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.

Leviticus and Homosexuality

I am in the process of reviewing Joe Hockey’s speech to the Sydney Institute on the 9 November 2009 entitled In Defence of God. If you like to listen to it, it is on ABC Flora.

In the speech, Hockey refers to The West Wing episode in which the President consults a gay and lesbian hating radio host. She claims that Leviticus is anti-homosexual and President Jed agrees. Jed then seeks her advice on some other Biblical issues.

The lesson - be careful when people agree with you!

Enjoy!

Why Read Christian Right Blogs like CultureWatch

Confessions, I do like to read Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch blog. Yes, it is an extreme Christian right political blog. The Christian right believe that the oppression of women, the hatred of those with other sexualities, the idiocy of creationism, the desecration of the natural world and the evils of capitalism have been all ordained by God. They are totalitarian, mocking those who disagree with them. They hold a right wing dominion theology.

So why bother reading? First and foremost, whatever I think of the vile opinions of Muehlenberg and other extreme Christians right wingers they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. They are family. Christ want me to do more than just be civil, Christ requires me to love them like a blood relative. Love requires, among other things, to care what they think and to correct. This means I must engage in debate with them. They might deny me legitimate Christian faith because of my opinions. Since neither of us have a copy of Lamb’s Book of Life (Revelations 21:27), I refuse to return the rudeness.

The second is to correct my own opinions. I am fallible; no matter how much I want to delude myself otherwise. There are two ways to test ones views. Both ways involve study of scripture, prayer, reason and understanding Christian tradition. One is to do this constantly talk with those who agree with you. Another way is to engage in study under some neutral tutor. Finally and most importantly, is to talk and debate with those who you disagree with. Why is that most important? It is because that way my ideas are tested by the purifying fire of debate.

And finally, one needs to know what your opponents think. How am I going counter the views of those I oppose without first listening to my opponents first? Forgive me, if I think that is too obvious

There is another reason I read Bill Muehlenberg’s blog besides the reasons above, I enjoy it! I am nothing but a theological tragic. I love the interplay between Christianity and public policy. So does Muelenberg.

Hopefully, a New Start Again

When I started this blog, I wanted to counter the Christian right. However, I have been too irregular to be meaningful. I hope to alter that. I am going to start reviewing landmark speaches in Australian politics. Well, here we go ,,,,,

Hillary Clinton on Idealism and Realism

President-Elect Barak Obama has nominated Hillary Clinton has his US Secretary of State. Therefore, Fora TV reminded its subscribers of a Hillary Clinton speech delivering to the US Council on Foreign Relations on the 31 October 2006. It was her reflections President George W Bush’s foreign policy disasters. In it she says....

Third, our foreign policy must blend both idealism and realism in the service of American interests. If there's one idea that has been floated about over the last six years that I would like to see debunked, with all due respect to some of the political scientists in the room, it is this false choice between realism and idealism. Is it realist or idealist to stop nuclear proliferation? Is it realist or idealist to come together on global warming? Is it realist or idealist to help developing nations educate their children, fight diseases and grow their economies? And is it realist or idealist to believe we must turn around the ideology underpinning terrorism?

Hillary Clinton is right! In the quote, Clinton was responding to President George W Bush’s rejection of idealism in favour of realism. The Hawke and Keating Labor governments rejected realism in favour of pragmatism. Clinton made me think that we need policies that understand the current reality and has a pragmatic path to achieve the ideal.

It would have been better if Obama had nominated Hillary Clinton as the US Attorney General. She is very well qualified for that position. The thought of Attorney General Clinton would have the caused many in the Christian right to receive their eternal rewards much sooner. After doing such a good job she could pursue the Foreign Secretary’s position.

Revival cause Conflict

This post is a response to Bill Muehlenberg's posting of A Few Thoughts on Revival.

Hello Bill,

I disagree that revivals lead to peace. Christians look to rival like some Marxist look to revolution. Both groups believe that both are inevitable; both groups dream about their occurrence and both groups send large amounts of time, thought and money working towards those eschatological hopes. The difference is that revolutions tend to initiate violence while rivals have violence inflicted upon them.

A Biblical template is supplied by the healing of the demon processed fortune teller by Paul and Silas (Acts16:16ff). Out of frustration, Paul cast out a demon from a woman. The charitable act got Paul and Silas thrown into jail because it threatened the income of some of the town’s wealthy citizens.

It is a small example of the rule that conversion leads to healing leads to lasting social change. If many turn to Christ it affects nations and beyond. Many good church folk resisted the rise of Methodism for it challenged the established norms. The Wesley brothers preaching about Christ had consequences for the social and economic basis of Britain. I have read about riots preventing either of the brothers from preaching near a town. That is why they preached in open fields.

Though they were not agents of social change, the converts were. However, the changes were resisted at every point. The film Amazing Grace illustrated the resistance to the abolition of slavery. One institution that came from that revival was the Trade Unions. Early Union cells were based on local communities called ‘chapels’, for that is who formed them. Indeed, one former secretary of the British Labour Party said that the labour movement owed more Methodism than it did to Marx.

Revivals lead to social reformation. Why? The personal change in the new Christian’s life leads to a desire to change the social condition that entrenched evil in their former life. Revivals inject energy into the thirst for justice. Every time Christ comes it is with a sword (Matt 10:34).

Michael