[Vision2020] Keely answers doug & Slavery

[Michael]

Joe,

 

Thanks for the challenge!  

 

You wrote:

 

"Is it possible to argue that "homosexuality is part of our sin condition"

without having as a consequence that being a slave owner is not necessarily
part of our sin condition? In other words, can one use the bible to "prove"

that gay/lesbian sex relations are wrong without also suggesting that
slavery is sometimes OK? Because if you can't, then appeal to the bible for
moral claims is VERY problematic. And if not an appeal to the bible, what is
the basis for the suggestion that "homosexuality is part of our sin
condition"?"

 

Me:

 

First let me say that this was a sincere question; I'm still not sure how
Keely would answer this question, and still would be interested to know.

 

As for the challenge; to me, this is actually a very insightful analysis.
This is actually why Wilson wrote the slavery booklet to begin with.
Consider:

 

 Preacher Boy says "homosexuality is wrong."  Erudite Secularist objects:
"what about slavery?"  Preacher Boy looks down to the ground, shrugs his
shoulders, and says, Ah shucks, let's just forget about it and be friends. 

 

Its not fun to go against the absolutes of political correctness (for
anyone), but for a bible belt, white skinned, big bellied fundamentalist,
preaching on the sins of the Sodomite no doubt feels pretty good (not many
handsome men would be interested anyways!).  Wilson didn't want the
temptation to be a possibility (the shrugging part), so he condemned himself
on purpose beforehand by stating what he thought the bible said about
slavery--and in writing.  (I doubt he planned the plagiarism! Although that
surely helped the overall strategy).   

 

With that said, I don't think there is any real incoherence, double
standard, hypocrisy, or moral problem here. I was present at the Town Hall
Meeting a couple years ago (or whenever it was), and I didn't detect any
fallacious reasoning on Wilson's part at all.  The answer seems
straight-forward: Yes, slavery ANYTHING is part of the sin problem.  But the
solution is Christ Crucified; he came to set the entire world free. Slavery
is a common metaphor for sin in the New Testament.  The gospel goes out and
repentant sinners begin changing there affections, goals, desires, and
behaviors. The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed; it is like leaven
in a loaf of bread. The world will be saved by the sacraments (and they are
sitting all over the world waiting for whosoever will), not by statist
bloodshed.  

 

I don't want to take us too far a field, but at the moment the double
standard appears to be on the other side of the discussion.  Just as we
don't want to start killing our homosexual neighbors, so we would ask you to
let us free our slaves in our own time and in our own way, a way that we
think will ultimately be better for them; please don't come into our homes
and kill us over it.  

 

Now, this southern argument that is thrown around might be a bit over
simplistic, and it might even be factually wrong.  Maybe most slave owners
were primarily proud, violent men, who loved to have power over black
people.  Perhaps the truth in somewhere in-between. 

 

(From the little reading I've done, Wilkins seems to make some good points;
my own family lineage has a southern plantation in it, and I believe it was
my great, great grandfather who wrote the book I have on my shelf about his
return to it; he left at the close of the 19th century and returned 40 years
later. I just opened it up for the first time tonight. He writes about the
culture of his Negro employees: "I do not consider his philosophy inferior
to ours; it is just different.  As a matter of fact, we labor that we may
enjoy.  The Negro knows the high art of getting joy out of life itself,
while we (often vainly) try to get joy out of the money we make by spending
our lives in toil.  *When I say the Negro, I mean the one I know best*-the
black man of the hinterlands of the Deep South, of the farms, the lonely
seashores, the plantations, the wildwoods..there are about seventy-five of
my dusky friends living either on or very Near Hampton.  They are the
descendants of the old slaves of the place, and if they ever heard of
Emancipation, that word certainly did not inspire them to move away from
home.")

 

But in principle, the point of our southern-sympathetic friends is a good
one; at the very least it does not seem incoherent. One can fight for the
eradication of slavery on God's terms while also apposing a bloody invasion
into their homeland. As for placing both homosexuality and slavery under the
'sin category,'  I think my bible does just fine on both points, and I know
I need to be just as offended with myself when I'm unkind to my children as
I am when I see two guys making out; in fact, I should probably be far more
offended with myself, since it is 1) myself, and 2) the guys making out are
at least expressing some Trinitarian affection. But I think it would be good
for Joe to fill out more of his criticism so that I could better respond to
it.  So ball in your court now Joe.

 

Thanks,

Michael Metzler 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051102/b61b364d/attachment.htm