Q: Where is God’s guidance about slavery? Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments does it say that slavery is a bad thing. It actually seems to encourage / guide slavery ownership in various verses. Wouldn’t this have been a great commandment? “Thou shalt not have slaves.” What a lot of suffering this may have eliminated through history.
A: This is an important question especially since we are witnessing the return of slavery in some parts of the world. I’ll attempt to answer this in reverse order.
First, it is no coincidence that the abolition of slavery was spearheaded in history by Christian activists. My family last weekend watched for the second time the movie, “Amazing Grace” that tells the story of William Wilberforce, the British politician who led the fight against slavery. I highly recommend the movie. It’s not only inspiring but it shows how deeply ingrained the ugly institution was and that it was people of deep faith who destroyed it. Wilberforce’s anti-slavery bill passed in 1807; it would take an additional 55 years and a civil war for it to be outlawed in America. The abolitionist movement and the Underground Railroad in the US were led by Christians as well. Where did they get this conviction to fight slavery? The Bible.
The person asking this question is correct in noting that...
there isn’t a commandment outlawing slavery. Its antislavery message takes a subtle, subversive approach. That subtlety is lost to us when we read the Bible, but it is there. It takes an understanding of the cultural conditions surrounding it. For much of world history, slavery was thoroughly accepted socially. Any call to end slavery would have been seen as revolutionary and would have been violently opposed. It could be argued that if the early Christians had taken an anti-slavery stance, the movement would have been stomped out. But, the message is there, just below the surface.
First, it must be noted that there is no scripture that explicitly blesses the institution of slavery or encourages the owning of slaves.
Second, there are verses that don’t hide the antislavery message. Consider a couple of these verses from the New Testament:
Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 1 Cor. 7:21-23
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28
These are radical statements for that day and time. Add to this the whole Exodus story of Moses freeing the Hebrew slaves from Egypt and you find a deep anti-slavery bent. Because of passages like these, slave owners didn’t want their slaves owning Bibles or going to church to hear such scriptures read. They considered the message too dangerous.
Because it says it so much better, I’ll share this rather lengthy explanation from the book, Hard Sayings of the Bible, which comments on Paul’s words in Ephesians 6 about slaves and masters…
“The master is to treat slaves appropriately in the light of knowing that in reality both he and they are slaves of the same heavenly Master (Eph 6:9). After all, even Paul calls himself a slave of Jesus Christ. This part of Paul’s teaching is revolutionary. It was unheard of to call a social superior to respect and respond to a call to duty toward social inferiors. In fact, one could say that Paul brings the masters down to the level of their slaves and makes them treat their slave as a brother or sister. This implication in Ephesians becomes quite explicit in Philemon. Paul’s strategy, then, is to elevate the inferior and to abase the superior by pointing to their relationship to Jesus Christ as the context for all other relationships in their lives…
In the social world of Paul’s day slavery was an accepted institution. There was also a genuine fear of slaves. In Rome slaves were prohibited from wearing distinctive clothing for fear that they would discover how numerous they were and start a revolt. Slaves all over the Roman world were under the total control of their masters. If a master wished, he could have a slave executed (or kill the slave himself). While this was frowned on if there was no reason for it, it was not outside of the master’s rights. It was just as today a person can demolish their house if they wish, even though their neighbors may think it a stupid and wasteful act. A slave in the first century was property.
Given this context, what would it look like if Christianity were believed to be calling slaves to disobedience? Christianity was already viewed as a subversive form of thought. It rejected the traditional gods (which made it seem treasonous to city and country, for worship of the traditional gods was a major expression of patriotism) and did not allow any compromises in this matter. It rejected many of the “normal” forms of recreation (drinking bouts, use of prostitutes and the like). It formed its members into “secret societies” (at least in the eyes of pagan observers), and in those societies it was rumored master and slave ate the same food at the same table and that wives were present along with their husbands. In other words, first-century social decorum was not observed in the church. Notice that in the New Testament there is no separation of religious duty according to social status. Every member is spiritually gifted, whatever their social status. Any person can become an elder, not just freeborn males. Every member of the church is called to the same obedience to Christ, slave or free, male or female.
So Paul (and other New Testament writers) calls the social inferiors, including slaves, to obedience. This both reassured the Roman society and made the real reason for persecution clear. Christian slaves should be more obedient slaves than other slaves; for they knew that the “pay” in heaven would be good. If their masters persecuted them, it should be for their faith and nothing else. Christianity was not subversive in the sense of stirring up rebellion. At the same time, it raised the slave to a new status of an equal human being before Christ. After all, in the eyes of the church slavery was just a job, and what job or social status one had on earth did not matter. (Jesus did not have a great social status at any time in his life either, and he died a most shameful death, an executed slave’s death.) If the job was done “as a slave of Christ” the reward was equal, whether one was a human slave or a human master. Paul’s strategy was thus that of producing an expression of the kingdom of God in the church, not that of trying to change society.
What was the result of this strategy? The church never adopted a rule that converts had to give up their slaves. Christians were not under law but under grace. Yet we read in the literature of the second century and later of many masters who upon their conversion freed their slaves. The reality stands that it is difficult to call a person a slave during the week and treat them like a brother or sister in the church. Sooner or later the implications of the kingdom they experienced in church seeped into the behavior of the masters during the week. Paul did in the end create a revolution, not one from without, but one from within, in which a changed heart produced changed behavior and through that in the end brought about social change. This change happened wherever the kingdom of God was expressed through the church, so the world could see that faith in Christ really was a transformation of the whole person.
Did Paul believe in slavery? Yes, indeed. He believed that all Christians are all equally slaves of Jesus Christ and that that is the one social relationship that has permanent value.”
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Slavery
Is the New Testament Accurate?
Q: Since Constantine created the counsel that put the Bible together, how can we know the New Testament is accurate and or complete?
A: These are doubts raised by the Dan Brown book, The Da Vinci Code. The book is filled with historical errors and misinformation. Let me make a couple points.
First, it is true that the newly converted Roman emperor called the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. He did so at the request of bishops and he did not, as Brown alleges, control the Council or sway its outcome. First, the books we now know as the New Testament were in use and widely circulated in the Christian community some 200 years before this Council. Also, Nicea didn’t approve the list of books. That was done at the Synod of Hippo in 393 and later ratified by the entire church at the Council of Carthage in 397. Constantine was long dead by then.
Second, history reveals broad consensus in the early church about...
what books should and should not be included in the canon of scripture. Rigorous standards were used to insure that the books were accurate representations of the life and teachings of Jesus and the early apostles. The early church councils that approved the books had something we don’t have: unity and consensus. The leadership of the entire church across the world came together and unanimously approved the books that make up the New Testament. (Can you image getting together a representative group of Christian leaders from around the world today? First, you could never get them all together and second, you couldn’t get them to all agree!) Yet, that is exactly what happened in the early ecumenical councils. For that and a number of other reasons, we can be most confident that the New Testament is accurate and complete.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Can a Christian Support the War?
Q: With the current war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, am I as a Christian supposed to support the war effort (troops, politicians, & the overall war effort)?
A: I'm not sure why I choose to take the hairy political issues. First it's abortion, now the war. Next, someone will ask who to vote for, and my head just might explode. Until then, what shall we say about the war? I feel there are two ways that a Christian can approach the war in Iraq (or any war, for that matter).
The first way is pacifism. The pacifist Christian gets his/her foundation from Matthew 5:39, which reads, "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Those words come straight from the mouth of Jesus, so there must be some credence given to them. However, one will also note that Jesus resorted to what appeared to be violence when he drove the moneychangers from the Temple, turning over their tables and using a whip (we don't know that He use the whip on people). Regardless, the pacifist take is one way to approach war.
Another way that many Church fathers (St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas) and theologians (Immanuel Kant and Paul Tillich) have looked at war is through the lens of the Just War Theory. This theory states that a war is justified if it meets certain conditions, and that there are certain actions within a war that are justified. The criteria for going into war (jus ad bellum) are:
Just cause: The cause must be just, and can therefore include taking back things that were taken or punishing those that have done wrong.
Comparative justice: Recognizing that there is suffering on all sides of a war, the injustice suffered by one side must far outweigh that suffered by the other.
Legitimate authority: Only those that are legitimately in authority may use deadly force or wage war.
Right intention: Force may only be used in a truly just cause, such as righting a wrong. Material gain is not right intention.
Probability of success: If you can't win, if the cause is futile, you should not engage.
Last resort: All other peaceful and viable options must be attempted and exhausted first.
Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to the harms that are expected.
Once in a war, there are a couple of other considerations that must be kept in mind to keep it a just war (jus in bello):
Distinction: The acts of war should be directed at the enemy combatants, and not at civilians.
Proportionality: The force used must equal to the wrong endured and to the good that may come.
Military necessity: The minimum force necessary should be used.
Now, you may be thinking after reading all of this philosophic rigmarole, "Just tell me if I should support this war, already!" I'm sorry, but I really can't do that. There are certain things that I can give a definitive answer for, but unfortunately this isn't one of them. What I would recommend is that you read through the criteria for a just war, pray, and decide for yourself. Also, I would recommend highly that you DO support the troops that are serving. They are doing their American duty to serve and protect us. If the Administration makes decisions that you don't agree with, don't blame the troops for it. They deserve our support.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Mormonism
Q: What is the right approach or response to Mormon boys that come to your door in the freezing weather at 7:00pm? What is the most simple straight-forward response?
A: To answer your first question, I think you have to prayerfully consider the situation and make a decision. It is important that we give an account for our faith in Jesus Christ and that we are ready in season and out of season to do so; however, that does not mean that we have to always invite the Mormon missionary into our home. It may be that on a particular night it is not right for you to do so. I would say that to always shy away from them is not the best approach. I believe God place people in our path for a reason. If God has placed Mormon missionaries in your path, maybe the Lord wants you to engage them on some level. Maybe the Lord wants you to learn more about the Mormons and what they believe so that you can have an intelligent conversation with them that might lead to a fruitful exchange.
Hospitality is a big deal to God. I think that it is important that we open our doors to people simply to show Christ’s love. I also think that through us following this model God will open opportunities for us to share Christ with the people who are visiting our home.The difficulty I have found with inviting Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses into my home is that they have a very clear agenda and very strong convictions that what they believe is absolutely right. This poses a problem for any real dialog or openness to new ideas. In other words, they are probably not real interested in what you have to say. I realize that this is an assumption on my part, but this is based on my experience and interaction with both groups.
A Mormon missionary is well versed in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, so if you are going to have a discussion with them, it is important that you don’t enter into that conversation lightly. I would encourage you to read a little about Mormonism before you invite them into your home. They are extremely sharp and know their material. It is amazing to me that they know the Bible better than a lot of Christians. I suspect this is a great opportunity for you to learn more about Mormonism and also about your own faith in Jesus Christ.
Mormonism is a cult and by definition they have taken the truths of Christianity and twisted them to fit there agenda. There are tons of books written on and about Mormonism. A recent booklet entitled, The Mormon Mirage: Seeing Through the Illusion of Mainstream Mormonism might be a nice little read in order to better understand the differences. I would also encourage you to go to http://www.equip.org/ and simply search the word Mormon or Mormonism.
Here is a short excerpt from Hank Hanegraaff’s treatment of Mormonism:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was birthed back in the 1800s by an alleged vision in which two celestial personages appeared to Joseph Smith and claimed that all existing churches were wrong, that all their creeds were an abomination and that all their professors were corrupt. According to this vision Smith was chosen to restore - not reform - a church that, in his view, had disappeared from the face of the earth. The Mormon doctrines that evolved from this vision compromise, confuse, and contradict the nature of God, the authority of Scripture and the way of salvation. In fact, while Christians believe that they're going to stand before God dressed in the spotless robes of Christ's righteousness, Mormons contend that they're going to appear before heavenly Father dressed in fig leaf aprons holding good works in their hands. According to the Latter-Day Saints just about everybody qualifies for heaven. The world's vilest people will make it into what's called the telestial heaven. Lukewarm Mormons and religious people are typically going to enter a terrestrial heaven; and temple Mormons are going to make it to a celestial heaven. Only those who are sealed in secret temple rituals will make it to the third level of the celestial kingdom and then become gods of their own planets. These and many other doctrinal perversions are why we exclude Mormonism from rightly being called Christian.”
Tough Decision
Q: When your child is in relationship with a non-Christian and going to marry him—when they are living together. Does God want us, as parents, to “attend” when all we can see is destruction and abuse?
A: Disclaimer: This answer is my opinion only. This situation is extremely complicated and probably volatile. I am going to assume that your child is an “adult” in the eyes of the law. Once a child is out of the home and on their own the role of the parent changes significantly. The parent(s) become more of a guide-by-the-side or advice-giver than director. This transition is extremely difficult for many parents.
We want to control and protect our children from making mistakes. Any good parent would want to do this for their child. All we can do as parents is to raise our children to love God and love people as the Bible instructs us to do. After the child is “of age” they must make their own choices and live with the blessings or the consequences of those decisions. This is really hard to do.
As the parent you have wisely determined that being “yoked” with someone who is not a follower of Jesus Christ is a bad idea. You have also noticed that “living together” before marriage is also not a good idea. All of these assessments are correct. The problem is what can you do about it?
I would get down on my knees everyday with my spouse and pray earnestly for my child. If you are doing this, keep doing it. Pray that God would soften their hearts and bring conviction, repentance, and restoration.
As to whether or not to attend the wedding, this can only be you and your spouse’s decision. It is something that must be bathed in prayer and wise counsel. Whatever you choose to do will have enormous impact on the relationship. I do have a few questions that might help you and your spouse process this decision a little more:
-What will be accomplished if you and your spouse do not attend the wedding?
-How can you be the light of Christ in your child’s poor decisions and darkness?
I have no agenda in asking these particular questions other than trying to help you make the right choice. I would say that to make the decision to isolate or remove a relative from your life must be done with great care; especially, when it is one of your children. You might be the only picture of goodness, hope, joy, and love that your child will see for a while because of poor choices. You might be the only representation of Jesus for her and how you respond to her lifestyle will have great impact. It is possbible to love and care for someone even when that person is living far from God--it is just really hard to do. If you need to process this situation a little more I am absolutely available, simply call the church and we can set up a time to meet.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wicca and Christianity
Q: Do you know about Wickens (sic)? A girl in the hospital told me she was a good wicken (sic)? She believes in God, Jesus and that he arose from the dead for us. She also believes in many other Gods, such as God of Nature, God of Animals… I believe she is not a Christian because she believes in more Gods, but I believe she is because she believes in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. She says there are good Wicken (sic) and bad Wicken (sic).
A: It sounds to me like this person is a bit confused. I have read that this generation of young people are some of the most spiritual ever. But that doesn't mean that it is a significantly Christian generation...
Many people today seem to have a smorgasbord mentality when it comes to their spirituality - they pick and choose what they like from various belief systems, and leave behind that which doesn't appeal to them. It sounds like that's what this girl has done. She likes the idea of the Christian God, but maybe doesn't like the lifestyle (I'm simply making guesses) or something about the Wiccan set of beliefs appeals to her, so she latches on to that, too. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it's not that easy. When you have contradictory belief systems, one of them by definition has to be right and the other wrong. They can't both be right, just like someone can't be a bachelor and married at the same time.
Some of the contradictions / problems with Wiccan, in light of Christian beliefs:
*Wicca is a pantheistic religion, which means that God is in all of nature and cannot be separated from it. Christianity believes that God created all of nature, but is not integrated into it. As a result of this pantheism, the Wiccan believes that humanity participates in God and is God. Again, Christianity does not believe that mankind is God, but a separate entity created by Him.
*Wiccans believe that although all of nature and creation is God, there can be various realities and beliefs within God as humanity participates in God. This is even true if those various realities contradict each other. This is a logical absurdity.
*Wiccans believe in a God and Goddess, which are the male and female aspects of the Absolute One, a genderless deity. The High Preist of the coven (group of witches) is considered the incarnation of the God, and the High Preistess is considered the incarnation of the Goddess. Christianity believes in one God, manifested in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the only incarnation of God.
*Magic is a central component in Wicca. Magic is condemned in the Bible (Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6; Deuteronomy 18:9-14; 2 Kings 23:24; et al).
*While Wiccans believe in reincarnation, Hebrews 9:27 tells us that each person is appointed to die once (not twice, nor thrice).
*Karma is also held in high regard to Wiccans, as seen by their belief that if you do evil, it will return to you three-fold, and the same will be true if you do good. The Christian foundation is built on grace, not on what you do to earn good things happening to you.
*The Wiccan crede is: "And it harm none, do what you will." Basically, as long as you don't harm anyone, do whatever you want. The question is: Who defines harm? My reality as a part of God might be different from yours, so my definition of harm might be different. So if I were to come over and punch you really hard in the nose, you would probably cry, "Foul!" But my reality might be telling me that it is not really causing harm, so I can do it if I want to. That's a big problem with relative truth.
So this girl believes in God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit. The Bible says that the devil believes, too. This mental assent to a truth is not all it takes to be a Christian. It is a faith in that truth, and that truth alone.
For more information on this topic, go here: http://www.sdmin.org/soundingboard/199806.htm
Unbelieving Children
A: If your child is open to discussions or reading, you can have conversations along the lines of what you’ve seen on this blog. For instance, there is a lot of data that clearly refutes the issue of the Bible changing with each translation. If your child is not open to these kind of conversations, forcing them is of little help; I know from experience. So then, what do we parents do?
As difficult as it is, I think we follow the lead of the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. We allow them to be people with free will and make choices, even if they are bad. I’m not saying we abdicate our position as parents, but that position changes with the age of our children; as one person said to me, “we remain responsible to our children, but no longer responsible for them.” The father let his child go his own way, even with a blessing he didn’t deserve. Then each day, as he went on living his life and working and relating with his other children, he eagerly watched the horizon, ready to embrace his child when the child came to his senses.
For us, I think that looks like daily prayer; by us and by our friends and family. Not the kind of prayer that demands the next thing that happens or that we say to be THE thing that turns our child around, but the kind that is for the long haul. The hard part, especially in our society, is often the child comes over the hill not because of coming to his senses, but just to take more from us. That’s hard, and tough love may be called for. But continue to pray as an act of love to that child, regardless of outcomes.
Then, we live out our faith. We live consistently with Christ’s principles. I found that I was pushing Jesus, but living my life and treating my child with anger, bitterness, fear and frustration. Jesus doesn’t do that. So we find safe, appropriate places to properly deal with our junk, and then we deal with our kids like Christ-centered parents. Easy to say, tough to do, but I think like a lot of things, the hard route is the right one.
Remember, teens and young adults are looking to form their own identity and break away from parental influences. This may be as much about or more about you and your child than God and your child. For more information and encouragement, you may want to check out www.family.org.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Denominations
Q: If Christianity is Christianity - how do we deal with those of other denominations who are convinced that theirs is the only correct belief system?
A: I went on a summer mission trip years ago when I was in college. I remember something that the director said that I thought was profound. I think it applies here. He said...
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." Basically, what that means is:
* There are certain things that are non-negotiables in the Christian faith. Some of these are that Jesus is the only way to God; that He died a substitutionary death for us for our sin; that God exists in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. This list is far from exhaustive. We believe that, in order to call oneself a Christian, there must be a belief in and a trust placed in these essential truths. If someone believes something else, then historic Christianity would probably say that that person is not a Christian, but something else.
* There are also certain things that are negotiables: how to baptize (dunking or sprinkling, infant or believer), how to take Communion (intinction or wafer, wine or juice), what songs we should use in worship (hymns or contemporary worship songs or secular music), what version of the Bible to use (KJV, NIV, NRSV, NLT), and so on. These are not really essential to having a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Because of that, we can show each other some liberty to believe differently than what we believe in those areas. It shouldn't affect how we view that person's relationship with God.
* In either of the above areas, there should always be charity shown. Charity is an old word for love. We should always be loving, no matter the circumstance. The problem seems to come when we find that we differ in our beliefs with others, whether it be in negotiables or non-negotiables. Too often we - as Christians - respond with vitriol, scorn, and pride. We look down on and argue with others who believe differently, instead of loving them despite our differences, as Jesus would do. Would Jesus refuse to hang out with someone because they believed differently? Those are exactly the people He did hang out with. As a result of us not modeling Jesus, those who don't consider themselves to be followers of Christ / Christians see this infighting and ask, "Why would I want to be a part of that? They can't even get along with each other." That's a problem.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Christian and suffering
Q: I believe that I am a Christian. I pray, I go to church, I teach kids about God, but bad things keep happening to me all the time. Why is that?
A: Becoming a Christian doesn’t exempt us from suffering. Jesus said, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” In this saying he promises two things: that we will experience suffering and that his life brings ultimate meaning to it and victory over it.
You could even argue that becoming a Christian increases our likelihood of suffering because now there is the added dimension of persecution because of our faith. (Not that we in America face anything closely resembling the persecution our brothers and sisters in Christ face in other parts of the world!) Think of all the suffering the first disciples faced, the hardships of the Apostle Paul, the tens of thousands of martyrs who died for their faith. Bad things happened to them, didn’t they? Yet, they rejoiced. They even sang when falsely imprisoned. Why? The resurrected Christ dwelt in their hearts!
Within this question is a hint that...
“if I do the right things, things should go well for me.” I’m not saying the person who asked this question is practicing their faith with an ulterior motive in mind, but the reality is some do approach God from a position of bargaining. “I’ll join a church, go to small group, pay my tithes, keep my kids in church, God, as long as you bless me and make my life comfortable and rewarding! God, I’ll do my part if you’ll do yours!” When something has really gone well for you, have you ever heard someone say, “You must be living right?” That is not a biblical notion. God’s blessings come to us as a gift, not because we’re living right. Now, don’t get me wrong: Right living has its rewards (the satisfaction of doing the right thing, the joy of obedience, etc.). But, we should serve God out of gratitude and love; not for what we might get in return.
Think of it this way. Let’s say that becoming a Christ follower meant you supernaturally entered a trouble free zone. You never got sick, you always had an abundance financially, your car never broke down, your kids got straight A’s … you get the picture. Now, under those circumstances, how many would become Christians? Just about everyone … and for all the wrong reasons. They’d be mercenaries, not disciples.
Jesus suffered. We will suffer. Jesus’ suffering was redeemed. Our suffering will be redeemed.
Where did Cain get his wife?
Q: How could all the races of the world come from one man and one woman? Did Cain and Abel marry their sisters?
A: If people are asking questions about the Bible, this one is sure to come up. The Bible doesn’t tell us, so it is speculation. Here are a couple options:
The Talmud (a history of commentary on the law by Jewish rabbis) tells us that Cain and Able were both born with twin sisters, who married the other brother. Yes, that is incest by later standards but, given the circumstances, it was necessary in the beginning.
In his book, The Science of God, Gerald Schroeder offers an interesting alternative view. He speculates that since Genesis says Adam was “made,” not “created” (meaning he was made out of something already existing), that the earth by this time was filled with...
hominids – pre-human creatures. When God announces His punishment on Cain for killing his brother, Genesis 4:15 says Cain “will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds [him] will kill [him].” That suggests that there are other people in the world besides Cain, his parents and siblings. Schroeder suggests these are hominids, pre-human beings who may or may not have had spirit breathed into them by God as had happened when Adam was made. Again, this is speculation but it has biblical warrant in the language of Genesis. Interestingly, this would reconcile some aspects of evolutionary theory with the biblical account of creation. He does a much better job of describing this, so I suggest getting his book if you want to dig deeper.
