# great essay by Doug Wilson in the Washington Post



## Kevin (May 27, 2010)

Just saw this & thought that it was worth sharing Guest Voices: Foxy News - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

read it there. discuss it here.


----------



## Romans922 (May 27, 2010)

That article is funny because the author should be writing about himself...


----------



## Montanablue (May 27, 2010)

Hmmmmmm... while I agree with his observation that Fox News sites have ads with an appalling amount of skin, I'm not sure I understand the larger point of his essay. (But this is often a problem I have with Wilson's writing, to be honest. I'm often confused by him)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 27, 2010)

I really like Doug's writing on things like this. He is very perceptive. 

It is a shame some cannot benefit from his writings on these kind of subjects.


----------



## Romans922 (May 27, 2010)

I have a hard time benefiting from heretics...sorry.


----------



## AThornquist (May 27, 2010)

Romans922 said:


> I have a hard time benefiting from heretics...sorry.


 
Not me. They are great fuel for smoke signals.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 27, 2010)

Romans922 said:


> I have a hard time benefiting from heretics...sorry.


 
Sigh...

Sad really.


----------



## Idelette (May 27, 2010)

Actually, I agree with Wilson on this. Fox News has become pretty trashy, and more than just showing skin.....even the topics they choose have become very worldly, in my opinion.


----------



## AThornquist (May 27, 2010)

That was an excellent essay. His comments regarding immodest women made me laugh out loud too.


----------



## Reepicheep (May 28, 2010)

Wilson is a masterful writer, this post is just one example. I don't have to agree with the totality of his theology to appreciate some keen insights. His entire "Obama Nation Building" series has been stellar.


----------



## TimV (May 28, 2010)

FOX is one gigantic machine designed to twist the mind of conservative Christians. Sex and murder. Appeal to hate and lust. And they are so very successful. It has caused more Christians to sin than all the other networks combined.

I don't have time for much of Wilson's theology either, and sympathize with TE Andrew. But the essay was good, and based on good theology.


----------



## Montanablue (May 28, 2010)

So, is he just pointing out that Fox News is trashy? Because I got that (and I agree). I felt like he was trying to make a larger point that I wasn't getting...


----------



## ericfromcowtown (May 28, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> So, is he just pointing out that Fox News is trashy? Because I got that (and I agree). I felt like he was trying to make a larger point that I wasn't getting...


 
I thought that the underlying theme was that we're all hypocrites. Not just those liberals in Washington, who "we" like to point fingers at, but even those conservatives at Fox TV who we're inclined to give a free pass.


----------



## MarieP (May 28, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> So, is he just pointing out that Fox News is trashy? Because I got that (and I agree). I felt like he was trying to make a larger point that I wasn't getting...


 
We can be politically conservative and yet all the while be moral libertines. We need God to be the Lord of our morals, not the Republican or any other party.


----------



## TimV (May 28, 2010)

Kathleen, I *thought* he was pointing out that FOX is where so many right wingers (read conservative Christians) hang out. And so it is more than just a little food for thought that conservative FOX is the venue where that particular tactic of Baalam is so blatant, and therefore most dangerous and (he argues) most effective. A taste of a pretty girl with not much on can lead to wanting more, as he says, and ends at p$rn sites which destroy families.

I wish I could write without beating people over the head. At least Wilson can do that on occasion. Now if we could only get him to submit to proper ecclesiastical authority.


----------



## Montanablue (May 28, 2010)

I think my problem is that I don't see a big connection between fiscal and social conservatism. (A lot of the most fiscally conservative people I know are also some of the most socially liberal). So, when I read the article, I didn't make the connection that a socially conservative or Christian individual would be more likely to read Fox. But with that in mind, the article makes more sense. Thanks


----------



## Kevin (May 28, 2010)

I don't ordinarily watch tv. I follow a couple of shows on line & watch some series on DVD, but almost never watch broadcast tv, we don't have cable or a dish so "I just don't know, what I don't know".

Last week while traveling in the USA I was shocked at how influenced christians were in there thinking by non-christian ideas. When I shared with one group of people my experience sharing the gospel & building relationships with a couple of young muslims, some were visibly upset that I would waste my time with them. Some even commented on it. 

One evening watching Faux News, and a couple of days listening to talk radio and I understood why they reacted the way that they did. 
Same planet, different worlds.


----------



## Andres (May 28, 2010)

Montanablue said:


> So, is he just pointing out that Fox News is trashy? Because I got that (and I agree). I felt like he was trying to make a larger point that I wasn't getting...


 
I agree completely. I think it's pretty obvious that Wilson is intelligent, well-spoken, and well informed, however I found this article kind of muddled. When I began reading it I honestly had to double check that I somehow didn't skip a page or something because the article just sort of began without any introduction and then rambled through.

As for Wilson's point about the smut on the Fox website, I could not agree with him more. I used to have it marked in my faves and I would check it daily to keep up with what's going on. However it became a daily habit for them to post articles about sex, what celeb was baring skin, who was having an affair, etc. I have since deleted them from my favorites and will check another news site for updates.


----------



## RandPhoenix (May 28, 2010)

I haven't relied on Fox for news in a very long time. Then, I'm not Republican OR Democrat. XD


----------



## lynnie (May 28, 2010)

Gee, why can't a man sell himself into slavery in his private life? After all, Doug Wilson says that American slavery was a relationship of mutual affection, and slavery was just fine for all the blacks with their kind masters.

To hear Wilson use the word "slavery" metaphorically is a joke


----------



## py3ak (May 28, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Gee, why can't a man sell himself into slavery in his private life? After all, Doug Wilson says that American slavery was a relationship of mutual affection, and slavery was just fine for all the blacks with their kind masters.
> 
> To hear Wilson use the word "slavery" metaphorically is a joke


 
Lynnie, unless you have a quote to back this up, you should take it down.

That article was OK; but he doesn't pulverize the thing with an anvil, so much as prod it from various angles with a pointy stick. Wilson spends so much time being cute and circumlocuting that you always feel that he hasn't just come out and smitten the main point and said what he had to say clearly and well.

I'm a little torn on the heretic question. When I stopped keeping up with him a few years ago, I didn't think he was a heretic; but of course his _friends_ are another matter, and sometimes you have to wonder whether, A. He's deceived and thus they use him as a patsy, or B. He is their PR person, putting a positive spin on things.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 28, 2010)

py3ak said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, why can't a man sell himself into slavery in his private life? After all, Doug Wilson says that American slavery was a relationship of mutual affection, and slavery was just fine for all the blacks with their kind masters.
> ...



I agree that it was a facile article. He does write engagingly and cleverly, maybe too much by half. But his point is well taken as far as it goes.

As for the slavery observation, I note that his statement in the article was "[a] man cannot sell himself into slavery in his private life, and then turn around and successfully take a stand as a free man in the public square." His prior views and writings on the subject of Amercian slavery are beside the point. He was acknowledging that people sell themselves into slavery all the time and should recognize that.


----------



## yoyoceramic (May 28, 2010)

Ad-Block plus on Firefox is a must..... rightclick - block image.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 28, 2010)

Romans922 said:


> I have a hard time benefiting from heretics...sorry.



Are you kidding? They are a great benefit to help the church to define and clarify her doctrine, as history shows. E. g., Nicene Creed, Definition of Chalcedon, Scots Confession, Belgic Confession, Westminster Confession of Faith. Thank God for heretics!


----------



## lynnie (May 28, 2010)

Here ya go Reuben....

link to the original. I'll go with Harriet Beecher Stowe, thank you. Any law that allows owners to sell husbands and wives apart forever, or children from parents, is an unrightous and ungodly law. Wilson's attempt to justify the institution on the basis that yes indeed many Christian owners were kind and upright, fails to adequately admit that slaves were legal property like dogs or horses and could be treated as such. I find the whole thing abhorrent, as I do Federal Vision. 

Southern Slavery As It Was: A Monograph by Steve Wilkins & Douglas Wilson

_Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world._


Read it. It is as if we passed a law making it perfectly fine to rape 5 year old girls, but that's OK, most people are real nice and they won't do it. So even though were some abuses under slavery, they were a minority, so the system as a whole was just so sweet.

I'd like to see Doug Wilson sold to be under a master with all the rights of a guinea pig, and see if he would stilll think the same way.


----------



## Kevin (May 28, 2010)

Lynnie, you know that Harriet Beecher Stowe was a novelist, right?


----------



## py3ak (May 28, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Here ya go Reuben....
> 
> link to the original. I'll go with Harriet Beecher Stowe, thank you. Any law that allows owners to sell husbands and wives apart forever, or children from parents, is an unrightous and ungodly law. Wilson's attempt to justify the institution on the basis that yes indeed many Christian owners were kind and upright, fails to adequately admit that slaves were legal property like dogs or horses and could be treated as such. I find the whole thing abhorrent, as I do Federal Vision.
> 
> ...



Lynnie, if you've read it carefully enough to come to your reasoned conclusions on the desirability of Wilson being sold into slavery, surely you remember a word or two whereby you could pull up a clear excerpt. Linking to the _entire_ original document is not very helpful. You have until tomorrow to provide a quote, not a link, or your posts are going to be pulled. If you can't do more than say what you've already said, you're also going to find Matthew Henry abhorrent. He writes, in his commentary on Exodus 21:12-21, point V, which treats vv.20,21.


> Direction is given what should be done if a servant died by his master's correction. *This servant must not be an Israelite, but a Gentile slave, as the negroes to our planters*; and it is supposed that he smite him with a rod, and not with any thing that was likely to give a mortal wound; yet, if he died under his hand, he should be punished for his cruelty, at the discretion of the judges, upon consideration of circumstances, v. 20. But, if he continued a day or two after the correction given, the master was supposed to suffer enough by losing his servant, v. 21. Our law makes the death of a servant, by his master's reasonable beating of him, but chance- medley. Yet let all masters take heed of tyrannizing over their servants; the gospel teaches them even to forbear and moderate threatenings (Ephesians 6:9), considering with holy Job, What shall I do, when God riseth up? Job 31:13-15.


(Emphasis added)

I found this quote pretty quickly: is this the kind of thing you had in mind? (It's from the section, _The Problems of Slavery)_



> Slavery was attended with evils. As it existed in the South, it was not in any way perfect or utopian. But too often the real problems with slavery were not the problems we have been told about. However, as discussed earlier, Christians should be quick to notice the discrepancies between biblical slavery and that practiced in the South. These differences between the biblical standard and Southern slavery do make impossible an unqualified defense of the institution as it existed and operated in the South. Furthermore, the cruel mistreatment given to some slaves is inexcusable and truly despicable.


----------



## kvanlaan (May 28, 2010)

> (A lot of the most fiscally conservative people I know are also some of the most socially liberal).



That's bizarre (I say this only because I can't fathom that mixture. Is it a Montana thing?)



> Last week while traveling in the USA I was shocked at how influenced christians were in there thinking by non-christian ideas. When I shared with one group of people my experience sharing the gospel & building relationships with a couple of young muslims, some were visibly upset that I would waste my time with them. Some even commented on it.



How is sharing the Gospel wasting your time? Do they not likewise see this as a basic premise of their faith? How on earth is it possible to look at examples like Christ and Paul and the time they spent with Romans (men who proudly wore their paganism on their sleeve!) and then not have time for Muslims?


----------



## lynnie (May 28, 2010)

My quote was taken from the section entitled "The True Nature of Slavery in The South", paragraph 6 about half way down the paper if you scroll down.

I did provide a quote, it is in italics.

Here is another nice quote for you, from near the very end. 

_Unexpected Blessings

But in spite of the evils contained in the system, we cannot overlook the benefits of slavery for both blacks and whites. We refer here to several matters of some importance.

First was the influence of Christianity. More than one slave lived to thank God for his servitude — despite all the hardships involved. Martin Jackson of Texas puts it this way: "I believe that slavery in this country, taking everything into consideration, was a Godsend for the slaves. The twenty million Negroes are descended from four million sent over from Africa. If it had not been for the slave traffic, we would still be living in Africa. I would be a heathen and my children would be heathens."41 More than one former slave had reason to stand in the place of the biblical Joseph and say, "Men meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." The slavery they were delivered from was far worse than any they suffered in this country.

Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since. Whatever its failures, slavery produced in the South a degree of mutual affection between the races which will never be achieved through any federally-mandated efforts._

---------- Post added at 10:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

Kevin, yes, I am referring to her famous book which details both the happy, warm, good slave situations and the deplorable ones fully permitted by law.

I find it pathetic the way anybody can defend a legal system treating another human as legal property on the same level as an animal, with the full right to sell a wife or child down the river.

This is from the early section: So Why Are We Writing About This?

_And nothing is clearer — the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves. See, for example, Ephsians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1, and 1 Timothy 6:1-5._


----------



## py3ak (May 28, 2010)

So putting the quotes together, Wilson asserts that there were horrible abuses in slavery as it was practised which cannot be defended, and says "There was another side to this". Since you've also admitted as much, I'm not sure exactly what the problem is.


----------



## lynnie (May 28, 2010)

So Reuben, do you think it is fine to say that all the Northern abolitionists before the civil war were acting against the New Testament? That's a pretty severe judgment on Wilson's part. ( see my last quote)

He isn't the first Christian I have known who believes that opposition to Southern slavery was wrong and it was fine and right to own other humans as property. Funny how they all seem to be top dogs, and not in positions of submission though.

I have to go to sleep. He can have his square dances in Moscow and his Federal Vision and write against the abolitionists and FOX news all he likes, I'll stick with better teachers.


----------



## py3ak (May 29, 2010)

I don't know much about northern abolitionists. The real question is, _Does the Bible teach that owning slaves is sin_? The answer to that is plainly, "No". Unless people can honestly answer "No" to that question, there's little chance that a discussion of historical matters will get anywhere, because they haven't demonstrated responsible competence in handling sources.


----------



## lynnie (May 29, 2010)

Reuben, what the laws of the South permitted before the Civil war is an entirely separate matter from what the New Testament allowed when it commanded masters to treat their slaves rightly. I find it hard to picture you saying it is New Testament teaching when your wife and kid get sold down the river to pay off your master's gambling debts.


----------



## py3ak (May 29, 2010)

Lynnie, they are not separate. Unless you are going to argue that the Roman institution of slavery was more humane and righteous than the antebellum South, the NT permission of slave owning is extremely relevant. This was the law for indentured servants in OT Israel (Exodus 21:3,4):


> If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.


Families weren't to be broken up by force, but if the servant valued his freedom more than his family, he was allowed to go, and the master allowed to keep the wife and children. 

Of course I'm not saying that. For one thing, the master shouldn't have gambling debts.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (May 29, 2010)

As usual, Wilson is too enamored with his own light, topsy-turvy prose and has written an essay seriously lacking in logic and substance. His point (I think - easy to miss, Kathleen) is that right-wingers adamantly denounce slavery to government yet willingly allow themselves to be slaves to lust and women make themselves sex slaves by appearing in provocative clothing on Fox News. He makes several invalid logical leaps:

1. Because Fox News has attractive women who wear provocative clothes, and because Fox News is generally right-leaning, conservative men must have a problem with lust, and then must have a problem with sexual sin. 

2. Because women on Fox dress scantily at times, they MUST be sexually promiscuous. 

3. Looking at scantily dressed women on the Fox News site is the same is looking at p0rnography. 

Of course there are major flaws in all three of these lines of thinking, especially the first. For starters, immodest dress (or "skanky," as he eloquently terms it) is 100% subjective. So from the start there can be no concrete support for his assertions. Second, he makes the assertion that conservatives have a problem with sexual sin (perhaps moreso than liberals) because of the perceived immodest dress of the women on Fox. Of course this can't be proven by any stretch, and it likely says more about his motivations for watching Fox than any other man out there. How can he possibly know what men who watch Fox are thinking, why they are watching, and what their feelings are about the way the female anchors dress? Third, even if conservative men do enjoy looking at the Fox News women, it doesn't necessarily mean they have a problem with sexual sin. So Wilson's argument is so illogical on so many levels it really doesn't stand up to even mild scrutiny.

On a personal note, I know one of the medical experts on Fox News - an attractive blonde woman - and her husband, who is also a surgeon. They are happily married as far as I can tell. They are not Christians, but there is no evidence they are "slaves" of any sort of sexual sin...


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 29, 2010)

py3ak said:


> I don't know much about northern abolitionists. The real question is, _Does the Bible teach that owning slaves is sin_? The answer to that is plainly, "No". Unless people can honestly answer "No" to that question, there's little chance that a discussion of historical matters will get anywhere, because they haven't demonstrated responsible competence in handling sources.


 
I think where the defenders of American slavery go wrong is where they treat "negroes" universally as "gentiles" to be owned as chattel like the gentile nations in OT Israel could be. But because under the New Covenant, Christ has abolished and removed the wall of partition separating Jews from Gentiles, any negroes who embraced Christ and baptized in his name need to be treated as true Israelites. This would require a whole list of stipulations to apply to the relation of servitude between Israelites according the law of God, such as compensation for labor, and the "year of jubilee" where they could would automatically regain their freedom. In order for slavery between Christians to be lawful, therefore, it look more like indentured servitude. The OT distinction between Gentile and Israelite cannot be applied without qualification to "negroes", especially since so many of them were/are in fact "Israelites" based on the New Covenant abolition of national distinctions in Christ.

---------- Post added at 10:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------




lynnie said:


> So Reuben, do you think it is fine to say that all the Northern abolitionists before the civil war were acting against the New Testament? That's a pretty severe judgment on Wilson's part. ( see my last quote)
> 
> He isn't the first Christian I have known who believes that opposition to Southern slavery was wrong and it was fine and right to own other humans as property. Funny how they all seem to be top dogs, and not in positions of submission though.
> 
> I have to go to sleep. He can have his square dances in Moscow and his Federal Vision and write against the abolitionists and FOX news all he likes, I'll stick with better teachers.


 
Based on Paul's instructions in Ephesians 6 to slaves, commanding them to obey their masters as unto the Lord, I believe that it would be a sin for a slave in normal circumstances to abandon his or her earthly master. Therefore, it would also be a sin for another Christian to encourage him or her to run away, or to aid him or her to do so. Therefore, I believe the underground railroad to have been a sinful enterprise.

There is however, no biblical injunction that would forbid people from being "abolitionists", that is, to advocate for the abolition of slavery, as long as they do not misuse Scripture in advocating their point of view. So if that's what you're talking about, I don't think that is sinful.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (May 29, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> > (A lot of the most fiscally conservative people I know are also some of the most socially liberal).
> 
> 
> 
> That's bizarre (I say this only because I can't fathom that mixture. Is it a Montana thing?)



I don't think that this is a Montana thing, although I am only 3 hours north of the Montana border.

I've frequently run across this. For instance, someone might take conservative stances on taxation or government spending, and then extend that logic to say that denying same sex marriage or the legalization of marijuana is a similar expression of big government interfering where it shouldn't. I guess that one could argue that these people are more libertarian than "conservative."


----------



## Andres (May 29, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know much about northern abolitionists. The real question is, _Does the Bible teach that owning slaves is sin_? The answer to that is plainly, "No". Unless people can honestly answer "No" to that question, there's little chance that a discussion of historical matters will get anywhere, because they haven't demonstrated responsible competence in handling sources.
> ...


 
Children are also commanded to obey their parents however we understand this to be in the context of obeying God first. For example, I would encourage a child being raised in a Muslim home to forsake that teaching and instead turn to the gospel. We are also commanded to obey our government, but again this too is under the context of so long as the government does not contradict scripture. So abortion may be legal in this country, but Christians certainly do not support it. Does the Eph 6 command follow this line of thinking also? For example, lets say a slave is forced to watch his family be abused by their owner. Is he not justified in attempting to seek freedom for him and his family?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 29, 2010)

Andres said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...


 
Dear brother, it is expressly commanded to slaves to seek their own freedom, *but by lawful means*. 

1 Corinthians 7:21 Art thou called being a servant?? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.


----------



## kvanlaan (May 30, 2010)

> I don't think that this is a Montana thing, although I am only 3 hours north of the Montana border.
> 
> I've frequently run across this. For instance, someone might take conservative stances on taxation or government spending, and then extend that logic to say that denying same sex marriage or the legalization of marijuana is a similar expression of big government interfering where it shouldn't. I guess that one could argue that these people are more libertarian than "conservative."



Wow. I don't know any of those types; that sort of logic makes my head hurt.


----------



## Montanablue (May 30, 2010)

ericfromcowtown said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> > > (A lot of the most fiscally conservative people I know are also some of the most socially liberal).
> ...


 
That's exactly what I meant. Its definitely a libertarian trend. And I don't think its necessarily a Montana thing, although there are a lot of libertarians here. 

Also, since we're having the slavery discussion, I would heartily recommend Mark Noll's "Civil War as Theological Crisis." EXCELLENT book and very enlightening - on both the theological and the historical fronts.


----------



## py3ak (May 31, 2010)

As long as we have Carl Trueman we don't actually _need_ Doug Wilson.


----------



## CNJ (May 31, 2010)

We people on PB need to get articles in The Washington Post also. Or comment there when we can. 

I liked this reference in a comment after the Post article:
Reformed is Not Enough - Book Review 

Anyone from PB put that there? Can't tell.


----------



## Idelette (May 31, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> Based on Paul's instructions in Ephesians 6 to slaves, commanding them to obey their masters as unto the Lord, I believe that it would be a sin for a slave in normal circumstances to abandon his or her earthly master. Therefore, it would also be a sin for another Christian to encourage him or her to run away, or to aid him or her to do so. Therefore, I believe the underground railroad to have been a sinful enterprise.



I could be wrong, but from what I understand of the OT and NT institution of slavery, it was not chattel slavery but indentured and vassal slavery that was instituted. Typically, slaves were indebted to their masters and were working to pay off their debt. That is why Paul advised them to stay with their masters no matter how harsh the circumstances. I think that is a huge difference between biblical slavery and slavery in the U.S. The slaves were not indebted to their masters, nor did they volunteer themselves as was common in biblical times but were forced into slavery. So, I'm not sure that I would consider the underground enterprise a sinful institution.

Here's a good short article on this topic: http://www.gotquestions.org/bible-slavery.html

_"In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10)."_


----------



## Montanablue (May 31, 2010)

Idelette said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > Based on Paul's instructions in Ephesians 6 to slaves, commanding them to obey their masters as unto the Lord, I believe that it would be a sin for a slave in normal circumstances to abandon his or her earthly master. Therefore, it would also be a sin for another Christian to encourage him or her to run away, or to aid him or her to do so. Therefore, I believe the underground railroad to have been a sinful enterprise.
> ...


 
Yvonne, first of you, you're absolutely correct. Second of all, you might like the Mark Noll book I recommended. It goes through the various ways Christians and the church supported and spoke against slavery during the Civil war period and earlier. Its fascinating (at least I thought so)


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 1, 2010)

Idelette said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > Based on Paul's instructions in Ephesians 6 to slaves, commanding them to obey their masters as unto the Lord, I believe that it would be a sin for a slave in normal circumstances to abandon his or her earthly master. Therefore, it would also be a sin for another Christian to encourage him or her to run away, or to aid him or her to do so. Therefore, I believe the underground railroad to have been a sinful enterprise.
> ...


 
Actually, Chattel slavery was common in Roman Empire, and itis in a largely gentile context in which we find the apostle's words. You will see by reading my post to which you responded, that I substantially agree with you that slave-holding by Christians must be regulated, at least in spirit, by the general equity of the OT laws. This would look more like indentured servitude, as you noted. However, given the Roman imperial context of the apostle's injunction in Ephesians 6, I cannot agree that it would have been permissable for a Christian slave who finds himself in a state of chattel slavery (as existed in the Roman empire at the time) to run away. This is directly forbidden by the apostle Paul, who says to slaves (in the Roman gentile sense) in Ephesus that they must obey their masters as unto the Lord, with fear and trembling. 

These are strong words and I just can't get around them, not that I would ever want to get around God's word. My belief is that we cannot improve upon the ethic of the New Testament. Any ethic which implies that the Scripture does not go far enough is undermining the authority of Scripture. Many Abolitionists went down this road, and it led them toward the wrong destination.

And as far as "man-stealing", yes, that is contrary to God's law. It [the capturing of slaves, and importation of captured slaves] was also contrary to the U. S. Constitution (man's law in the U. S.) as of A. D. 1800. It's quite a logical leap to go from "man-stealing is a crime against God" to "born slaves may rebel against their earthly masters." The latter statement really has nothing to do with man-stealing and contradicts clear Scriptural admonitions.


----------

