Fwd: Re: [Vision2020] Slave Narratives

[Douglas]

>Visionaries,
>
>Rose wrote:
>>History, like any academic discipline, is nuanced and complex.
>
>Judging from the local response to the first hint of nuance or complexity, 
>you could have fooled me.
>
>Rose says:
>"Ownership of another human being, regardless of the quality of living 
>conditions provided, is loathsome and inhumane."
>
>The apostle Paul said:
>5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the 
>flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto 
>Christ; 6Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of 
>Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7With good will doing 
>service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8Knowing that whatsoever good 
>thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be 
>bond or free. 9And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing 
>threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there 
>respect of persons with him (Eph. 6:5-9).
>
>1Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy 
>of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 
>2And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because 
>they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful 
>and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.  3If 
>any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the 
>words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to 
>godliness; 4He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and 
>strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil 
>surmisings,   5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute 
>of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself 
>(1 Tim. 6:1-5).
>
>Put all this together. The necessary conclusion is that, according to 
>Rose, the apostle Paul's method of subverting an unrighteous institution 
>(for that is what he was doing) is loathsome and inhumane -- because of 
>what Paul tolerates in the short run. It was apparently a crime against 
>humanity because the apostle didn't advocate killing 600,000 people in an 
>unnecessary war. And this reveals what my interest in this is. It is not 
>to defend (or exalt) or reintroduce slavery. It is to defend the Bible's 
>authority in all areas of life. That is my sole interest in this issue. 
>Scriptural authority is challenged by moderns because of the Bible's 
>method of dealing with certain sins is not bloodthirsty enough for them.
>
>So here is a little NUANCE. It may even rise to the level of a COMPLEXITY. 
>The institution of slavery, as it existed in the ante-bellum South, was an 
>institution that every biblical Christian had a obligation to subvert (as 
>in, seek the overthrow of). The best way to do this (as always) was to 
>cultivate the demeanor required in the New Testament, and to do it God's 
>way. God gave very specific instructions in the Bible on how to deal with 
>a problem such as slavery. Those instructions did not amount to, "Kill 
>them all, let God sort it out." Prior to the War, the majority of 
>anti-slavery societies existent were in the South. Here is yet another 
>NUANCE. Had I been there, I would have belonged to one. But also -- had I 
>been there -- I would not have advocated certain remedies, such as the one 
>articulated by John Brown. "Let's go over to Kansas and cut a few throats 
>of people who have nothing to do with any of this."
>
>More men died in one battle, at the battle of Antitem, than in the entire 
>Vietnam war. The overwhelming majority of those men, on both sides, would 
>never be slave owners. Tens of thousands of them would never be anything.
>
>And where did Margaret Sanger go in this discussion? I miss her already.
>
>
>Cordially,
>
>Douglas Wilson