Philemon
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.
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.