Last night my buddy Chris Flanders taught on the book of Philemon. He named the elephant in the room: that Paul does not specifically condemn slavery.
Because he didn’t, the pro-slavery crowd (in American history) loved Philemon. Here was the one chance for scripture to condemn the ownership of a human being . . . and it didn’t.
Thankfully, over time we’ve rejected that understanding of scripture. We’ve come to understand that Paul’s “conservative social ethic” stems, at least in part, from his belief that the second coming was right around the corner. Besides, he was part of a tiny Christian minority that had little influence on the practices of Rome.
But that doesn’t mean that he was supportive of slavery. He was trying to control the damage in this fallen world. And in the process, he and the early Christians were putting in motion forces of love and justice that would eventually upend the evil of slavery in many places.
We look back with embarrassment on how some of our American brothers and sisters of the nineteenth century argued that God is pleased with slavery.
It makes you wonder where else people will be looking back in the future, doesn’t it?
- - - -
Buried in comments from a couple days ago were these words I wrote to Leland. They don’t solve any problems . . . but Leland raised the critical question of what we’re to do with so much of the violence of the Old Testament, especially those passages where the Israelites are told to kill every living thing. Here are some thoughts after years of being bothered by this problem.
Leland - I have no easy answers for you, my friend. The passages bother me, too. The whole idea of “herem” (Hebrew word for “a devoted thing” to be destroyed completely - Num. 21:2-3; Dt. 7:2; Josh 6:21; 8:26; 10:28; 11:11, etc.) is mind-boggling. It has always thrown me for a loop as a believer. If I was writing a book to upend faith this is where I’d start (as, e.g., Sam Harris has).
I understand the Marcionites well! They couldn’t reconcile the God who is revealed by Jesus Christ (”turn the other cheek” . . . “love your enemy”) with the vicious God of the OT, so they insisted these were two different Gods.
And it wearies me that people have a way of reading Jesus through the OT stories like these — rather than let Jesus be the center of scripture through whom we understand redemption history.
I plead ignorance. At the end of the day, I am a follower of Jesus who puts my trust in him and his ways — including his confidence in the story of Israel.
These stories are not the high points of the Old Testament, for sure.
But what if . . . God had been pleading with the people of Jericho to yield to him, to turn from their ways of violence and oppression (as in Sodom)?
What if we read this story like the flood — God’s attempt to create a fresh start? He has chosen a people to held restore the world. He, in his sovereignty, offers them a land that has been promised. And through that beachhead, he intends to bless all people — ever country, every group, every family.
I know. I know. It doesn’t solve everything for me, either.
You ask good questions, amigo.
It makes you wonder where else people will be looking back in the future, doesn’t it?
A great question. Any thoughts? I’d be interested to hear others chime in on this question.
It’s a good reminder that ALL of us are influenced by culture. Living in the moment, we all think that we’ve finally escaped the things that have blinded others to the “true” meaning of scripture, not realizing that we’ve often exchanged those filters for a different set. When we live with an “I’m right and I can’t wait for everyone to mature into my position” attitude, we’ll never get past the things that cloud our vision.
Grace and peace,
Tim
One thing I’ve found very helpful in addressing concerns like those Leland voiced is to read some very smart people talk about “metaphorical theology,” and approaching Scripture as “mythology.” And, before the whipping begins, “mythology” does not necessarily mean something is false, but rather it is a sort of foundational narrative. I know this flies in the face of everything I’ve learned in my 28+ years in the CoC, but maybe we’ve downplayed the human element in all of Scripture (those who wrote, compiled, selected, deleted, edited the stories that have come down to us).
I mean, seriously…I was only a sophomore at a certain college when I realized, “Hey, if God didn’t create people until later in the week, who was writing down all the things he did on days one and two?”
And then began my slow descent into something other than CoC orthodoxy. Once you open that door…
Mike, you make for some very interesting thought. My personality gets me caught up in trying to figure out God, and why things have happened, or are happening, the way they have. Here are my thoughts on the matter. I have to realize that I am never going to be able to understand God. My timetable and his transcendance of time will never work together. Also, I have begun this line of thinking that by trying to predetermine what God is going to do, or by putting my reasoning into what God has done, is me trying to put myself on an equal plain with God. Very dangerous place to be. It is hard not to try to control everything in life, but giving everything to the Lord sure does take away fear, pain, and anxiety. I wish I was smart enough to learn this lesson once, but it seems to be a lesson I learn almost daily.
GKB,
I connect with what you’re saying. To “open that door” has allowed me to engage disturbing passages like Ps. 137 and connect with the human pain expressed there, rather than try to make infanticide “fit” some kind of imposed theological category.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/credits.html My husband and I were discussing this last night until my daughter came in and asked us if we were going to get a divorce:) So many ways everyone can help with very little effort here. Ex. Take your own coffee mug to church!
I guess I am like BGC… but then I read and re-read Hebrews 11:1:
“The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It’s our handle on what we can’t see. The act of faith is what distinguished our ancestors, set them above the crowd.” The Message
and this humbles me…
By no means am I advocating a simple-minded, uninformed faith, but it all gets down to whether we are going to trust God. You know, that infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing God who created us.
Jon,
Perhaps the greatest heresy a CoCer can commit would be to admit that there’s a possibility that the Lord God in Heaven did not whisper those words about dashing babies against rocks into the ear of some scribe. If you allow the slight possibility that some angry Hebrew, carted off by a victorious enemy penned these words to vent his frustration, it’s very easy to see the whole enterprise come crashing down. It becomes incredibly difficult, then, to say what God DID say, and what others may have said, so we typically tend to say God said it all, and leave it at that. Leave the intellectual or psychological issues at the door, that’s what faith is for…
Then please, call me a heretic!
“It becomes incredibly difficult, then, to say what God DID say, and what others may have said, so we typically tend to say God said it all, and leave it at that”
And then we only quote those passages that fit our beliefs–our canon within a canon.
I start by saying I don’t know…
Something I’ve been trying to work out in my brain is that maybe the NT doesn’t admonish the practice of slavery because in the form that it existed, it wasn’t spiritually significant. In other words, if we are going to say our freedom is defined by our relationship with Christ, then our roles on earth are really not important at all. I’d like to think that this view would be valid no matter what culture or family or church you grow up in. If you are poor or powerful or a woman or influential or a black sheep or an elder or whatever, none of those things define you. What gives you freedom is Christ crucified. To demand elevation because of any of these is to place more emphasis on the flesh/worldly status (high or low). Rather, each day that I wake up I am a saved soul. Everything else is just details.
I won’t be offended if you disagree with me.
We do see in the New Testament those Christians who had slaves were to treat them good and kind, Christ-like.
Slaves were to work hard for their masters without complaining. The slave was to have the Christ-like attitude having the fruit of the Spirit in his or her life.
Master and Slave were disciples were to live as Christ. Each were set free from the bondage of sin and dead. Each were now under grace.
In America I think alot of the Christian forgot that they were Christians and the slaves were Christians as well. Each were brothers in Christ. Each were to treat eachother in a Christlike mannner. So, I think that is really what started the war. Free the slaves becausse they were being mistreated by their masters.
The movie Amazing Grace is so powerful.
It made me cry.
If you havent seen it, it is a must see.
GKB, if one was going to take what was in scripture and create God in his own image, how would it be different from what you are suggesting here?
The OT certainly reveals an anthropomorphic view of God. These - the violent stories - were how the people understood God and how they looked back and interpreted their actions but I think we can say with confidence that God was not interested in killing every living thing. Unless we are willing to say that the God of the OT is not the God revealed to us in Jesus Christ. And I don’t think any of us are willing to go down that road. Are we?
http//:www.storyofstuff.com/credits.html (When you get there click home and watch the movie)
Jim,
I’m certainly not talking “creating God in my own image,” but just being honest about some difficulties that emerge from a fundamentalist/literalist reading of the texts.
Look at the dates of writing for much of the Old Testament. Is it even conceivable (in an academic thought-experiment kind of way) that a bunch of people were sitting around in the middle of the land on the eastern side of the Mediterranean and decided they needed some foundational stories to explain how they came to be there, and how they should conduct their lives together? Perhaps they decided to construct a creation narrative that worked for them, and cast their deity in a very different way (much different, in fact, from those pagan Philistines or Hittites or Assyrians…). Is it even possible to entertain the notion? I haven’t found very many places where that sort of thinking is tolerated.
I’m not accusing you of creating God in your own image, all I am asking is this: If one decided to go the scripture to see what it says about God and then decided to create God in his own image, how would it be different from what you are doing?
Jim,
I am afraid I don’t really understand the question. Does the “his” refer to God (as in “form God in God’s own image”) or to the person doing the creating (as in “Dave creating God in Dave’s own image”)?
The latter, Dave creating God in Dave’s own image.
Those OT texts are the first thing I would remove from scripture if I could. It’s tough to see a God who wants to bless all people, kill a people group entirely. Its so unfortunate that some people can forget the witness of Jesus’ life and instead cling to the conquest narratives as rationale for certain behavior such as foreign policy and using “power over” instead of power under with those outside of Church.
I am currently reading “god is not Great” by Christopher Hitchens. I am at the point of my greatest doubt. For the first time in my life I have allowed myself to entertain the notion that Hitchens and others might just be right, and it scares me. When I read some of the responses here and other blogs I am left wondering if we really do have a reasoned response to the likes of Hitchens.
Maybe it’s a matter of degrees, or motive.
Dave creating God in Dave’s image might be driven by a desire to have a deity in his corner, to back up his arguments. I mean, if Dave wants to dash babies on rocks, he can certainly pick and choose parts of Scripture to do that.
And that’s different from people who want to go back and re-read texts with a mytho-poetic narrative lens.
Does that begin to get at the question?
god made it pretty clear in the levitical law how to handle slaves. the new testament is replete with references to slavery. are we being intellectually honest when we say that we’ve rejected a specific interpretation of slavery?
personally, i can understand how people accepted slavery as a societal norm. it was all they ever knew. ancient jewish and christian writings never condemned the practice. it was a way of life. it would have been so incredibly hard to look past history and look past holy scripture and abolish the practice. great men and women of faith and those with no faith gave up everything to fight against slavery. true acts of heroism.
if we see scripture as a miracle from god’s mind. then we have so many major issues with women and slavery and Israelite atrocities in the jewish and christian texts. just to name a few. but if we see the good book as a mixture of literal history and metaphor, an ancient people pointing toward god. than it is much easier to understand the historical context and not be forced to rationalize how scripture never condemned a gross and inhuman system. damage control for a fallen world and accepting a gross and inhuman practices are two separate things.
Besides Philemon, I’ve considered: Eph. 6:5-8, Col. 3:22-25, I Tim. 6:1-2, I Pet. 2:18, & Tit. 2:9-10, (written to slaves); Eph. 6:9 & Col. 4:1, (written to masters); and I Tim. 1:8-11 (condemning slave traders). Secular slavery wasn’t condemned; slave trading was.
I understand I Cor. 5:9-13 as setting the parameters of a disciple’s spiritual concerns which should extend only to a brother (or sister) e.g. a brother who was a slave trader would need to be confronted with his/her being “ungodly and sinful” just as would a brother who was sexually immoral, greedy, idolatrous, etc.
What principle of Biblical interpretation extends a brother’s (or sister’s) spiritual concerns to those outside the church, since “God will judge those outside…”?
A brother or sister in Christ should focus on the extent to which he or she is completely submissive to our Lord and Master, i.e. a fully committed, spiritual slave. Distractions and diversions abound.
Doubting,
Randall Helms’ “Gospel Fictions,” is what through me into my first real crisis of faith. In terms of a “reasoned response to the likes of Hitchens,” well, that’s precisely the question that gets to the issue of faith in the 21st century, especially in light of the “new atheism.” Many of our traditional apologetics just don’t fly.
I don’t have the “reasoned response.” I have a lot of questions. It’s a scary thing (for me) to wake up in the morning and think, “what if there really isn’t a God?” I take comfort in what someone said to me about 3 years ago, “if there is no doubt in faith, how can it really be faith?”
The doubt/faith tension is all over the pages of the Bible–especially the OT.
Working the 12 steps of recovery, especially steps 1-3, have helped me re-discover God and find hope in the midst of powerlessness and doubt. I don’t know how “reasonable” that is.
Thanks for your honesty.
GKB,
i am so glad to have grown up in the cofc. great people trying to live for god. but when i really sat down and read the bible and read all sides of the arguments. it really became clear for me that i could not logically support the fact that god inspired the bible. it is more plausible for me that people were inspired by god to write the bible.
people like jospeh campbell and marcus borg have helped provide language for my journey. obviously i don’t agree with everything they say, just as i wouldn’t agree with everything you would say. but they have allowed me to take the bible seriously. just not literally.
i have never been so excited to serve and to grow and to love and to read my bible. i don’t have to hide behind biblical contradictions, additions, egregious errors and horrible acts. what i am left with is peace. peace with not knowing. peace with not having all of the answers. god is love. and my response is to love.
Mike
Please stop making me think so much. My head hurts.
Stephanie
Jon Z,
Amen.
A few weeks ago I heard a presenter note that the metaphor “The Bible says…” is often at the root of our problems with biblical interpretation. That is, we error when we take the metaphor “The Bible says…” as literal. The Bible is a book. It doesn’t speak. Only people speak. Which means that the Bible is always going to be filtered through the brain of a person who is the contingent product of their century, their nation, their gender, their family experiences, their church history, and so on. The presenter said that when we say “The Bible says…” we are actually engaging in a power play, using “The Bible” as cover for what is really only my reading of the Bible.
Richard,
I wonder what “The Bible would say” if more of its writers were women, or slaves! Feminist critiques of scripture shed light on the complexity of the inspiration issue, given the power dynamics of ancient Hebrew and early Christian society.
I like the Episcopal model of doctrine formation, with its overt appeals to Scripture, reason, and tradition. It doesn’t solve all the problems, but I think it goes further than sola scriptura.
OK, Richard, qb’ll bite. What is the distinction you would draw between, “it is written,” and, “the Bible says?” For example, when Jesus responded to the devil in the temptation myth, was he using “it is written” as, to borrow your phrase, “cover for what was only [his] reading” of the Hebrew scriptures, implying of course that there was another valid take on what he was quoting?
I guess one could adopt the position that because it was Jesus and not the hoi polloi citing the scriptures, he gets a pass. But of course, that won’t cinch the matter, because what Jesus actually said has been filtered through the pen of someone else, so perhaps that’s not precisely what Jesus said, etc., etc. Sort of like looking at the image in a mirror with another mirror behind you.
Wayne Meeks was the first one to rock my world, with his book _Jesus is the Question_. Any CoCer wanting to be tossed into the maelstrom of questioning one’s whole biblical paradigm will be immediately obliged.
qb
Hi qb,
Should The Word get a pass on his interpretation of the Word? Is that what you are asking?
Just to kick this around as well, would any self-respecting CoC’er feel good about interpreting Scripture the way Paul did? Because Paul’s interpretation of the OT is free-wheeling, highly metaphorical, and non-literal.
Speaking of free-wheeling OT interp, there was some of that going on with the circumcision issue in Acts 15. Hey, I’m glad the free-wheeling “non-literalists” won the debate (as led by Spirit-led communal discernment), or else all dudes would have to get de-hooded to get saved.
As a CoCer I’m comfortable with the Acts 15 model of doctrine formation because it’s communal, and definetly not sola scriptura.
richard…if we interpreted scripture based on paul’s leanings…we’d all be jewish! Romans 3:1-2
Jon Z.,
Amen indeed! Your final paragraph above resonated strongly with me. Especially this: “what i am left with is peace. peace with not knowing. peace with not having all of the answers.”
Knowledge is great: get what you can. But when you confess your finitude and imperfection, and when you realize that God knows that his creation cannot be flawless in knowledge (or in anything else), you can find great peace. You stop worrying about what you don’t know and start rejoicing in the knowledge that God grants you.
sola scriptura is a misnomer. it should have an asterisk.
sola scriptura*
* except for having to translate the text, work with text that has been changed or omitted from various copies, not actually be reading original copies, not being able to work with writings that some in the early church regarded as scripture, and other challenging things like our limited perspective and societal and cultural bias.
jeff w. i cannot tell you how long i beat myself up and beat up others around me before things became clearer. i have by no means “arrived”. and i fully realize that my interpretation/understanding is flawed. but this understanding has totally changed the way i look at myself and those around me. i don’t see people as “saved” or “unsaved”. i don’t see people as on the outside of my personal relationship with god. i see all of us in relationship with god. i see all of humanity as one. moving forward and moving backward. we all point toward god.
You can add a double asterisk that says “an epistemological impossibility–We read through a cultural lens.”
I maintain that fundamentalism/literalism is a hermeneutic of fear.
Fear that if we don’t get everything right, we’ll be zapped and dropped in a lake of burning fire for ever and ever.
Fear that if we misunderstand scripture, we might cause our own demise, and those under our care.
Fear that God is like the IRS, and he’s going to audit our books and if he sees one mistake, into the slammer for you!
And, it’s a fear that does not allow there to be peace in ignorance. If we work hard enough at understanding the texts, and translating them, and applying them, then we can successfully figure out exactly what God would have us do, thereby “forcing” him to count us as saved.
And once again, we circle back to Richard’s theory of being thanatocentric, and scared to death of winding up in the bad place. If we aren’t literalists or fundamentalists, if we make room for metaphor or creative interpretation, we might get it WRONG! Horror! Calamity!
I did not grow up in an abusive home, so I can’t speak authoritatively, but it seems almost like living on egg-shells scattered on thin ice, always taking the utmost care not to anger the one who will rain down retribution by leather belt, wooden paddle or lake of fire…
GKB, yes it does begin to answer the question somewhat. But, what if Dave was creating God in his own image in order to back up his arguments that his God would never have told his people to kill men, women, children, and infants? I guess I am saying I don’t see any difference between what you are doing and “people who want to go back and re-read texts with a mytho-poetic narrative lens.” One may sound a lot more intellectual than the other, but I’m not sure there is much difference.
Sorry, I mean I don’t see a lot of difference between one “driven by a desire to have a deity in his corner, to back up his arguments” and one who wants “to go back and re-read texts with a mytho-poetic narrative lens.”
Maybe there is no difference.
For me, the difference has to do with going to Scripture with an agenda, or a point of view to bolster, and one has to do with going to Scripture and seeing what surfaces, what might really be going on.
I dunno. I revel in my ignorance at times.
The African slave trade, based largely on racism and a sense of white superiority, bears little resemblance to the institution of slavery that cut across all ethnic lines in ancient Rome.
except that both systems commodified human bodies for economic gain for the priveleged classes.
See the last part of Rev. 18:11-14 for an anti-slavery voice.
In response to the question about “herem” - essentially sacrificing entire cities to God - I can only point out that there are people (and there may have been entire cultures back then) who choose to be completely opposed to God. God may have required their obliteration to help prevent the kind of cultural contamination of His people that would lead to them falling out of His grace.
He did so Himself in the time of Noah and against the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I think it speaks well of us - and reflects Christ’s nature! - that we want to give such people the benefit of our doubt about them; to think the best of them. But we don’t know their hearts, as God does. He doesn’t have to give them the benefit of any doubt, because He doesn’t have doubt. He knows.
And to count God out as being unloving because He is also just expresses a doubt of His ability to judge perfectly, in Old Testament times - or at the end of time.
We can’t, but He can.
I think Keith’s comment is well put. It kind of ties into what Mike has in the original post.
We simply can’t know. One thing I have had to correct from what I have been taught is that the Bible never claims to tell the whole story. God could have and maybe even likely was acting in ways that aren’t described in the Old Testament.
Keith,
Justice is not found in killing innocent children. Honestly, how can a baby be “completely opposed to God”? That’s the problem with herem. If God obliterated these entire cultures to save his people from “cultural contamination” as you suggest, I’d like to know who in the world (or heaven, for that matter) stands in defense for those children? If we believe that God’s core nature is love (and has always been that way), it seems nonsensical to suggest in the same breath that God can kill innocent babies. He simply can not do both.
ben. god didn’t obliterate anybody. we are reading ancient history and ancient story.
Anyone up for a conversation about Process theology?
Jon,
That’s my point.
we have a ton of progressive’s on this blog post today! hoorray. i’ve never met so many people like this on a cofc blog. this gives me hope. maybe it is time to move back to the cofc. any good ones in portland, oregon?
richard…what are your thoughts more specifically on panentheism?
Richard,
Yes
I think process theology, as a “theology from below,” is worthy to consider given the imposing theodicy question.
Some poignant phrases in Philemon:
I know, I’ve quoted nearly half of the letter. This letter is dripping with love and mercy. Those phrases scream out to me the unwritten message: Set him free. I think Philemon knew that was the message. And I think that is what he did.
jon, you need to meet ike graul in portland, oregon. you would love conversation with him and he is just a really good guy. he is part of PUMP…i think that stands for portland urban ministries.
Keith: The darkness of hearts does not excuse herem. So what if there are people who are completely opposed to God? Are they not made in his image? Are they not valuable? Could he not have foreseen this? Can he do nothing about it but obliterate them - man, woman and child? How is that justice? How is it love?
I’m tired of making excuses for God.
I haven’t given up on God. But I won’t worship a God of destruction. I follow Jesus. In the face of Jesus we see our true Father. If we think we understand something about God which does not seem to be true of Jesus, then that something deserves reconsideration.
I can’t explain the flood, or Sodom, or Jericho. I don’t have the comfort of being able to explain everything in the Bible in a way that supports my beliefs. I have learned to live with that discomfort. On the other hand, I no longer have to live with the discomfort of making excuses for God, when there is no excuse for some of the things men say about Him in an effort to be “true to scripture”.
Ben, I try never to be too quick to say what God can and can’t do.
I’ve never been good at answering the questions He put to Job, so I just share what I can read and understand and hope that it helps somebody a little further along as its helped me.
God’s core nature is love. It is also righteousness.
It is mercy. It is also justice.
We assume babies are innocent. I’d like to think so. I don’t know that anyone can prove that babies have a genetic moral predisposition. Maybe they do. Maybe not.
And maybe it was God’s mercy to end their lives before they had to endure the cruelty they might encounter and perhaps even adopt as normal. Again, I just don’t know.
What I do know is that judging God by my limited knowledge and perceptions is foolish, arrogant - and dangerous.
Paul asks, “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?” (Romans 9:22). I don’t have answer to that. I just agree that God is sovereign and has the right and ability to do what He wants when He wants and in any way He wants, consistent with His divine nature.
Mark, I can sympathize with your frustration. I’m not smart enough to explain God, but I hope I’m wise enough to understand that I don’t have to make excuses for Him. He’s God.
But if I can’t accept part of His nature, then I’m only accepting part of God. If I can’t accept the flood or Sodom or Jericho or herem, then I can’t accept His role in the cross, either. I can’t accept Isaiah 53:10 or Acts 2:23 or Hebrews 12:2.
He sees life and death from an eternal perspective, and it is by definition different from ours, which is temporal.
There’s just no grasping that.
Not for my little brain, anyway.
jon,
I’m new to the idea of panentheism (only being recently introduced to it by Matthew over at the blog Liberal Jesus) but have a few books on my shelf on the subject waiting to be read. But from what I know, I like the idea as it finds a kind of niche between pantheism and classical theism.
Concerning a biblically imagined process theology, an idea that was floated in my Wednesday night bible class had to do with the Hebrews passages about Jesus being a more perfect High Priest because he experienced human suffering and temptation. Thus, Jesus can identify with us and be a better mediator between God and man.
The resultant questions are:
What was the impact of the Incarnation on the life of God?
Did God learn something in the Incarnation?
Was the Incarnation necessary for God to “understand” us better?
Given Jesus’ more perfect intercession is God now more compassionate toward us? That is, is God a better parent?
Might this increased “empathy” in the Deity account for the seeming change in God’s character from OT to NT?
Interesting things to ponder.
I agree with Keith. I believe God has the right to say “from dust you came, and to dust you shall return.” Every human dies because of that decision of God. I think he has that right. And I believe God determines the times when we die. He has that right also. We are his. In the flood, God just set the date when all those people would die. There would have been another date anyway. They would have died one way or another. In the flood, God just chose the time and the method.
What confuses us is that WE don’t have the right to decide such things. So sometimes we feel like God doesn’t either.
God is also merciful and kind. Those attributes of God are permitted to us, and we like them in God as well as in other people. But the scriptures are plain (and not just the OT). He is the potter and we are the clay. The clay has no rights before the potter. Our fate is entirely up to God’s discretion. That is just and right.
It has probably been said better than this but I would like to mention that their slavery was not our slavery. Their slaves could be doctors, lawyers, etc and could buy themselves out. Up to 1/3 of the Roman population were probably slaves and they were not as mistreated as we think of slavery. Paul didn’t see slavery the same as we do because slavery wasn’t the same then as it was in America in the 1800s. That is why Paul didn’t condemn it. Slaves in a Christian home were bound up into the identity of their Christian masters as part of the household and under the authority of the patriarch of that family. Paul was more concerned that they be Christians than free (again, keeping in mind what I said above).
I have not read all the posts here (forgive me if this has already been said). Recently I read an essay that pointed out that ancient societies practiced a form of herem (total destruction and burning) when they were trying to stop a plague. The author suggested that this may have been one issue involved in the conquest narratives. Indeed, the records do demonstrate the presence of significant plagues in the ancient Near East from time to time. Makes me wonder… might the conquest have coincided with plague and the only way to stop it and spare Israel was herem. And although it is not an answer to the question, it reminds me that just like Israel we are called to trust that God knows what God is doing - even when it doesn’t look like it.
“Cleanse the land” was God’s command when the Israelites entered Canaan…and, no, I don’t understand the killing of innocent children or animals. When Achan sinned, his entire household was stoned. I simply trust that there are some things God knew that I don’t, and I believe those innocent children will spend eternity in heaven with God.
To think that God would not or could not destroy people leads me to think then that He would not send one to hell. Obviously, I’m going to heaven; I go to a c of c. JUST KIDDING!! (I do go to a c of c though). “The Bible says” that not all will enter. That will destroy people.
Disobedience angers God. Remember, while He is Love, Light, and all those other nice things He is also jealous. It irritates me that someone like Hitchens can cause anyone to doubt their faith in God. God does not make sense. For me, nothing else comes close to adding up explaining why I am here, how when I am hurting I get comfort (sometimes) when I ask for it, and how when I apply Micah 3 to my life the flood gates open. Hitchens thinks that because people of faith are devoted to a Man who took our sins away on a Cross, that we are less than intelligent. Sounds crazy.
Alan,
I don’t think that is a point Paul would make given the cultural considerations I mentioned above. That is just my opinion though. Onesimus is even making use of ancient custom of going to he superior of your master in order for him to plead your case. In such instances he wasn’t considered a runaway. Both Paul and Onisemus were speaking with each other in order to reconcile the relationship between Onesimus and Philemon. Paul gives it a twist to say the thing of first importance is that their relationship as Christians be reconciled and second their relationship as slave and master be reconciled. They could be slave and master and still appropriately be Christians because their slavery was not our slavery. That sounds unthinkable due to our preconceived ideas of what slavery is like.
1 Corinthians 2
1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.
2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling.
4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.
Wisdom From the Spirit
6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
7No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him”
10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16″For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
I think the hangup is death. Especially the death of the innocent. But if you have a problem with that in the OT then do you have a problem with it in the here and now?
http://www.scoopytube.com/node/70
Part of my faith is that physical death is not the end. Otherwise, how we can get through one day. To me death is not nearly as tragic as hearing that Christopher Hitchens is luring one of God’s children out of a relationship from him. Why doesn’t that turn our stomachs?
Warning - I’m a tough guy (I like to think) and that link above will probably make you cry.
There is a connection here, Mike, between your two points of interest. Could it be that both, if we are honest, force us to reconsider the fundamental nature of scripture and what it actually should mean to us in 2007?
Although we might blame Hitchens for some things we have to ask why his case is so persuasive in the first place. It’s not his fault. It’s our fault. If we fail to see how both the bible and the Christian witness makes Hitchens looks so very reasonable then we will be unable to convincingly contend for the faith. Take this thread for instance. There is way too much easy fiedism in our churches to convince a doubting child or college student to take the path of faith.
My recommendation: Let’s stop bashing Hitchens and raise the bar for ourselves, theologically speaking.
Matt,
I think there is some truth in what you say. There probably was a difference in the slavery of that culture and the slavery in America prior to the Civil War. But still, Paul said “If you can gain your freedom, do so.” (1 Cor 7:21) Quite obviously being a slave was not preferable to being free. Paul also told Philemon, “Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good–no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.”
I really wanted a little more help, but I will continue to struggle with God, but I am not going to walk away from faith just because of a book, but Hitchens is just one of a growing number of militant atheists who are challanging our basic beliefs. I would just love to see some people really interact with what he says. By the way, I am almost 50. You might be surprised at the number of people who have doubts in middle age.
1Tm:1:4: Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Doubting,
I resonate with your struggles. But here is why I think you are not getting much help.
In my opinion, there are two paths facing the church. One path we’ll call Sunday School Orthodoxy. Sunday School Orthodoxy is the mainline answer you get to most of the questions you are asking regarding things like the problem of evil, the eternal nature of hell, the inspiration of Scripture, and the status of other world religions before God (to name a few).
The trouble is, Sunday School Orthodoxy is failing on a wide scale. You can testify to this. As can millions of Christians across the world. So, what are your options?
Well, you need to take the second path. There is lots of interesting stuff going on down this road. Some of it being done by the emerging church folks and some is simply being done by theologians working on independent projects. I don’t know what to call this path, but it is different from Sunday School Orthodoxy. I use the Catholic term “heterodoxy” to describe it. It’s not heresy (although that is an option for some), but it is different (”hetero” + “doxy” = “different” + “belief”).
A lot of what you see on this blog is the clash between the Sunday School Orthodox and the Heterodox. This often looks like the progressive versus conservative CoC clashes on this blog, and there is some overlap. But the main difference is that the Sunday School Orthodox and Heterodox debate is less about ecclesial expressions (i.e., church of Christ stuff) than it is about theology: View of God, view of inspiration, the problem of evil, etc. You can note the difference by observing who tends to weigh in. During the Sunday School Orthodox vs. Heterodox debates you see less of the conservative CoC commenters weigh in. The conversation is too odd for them and, thus, doesn’t push the classic hot buttons. But if you float women’s roles or instrumental music they show back up. It’s diagnostically interesting to watch the pattern.
The point is, rather than leave the Christian faith I suggest that you seek alternative Christian answers to your questions. Float the issue that worries you the most. Problem of evil? Violence in the Old Testament? Views of Hell? And the kindly heterodox readers of Mike’s blog can quickly point you to places to begin your journey. For you should know this: Hitchens picks on easy prey in this book. He can’t remotely touch the best and deepest Christianity has to offer. So I encourage you: Seek out these treasures!
Alan,
Thanks for reminding me of that.
Richard,
I’m curious by what you mean when you say Sunday School Orthodoxy is failing. Do you mean an orthodoxy that we have created in the last century? If so how does it differ with a pre-Sunday School Orthodoxy? And how do you explain where some people can find their faith in a Sunday School Orthodoxy? I think you would probably put me in that group, or at least I originate in that group (I don’t know where the heck I am now). But I don’t think of myself as simple or gullible. I hope I don’t come across as antagonistic, I do respect your thought process.
Hi Kyle,
I should clarify as “Sunday School” sounds pejorative. Know that my wife and I refer to our adult bible classes as “Sunday School.” I hate saying “I’m going to my adult bible class.” I just say I’m going to “Sunday School.”
Further, I should also clarify that when I say “orthodoxy” I’m not talking about creedal (e.g., Nicene) orthodoxy. That is why I added the tag “Sunday School.”
So what I was trying to convey was something very simple: Sunday School Orthodoxy is the typical answer (generally felt to be the right/orthodox answer) you get when you ask a question in a Church of Christ (to keep this close to home) Sunday School class (youth or adult).
My comment about failure is this: These Sunday School answers are being rejected as inadequate by more and more people (e.g., Doubting). Thus, we face a choice: Continue trotting out answers fewer and fewer accept as persuasive? Or find theological answers commensurate with the complexity of the questions?
Rob Bell speaks to some of this in his traveling roadshow, “The Gods Aren’t Angry.” Check him out in a city near you.
He basically makes the case that religion has always been a man-made device to assuage pissed-off deity/deities. Ancient Mesopotamian people created gods for every daily activity and established rituals for how to deal with successes and failures (such as bad crop years, the birth of a baby, etc), and I am convinced that all major religions have defaulted to such devices to varying degrees throughout history. Richard might be able to speak to some of the psychological/sociological reasons behind this. For instance, there are huge sects of contemporary Christianity (hyper-Reformed folk, for example) whose interpretation of the Bible is informed by a deep-seeded belief that they are scum and that God has a smiting with their name on it.
But as Bell put it, thank God that he is not angry at us, but instead loves us so much that throughout history, he has come near to his people. (unlike the gods of the Mesopotamians) Like a loving father to his wayward children, he not only tells us of a better way, but shows us how to live it. Sternly, gently, through tears, through sacrifice, and through means our human minds will never understand (babies … dashing … rocks), his pleading to us throughout history has been, “You don’t have to live like this. You don’t have to live like this. You DON’T have to live like this.”
I don’t want to live in fear anymore. I want to bask in the love of God and live the best way I know how.
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)”
Sounds like the south. God will allow you to beat the hell out of a slave as long he survives for a day or so. So don’t tell of a different kind of slavery existed back then.
Keith,
“But if I can’t accept part of His nature, then I’m only accepting part of God. If I can’t accept the flood or Sodom or Jericho or herem, then I can’t accept His role in the cross, either.”
Why do you have to accept herem to accept Jesus? Don’t get it.
I’m surprised no one connected Mike’s two points of interest, as Mr. James pointed out. Maybe the worms from that can should be left intact?
I wonder if we look back to the future if it will be said, how could they be so closed minded as to believe sex out side of marriage was so wrong when there is no greater love. We now know that Paul was a sexually frustrated person. We are not given to marriage in heaven; the same should be true on earth.
Creating God in our image is a dangerous thing. Yet it is the only thing we can do. How can we understand something we do not understand? Thank God I am justified by the blood of the lamb and not by how well I understand the creator. After all I can not understand Richard much less God.
Leland, take a look at the verses I cited below that quote and you’ll have your answer. I think.
Thank you, Larry James.
Leland,
Keith, it appears, assumes penal substitutionary atonement, hence “Jesus on a cross” equals “God destroys the wicked”. Not all of us, of course, subscribe to this.
Doubting,
Let me second Richard’s assertion that Hitchens and company “[pick] on easy prey.” They make most of their hay by taking pot shots at Christian fundamentalism. Fish in a barrel, if you ask me. I could write a book like that, but it wouldn’t be sporting (let alone edifying).
Every time I read such material, I repeatedly say to myself, “The religion described here is not mine.” Rather than suggest that you “protect” yourself from Hitchens, I would actually encourage you to read him again and note how so many of his propositions only hold if the real God is the Christian fundamentalist version.
If you continue to learn about other Christian options and the “treasures” Richard wrote of, you will more easily see the narrowness of Hitchens’s target.
Leland,
1300 B.C. Near Eastern Slavery does not reflect the slavery of 50AD Roman Empire. Another thing to point out is that Jews were not to have Jewish slaves. That probably made somewhat of a difference in their minds. In the case of Philemon what is different is that it is a different time/culture/empire, etc and also that they both are Christians. It is really hard to understand these things because the lenses of our presuppositions and preconceived ideas are about 1000 miles thick.
Gays, anyone?
My money is on gays.
Good point GKB.
Thanks, Leland. It is my belief, however, that we’ll look back with embarrassment at how we’ve treated women before we reach that point with gays.
Who knows. God’s people are always full of surprises…
“Killing innocent babies”? It might seem unfortunate, but it must be done. It is the process of eliminating enemies. Enemies of the Lord, the Israelites, of righteousness. A two month old might be innocent, but will become a twenty year old enemy. And more than likely a twenty year old enemy with vengeance on their heart.
C.,
You justified pre-emptive war.
I’m scared as hell by your reasoning.
Sociologically speaking, religion evolved to justify such wars of conquest. (Jared Diamond, “Guns, Germs and Steel”)
No wonder the world is so freakin screwed up.
Holy. Crap.
My sarcasm detector is in the shop for calibration. Can anyone help me out here? Because that comment sounds a little too real to be funny. Please be joking.
C.,
““Killing innocent babies”? It might seem unfortunate, but it must be done. It is the process of eliminating enemies.” WTF. You a Hutu?
C.,
Wow…seriously…WOW! I’m not sure what scares me the most; the fact that you might be serious or the fact that way too many people will read your comment and be thankful those words were finally said. Again…WOW!
C,
You wrote that God’s potential enemies must be eliminated because God’s people might meet their enemies’ vengeful offspring some day. Why are you so concerned with security? (your own? God’s people’s?) What do you make of Jesus’ apparent indifference to his well-being in the face of wicked enemies? What do you make of Jesus’ claim that we must love our enemies?
Obviously, given the responses to you already, some of us genuinely believe that by killing, one may gain the world (i.e., present security) but lose one’s soul. You scare us.
I hope you think carefully about this.
Many of you are attacking “C” [“'Killing innocent babies'”? It might seem unfortunate, but it must be done."] But that is just what your God did. Even killing pregnant women. Is there any wonder that Hutchins and Dawkins and Harris write about the dangers of religion?
C.
You seem to be cutting yourself off from the reality of life. Note how you used the passive voice: “it must be done.” Can you honestly take ownership of your sentiment and tell the world, “I must kill babies.”?
The trouble C, is that your view is indistinguishable from that of the 9/11 hijackers.
Martin, many of us have here expressed our belief that God did not do so. Read up.
“Doubting”, did you notice how Martin’s criticism is only germane in the fundamentalist world?
Keith: Like Jeff said above, you assume a penal substitution view of the atonement, which I believe is deeply flawed. Unfortunately, many people confuse it with “the Gospel”. I do not have to accept herem in order to accept Jesus or his victory over death on the cross.
Alan: Does a mother have the right to kill the child she bears? Of course not! We are not God’s playthings. We are his children. He is Father! That is the relationship he has chosen with us and he will not change his mind. He says he is LOVE. He says his true nature is revealed the face of Jesus. He cannot say these things about himself and then act as though he can do whatever he wants to us because he is God and he made us. He is the Potter, but that isn’t the end of the story. He is the Potter that is LOVE.
Doubting: I resonate so much with what you are saying. Listen to the advice of Richard and Steve and Jeff W. The fact is Hitchens is right on a lot of points he makes. But he isn’t attacking the true heart of Christianity. He attacks the Sunday School answers, which don’t stand up to close scrutiny. For some people, they are enough. But not for you. And not for me either. I don’t know exactly what “treasures” Richard is referring to. I wish he would elaborate. But I don’t know if I would be a christian today if a friend hadn’t put one of Brian McLaren’s books in my hands. I read a bunch of his stuff, then Rob Bell’s book Velvet Elvis. Those guys turned me onto N.T. Wright, a bible scholar who taught me to approach the bible in a new way, giving it more respect than ever before but at the same time understanding its complexity. Finally, I should also mention that reading this blog and Gordon Atkinson’s blog reallivepreacher(dot)com have been a great encouragement to me as well. Mike and Gordon are two preachers that aren’t afraid to admit they don’t have all the answers.
Martin F., you said “But that is just what your God did.”
This is where my main problem/crisis occurs these days. I lean more toward “But this is what some people (probably men) sat down and wrote about what they think God did, or what they wanted him to say or do” rather than accepting it as some sort of ontological reality.
Mark,
It is hard, maybe impossible, for a mortal mind to comprehend how the love and of God can coexist with his righteousness, justice, and wrath. We know we can’t be all those things at once, and so we can’t visualize how God can. But he can. It’s not a matter of being God’s ‘plaything.’ It’s a matter of God being all those things at once, and dealing with sinful man according to those attributes.
To reject God because we don’t understand him is foolish. Of course we can’t understand him. Who do we think we are?
Based on my interpretation of previous posts, some were trying to understand Jericho and other OT stories where the peoples against Israel were destroyed. It appeared there was an understanding of killing the adult enemies, but an outcry for the innocent babies/children. Now, the scholars will need to chime in here for specifics, but I believe there are examples in OT AND history where not eliminating all enemies (including potential ones) turned out to be a bad move. This is what happened and why it happened! Don’t you feel going through this period of time more richly illuminates the ministry of mercy and grace through Jesus?
WTF, ya’ll didn’t think I was some warmongering, serial killer did you?
Alan,
The wording of your first sentence appears to oppose love to righteousness and justice. That makes me think that you haven’t understood well the Bible’s language (in sum) about righteousness and justice. Their hallmark in the scriptures is not retribution, but faithful care for the lowly.
If divine retribution is your lens, then you will find retribution in the scriptures both where it is and where it isn’t.
C.,
I imagine you are anything but a warmongering serial killer. In fact, you are probably a really nice guy–someone I’d like to play golf with or have a beer with. You might be a leader in your church. A great dad. An upstanding member of your community.
If you were a deranged psychopath, it would be easy to dismiss your post. But the troubling thing is, MANY well-minded, easy-going church people who fit the description above buy into your line of reasoning, which is based upon a certain view of the Bible and inspiration that many of us find problematic.
Jeff W,
I said what about penal substitutionary atonement by pointing out three verses?
Apparently?
Keith,
You juxtaposed OT destruction of the wicked with Jesus’ crucifixion, so I told Leland what that you appeared to me to believe in penal substitutionary atonement. It was my best guess.
The way the Lord deals with Ninevah provides one counter point to the way he dealt with other cities that met their destruction. These OT passages that paint a wrathful God are hard to deal with, but we do see instances where He gives mercy to peoples outside of the Jewish community. As Mike eluded to, perhaps we don’t have every detail of those stories and certain communities had been unresponsive to the previous workings of God.
Beyond Jericho, the flood story is a tough one as well. But even in the flood narrative we see a redemptive God at work. Through Noah, God redreams a world that is more keenly aware of its Maker and a people that remember in whose image they are made.
Still, it’s not easy, but those are some of my thoughts.
Are you referring to my reasoning being that of literal interpretation? I read Joshua 6:21 and don’t know of any other meaning it could have. My earlier post was simply a recognition of why it had to go down this way. It really seemed to be more of a faith issue. In fact, in Joshua 7:11, God describes His instructions as a “requirement”. Not following through was deemed as sin, as Achan found out a little later. Is this what you find as problematic? Why would God require such?
Keith: You said, “If I can’t accept the flood or Sodom or Jericho or herem, then I can’t accept His role in the cross, either. I can’t accept Isaiah 53:10 or Acts 2:23 or Hebrews 12:2.” Those verses talk about Jesus dying for our sake.
I took you to mean that we would be destroyed too just like Sodom except that Jesus suffered God’s wrath in our place. That’s basically the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, which is widely held by a majority of evangelical Christians (but not by me and, I was very relieved to discover, many other christians).
If I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, I apologize.
No, and I’m sorry if my point wasn’t clear, but I meant that those verses involve God at the cross. He was on it, in the Person of Jesus. He was also in heaven, the Person to whom Jesus prayed that some other way be found if it could be His will.
He didn’t stop what happened at the cross.
Now, you can see that as cruel and inhuman and unloving - but that’s only one side of the story. He has chosen to let us in on the other side of the story, whether we fully understand it or not. Fully understanding all of its aspects isn’t a prerequisite to believing it. (Fortunately!)
But to say that “I can’t believe in God if He’s mean,” well, pick and choose the aspects of God that you like and believe in part of Him if you will - but whether I can grasp His full nature or not, I’d rather believe in the whole divine Person.
C.,
Yes, I think a literal reading of the conquest narratives is problematic.
And so do others.
A tradition of OT scholarship suggests that the conquest narratives are etiological, or foundational narratives, meaning these stories originated to explain some present phenomenon, in the case, the presence of the Israelites in Canaan. http://www.jstor.org/view/00027189/ap050014/05a00150/0?frame=noframe&userID=96fc4806@acu.edu/01c0a84869005087343&dpi=3&config=jstor
The etiological narrative tells more about the values of the people who wrote it than it tells of reality itself.
The story about George Washington and the Cherry Tree kind of illustrates the function of the etiological narrative. George Washington was kind of a bl