theism provides an inadequate support for traditional ethics doesn't mean that that support has to come from some other source. Maybe that support just doesn't exist.
19 comments:
This is a very perceptive point, Dr Reppert. Dawkins in "The God Delusion" presents a simplistic two-fold plan for how Scripture might inform morality, either through direct commandments or through role models of Biblical characters. It seems to me that a more sophisticated understanding is called for, very much like you suggest, in terms of concepts and overarching themes rather than 'obeying' a particular 'commandment'. Proof-texting is definitely not the right way to use the Bible morally and theologically.
BTW, I wonder if you've read Larry Arnhart's "Darwinian Natural Right"? The last chapter contains a critique of a version of the argument from reason that you might find interesting.
I am trying to understand the logic of how you read Biblical Revelation. You say that we can know that the Bible condemns slavery, not because of any specific condemnation of slavery, but because this follows from "the extension and development of biblical concepts." In many passages, the Bible specifically supports--even commands--slavery (for example, Lev. 25:44-46, Colossians 3:22, 4:1; I Timothy 6:1-2). Would you say that these passages are incorrect because they are contrary to "the extension and development of biblical concepts"?
The Bible specifically condemns homosexuality. But some Christians argue that today we can see that this condemnation violates "the extension and development of biblical concepts."
Would you agree? Or would you say that the Bible's specific endorsement of slavery is incorrect, while the Bible's specific condemnation of homosexuality is correct?
N.T. Wright's article on what it means for the Bible to be authoritative is usful here. Some teaching develops across scripture and some doesn't.
Matt has a good point, synching with what Victor was aiming for (I think), regarding a development of teaching across scripture. (By ‘across’ I take it Matt means the narrative flow of events. Dating of authorship of a particular text can be problematic, but the position of the text’s content in the developing _story_ is not usually problematic.)
The canonical position on homosexuality would be an obvious example of a lack of development--it’s always wrong to foment it, wherever we look in the story. The position on homosexu_als_, on the other hand, may have some development, i.e. in how they are to be treated.
Similarly murder per se is always by definition wrong in the scripture, but killing per se may have some development. I think most exegetes would agree that the general aim of ethical development in regard to violence in the scriptural story, is to arrive eventually in an age to come where killing will no longer ever be right--and the NT authors may have believed, or some of them, that it was time to finally put away the sword forever.
(St. Paul has fair things to say about magistrial justice--which in his context can only mean recognizing that Roman government was doing right to protect the peace by use of the sword where necessary!--but he has nothing positive to say in favor of Christian violence. At most, Christians are to patiently await for Christ to return and take care of any business along this line that needs taking care of. In this regard, the development perceived may be the reverse of Islam, where before the expulsion Muslims are enjoined to be peaceable and let God sort matters out, and then after the expulsion it’s time to go fight and even loot to get what’s wanted!)
These two positions may be compared, then, whether or not a scholar agrees that the NT authors believed we should already be at that stage: violence may be permitted and even positively commanded to the followers of God, but we’re supposed to be aiming for a day when we put down the sword. Again, multiple wives (never husbands!) may be permitted in accord with special circumstances, but the eventual aim is to arrive at a time when a husband shall have only one wife (a position highly in favor of the wife, not-incidentally, compared to the occasionally permitted alternative!) and perhaps in the age to come there are to be no husbands and wives at all (depending on the meaning of Jesus’ rebuttal to the Sadduceean trick question about who the wife _belongs to_ in the resurrection). I suppose no scholar anywhere with even the remostest real familiarity to the material would try to claim that polygamy was still a generally permitted enaction even for Jews in 1st century Palestine!--certainly it wasn’t permitted at all for Christians. Indeed in the record of Jesus’ discourses, the debate is over divorce permission, not polygamy, and if anything divorce is discouraged because it leads to what is in effect polygamy.
And mentioning that, we have again a clear example of a direction of ethical development in regard to the law: divorce was still lawful even in Jesus’ day, but He restricted it to very precise circumstances, and forbade remarriage afterward. The aim in this appears to be that the husband and wife should reconcile eventually; and the thrust of the injunction against divorce and remarriage seems (to me anyway, on analysis) to be in favor of the woman. (Which probably explains why the early post-Apostolic Fathers tended to treat a man’s permission to divorce as being a moot point: even though they couldn’t deny the man had permission, the men were discouraged from doing so even in those specially permitted cases, because Christ did not give up on _us_ for our adultery and betrayal of Him, but went the full distance in bearing the pain of it, so that we might be reconciled to Him eventually.)
On the other hand, there is no development, even according to principle, on the position about homosexuality per se. Whenever it is mentioned (explicitly or tacitly--when RevJohn mentions ‘dogs’ the author is most likely following an OT euphamism for male prostitutes, I expect), it is censured. But how a homosexual is to be _treated_, this side of the eschaton anyway, might be argued with some plausibility to have developed by the time we get to the NT canon.
Surely these are not unfamiliar examples to anyone engaged in sceptical disputation!--on the contrary, is it not quite common to appeal to a development (presenetd by the opponent perhaps as mere ‘change’) in what one prooftext says compared to what another one says later, and on these very topics, in an attempt to try to undermine confidence ‘in the authority of the scriptures’?!
Larry himself appears to be aware that some things change (or progress) and some things don’t, or he wouldn’t have brought up the homosexuality argument.
The question then may turn to this: where does slavery fall as a topic in the narrative progression of the scriptures? This might be rather more complicated actually, since after all we all are slaves to God (the original language doesn’t hold much distinction between ‘servant’ and ‘slave’)--whether good slaves or bad slaves. But on the topic of interhuman slavery (so to speak), does that show signs of progression, or not?
JRP
A) The Bible commands slavery.
B) The Bible endorses slavery.
C) The Bible supports slavery.
D) The Bible permits slavery.
E) The Bible regulates slavery.
F) The Bible condemns slavery.
Can there be a correct answer to this multiple choice question? Is there one answer that is more accurate than the rest?
The first issue is whether the Bible has a single position on slavery that it maintained throughout its history? From the passages that Larry quoted, Lev 25 is more likely somewhere between D and E while Col and I Tim can fit easily in E or F.
It is irrelevant whether anyone has used the Bible to argue A, B or C. It is relevant whether we believe their argument. Larry should not be so quick to endorse their logic.
After the linguistic and ethical debate is finished, the bigger question is what the God of the Bible believed and whether he was moving His fallen creation from A to F. All the people I know that see the Bible as a source for morality see progression in the ethical development. The progress is from thinking some evil (like slavery) is right to realizing it is wrong. There is an increase of sensitivity to what is good and noble. I have a hard time seeing the parallel with sexual morality moving from F to A.
"The bigger question is what the God of the Bible believed."
Based on the Bible itself, could we infer that the God of the Bible believed that slavery was good, and so the abolition of slavery manifested human sinfulness?
That was the conclusion drawn by thoughtful Christians in the United States--Southern Baptists, Southern Methodists, and Southern Presbyterians. How can we know that they were wrong based on what we know of Biblical Revelation?
Dr. Witherington posted a blog today on hermeneutics. Great read.
What it meant is what it means
Context is King
Genre Matters
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com
Larry,
"How can we know that they were wrong based on what we know of Biblical Revelation?"
Because we can judge them within the context of scripture. Prooftexting-preaching for slavery as we look back on it, reveals embedded theology based on their culture and not within the full context of the Bible. The key lies within the whole. i.e. Colossians 3:23 opens the door to understanding, "Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart as if working for the Lord, not for men." Context, context, context and of course the pie very few eat: humble pie.
I suggest that Mark Noll is correct in concluding: "It was left to those consummate theologians, the Reverend Doctors Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, to decide what in fact the Bible actually means" (THE CIVIL WAR AS A THEOLOGICAL CRISIS, p. 50).
Isn't it true that Biblical hermeneutics is often decided on the field of battle?
A reasonable person can appreciate that quite a few commands in the MosaicLaw were interim guidelines geared to a particular cultural setting. They
accomodated societal values and institutions that could not be overturned during that period of history (Matt 19:8), but established a moral trajectory that led away from them. The New Testament contains that which
the Hebrew law was aiming toward.
The commands about slavery in the New Testament do not endorse the
institution as such. In an environment where slavery was a pervasive fact of life, it is
understandable that slaves were better advised to give good service than to provokes conflicts, and that Christian masters were counseled to go
easy on their slaves. There are no commands to take slaves, nor any blanket value judgment in favor of slavery. Least of all is there anything than can be construed as justification for using government topromote and protect slavery, or for resorting to force against govermental authorities in order to keep slaves as occurred during the
American Civil War. Christians are commanded to be obedient citizens unless the government orders them to disobey God. First-century Christians suffered the plundering of their material goods and even the loss of their lives without offering violent resistance. They could not have
even begun to contemplate organized violence in defense of slavery, of all things.
If theology could be established by violent means, then Jesus and the early Christians were proved wrong. Jesus was crucified and the early Christians were frequently slaughtered. Obviously, the tenor of Christianity runs in another direction, that the perpertrators of violence are more likely to be the losers in God's eyes.
3-1/2 page post coming up. Bear with me, I have several interconnected points to discuss. (Not against Larry, incidentally.) This includes why I believe, scripturally and theologically, the abolishment of slavery is supposed to be a Christian doctrine, even though for a _very_ long time it wasn't.
Larry asks: {{How can we know that they were wrong based on what we know of Biblical Revelation?}}
This leads into the observation (and a sensible one, too, I think), that it's impossible to interpret scripture purely on scriptural grounds. The ditch on the _other_ side of that horse is to ignore context altogether; but even maxims such as 'context is king' etc. are hardly biblical instructions for interpreting scripture; and even if that was true, the question would still remain 'why follow that rule instead of reading that rule in light of something else?' The answer might seem obviously to be 'because of common sense, duh!'--but 'common sense' is an exterior standard of interpretation, too. Duh. {g}
It's easy enough to say that those Southern Bapts/Presbs/Meths (and not a few northern ones, too, incidentally) revealed embedded theology based on their culture and not within the full context of the Bible, when they were arguing in favor of slavery. But weren't the guys up north (and some down south as well) arguing against slavery based on _their_ culture, too?
If the anti-slavery advocates were clearly (and only) making full-context arguments, we probably wouldn't be having the debate right now; we'd be discussing their clearly famous full-context justifications instead of coming up with pretty good quips from Mark Noll about how the matter of who had the correct interpretation was really settled, and saying 'context context context' while quoting a pretty good verse from Col 3:23 that has nothing at all remotely to do with interpreting the Bible by context context context or even about interpreting the Bible at all. Though it _does_ have to do with slaves not rebelling against their masters but being good slaves. In context. {s} The masters are entreated a few verses later to be good to their slaves, remembering they themselves have a Master in heaven, Who (in a bridging verse) will be bringing the consequences to doers of injustice and unfairness without partiality (i.e. against masters who refuse to treat their slaves in love and fairness, too). But they aren’t directly entreated to free those slaves. The fact that Onesimus has apparently been freed by Philemon is not mentioned and has to be inferred from Paul's pastoral appeal. Indeed the timing of the letter one way or another has to be tenuously inferred in order to get _that_ inference!
The Philemon letter does have the closest thing to an authoritative injunction that a particular slave be freed, namely Onesimus, but it isn’t even made though Paul does state pretty clearly that he _could_ make it. He’d rather Philemon do the right thing for sake of love, however, not for sake of authoritative command.
(Fwiw, Larry, this is what I would appeal to in favor of the notion that the progression is supposed to be to freedom of slaves, and not only in a spiritual sense--though _that_ theme is more widespread throughout scripture and frankly even more important. But I think the topic of Victor’s discussion is more about why interpretations are difficult to get than about solutions to particular problems. Besides which, clearly lots of people for a long time took this as being some special exception on Paul’s part for Onesimus, not least because Paul _didn’t_ make a doctrinal command on it including places like Colossians where one might have been expected and helpful, especially in light of Onesimus being referenced there shortly afterward. Thus, in respect of the difficulties involved, I continue with the comment. {s})
Again, it's easy enough to say in hindsight that the pro-slavery advocates weren't working at being slavers with all their hearts as if working for the Lord, not for men. But if they _had been_ (or even were) working at being slavers with all their hearts as if working for the Lord and not for men, then how exactly would they have gotten out of slavery on Biblical grounds of being good slavers for the Lord?
This isn't a case like homosexuality where it was never even regulated much less permitted much less enjoined etc. (I very much like Mike's comment, incidentally. Derek's, too.) Nor is it a case like polygamy and/or divorce, where we have a direct word from Jesus (as the ultimate Authority Himself) that even though it may have been permitted and regulated it was for not-very-flattering-special-case-purposes and the real goal was something else.
Derek's comment is very well put, and I don't disagree with it, but it still leaves us looking for a clear progression per se on the matter. By default of the social situation Derek aptly describes, the NT Christians weren't in a position to do anything about slavery as an institution, but they _were_ in a position to enjoin the release of their own slaves anyway as a matter of doctrinal establishment. And aside from a pastoral recommendation from Paul to Titus, which isn't given with doctrinal authority, there isn't anything like that given. Which is why there were theological debates about it, and why slavery wasn't abolished in a Christian land until Ireland's conversion under Patrick in the early 500s (if I recall correctly).
On the other hand--I think it needs to be recognized, too, that anti-slavery Christians think there are key principles in the scriptures we ought to be living by that lead us to abolish slavery. It's too simple to answer 'context context context', because a full context is going to have to account in definite statements involving slavery as well as statements that have nothing specifically to say about slavery but have important things to say about principle: but context only says we'll be reading one set in light of the other. Context-principle by itself gives _no_ help in deciding which set to read and interpret in light of the other.
I myself would say that the Bible and God’s intentions (whatever they may _look_ like at the time) ought to be interpreted in light of love and fair-togetherness, and that this will lead rightly to the abolishment of slavery (among other things); moreover that Paul was correct not to make it a mere authoritative command, too, even though slavery _could_ have been eliminated in Christian societies very much more quickly by means of a direct command. But obviously I have theological reasons for saying so, and if I only appeal back to the Bible for the grounding of those reasons then the fatal question could be asked again: why interpret those verses according to the intention of God fulfilling love and fair-togetherness, instead of in some other way that involves God _not_ intending either to do this fulfillment or else to keep on working toward it?
One might suppose that if I appealed to this, that even Christians who believe and interpret the Bible on (what they think is) the Bible alone, might accept my reasoning on it without accusing me of appealing to some wussy liberal vacuous non-creedal merely emotional drivel. But I can testify as a matter of plain experience, there are Christians who do this, even when I explain that I’m talking about adhering to orthodox trinitarian doctrine.
One might then suppose, okay, but those Christians are obviously deranged; _most_ Bible-believing Christians (at least) would agree that I am doing exactly the right thing by interpreting the meaning of scripture in light of a doctrine of God’s committment to fulfill love and fair-togetherness, so long as by this I am talking about adhering to orthodox trinitarian doctrine.
But I can testify again from plain and extremely _common_ experience, that most of those same Christians absolutely will not accept that ground for interpretation, _even though_ I explain that I am doing so out of a concern for coherent orthodox doctrine which they themselves would otherwise accept.
I know this, because this is precisely my ground for being a Christian universalist in my interpretation of scripture. And it makes absolutely no difference at all to any of the same nominally orthodox people who insist on accepting hopeless damnation instead as a scriptural doctrine.
(So, what say you J? Care to affirm that I should interpret scripture according to a trust in the orthodox trinitarian God Who is Love, that He will be acting to fulfill love and fair-togetherness i.e. righteousness? That’s my ground for affirming that God is aiming for the abolishment of slavery, despite occasional appearances to the contrary in the scriptures. It’s my ground for affirming that God is aiming for the salvation of all sinners from sin, too, despite occasional appearances to the contrary in the scriptures--though as it happens I have many more direct verses I could appeal to in favor of this than I can appeal to in favor of abolishment of slavery as a goal. Not incidentally, the two themes of freeing those in captivity and freeing those being punished by God for sin, are incorporated in the Isaianic passages quoted by Christ in His inaugural sermon at Nazareth--right before He is run out of town by the enraged populace...)
JRP
The Bible never says, "Slavery is wrong."
Why?
Soooooo.... after taking several hours and going to the trouble to write a 3-1/2 page post where I point out various complexities involved, with sensitivity to sceptical complaints on the topic, as well as answering why I think the Bible does teach that slavery should be abolished, Larry's reply is to simply repeat the question "The Bible never says, 'Slavery is wrong.' Why?"
Never mind, Larry; sorry I wasted my time when I could have been working on something else. You and J can snipe at each other back and forth without me. That seems to be as far as you're willing to go in thinking about the subject, and it's probably more fun anyway.
JRP
My question was not whether it was possible to make a theological argument for why the Bible SHOULD say, "Slavery is wrong." I agree with you that the answer to that question is yes.
My question was why DOESN'T the Bible say what it SHOULD say--"Slavery is wrong"?
Why does the Bible have to spell things out?
In all the talk of Paul, I haven't seen anyone mention his advice that if it was possible for a person to become free, they should by all means do so.
Why is slavery wrong? It is the mistreatment and debasement of humans that make it wrong. If the entire New Testament is constantly telling us to be merciful, loving, and treat others with respect and fairness, what would slavery look like if these virtues were practiced? Would it even be slavery? It would probably be more like having indentured servants that were treated well.
So, why should the Bible say "No Slavery" in the context of all of the principles already established?
Also...besides the idea of embedded theology, we must remember that preaching which monetarily benefits the preacher and his status quo can be held suspect.
Good thoughts, Terri, D. Barefoot, and Pratt!
{{My question was why DOESN'T the Bible say what it SHOULD say--"Slavery is wrong"?}}
My answer (up in that 3-1/2 page post) was that St. Paul wouldn't have been threatening to make an authoritative order to Philemon about freeing Onesimus (in an epistle of "the Bible"), if he didn't believe that slavery should be abolished; and that he must have thought that making it an authoritative order would be a mistake; and that the contextual evidence is that he thought it would be a mistake because some things ought to be done for sake of love and not simply because someone in authority commanded you to. (Which fits Paul's agape-theology in relation to Law, pretty well. Ultimately _everything_ should be done for sake of love; love fulfills the Law.)
After that it gets complicated. Which I was careful to admit and even describe in some detail, with sympathy to sceptical complaints about the complexity of situation which can only look unsatisfactory when a mere command would have (on the face of it) solved everything immediately. But a mere command was precisely what St. Paul avoided giving even though he makes it clear he could have. And so we're back to St. Paul's reasons for why he _didn't_ just make a clear command. Which I also explicated at some length and connected to higher (or deeper or more fundamental) levels of theology.
Freedom isn't something that can just be commanded; it has to be _loved_ into effect--I mean loved in regard to other people, not loved as a mere abstract idea. A strong scriptural theme across the OT and NT both (which I also mentioned with importance) is that everyone is already under slavery right now and needs freedom. But because this freedom can't be just poofed into effect, much less only legislated into effect, it does mean as a corollary that freedom from the social institution of slavery (which is a social outgrowth of that more fundamental slavery) will be protracted in its process, too.
There is some historical evidence to the same effect, by the way. St. Patrick freed the Irish slaves by authoritative command, and the rest of Europe followed suit fairly quickly (where they hadn't done so already under Christianity); but what was the real result? Serfdom under feudalism, and indentured servitude. It was just slavery again, somewhat mitigated and with some improvements of prospects, but still slavery. Some of it was done for sake of love to fellow men under God, but for the most part it was done to avoid divine punishment (at best). The history of Europe (and America) subsequently in regard to out-and-out slavery tells us how much was done out of charity to other people, and how much was done for personal protection: once the serfs began to disappear as a class, what happened? (The answer to this question is 'duh'. {s})
JRP
Let me also add that the only answer that can be given to a question like "why doesn't the Bible say what we think it should say", _is_ a "theological answer". It isn't like I can point to a prooftext in "the Bible" that explains why "the Bible" doesn't say something that we wish "the Bible" _had_ said because we think it's something worth saying. And even if I could, we get into the whole interpretation-grounds thing, which is why I started off talking about the problems with that. (And in sympathy with sceptical complaints, too.)
Paul's stated reasons for why he _didn't_ give an authoritative command to Philemon to free Onisimus (but expected and hoped for Philemon to do it anyway) are pretty close to such a "prooftext" though if that's all you want. If I was the kind of person who takes one "prooftext" and applies it broadband across "the Bible" as a whole, then I would answer: "the Bible" says that "the Bible" doesn't command against slavery because "the Bible" expects us to damn-well learn to do the right thing for love's sake in _something_ at least and not just because "the Bible" demands us to do it somewhere in a prooftext. See Phil verses 8-21 where "the Bible" says so, though not in quite those terms.
I don't like giving answers of that sort, though, and it didn't seem to me that you'd really want or respect an answer of that sort.
JRP
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
World of Warcraft gold
power leveling
powerleveling
power leveling
Post a Comment