[Vision2020] Slavery & Keely answers doug

[Michael]

Gee Joe, you are really putting me "a bit on the spot" here! :-)

 

You Write:

"I asked you a few questions. Let me rephrase two of them:

Do you, Michael, think that (a) the bible "says" that slavery is sometimes
justifiable, and (b) that slavery is, in fact, sometimes justifiable?"

 

Me:

I wish I could answer these questions with either a 'yes' or 'no,' but I'm
not comfortable with how they are framed. I also think the issues might be
more complex than these answers assume. Scripturally, slavery of any form is
a result of the fall of man, and the eradication of slavery of all forms is
the goal of the history of redemption. But the kingdom of heaven is not like
a nuclear bomb, it is more like a mustard seed or like leaven.  The Lord
eradicated all violence (and I assume slavery) with the flood and recreated
a new world with Noah, but the ultimate recreation of the world then falls
to Abram, and then Joseph's Egypt, and then Israel wandering in the desert.
First, slavery is almost fully eradicated from Israel, since they "were once
slaves in Israel, but have been set free."  Consider too that God had His
special people enslaved in Egypt for the ultimate freedom of the entire
world.  And this redemptive history is the context in which we see 'law' or
'moral obligations' from God.  The law of God must be seen as part of the
way God was saving the world; law is not some abstract, timeless code in the
sky.  It is the Lord disciplining His children and revealing his holiness;
and Paul tells us that His children have grown to a new maturity in Jesus,
which had profound effects in how the 'law' was to function.  

 

And I think the issue is even far more complicated than just this; there
really isn't such a thing as two tight categories of Slavery and
Non-Slavery.  There is the slavery of the ancient world which treated men as
worse than beasts, which might be similar to the slavery of African trading
(although if a man is at least a commodity, it might fair a little better
for him).  Then there are more mild forms of slavery, such as what you might
still find in Israel after she was freed from Egypt; this might be somewhat
voluntary or temporary, and include the other general protections of law.
Then there is the sort of slavery that is financial; debt and poverty can
easily enslave men. But this was to be eradicated in Israel through
brotherly giving, and other provisions from which we have received our
bankruptcy law.  The mild forms of slavery were permitted in much the same
way as polygamy or divorce was permitted.  Polygamy was finally entirely
unacceptable for the new people of God after the Incarnation. 

 

Regarding the slavery of poverty and debt, we can see clearly how complex
the issues still are in our own time; but when the knowledge of the Lord
covers the entire earth, we would expect this to be almost entirely done
away with through love.  

 

Next in line you have class status, which is certainly a minor form of
slavery: Jew and Gentile, Man and Woman, Absolute Ruler and Subject. And you
have the absence of "liberty of conscience" that the world hardly knew of
until the separation of church and state that John Calvin fought for, and
grew in Calvinist countries.  

 

So I don't think the issue is as simple as the above questions seem to
imply.

 

You Wrote:

"To even suggest that slavery is anything other than always morally wrong
presents a real moral problem, in my humble opinion."

 

Me:

Well, I think my comments above might address some of your concern here; but
if you could fill out the moral dilemma a bit more, I might be in a better
position to engage with it. 

 

You Wrote:

"What I really have a problem with is how a young, intelligent man like
yourself could think that "homosexuality" is morally worse than someone even
suggesting that slavery in America was "not so bad" in a town with at least
one African-American resident?"

 

Me:

There seem to be a couple problems with this way of setting up the problem.
First, the "not so bad" seems to be a misquote from the Wilson/Wilkins
position. I think their position would be better stated as "not so bad as we
have been told by those who won the war." But perhaps you could offer a
citation to clarify.

 

Second, I don't think your point is best served by the way you set this up.
The problem you have is with me merely "thinking" something about
homosexuality.  Further, all I'm supposedly thinking is that homosexuality
is worse than "someone even suggesting" a point of view that you find
problematic. The way you set it up forces me to agree.  I think
homosexuality is worse than "someone suggesting" a bad point of view. I
don't think people should be condemned or rebuked for "suggesting" a point
of view shared by many historical scholars. This looks even more tame when
added to the fact that it is merely my "thinking" this is true that is your
problem.  But I suspect you have a more serious critique in mind, so please
do clarify. 

 

You Wrote:

'Is being nice, and courteous, and considerate of the feelings of others the
same thing as "political correctness"? Or is it just one attempt to exhibit
a life of love and compassion?"

 

Me:

Actually I think 'political correctness' is somewhat value neutral; when
'political correctness' becomes a problem, the problem would be proportional
to the level of statism in a society.  There will always be norms and values
in a given society; the question is how much pain results from the hand of
the political power or the masses toward an individual dissenting from these
norms and values.  Whether Sally is right or wrong, or whether the standards
of 'correctness' in Sally's society are right or wrong, it will not be
enjoyable for Sally to challenge these standards. 

 

Thanks!

Michael Metzler

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051103/f079a1d1/attachment.htm