[Vision2020] Slavery, Homosexuality, and Biblical Punishments

[Douglas]

Visionaries,

Just back from Houston, and had a time wading through the accumulated 
email. Just a few general comments, and then a few specific answers to the 
questions put to me by Steve Wells.

First, in response to some laments, I would be happy to agree to a cease 
fire (in this forum) on this issue. This means that this post will be my 
last in this particular imbroglio -- unless someone else opens it all up 
again. What this cease fire amounts to is my cheerful agreement to stop 
defending myself against charges of racism when people stop recklessly 
making them.

Second, I understand that the Daily News has been taking heat from various 
quarters for their role in this. Good. I hope they listen, and I hope that 
the Accuracy Matters Sometimes column they take pride in will find some new 
entries sometime soon.

Now, my answers to Steve's questions.

>1) The DN reported you to say that "slavery is not a sin if the slave 
>owner treats the slaves humanely." In your response (DN, 15 Oct) you said 
>that the article "accurately stated your position." So you believe that 
>slavery is acceptable in such cases?

My position is that the slave trade was wicked and abominable. The 
institution of slavery generally as it was practiced in the South was 
sinful, both overall and in a number of particulars. Nevertheless, in that 
setting it was possible for a Christian individual to own a slave without 
sinning individually. Still, as he followed the instructions of the New 
Testament concerning his slave, he would find himself peacefully subverting 
an institution that need to be subverted because it was sinful. Had this 
been done more widely, slavery would have ended here the same way it was 
ended throughout the rest of the Western world -- peacefully. The 
evangelicals who ended the slave trade in the British dominions (e.g. 
William Wilberforce) are heroes of the Christian faith. The bloodthirsty 
scoundrels in our nation who wanted 600,000 dead if that is what it took to 
achieve their goals immediately are not.

>2) Are death and exile the biblical punishments for homosexuality? Do you 
>think these punishments should be applied today? If so, when should each 
>be used? [The bible is clear about death (Lev.20:13), but where does it 
>say that homosexuals should be exiled?]

They are two punishments that are mentioned. Exile is found in 1 Kings 
15:11-12 & 22:46. In another instance, King Josiah simply took away their 
privileged status in the cultus of Israel (2 Kings 23:7). For more on this 
see the answer to the next question.

>3) In your response you say "we are not interested in burning people at 
>the stake in Friendship square." Are you opposed, then, to burning people 
>to death as form of punishment in all cases? How about the situation 
>described in Lev.20:14? Would Friendship Square be an appropriate place to 
>carry out the punishment in that particular case?

Yes, I would be opposed to that form of punishment today. But I do not 
think its application at that time under Lev. 20:14 was in any way unjust 
or wicked. In short form, the reason I would not want that kind of 
punishment today is that the system of biblical law is a case law system, 
the kind of system that inspired our common law system. It is *designed* to 
change in applications, while the central principles of justice are assumed 
to remain constant. This can be plainly shown in the changes from the 
Mosaic code, to the law under Samuel, and then again under David. The 
ultimate transformation of law of course came with Christ. The definition 
of sin does not change, but other administrative issues surrounding it do 
change. I would be happy to develop this further off-line if anyone is 
really interested. But the brief answer is that when Christian worship on 
the first day of the week and eat bacon, they are not doing so because of 
their ignorance of the Old Testament. The flow of redemptive history is 
important in understanding the whole Bible, which is a glorious book -- not 
disgusting at all. See the next point.

>I think it would help to know your position on these issues. But if you're 
>too embarrassed by some of the stuff in the bible, I understand. Some 
>things are just too disgusting to even try to defend.

I understand how you feel. But what is really disgusting are those 
Christians who claim that the Bible is the Word of God and is verbally 
inspired, but who are then somehow intimidated by statements like yours, 
and who back away from what the Bible plainly states. If the Scriptures are 
the Word of God, then we should accept it. If the Scriptures are not 
inspired, then we should not. It is really that simple.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson