Speaker ridicules, curses at teens in the name of…tolerance?

I saw this video on a Facebook group yesterday and found it to be simply pitiful.

It’s a keynote address by Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” campaign which seeks to prevent suicide among teens who are bullied and abused due to their sexual orientation.

The audience members are high school students.

First things first:

Bullying of gay teenagers is a real problem that needs to be addressed and combated by everyone who is on the side of justice, love and human dignity!

The pain experienced by GLBT teens is real and the hatred they experience is also real…and it is deplorable!

Based on the life and message of Jesus, I believe that ANYONE who uses passages from Scripture to justify or condone hatred, evil, and violence toward those they deem sinful are more guilty than the behavior they are opposing!

However…

The irony of someone using a bully pulpit to bully those who believe differently than they do is quite striking and should not go unnoticed…and neither should the ridiculous amount of misinformation, verbal harassment of students, and erroneous claims about the Bible being made by this speaker.

Imagine if a Bible teacher had referred to atheist high school students who walked out on him “pansy asses” while he was calling their beliefs “bullsh*t”…

How quickly would such a speaker be demonized?

Yet the above incident goes unnoticed and accepted.

Pitiful.

The sad irony is that with such a speech, Dan Savage reveals himself to be no better than those he is railing against.

If any Dojo readers would like to read a serious and respectful discussion of the issue of same-sex sexual relationships and Scripture, please see this series of posts in which a friend and I debate the issue:

Also, you can read more thoughts on issues surrounding homosexuality in the following examiner articles and reviews I’ve written:

Regardless of one’s view on the subject, it’s important to remember an important truth:

Ignorance + Zeal = Fundamentalism

That goes for those on BOTH sides of an issue.

Blessings from the Dojo,

ps: For those who are interested in a mature and rational discussion of the issues involved in the Bible’s teaching on slavery and same-sex behavior by an excellent Biblical scholar, I recommend William Webb’s book “Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis“. Webb traces the subjects from the beginning all the way through to the New Testament period and shows that despite common rhetoric by advocates of various positions, the two are simply not comparable in any meaningful way. Personally, I believe that those who equate the Bible’s teachings on slavery with its teaching on same-sex sexual ethics (usually via prooftexting or cursory readings of isolated passages…such as the speaker did in the video above) demonstrates a genuine lack of knowledge about what the Bible actually teaches overall.

Posted by jm on April 30, 2012.

Categories: Biblical Theology, Blog, Political/Social issues, Relationships, Theological issues

22 Responses

Any comment about how Savage is wrong that the Bible condones slavery in the Letter to Philemon? Do you deny that the letter is about slavery, or do you deny that even though it is about slavery, and that tbe Bible condones Slavery, passages against homosexuality are still valid?

by Chris Bowers on Apr 30, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Absolutely, Chris. Philemon is the most subversive book in all of Scripture (other than perhaps Revelation, which outright condemns the slave trade) on the issue of slavery. Paul uses brilliant rhetorical skill in his understated letter to his friend, declaring Philemon to be a brother and pressuring him (using honor/shame language) to free Onesimus.

Dr. Dolan Hubbard, Prof. of African American Literature at the University of Georgia, pointed to Philemon in class discussions on ways in which the Bible subverts slavery and cannot accurately be said to support or promote it, particularly regarding concepts of modern colonial slavery. (I don’t have a proper citation, as this was during a discussion when I was a student of his at UGA.)

Here are a couple of points about Philemon that Savage seems unaware of or chooses to ignore:

“[Philemon] provides a small commentary on slavery in the ancient world. When read together with Colossians 3:22–4:1, we begin to appreciate how conversion to the Christian faith broke down all social, racial and economic barriers (Patzia, 91–93). Although Paul does not speak directly for the abolition of slavery, this letter exemplifies, as much as any other writing of his, the truth of Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. A new relationship and partnership has been formed in this situation where master, slave and apostle are all part of one family in Christ (v.16). The church as a whole should be characterized by such virtues as love, forgiveness, equality and fellowship. [It] is [also] a masterpiece of pastoral diplomacy. Paul’s request is not reinforced by expressions of compulsion, constraint or coercion. The reconciliation between Philemon and Onesimus is based on the principles of Christian love and forgiveness and not Roman law or apostolic authority. The release of Onesimus for Paul’s ministry must be a voluntary action leading to the highest good for all parties concerned. Paul is confident that he will succeed in motivating Philemon “to do even more” than he has requested (v.21).

Gerald F. Hawthorne et al., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 706.

by jm on Apr 30, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Also, here is an excerpt from an essay Webb wrote on the redemptive movement of Scripture which is helpful in constructing a properly nuanced view of any issue, but particularly of slavery:

The Realization of Redemptive-Movement Meaning

The New Testament as final revelation. Before offering suggestions for contemporary application of a redemptive-movement hermeneutic, we need to raise the very important question of its limits. Given that the New Testament is the final apex of revelation, should we conclude that it offers a completely finalized expression of redemptive-movement meaning in all concrete particulars? Or does the redemptive movement begun in the Old Testament and extended in the New Testament need to be extended even further? Does our commitment to the New Testament as God’s final word help decide these questions one way or the other?

For Christians, of course, the New Testament is the “final and definitive revelation” by which we address all issues of faith and practice. Since the New Testament is God’s final and definitive word spoken to his people in the last days (Heb 1:2), transmitted to the saints once and for all (Jude 3), we do not expect any further revelation until the coming of Jesus Christ. This point is not at issue.

Rather, here is the crux of the matter: How does one relate the New Testament as final revelation with a further realization of its social ethic? Some authors unfortunately merge these two concepts into one affirmation, assuming that the New Testament revelation contains a fully realized ethic in all of its concrete “frozen-in-time” particulars. All agree that the New Testament moves beyond the Old Testament in its development or realization of ethic; that is, it takes the Old Testament redemptive spirit further. However, the New Testament is still like the Old Testament in expressing the unfolding of an ethic at certain points in an incremental (not absolute) fashion. In the end, therefore, the issue is not the New Testament’s status as final revelation but the degree to which the New Testament is similar or dissimilar to the Old Testament with respect to its realization of ethic. Do contemporary Christians in some fashion need to move with the redemptive spirit of the New Testament toward a realization of that movement beyond certain concrete, frozen-in-time particulars?

The rest of this chapter will present a threefold rationale for seeing the New Testament as expressing an incremental (not ultimate) ethic in certain concrete particulars: (1) the Old Testament as precedent, (2) the New Testament slavery texts and (3) the New Testament women texts.

The Old Testament as precedent: Continuity and discontinuity. An appeal to redemptive-movement meaning in the Old Testament should inform appropriate expectations for the New Testament. Granted, the New Testament moves the Old Testament ethic further along in its concrete expressions, as the Old Testament itself moved incrementally beyond its foreign and domestic context. However, something very important has stayed the same between the Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament was God’s revelation to his covenant people within the constraints of a curse-laden and culturally shaped world, and the New Testament is still revelation from God within a curse-laden and culturally distinct world. Given that both of these factors—the fallen world context and an ancient world horizon—were still part of the equation at the time of the New Testament, one should be less quick to pronounce the movement within the New Testament “absolute” in all of its particulars rather than incremental like the Old Testament.

It is this “real world” continuity between Testaments that strongly suggests the likelihood of an incremental ethic within the New Testament and thus the need for a redemptive-movement hermeneutic.

The New Testament slavery texts: Further redemptive movement. Most agree that contemporary Christians need to have moved beyond the “frozen-in-time” words of the New Testament to a more ultimate ethic regarding slavery. Again, there is certainly movement within the New Testament slavery texts (beyond the Old Testament) toward a betterment of the institution. The status of slaves is basically elevated within the New Testament community, although household slaves with pagan masters are urged to follow Christ’s example of suffering (1 Pet 2:18–25). The fact that slaves had salvific equality “in Christ” surely had subtle ways of increasing their social status within the covenant community. Indeed, Paul’s letter to Philemon urges the transformation of relationship between a runaway slave and his owner: slave and master are first of all brothers in Christ.

But none of this, as redemptive as it is, amounts to an abolitionist position in the New Testament. There is no overt call for the abolition of slavery. Slaves are still instructed to submit and obey. Christian masters are simply called on to treat their slaves in a humane and Christian way, as those who themselves serve a heavenly Master. Try as we may, modern Christians simply “cannot get there from here” with a stationary approach to meaning in the text. That is, we can scarcely argue cogently for a proactive abolitionist position in today’s world based on a words-on-the-page understanding of the New Testament texts on slaves.

However, if we understand biblical meaning to include the redemptive spirit of the text, the situation changes. Now one can construct a well-reasoned argument that abolitionism best reflects a reasonable outgrowth of the spirit of the New Testament (and that of the Old Testament!) and its movement meaning. Wherever slavery may occur in our modern world, Christians should have an ethical obligation based on the spirit of Scripture (a) to abolish slavery rather than simply (b) to treat slaves well but allow slavery. A static, words-on-the-page understanding of social ethics in the Bible leads to the second option (b); a redemptive spirit and movement understanding of social ethics in the Bible leads to the first option (a).

While the New Testament is our final and definitive revelation and its underlying redemptive spirit contains an absolute ethic, the realization of its redemptive movement is incremental (as in the Old Testament) and not a fully realized ethic. The abolition of slavery, a clearly better ethic than a call for a nicer form of slavery, can be achieved only through reading and applying Scripture with a redemptive-movement hermeneutic. Unless one embraces the redemptive spirit of Scripture, there is no biblically based rationale for championing an abolitionist perspective. An isolated-words or stationary approach to the New Testament simply will not take us there.

This is not a matter of simply “permitting” abolition as a social reform should it happen.16 That would involve a confusion of categories. Rather, since there truly is a better treatment of human beings than slavery, Christians should have a passionate commitment, rooted in the Bible’s redemptive spirit, to rid society of slavery.

[Webb, William, in Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis,

Discovering Biblical Equality : Complementarity Without Hierarchy

(Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 392-95.

Also, it should not go unnoticed that in history, the most ardent and passionate abolitionist voices were those of Christians who see Scripture as their final authority in terms of faith and ethics–from John Wesley and William Wilberforce all the way up to modern groups like International Justice Mission (www.ijm.org). To claim “the Bible promotes slavery” betrays an infantile view of the Bible’s teaching on the subject overall.

But it sure makes for a great sound byte and urban legend generator. :-/

by jm on Apr 30, 2012 at 5:42 pm
>To claim “the Bible promotes slavery” betrays an infantile view of the Bible’s >teaching on the subject overall.

On this point I agree. I don’t think that the Bible promotes slavery.

But I do think, however, that Paul condoned it, in that he accepted slavery as a viable institution. Paul did not want to tear down slavery. He accepted it and promoted it.

Ephesians 6
5. Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;
6. not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.
7. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men,
8. knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
9. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

No, Paul did not condemn slavery. No way, no how. Here he EQUATES OBEYING YOUR MASTER WITH OBEYING CHRIST!

You aren’t going to get out of this one. Paul accepted and condoned the institution of slavery.

Much of your Theological hand washing above, JMS is in the vein of “Yes, Paul didn’t condemn slavery… but…. he would have… he meant to, we should in the future… blah, blah, blah.”

It’s all a bunch of special pleading and hand wringing, but the simple fact is that Paul said that Slaves should be obedient to their masters, not that they should disobey them, not that they should revolt, in short: not that the institution of slavery should be torn down.

Yes, many Christians were abolitionists, and Christianity did a lot for the Abolitionist movement. That’s because they followed Jesus instead of Paul and found Slavery to be incompatible with love. Paul didn’t think that. Paul thought that a Master-Slave relationship would be perfectly fine as a Christian, and he demonstrates that in the above passage: Slaves are obedient, Masters are kind: all is right with the world. All of this, in his mind, is in accord with Christianity. Paul didn’t have a problem with the institution of Slavery. Just accept it. He condoned it.

> Most agree that contemporary Christians need to have moved beyond >the “frozen-in-time” words of the New Testament to a more ultimate ethic >regarding slavery.

Yes, but we don’t need to move past the “frozen-in-time” words of the New Testament to a more ultimate ethic regarding homosexuality?

You take passages on slavery and say, “hey, Slavery then was different than slavery now”. But you can’t also say “Hey homosexuality was different then than it is now?”

Why is it that when it comes to slavery, we need a cultural context, and we need to see it “in the light of his day” and we need to understand that slavery “wasn’t exactly” how colonial slavery was?

Yet in regards to the historicity of Homosexuality in Roman times, and it’s connection to Military servitude, Pederasty, Pedophilia, Prostitution and Idol sex worship, we’re supposed to give no consideration to context and consider Paul’s condemnation to be written in stone and for all people, forever as an eternal commandment.

THAT is the issue that is brought up in this video, and he’s right. Paul got it wrong, he should have condemned slavery (as the rest of the Bible does), not condoned it, as he did, saying that you could have a happy Christian household as long as slaves knuckled under and masters were kind.

by Chris Bowers on May 1, 2012 at 12:45 am
I’ve addressed this elsewhere in the links posted, so no need to reinvent the wheel. Just a few quick points in response:

1. Claiming that the Pauline Household Codes in the NT condone or promote slavery is like claiming that the Sermon on the Mount promotes Roman Imperialism or Jesus promoted slavery by healing the Centurion’s slave but not commanding the Centurion to free him. Jesus did not outright condemn these societal ills in the way you seem to require of Paul. Yet you rightly recognize that Jesus’ message totally subverted and made illegitimate such things. Same goes for Paul, who Jesus commissioned to take this same Gospel to the Gentile world.

2. Paul’s personal letter to Philemon shows clearly that his tactic in speaking to the issue of slavery is one of subversion from within rather than opposing it outright. And his tactic worked in the long run.

3. Unlike the issue of ancient slavery, Scripture shows no comparable redemptive-cultural movement when it comes to homosexuality. There is no equivalent to Philemon, if you will, when it comes to same-sex sex in Scripture. It is a practice that is entirely and unequivocally repudiated wherever it is mentioned in both Testaments of Scripture (note: I said same-sex sex acts…not ‘orientation.’ This is crucial because the Bible does not condemn someone who has same-sex sexual desire anymoreso than someone who struggles with any other desire to commit acts which are sinful).

I know you reject this last point and appeal to anachronistic readings of various OT and NT passages which you claim show same-sex sexual relationships in a positive light. But we’ve beat that horse to death so I won’t get into it again here. The focus of this blog post is the demeaning behavior by Dan Savage toward high school kids from a position of authority…something that even the most ardent proponent of GLBT sexual ethics should find unacceptable.

by jm on May 1, 2012 at 1:25 am
JMS, you simply aren’t addressing what I said. Paul equates obeying a master to obeying Christ! The authority of a slave master here is given equal weight as the authority of Christ in Ephesians. That context has to be read into Philemon.

This isn’t the first time a Christian has made this mistake. Many Christians over the course of history have equated earthly authority with Christ’s authority. Paul also did it with capital punishment, and Aquinas and Calvin and Luther did the same thing. They all claimed that the earthly authority, whether it was capital punishment, the government oppressing the poor or what not was legitimate, because they equated this earthly authority with God’s authority. Big mistake. Laws aren’t God.

>Jesus did not outright condemn these societal ills in the way you seem to >require of Paul.

There is a difference between “no comment” on slavery, and saying that a slave master’s authority is equivalent to God’s authority! If Paul simply didn’t comment, that would be different. In Philemon he encourages a runaway slave to return to his master and in Ephesians he encourages slaves to be as obedient to their master as to God.

>Yet you rightly recognize that Jesus’ message totally subverted and made >illegitimate such things.

That’s because Jesus challenged earthly authority on the basis of the law of love, whether it was the Roman state, or the religious Temple. He drove out the moneychangers, and violated cultural and political taboos. He ignored and lampooned every type of earthly authority there was.

Paul is saying, on the other hand, not to violate these taboos.

>It is a practice that is entirely and unequivocally repudiated wherever it is >mentioned in both Testaments of Scripture (note: I said same-sex sex >acts…not ‘orientation.’

It is not “unequivocally repudiated”. It is repudiated in a cultural context. You want to bring in that context in regards to slavery, yet you want to ignore that context when it comes to homosexual acts.

You KNOW that homosexual acts were used for prostitution, you KNOW that homosexual acts were used for worship of false gods, you KNOW that homosexual acts were used as sexual slavery in the Roman military, yet you want to ignore that context and claim that it’s an eternal (unequivocal) commandment for all persons to obey, and for all homosexual sex acts for all time.

Yet when it comes to Paul condoning slavery by telling slaves their masters are equal to Christ, you want to throw in all sorts of cultural context and pat Paul on the back and say it’s okay that he permitted and encouraged slavery, that’s not what we should do in our time.

Dan Savage is right, you’re a hypocrite. Paul is condoning slavery and you give him a pass and plead for context and that we should apply the law of love for a better ethic on it. And when Paul condemns Homosexuality you want to ignore context and have it as a commandment written in stone (irrespective of if it violates the law of love).

Without maligning your blog with curse words, I think he’s right, I think that your belief IS offal from a male cow. It’s just cherry picking. If you treated slavery the way you treated homosexuality, you’ve be arguing for a return to Pauline style slavery and that there’s no reason Christians can’t have a nice Slave-Master relationship. But a kind and loving Male-Male sexual relationship? Forget it! We can’t move towards a better ethic on that!

>The focus of this blog post is the demeaning behavior by Dan Savage >toward high school kids from a position of authority…something that even >the most ardent proponent of GLBT sexual ethics should find >unacceptable.

You mean like using Paul’s authority to demean homosexuals? You mean like equating Paul’s authority to Christ’s authority, and a preacher’s authority, to Paul’s authority, and thus earthly authority to God’s authority?

Dan doesn’t have any authority over these kids. He’s just a public speaker. Dan didn’t demean ANY PERSON by what he said. He demeaned people’s “beliefs” and he demeaned the Bible.

He didn’t demean anyone personally. He didn’t curse anyone personally.

What he did was show the inherent hypocrisy and double standard of Christianity. Context and a pass for slavery, no context and no pass for homosexuality.

by Chris Bowers on May 1, 2012 at 2:18 pm
And you’re not addressing what I said, Chris.

There is no equivalent to Philemon when it comes to same-sex sexual acts in Scripture. Philemon (and the rest of Scripture) provide a counterbalance to passages on slavery which severely qualify Paul’s words. This isn’t cherry-picking…it’s simply responsible reading of Scripture in context and as a whole. There is no equivalent to this when it comes to the issue of same-sex sexual relationships. This is where, as Webb has demonstrated (and one day hopefully you’ll take the time to read his book for yourself if you intend to continue arguing your view), you and Savage are simply in error when you attempt to make such comparisons.

by jm on May 1, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Ephesians 6
5. Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;

Short form/paraphrase:

Ephesians 6
5. Slaves, be [as] obedient to those who are your masters as to Christ.

Slaves obey your masters just like you would obey Christ.

Equating a slave master to Christ is condoning slavery. I’m sorry, duck and bob and weave as you can, there’s no other way to see it.

by Chris Bowers on May 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Let’s apply your logic to Jesus’ words, shall we:

“Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Jesus is “condoning” assault and battery, apparently.

“And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.”

Jesus is “condoning” oppressive lawsuits against the poor.

“If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”

Jesus is “condoning” Roman soldier exploitation of peasants.

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

Jesus is “condoning” persecution by the unrighteous.

Prooftexting is fun, isn’t it?? 😉

by jm on May 1, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Just a quick series of questions.

1. Were homosexual acts used for prostitution in Biblical times?

2. Were homosexual acts used in Roman Temples and to worship false gods in those temples with sex acts?

3. Were homosexual acts used in the Roman military as a form of sexual slavery?

If you answered “yes” on 1-3, why is that cultural context not brought to bear on Paul’s condemnation of homosexual acts?

by Chris Bowers on May 1, 2012 at 2:29 pm
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. At times

Cultural context is absolutely brought to bear on Paul’s condemnation of same-sex acts (along with the rest of the Biblical prohibitions of same-sex sex acts).

But you forgot some contextual questions that are key as well:

4. “Were homosexual acts used in loving same-sex relationships in Biblical times?” Yes
5. “Were homosexual acts used non-exploitative relationships in Biblical times?” Yes

There are no caveats in Scripture’s prohibition of same-sex sex acts which would lead us to believe that it is ONLY prohibiting certain culturally-bound acts as you implying. There are many such caveats when it comes to issues like slavery. That is the reason your argument, and that of Savage, has no leg to stand on.

To illustrate where you’re error lies, let’s apply your questions to another sin that Scripture universally condemns:

1. Was drunkenness used along with prostitution in Biblical times? Yes
2. Was drunkenness used in Roman Temples and to worship false gods in those temples while intoxicated? Yes
3. Was drunkenness used in the Roman military as a form of soldier recreational pastime? Yes

So clearly then, drunkenness being prohibited in Scripture must only apply to these types of drunkenness rather than other more “responsible” forms of drunkenness, correct?

by jm on May 1, 2012 at 2:58 pm
All jesus is saying in the above is “If someone wants to do something unkind to you, do something kind to them.”

Not the equivalent of what Paul is saying.

Paul is saying “Slavemasters = Christ.” To obey a slavemaster is to obey Christ.

That’s condoning slavery no matter how you want to slice it JMS.

I know you really like Paul and want to equate him to Christ, but it just doesn’t work. Paul was simply wrong on slavery. Just admit it.

And it isn’t a “prooftext” or something taken out of context. as I said above, Paul equates earthly authority to divine authority several times. He equates the male partner in a marriage to Christ, he equates the Roman State to Christ, he equates slavemasters to Christ, and he equates any earthly authority to Christ. He was wrong on all these counts.

It’s cleat that Paul liked authority, and liked claiming that people had authority over other people, and that this authority was the same as Christ’s authority, whether it be the Roman State and Capital Punishment (in his mind equal to Christ) , Male authority in marriage (in his mind equal to Christ) , or a Slavemaster’s authority over a slave (In his mind equal to Christ).

Paul got it wrong! He got all of these things wrong: Sexism, Slavery, and Capital Punishment. He was simply wrong on these issues. He equated earthly authority with divine authority, and that equation is false.

by Chris Bowers on May 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Again, your reading of the text is incredibly simplistic and, like Savage in the video, totally mischaracterizes Paul’s position. Paul does not say “Slavemasters = Christ” and you know this. It’s made clear in the very next part of the passage that you conveniently left out, “Masters, do the same to them”. Paul ignores the social stratification and puts everyone on the same playing field in his Household Code addresses.

As the late John Stott keenly points out:
————————
“It is immediately remarkable that in his Haustafeln (Household address) Paul should address himself to slaves at all. The simple fact that he does so indicates that they were accepted members of the Christian community and that he regards them as responsible people to whom, as much as to their masters, he sends a moral appeal. If children are to obey their parents, slaves are to obey their earthly masters (verse 5), and for the very same reason, namely that behind them they must learn to discern the figure of their master … in heaven (verse 9), namely the Lord Christ. In each of the four verses addressed to slaves Jesus Christ is mentioned. They are to be obedient as to Christ (verse 5), to behave as servants (literally, ‘slaves’) of Christ (verse 6), to render service as to the Lord rather than men (verse 7), knowing that they will receive good from the Lord (verse 8). The Christ-centredness of this instruction is very striking. The slave’s perspective has changed. His horizons have broadened. He has been liberated from the slavery of ‘men-pleasing’ into the freedom of serving Christ. His mundane tasks have been absorbed into a higher preoccupation, namely the will of God (verse 6) and the good pleasure of Christ.”
——————–

In essence (and as we know from reading his letter to Philemon which directly bears on the subject!) Paul is saying “render to earthly authorities the service required as if you were doing it unto the Lord”…it’s the same message Jesus gave in the Sermon on the Mount to those who were facing Roman soldiers forcing them to carry a load for a mile.

THAT’S how you undermine a dehumanizing social institution. Jesus, Paul, MLK Jr., Gandhi…the tactic is incredibly effective as history shows.

by jm on May 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm
>There is no equivalent to Philemon when it comes to same-sex sexual acts >in Scripture. Philemon (and the rest of Scripture) provide a counterbalance >to passages on slavery which severely qualify Paul’s words.

No, Paul’s words aren’t qualified by “The rest of Scripture”. You can’t simply say “Well, the rest of scripture is anti-slavery, so Paul is anti-slavery.” Just because Paul is in the Bible doesn’t mean he agrees with or properly promotes the rest of the Bible.

I agree with you that the rest of the Bible, with some rare exceptions, is anti-slavery. But that doesn’t mean that Paul is anti-slavery.

Paul is pro-slavery. He equates slave-masters to Christ. Anything that is equated to Christ is something Paul is for. Paul’s words are qualified by Paul’s OTHER words, yes. That’s why Philemon must be read in the light of Ephesians.

>This isn’t cherry-picking…it’s simply responsible reading of Scripture in >context and as a whole.

It’s magical thinking. You think that because scripture, in other areas written 1000’s of years apart, condemns slavery, that the magical holy spirit prevents Paul from being Pro-slavery by wresting his free will away from him and forcing him to reject slavery and ignore his own bias.

The problem with your theory is, we have his words, which are pro-slavery.

Your theory is fine in you personally rejecting slavery, since the vast majority of the Bible condemns slavery. It is proper to say that the Bible rejects slavery

However it doesn’t work for Paul, since he equates slave owners to Christ. He is pro-slavery, and he condones it. His words contradict the vast majority of scripture.

The reason it’s cherrypicking, is that it’s cherrypicking from Paul. You chose his view of anti-homosexuality, but not his view of pro-slavery.

>There is no equivalent to this when it comes to the issue of same-sex >sexual relationships.

Okay.

1. I don’t agree with you on that point. As I’ve already exhaustively argued with you, I believe David and Jonathan had a loving homosexual relationship and are a positive mention of homosexual relationships and homosexual acts.

2. Even if I did agree with you, that still doesn’t prove that ALL homosexual acts are wrong simply because Paul and Leviticus say that SOME homosexual acts are wrong. A positive mention in scripture isn’t required for something to be morally permissible.

In order for something to be morally wrong, the onus is on YOU, (not me) to PROVE that it is wrong, and to prove that the ancient context is the equivalent of the modern context.

by Chris Bowers on May 1, 2012 at 3:13 pm
>But you forgot some contextual questions that are key as well:
>4. “Were homosexual acts used in loving same-sex relationships in Biblical >times?” Yes
>5. “Were homosexual acts used non-exploitative relationships in Biblical >times?” Yes
>There are no caveats in Scripture’s prohibition of same-sex sex acts which >would lead us to believe that it is ONLY prohibiting certain culturally-bound >acts as you implying.

Caveats aren’t needed. If the #1, #2, and #3 most popular use of homosexual were for those purposes, then you have to figure that into Paul’s condemnation of them. If all the homosexual acts committed are in order to transgress those three sins, you wouldn’t have caveats. You would condemn all homosexual acts, because all homosexual acts were in the context of #1, #2, and #3.

Non-exploitative same sex partners (#4 and #5) happened in earlier Greece, (earlier and far away geographically from Paul) and in later Roman times (homosexual marriage wasn’t legal in the Roman empire until well after Paul’s death).

But in your condemnation of homosexuality, you ignore the context of #1, #2, and #3, and instead insist that it’s a prohibition also for #4, and #5.

And (ALSO) Paul got Sexism, Capital Punishment, and Slavery wrong, so who’s to say he got homosexuality right?

I think that’s the point Dan Savage is making here.

by Chris Bowers on May 1, 2012 at 3:31 pm
WOW!

by Mom on May 1, 2012 at 4:18 pm
One last thing before I forget, because I think your readers will find it interesting. Is masturbation wrong according to the Bible?

Consider the following passages:

Genesis 38 [Context] [Commentary] [Map] NRSV
9. Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. 10. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.

Leviticus 18:21 (KJV)
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

So that’s two negative mentions of masturbation. Are there any positive mentions of masturbation in the Bible? No.

Let’s take the context.

In the first example, Onan is trying to avoid the responsibilities of Levirate marriage. He’s trying to prevent his new second wife from getting pregnant against her will.

In the second, God doesn’t want people masturbating into the fire for Molech, as it was one of their sex practices.

Were there other instances of masturbation other than idolatry and denying your wife children? Yes.

Does that mean that the scripture is saying that all masturbation is wrong?

NO!

The context is specific, and the condemnation is specific. The writer here wasn’t concerned with ALL MASTURBATION, they were concerned with specific forms of it.

Likewise Paul was talking about specific forms of homosexual acts which were popular in his day, and his condemnation shouldn’t be taken as a condemnation of all homosexual acts.

The acts he was concerned with are specific sex acts involving prostitution and temple sex worship,as well as possibly the pederasty/pedophilia of the Roman Army.

So, to conclude:

1. A positive mention of an act in the Bible isn’t necessary for it to be morally permissible.

2. A negative mention of an act must be taken in it’s historical context.

3. A condemnation does not have to have caveats to be restricted to a particular sphere. The Onan and Molech condemnations aren’t given caveats. These acts are condemned in broad language, no permission is given for other forms of it.

4. Nevertheless, the act is still morally permissible because the writer wasn’t talking about the act in other contexts.

by Chris Bowers on May 1, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Haha, you know I wrote a book on the Biblical ethics of Masturbation, right Chris?

No, neither of those passages speaks at all of masturbation. The closest Scripture comes to saying anything at all on the subject is the Levitical directions for restoring ritual purity after one has an emission of semen.

And no one in the history of Biblical scholarship that I’m aware of has ever attempted to argue that “zera'” in Lev.18 is talking about semen in any way, shape or form. It’s talking about offering children as sacrifices to Molech. The story of Onan is about Onan “pulling out” before ejactulation in order to avoid pregnancy.

by jm on May 1, 2012 at 8:06 pm
>No, neither of those passages speaks at all of masturbation.

I know that you agree with me. This is not my point.

The point is that you established a rubric for whether something is morally wrong or not.

1. If there is a positive mention of it.

2. If an act is condemned in a particular context, and there are no caveats made, it is condemned in all contexts.

According to the masturbation example, your rubric doesn’t work.

1. There is no positive mention of masturbation in scripture.

2. This act is condemned in a particular context and no caveats are made for other contexts. According to your claims about homosexuality, this would make masturbation wrong.

Emission of semen in this context is wrong, so emission of semen in any context (other than sex with a married partner) is also wrong.

Since there are no caveats, many conservative Christians seek to universalize the idea that any emission of semen is wrong irrespective of context.

I’m sorry that you aren’t aware that these two passages are used to condemn Masturbation. I assumed that, having written a book on the subject, you would know that. But I guess you are ignorant of that fact. The Catholic Church as well as Conservative Jewish circles have repeatedly used both passages to prove that masturbation in the words of the Catechism is a “Severely sexually disordered act.”

The point is that you apply context in the case of masturbation and slavery, but ignore context in the case of Homosexuality.

You accept that these emissions were because of specific contexts, but you ignore those contexts when it comes to homosexual acts, and ban them wholesale.

by Chris Bowers on May 2, 2012 at 12:06 am
I spend a chapter in my book on the Onan passage, Chris. As for the offspring/Molech passage, again, I’m not aware of a single scholar that’s ever tried to argue that passage has anything to do with masturbation. Please provide a source if you have one.

Neither of these have anything to do with masturbation, so they cannot be appealed to in any way in discussion of the subject, just as they cannot be appealed to in a discussion of, say, drug abuse or tax reform. They have nothing to do with the issue you are attempting to use as an illustration.

If an action is described multiple times in Scripture, across the full canonical spectrum, and always in a negative light, never in a positive light, and never with qualifying or counter examples which give evidence that types of such behavior are not always morally wrong, and has also been near-universally recognized as immoral by all branches of Christianity and Judaism for over 2 millennia, then someone claiming that there are, in fact, exceptions to this bear a near-infinite burden of proof to demonstrate their claim.

Some VERY gifted minds have tried in the last 50 years to do this very thing…and have failed to do so. Thus the only way to say that the behavior in question is acceptable is to say that the Bible cannot be appealed to as an authority for Christians in terms of ethics…or must be selectively appealed to, with personal/cultural tastes being the arbiter of what is and is not to be authoritative. This is the direction many mainline churches have gone…but it is hermeneutically inconsistent and unacceptable for those who see Scripture as a faithful repository of God’s spoken & written word.

by jm on May 2, 2012 at 7:22 pm
>Paul does not say “Slavemasters = Christ” and you know this. It’s made >clear in the very next part of the passage that you conveniently left out, >“Masters, do the same to them”. Paul ignores the social stratification and >puts everyone on the same playing field in his Household Code addresses.

First of all, I didn’t leave it out, I left it in the rendering above.

Paul says:
5. Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;
6. not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.
7. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men,
8. knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
9. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
9. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

By “The same to them” Paul is not saying that Masters are to be obedient to their slaves. He’s saying that they should be kind masters and not mean.
Paul clearly establishes who is in Authority, it’s the Masters, and the Slaves should obey everything they say, and have a “Christian” kind attitude about it. And Slavemasters should also be kind about being a Slavemaster. That’s all. By encouraging slaves to obey, he is upholding the institution.

>In essence (and as we know from reading his letter to Philemon which >directly bears on the subject!) Paul is saying “render to earthly authorities >the service required as if you were doing it unto the Lord”…it’s the same >message Jesus gave in the Sermon on the Mount to those who were >facing Roman soldiers forcing them to carry a load for a mile.

See, this right here, is what I was pointing out, and precisely why Paul is wrong. The authorities aren’t God. A slavemaster isn’t God. The male in a marriage isn’t God. You should NOT render to earthly authorities as if you are rendering to God. THEY AREN’T GOD! You can’t equate the two. Authorities do good things and they do bad things.

No, Jesus did not believe that one should submit to earthly authorities or acknowledge their authority. That’s why Jesus refused to speak at his own trial or in his own defense. He didn’t recognize the authority of Rome at all. That’s why he upturned the moneychangers. He didn’t recognize the authority of the Priestly class, or the earthly authority of the Temple.

>THAT’S how you undermine a dehumanizing social institution. Jesus, Paul, >MLK Jr., Gandhi…the tactic is incredibly effective as history shows.

No, that’s NOT how you undermine a dehumanizing social institution. You undermine it by DISOBEDIENCE, not by OBEDIENCE. That’s why it’s called CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. Jesus disobeyed the Temple by throwing out the moneychangers. He disobeyed the Sadducees and Pharisees by teaching as one on his own authority. He disobeyed by teaching and healing on the Sabbath. He disobeyed by calling God “abba” and by saying that God shared his essence. When they threatened to stone him for blasphemy he still disobeyed. He disobeyed the Roman rules of assembly (which was illegal at the time) by drawing multitudes to himself and preaching to them.
He disobeyed rules at his Roman Trial and was found in contempt (this was why he was lashed). He ultimately died rather than admit blasphemy or plead to a lesser charge.

Ghandi disobeyed segregation laws. He refused to acknowledge deportation laws. He disobeyed voting laws. He assembled masses in protest even though it was illegal and his people were beaten, some killed.
Ghandi was eventually killed because of his beliefs.

MLK refused to obey segregation laws. He refused to obey bus laws, and organized a boycott of buses. He disobeyed even from jail, writing letters to supporters encouraging them to break unjust laws.

When Paul tells us to be obedient slaves, or to obey the Roman Government in all things, Or that Capital Punishment is just, or that a woman has to keep quiet and obey their husband, he’s flat out wrong. Just simply flat out wrong.

And he’s wrong that everyone being nice about things is going to change these institutions. It’s only by disobedience, not obedience that things are changed. By obeying these institutions, he’s promoting them as they are and justifying them. He’s discouraging disagreement, disobedience and people sticking up for what’s right. He’s equating earthly authority with divine authority, and that’s where he goes wrong.

by Chris Bowers on May 2, 2012 at 1:53 am
“No, Jesus did not believe that one should submit to earthly authorities or acknowledge their authority. That’s why Jesus refused to speak at his own trial or in his own defense. He didn’t recognize the authority of Rome at all. That’s why he upturned the moneychangers. He didn’t recognize the authority of the Priestly class, or the earthly authority of the Temple.”

He most certainly did. What do you think “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” or the command to go the extra mile if you’re forced to carry a load (which was referencing Roman rule in Galilee at the time whereby a soldier could conscript a peasant to carry their load, but only for 1 mile) mean? Jesus’s teaching is full of subversion…as is Paul’s…as Philemon provides a beautiful example of.

by jm on May 2, 2012 at 7:12 pm

Art Of The Dojo – JMSmith.org

Speaker ridicules, curses at teens in the name of…tolerance?

22 Responses

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Pages