Paul, slavery, and social reform

[rongo]

I am reading the “Interpreter’s Bible” for my personal scripture study. It has the KJV and RSV side-by-side, with exegesis and suggested sermon notes. Sometimes there are some real gems in the non-Mormon scholarly and ministerial perspective. While finishing Ephesians, I found this discussion about Paul’s treatment of slavery to be very interesting in light of criticisms that the Church seems to always be behind society in social change. These critics (both intra- and extra-LDS) insist that the Church should be in the vanguard of driving social change for trendy progressive issues, but instead is always reactionary to the juggernaut of social change.

 

 

I found it especially relevant to the tired discussion of the priesthood ban, and what should or should not have been done, and when.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Quote

The injunctions addressed to slaves and masters do not imply either approval or condemnation of the institution of slavery, but are based upon the matter-of-fact recognition that it constituted the sociological framework within which many members of the Christian community found their lives actually cast. No one who is at all acquainted with the economic conditions of ancient society will find it strange that the early church did not make a frontal attack on this evil institution or even require Christian masters to free their slaves. The one would have been a quixotic tilting at windmills on the part of scattered groups of people quite without political or social influence; the other would not often have been in the best interests of the slave himself, since there was almost no market for free labor and the church was incapable of creating one, even for its own adherents.

 

Any dissatisfaction that we may feel at the failure of the church to perceive the anomaly of holding in bondage a brother in Christ should not bind us to the significance of what was actually achieved. Slaves belonged to the more valuable class of chattels which the Romans called res mancipi, and which included land and beasts of burden. But among early Christians, the slave was treated no longer as a chattel but as a person, and was held capable of the highest spiritual development; the inferiority of his civil status laid him under no disabilities within the fellowship of the church. Conscientious service by slaves was not done in vain, whether the earthly master mark and reward it or not. It will receive its just reward from the Lord, who makes no distinction between slave and free.[/quote]

 

 

The Gospel and Social Reform – Modern readers of the N.T. are often more than a little shocked over the fact that Paul and the early church as a whole did not make a frontal attack on slavery. Yet, the fact cannot be explained away that the attack of the N.T. gospel on the sins of the social order was not an attack, first of all, upon institutions or upon environmental evils. Its method was paradoxical. Modern social reformers, both Christian and secular, may still find it an offense.

 

When Jesus said “Blessed are the poor,” or “How hard will it be for the rich to enter into the kingdom of God,” he may have meant what he said. If so, why should the abolition of poverty be a great concern? Or if the apostolic church solved the problem of slavery by creating merely “good” slaves and “good” masters, why should the institution itself not be left permanently intact?

 

The truth must simply be accepted that the gospel of the N.T., as a revolutionary social gospel, goes about reform in strange ways. It attacks social evils first from within. It presents the demands of the kingdom of God as prior to those of a utopian kingdom of this world. The pattern of the kingdom of God will inevitably, if given opportunity, remold even secular society. Yet, love of God is still the first great commandment, love of neighbor second. When ideals of social reform reverse the order, they stand under the judgment of the “offense” of the gospel . . .

 

Similarly to say to a slave “Be a good slave” before denouncing the institution of slavery itself seems a shocking thing. Yet, it is the hard way of the gospel. One does not belittle our modern passion for what we call the “social gospel” by pointing out that however noble its ideals, these must make their peace with the prior claims of God himself. The church has in her history, both Catholic and Protestant, more than once yielded to the temptation originally faced by the Lord “Command that these stones be made bread.”

 

 

G. K. Chesterton, in a discussion of Charles ****ens as a social reformer, points out the fact that secular humanitarianism appeals largely to the motive of pity. It pictures the despair of the poor, its motto being in effect “Cursed are the poor.” The success of ****ens as a social reformer rested, says Chesterton, upon exactly the opposite assertion, “Blessed are the poor.” “He described their happiness, and men rushed to remove their sorrow. He described them as human, and men resented the insults to their humanity” (Charles ****ens, [New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1906], p. 279).

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by rongo

[rongo]

Points that I found interesting about demands that the Church be more at the forefront of social reform in general, especially when applied to how the Church handled the priesthood ban (as opposed to how some feel the Church should have handled it), were:

1) "No one who is at all acquainted with the . . . conditions of society [during the ban's era] will find it strange that the early church did not make a frontal attack on this . . . [doing so] would not often have been in the best interests of [those under the ban]."

2) "Any dissatisfaction that we may feel at the failure of the church to [lift the ban earlier, or never institute it in the first place] should not bind us to the significance of what was actually achieved."

3) "[The N.T. church's] method [of bringing about social reform] was paradoxical . . .  The truth must simply be accepted that the gospel of the N.T., as a revolutionary social gospel, goes about reform in strange ways. It attacks social evils first from within. It presents the demands of the kingdom of God as prior to those of a utopian kingdom of this world. The pattern of the kingdom of God will inevitably, if given opportunity, remold even secular society. Yet, love of God is still the first great commandment, love of neighbor second. When ideals of social reform reverse the order, they stand under the judgment of the “offense” of the gospel . . ."

4)  "One does not belittle our modern passion for what we call the “social gospel” by pointing out that however noble its ideals, these must make their peace with the prior claims of God himself. The church has in her history, both Catholic and Protestant, more than once yielded to the temptation originally faced by the Lord “Command that these stones be made bread.”

[theplains]

22 hours ago, rongo said:

These critics (both intra- and extra-LDS) insist that the Church should be in the vanguard of driving social change for trendy progressive issues, but instead is always reactionary to the juggernaut of social change.

Thoughts?

When you preach the gospel and people's hearts are converted, then social change will occur.

Jim

[rongo]

Exactly.

One way that President Benson put it was:

"The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ would take the slums out of people, and then they would take themselves out of the slums.
The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.” 

[halconero]

There was an understanding among Early Saints that earthly conditions such as slavery were temporary states until the advent of the eschaton. Paul evidently was among those who, early in his ministry (in the era in which 1 Thessalonians was written), thought the end of the world was imminent and that social conditions such as slavery would end after.

You can see Paul's understanding of the 2nd Coming evolve and change over the course of his ministry until it's culmination in the rich discourses on Resurrection present in Corinthians. Even then, he considered it better for everyone to not rock the social boat and to just anticipate a more glorious hereafter.