Young Writers Society

In Ephesians 6:5-9, Paul writes:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

While I have a clear understanding of this controversial passage, I'm curious as to what some of you think.

With a wide comprehension of the Gospel and Epistles, Jesus and his Apostles' ambition of achieving equality among men permeates the Church's ministry.

So, considering that, why do you think Paul asked slaves and masters to continue living (and serving Christ) in their social placements with respect for one another instead of actually seeking to abolish the slavery that was rampant in the Roman Empire?

Furthermore, what do you think this is saying about Christians living out their commission in society in general?

Fine, I'll bite. While I'm sure I have nowhere near as clear an understanding as you do, to me it seems pretty straightforward. Be as obedient to your master, whoever he or she may be, as you would be to Christ himself. Never question him, stay in your place, don't fight back. And you'll be rewarded with everlasting life when you die.

Looking at the example of St. Monica (who, while not technically a slave, was considered to be, as a woman, totally subhuman under Roman rule and subservient to her husband in all matters), she lowered herself and did her best in everything, even amidst difficulties in her own household and even lowered herself than the slaves. Anyway, her meekness and gentleness of heart caused for a change of heart of her husband, who consequently strove to become more like her and eventually even adopted Christianity.

So, her lowering herself caused her to become great.


EDIT: Also, what translation is this? My translation (NAB) says this:

5Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ,d 6not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,e 7willingly serving the Lord and not human beings, 8knowing that each will be requited from the Lord for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. 9Masters, act in the same way toward them, and stop bullying, knowing that both they and you have a Master in heaven and that with him there is no partiality.f

From: http://www.usccb.org/bible/ephesians/6#57006005

I guess it's not Paul's fault for taking a non-stance on such an issue. Slavery was a little different in ancient Rome. Still I kinda wish that the hearts of the Christians who owned my ancestors had been moved in such a way by their obedient slaves' meekness.

I'm glad they're in a better place now.

Well, back when Paul was writing this, Christians were very persecuted and they were being imprisoned and killed for their beliefs. If Christianity started a whole slave uprising, the persecution would only increase and the Pagans, who already were killing the Christians, would just point a finger at them and say, "See what they're doing? They deserve to die!" Kind of what happened with September 11. I mean. When the airplane hit the WTC, there were people calling for internment camps for Muslim people. So, these kinds of uprisings which cause entire nations to falter would be quickly struck down. Instead, Christians back in the day were patient and did their best to change their world, not through major revolutions, but through acts of charity and whatnot, and this eventually took hold. In fact, this probably took hold more strongly than a revolution ever could have done, seeing as our Western culture is basically formed by Christian ethics. Even in the gay marriage debates, those who argue for gay marriage say lines such as, "People who love each other should be allowed to marry each other." Before Christianity took place, the idea of love in marriage was an added bonus, but not something that was integral in marriage. Now, because of the influence of Christianity, love and marriage are seen as being hand in hand. This is weird!

Anyway! The chattel slavery that existed in the United States? That was mostly due to economics and the ideology of Manifest Destiny for WASP men. Which sounds awful, but there you go. If you researched the economics, you would find that both North and South were equally culpable as far as this. The book Complicity is a fantastic look at this.

And, while there were Christians who used these verses and the Curse of Ham to justify slavery, there was also a huge abolitionist movement made up of many Christians who demanded justice and an end to slavery, based on biblical principles. So, yeah. There are good people who are Christians and bad people who are Christians.

I'm not active in the religious conversation on either side, but my pretense on the times and Christian ideal would imply to me 2 things about the "slaves" referred to here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

A slave at this time wasn't necessarily what we think of as a slave today. Women were thought of as subordinate to men, and a male slave could have been a pow, debtor, criminal, or really, a servant, a household worker. These people would most likely be treated much better than African slaves in America, and many were actually able to achieve levels of respect on the local or even international level.

Christian Motivation for this opinion could be the idea of "the meek shall inherit the earth"- the slaves SHOULD ALLOW their masters to mistreat them, just like MLK aloud racists to mistreat him...just like Christ allowed to Romans and Jewish leadership to persecute him though, like the "slaves", he had the power to stop his persecutors.

Hope I helped!

Pow= prisoner of war

A slave at this time wasn't necessarily what we think of as a slave today.

This is true!

Slavery in Ancient Rome

vs.

Slavery in the United States

(I neglected to put slavery for the rest of the world, since I think this is what BadNarrator is talking about.)

Why are there threads devoted to contemplating the banal, base drivel in the Bible? Why not contemplate the good stuff?

Inkwell, the bible, regardless of its theocratic nature, is an historical document, both in the contents therein and it's impact upon the succeeding western epoch. It documents the rise and fall of various empires and offers interpretations of the origins and destructions of various peoples and their cultures. Your attempts to dismiss its importance, even in our modern context, are cliche and evidence of an immature mind; you won't change anybody's mind by dismissing their beliefs, as yours are just as doubtable (or do you think that scientific knowledge is actually certainty?).

Any attempt to understand western civillization must account for, after Greek and roman works, the Bible, both testaments. Especially if you claim an interest in literature. I may or may not believe what lies therein, but what does constitute the bible is far more than "banal, base drivel".

Cole, why don't you grace us with your masterful interpretation?

MUCHO wrote:Any attempt to understand western civillization must account for, after Greek and roman works, the Bible, both testaments. Especially if you claim an interest in literature. I may or may not believe what lies therein, but what does constitute the bible is far more than "banal, base drivel".

Your post is a tad presumptuous. Anyway, I'm not sure where the inconsistency lies. My exact point was what I bolded, so why not have threads on those parts?

Listless passages condoning/promoting sexism and the ownership of humans beings are in my opinion banal and base.

I was simply expressing my distaste for this trend in thread subjects. Either way, it was an attempt at joking, perhaps borderline trolling (judging by your reaction) so I apologize.

Snoink hit the nail on the head.

But, what do you think this passage says about Christians practicing their faith in varied societal roles?

EDIT: Snoink, that verse is from the NIV. :S *fails at citations*

Forgive my sarcasm from earlier. Just because I don't believe in any of it doesn't mean I can't understand it. The truth is that I too have a pretty clear understanding of this verse's intended meaning and the history around it. But what a lot of you guys don't seem to understand about myself and a lot of the other freethinkers of the world is that we are less concerned with the intended message of religion than we are with the real world consequences.

The fact is that Christianity for black Americans has been more like a sword than a shield, a weapon used to wound and control. During slavery it was illegal to teach blacks to read or write, but they were actually encouraged to go to church and worship Christ, citing verses like this to instill obedience. And the worst part is that it worked. To this very day black people are over-represented among convicts and under-represented among positions of wealth and power. And I'm not naive enough to believe that the fact that black communities tend to be more religious than their white counterparts is completely unrelated. I've laid my head to rest in a lot of cities and small towns and there are two things every black neighborhood I've been to has in abundance: poverty and churches.

Now, what does this mean for people who still choose to be Christians today, especially black Christians? I'd advise them not to use religion as a crutch. Don't confuse obedience with complacency and don't mistake your abusers for your masters. Be your own master, be obedient unto yourself. And if anyone tries to make a slave out of you, kick their teeth down their throat.

BadNarrator wrote:Forgive my sarcasm from earlier.

You were being sarcastic? Don't worry, I couldn't tell. Remember what I told you: Asperger's makes it very difficult to interpret the difference between sincerity and sarcasm, even in written word. I didn't even notice.

Just because I don't believe in any of it doesn't mean I can't understand it.

I hope you don't think I believe that. I'm sorry if I came across that way. Of course people who do not believe can understand Scripture.

The truth is that I too have a pretty clear understanding of this verse's intended meaning and the history around it. But what a lot of you guys don't seem to understand about myself and a lot of the other freethinkers of the world is that we are less concerned with the intended message of religion than we are with the real world consequences.

I think it's somewhat unfair to assume "believers" don't care about real-word consequences, if that is what you are assuming. That's why it's so important (to most of us) to wrestle with the spiritual/religious aspects of verses like these, because, depending on what the passage is actually trying to say, it can severely impact the world.

The fact is that Christianity for black Americans has been more like a sword than a shield, a weapon used to wound and control. During slavery it was illegal to teach blacks to read or write, but they were actually encouraged to go to church and worship Christ, citing verses like this to instill obedience. And the worst part is that it worked. To this very day black people are over-represented among convicts and under-represented among positions of wealth and power. And I'm not naive enough to believe that the fact that black communities tend to be more religious than their white counterparts is completely unrelated. I've laid my head to rest in a lot of cities and small towns and there are two things every black neighborhood I've been to has in abundance: poverty and churches.

Now, what does this mean for people who still choose to be Christians today, especially black Christians? I'd advise them not to use religion as a crutch. Don't confuse obedience with complacency and don't mistake your abusers for your masters. Be your own master, be obedient unto yourself. And if anyone tries to make a slave out of you, kick their teeth down their throat.

I feel like you're assuming these types of crimes are the fault of Scripture or the faith itself, when, in actuality, it is the fault of those who wield it. When studied appropriately and used with the best of intentions, Scripture is a font of liberation, hope, and education.

Scripture being used negatively is why we're so concerned with figuring out the intended messages of the Bible. We have to be prepared to combat the people who use such a powerful piece of literature to oppress and wound people. An extraordinarily fitting and relevant example of a group that uses Scripture as a weapon is the Westboro Baptist Church. Despite their cruelty, there has been a multitude of Christian protesters (like my church) who have stood up against them.

During the time when black Americans were still slaves, there were righteous Christians. Don't forget that. There were preachers, both black and white, who truly understood the integrity of the Gospel and used their knowledge to oppose religious-fueled slavery. And later, when slavery was abolished, it was similar people (Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., as an example) who battled racism, too, with their understanding of God and Christianity.

Despite what this particular passage appears to be saying, or what other people might claim it is saying so it it advantageous to them, verses like these always reveal their true meaning when they are paired with the grand picture of Christ's Gospel. That is what I'm asking for people to contemplate: What does this passage mean for Christianity as a whole?

Because, in the end, exorcising religion from society might be one solution to ridding Bible-inspired negativity, but an even greater opponent of religious bigotry is achieving actual understanding of Christianity and its Scriptures.