[Vision2020] Slavery & Keely answers doug

Fri Nov 4 09:20:33 PST 2005

Michael,

At this time I am not entering the main issue of this thread in which Joseph Campbell raised questions about the validity of the Christian Scriptures as a moral authority.

However, you make the claim that:

"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'."

Such a characterization of Wilson's views is not only fraudulently inaccurate, but deceptively oversimplified.  Here are just two quotes of many from Southern Slavery: As It Was that are counter-examples to your above claim:

"...slavery was a harmonious institution, one characterized by racial affection and patriarchal benevolence."

"...slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures."

Regardless of the truth or falsity of these statements, the Christ Church/Wilson position embodying the statements given the ordinary usage of the words therein, can not be honestly by any stretch of the imagination described as: 

"...not so bad as we have been told by those who won the war"

I am afraid that in making such a statement you have irrevocably destroyed your thinly disguised pose as a humble person on an open-minded spiritual quest for all who have followed this thread.  You have now revealed to those who did not know it before that you are a committed Christ Church Apologist/Advocate.

However, this does not mean the dialogues with you on Vision 2020 cannot continue to explore various subjects.   

But henceforth whenever you tell a lie, do not be surprised if you are called on it, and do be surprised, depending on the size/nature of the lie, that apt remarks about your integrity will be made.  [Your pose is also a form of dishonesty.]  Further, do not be surprised that many will consider that you are not a sincere Christian if you continue to lie and to pose as something you are not.  

Hence, I think it best if you drop your pose from now on.  No one will now be fooled and it adds unnecessary words and distractive baggage to your defense of Christ Church dogma.

I will answer your other missive on induction when time permits.

Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 12:36 PM
  Subject: [Vision2020] Slavery & Keely answers doug

  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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051104/409f472b/attachment-0001.htm