Philemon: Reflections on Christianity, Slavery and Pastoral Authority

Philemon is not one of the popular books of modern Christianity. Its subject matter is would be considered unchristian by most. The slave Omesimus is being returned to his owner Philemon which appears to be Paul's endorsement of slavery. According to Wikipedia article on Philemon, both sides of the 16^th and 17^th century slavery debate used Philemon as a Biblical endorsement. With hindsight, this 21^st century sees it as an anti-slavery text.

The confusion over slavery is because Paul models good pastoral practice for maturing any Christian. "Accordingly, although in Christ I might feel free to dictate where you duty lies, yet, because of the same love, I would rather appeal to you" (Phil. 8). Paul might have been Philemon's father in the faith (Phil. 19) but Philemon now helped lead a Church (v.1f). Probably, Paul had observed what Richard Foster had, "Of all the spiritual disciplines none have been more abused that the discipline of submission" (p.139) and since the letter greets others and Philemon's church, Paul wanted to model the 'discipline of guidance' (pp.221 - 238). Or maybe Paul wanted to develop David A de Silver called Christ-mindedness within Philemon (pp. 682 – 683). It is also an example of the old rule of thumb – the ethical responses to the gospel are a matter for each individual believer.

Even if Paul had dictated Philemon's actions, there would be no less debate over the Christian view of slavery. Personally, I doubt that Paul could see the unchristian cruelty of slavery since he was too close to it. Many, including Augustine and Calvin, believed that the God's revelation can be hidden behind the culture we live in (Stark, 2004, p. 327). That equally applies to both Paul and us.

Why do I see it as an anti-slavery text? It comes from Paul's plea on behalf of Omesimus. This slave could have been running away or exercising one to the few rights in the ancient world. De Silver (2004, p.671) point out he might not have been running away but points to a tradition writing that, "Slaves experiencing difficulty in their masters' home were known to leave the master in search of one of the master's 'friends,' who would sought out as an advocate to plead the slave's case." Whatever happened, by Christ using Paul to bring Omesimus into the faith Paul became Omesimus' advocate. Paul was a poor advocate offering no defence of Omesimus. He states the Omesimus was useless to his owner (v.11) except as a servant to Paul whilst in prison. There is no plea of mercy for the absences without leave. Paul simply throws Omesimus back expecting freedom because of a change in the relationship between the master and soon to be former slave. Paul writes, "[Have Omesimus back] no longer as a slave, but as more than a slave: as a dear brother, very dear to me, and still dearer to you, both as a man and as a Christian (v.16).

The question was how would Philemon read that plea? We only know almost nothing of him except in this letter. Maybe, Philemon came to Christ as a 'god-fearer' (Lohse, p.124). These gentles were Jewish converts, observing many of the Jewish traditions, but the men could not take the final step and mutilate their penises by adult circumcision. Because of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), converts to the Christian form of Judaism were not required to be circumcised to be considered fully Christian. The early Christians believed that they where the new people of God, replacing the Jews who had rejected the Messiah. Hence, Philemon might have been familiar with the Jewish restrictions of allowing fellow believers to remain as slaves (Leviticus 25:39-42). At the time of Christ, Jews applied the prohibition by buying Jewish slaves their freedom from all over the Roman Empire. In Act 6:9, the Jewish Synagogue of Freedmen was a community of former slaves redeemed by fellow Jews. If this is so, by stating the Omesimus had gone from a slave to a brother, Paul was playing on those Jewish traditions in this plea for Philemon to free his brother in Christ.

Paul wanted Philemon to free his brother in the faith, Omesimus. Unlike Judaism, Christianity accepts all into the faith. Everyone is a potential Christian. Everyone is brother in Christ. We need to act for their freedom. Whether it is freedom from sin, freedom from oppression or freedom from being the oppressor, we Christians must act to liberate the person. That way we can make them realise how God is acting in their life now.

David A de Silva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Context, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004)

Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline (London: Hodder & Stroughton, 1989 (rev)

Eduard Lohse, The New Testament Environment (London: SCM, 1974, trans. 1976)

Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God (Princeton: Princeton University, 2004)

All Biblical Quotes are from the Revise English Bible.

Mr Neal is Entitled to be an Agitator

Let us pray for an entire High Court of Lionel Murphies. Lionel Murphy (1922 – 1986) was one of those rare lawyers who were interested in justice, not just the law. The law rests on precedent, which entrenches the injustices of the past. Justice requires a broad understanding of many areas of study and their use to empower the poor and destitute. Hence, we need judges who are skilled in areas other than the law. Lionel Murphy was a lawyer critical of his own discipline. He had read widely. This breath of knowledge is reflected one of his many descents that involved the chair of the northern Queensland ‘Yarrabah Aboriginal Council.’

I do not know how old Percy Arthur Neal, chair of Yarrabah Aboriginal Council, was at the time of his 1982 High Court appearance. This was the height of the paternalistic Bjelke-Petersen Queensland where Neal’s aims of aboriginal self-determination was met with “don’t you worry about that.” The Queensland government controlled aboriginal affairs and consulted who and when they wanted. The government never employed aboriginals except as ‘liaison officers.’

At Yarrabah, Percy Neal was making a nuisance of himself complaining about the local government run store selling rotten meat to aboriginals. Presuming, the store was the only one for miles. After the official channels ignored the Council’s and Neal grievances, Neal confronted the stall manager and, in anger, spat in his face. The local magistrate fined Neal $75 and gave him two months imprisonment because he was a stirrer. Neal appealed but the Supreme Court of Queensland increased the imprisonment to six months. Neal appealed to the High Court.

Again, Murphy dissented from the main judgement. Yet the decent is a brilliant defence of direct non-violent political action. The key paragraph states:-

That Mr Neal was an ‘agitator’ or stirrer in the magistrate’s view obviously contributed to the severe penalty. If he is an agitator, he is in good company. Many of the great religious and political figures of history have been agitators, and human progress owes much to the efforts of these and the many who are unknown. As Wilde aptly pointed out in The Soul of Man under Socialism, “Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is why agitators are so absolutely necessary. Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilization.” Mr Neal is entitled to be an agitator.

Note the redemptive quality of the agitator. He wakes up some class by confronting them with their ‘incomplete state’. This awakening brings forces the oppressed to redemption. Human progress occurs! It is not an economic rape talked about by the conservative vandals but the empowerment of the oppressed that marks human progress for Wilde and, by inference, Murphy. Here is a description of an Old Testament prophet, one who stirs against injustice. Here is a description of Jesus.

Percy Neal was the real hero of this story. He was the agitator, the stirrer or the prophet trying to bring justice to his people. Neal’s modern comparisons are Ghandi, King and Mandela. They all fought for their people’s right to determine their own future. Murphy simply said that such action should be a lawful activity. No court should consider whether one is a nuisance to the powerful in either judgement or sentencing. Murphy was saying that we are all entitled to be political agitators.

Yet in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus wanted us to go beyond the law. Our citizenship of the Kingdom of Heaven requires us to engage in social redemption; a social redemption that requires us to be agitators. I pray that I will fulfil that mission.

I read Murphy's judgement in Michael Cathcart and Kate Darian-Smith (eds), Stirring Australian Speeches: The definitive collection from Botany to Bali (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2004), pp.290 - 294.