I HAVE NOT READ John Fugelsang's book so I have not commented on it and won't until I've read it but I have heard him blame what's wrong with Christianity on Paul enough times to say that while I can understand him believing that, I used to believe something like that, myself, I can't agree with it, having read Paul far more than I had when I shared that opinion with him. He, like many, contrast the several passages in the Pauline material which are cited to support slavery, to support the subjugation of Women, to lead the supporters of fascism, absolute monarchy, the American version of that, white supremacist-male supremacist government with the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels.
It would be impossible to honestly claim that those passages in Paul have not been used that way because they have. What is possible to say is that all of them, as stand-alone proof-texts is deeply problematic and that Paul, himself, said things that contradict them being used as the enemies of slaves, Women and dissidents of good will use them.
It is undeniable that Paul, even as he said that Women shouldn't speak prophesy in church, entrusted Women to act as missionaries spreading the Gospel (which, as Paul was writing what he wrote was largely if not exclusively an oral Gospel), he entrusted them with carrying his most important correspondence and, certainly, once delivered, reporting and answering questions. I find those scholars who identify Women that Paul identified as performing what would certainly evolve into the priesthood and ministry, even as heads of churches in his very own words, far more credible than those who use his letters to support male supremacy.
In advising a slave WHO HE IDENTIFIED TO THE CHRISTIAN MASTER OF THE SLAVE AS PAUL'S RELIABLE AND VALUED COLLEAGUE, to return to his "master" ALSO TOLD THE MASTER TO TREAT HIM AS HIS BROTHER, AS AN EQUAL. "Masters" who treat slaves as brothers and equals are not acting as their masters. That was a specific application of the Golden Rule as given by Jesus. No one who was a follower of Paul who had heard any of the Gospel which certainly would have carried that idea in those or other words would have credibly believed they were following the Gospel while lording it over those held in legal slavery. It is too bad that we can't know the extent to which Paul may have been hoping that someone who was legally a slave would have been safer with a "master" who took the teachings of Jesus AND OF HIMSELF seriously than he would have on his own with no legal status as a person, which is what slaves in the Roman empire AND THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AS IT WAS FOUNDED would have been. I can point out that under the U.S. Constitution, as it existed until the passage of the Civil War Amendments, such free slaves AND EVEN FREE BORN BLACK PEOPLE were at risk of being abducted into slavery BY SUPREME COURT RULING. Indeed, under the Constitution as the Supreme Court interpreted it in the Dred Scott decision, there were, in effect, no such a thing as a free state. If you're going to slam Paul, you've certainly got to slam the Founders and "justices" who produced far worse than what Paul advocated.
As for him advising his vulnerable, fledgling, easily crushed churches to not make waves against an, up till then, inclined to ignore Christians, that was certainly good advice AND IT SHOULD NEVER BE FORGOTTEN THAT PAUL WAS ALWAYS WRITING TO SPECIFIC CHURCHES AND, POSSIBLY, INDIVIDUALS, ADDRESSING THEIR SPECIFIC ISSUES. For those, such as in antebellum or Jim Crow, who were in the position of the Roman state as against those who had more in common with those who Paul was writing to using Paul's advice against them, well, Paul wasn't writing to them.
Paul was not responsible for those who misused what he said IN THE CONTEXT HE SAID IT IN. Far, far less than those in power who misuse the texts of the Constitution and its amendments to do evil in ways that Paul's words have never been used, to make and enforce law.
I have pointed out before that Paul's statements about men who have sex with men and Women who have unspecified unorthodox sex is always taken out of context in Romans. Much of that is due to the ill-placed chapter break WHICH HE DIDN'T PUT THERE, which breaks up his longer argument that even if the Romans he was writing to found that icky THEY DID THINGS THAT WERE AS OBJECTIONABLE. And it is certain that Paul doesn't seem to understand such a thing as exclusive same-sex attraction and the possibility of faithful, loving relationships among such couples. He imagined same-sex-sex in terms of promiscuity and faithlessness. Certainly he thought of it in terms of the extremely abusive practice of pagan prostitution, in and out of pagan cults and temples
I'm sure John Fugelsang and I share many if not virtually all opinions about current affairs in the United States and the world. We probably share pretty much the same view of Christianity.
We certainly agree that Christianity started taking a wrong turn, at least in terms of its moral status, when it became the state religion in various regimes in history. I think one of the most important tasks of Christians and Christian churches in the present and future is to get rid of the junk it obtained over the centuries, during the late classical period, the medieval and early modern and later modern periods. I think a lot of that was codified during the Reformation and Post-Reformation Protestant and Catholic churches, much of the worst of it in the American context in what developed as "evangelicalism" under the influence of Calvinism and some of the most establishment denominations of anabaptism and the worst of the Pentecostalists. But for all of that there is much that was and is faithful to the Gospel. And much of that gospel is contained in the Epistles, many of them by Paul or his "school."
There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28 Common English Bible
Maybe this is the reason that Onesimus [Phileomon's slave] was separated from you for a while so that you might have him back forever— no longer as a slave but more than a slave—that is, as a dearly loved brother. He is especially a dearly loved brother to me. How much more can he become a brother to you, personally and spiritually in the Lord!
So, if you really consider me a partner, welcome [the slave] Onesimus as if you were welcoming me. If he has harmed you in any way or owes you money, charge it to my account. I, Paul, will pay it back to you (I’m writing this with my own hand). Of course, I won’t mention that you owe me your life.
Philemon 1:15-19
If I had time I'd quote the passages in which Paul named Women in ways that contradict the claims made about the passages in the letters used to suppress Women. I'll list some of them and how Paul identified them.
Phoebe (who he identified as a deacon who Paul gave the responsibility and honor to bring his letter to the Romans and explain it), Prisca (Paul called her a teacher), Junia (given the same status as an Apostle and was likely the head of a church), Euodia and Syntyche (who he said were advocates of the Gospel), and Mary, Tryphena and Tryphosa (probably sisters who, also, were teachers of the Gospel), and Persis (who was also worked to spread the Gospel). It's impossible to believe that Paul had a blanket policy that Women were to keep their heads covered and not speak in Church. Elizabeth Johnson has pointed out that the Women Paul said shouldn't talk in church were certainly talking in church and that history doesn't record what they said in response to Paul's letter. We don't know if they stopped talking in church or not but it's certain that Paul didn't expect Phoebe or the others to not talk.
I don't think the solution is to get rid of Paul and the other Epistles and only to rely on what the Gospels say Jesus said. By the way, Jesus didn't address slavery much at all in the Gospels, perhaps expecting that those he taught the Golden Rule to would have realized that it, alone, made slavery forbidden to his followers. I think it's a really bad idea to limit the considerations of Christianity to any text, even those most authoritative though not necessarily normative texts. Much in the way of Christian life has developed in the past two thousand years, including the abolition of slavery, the liberation of Women, justice for workers, loving care for animals and the environment, etc. A lot of that is supported in the Epistles and in the later Christian literature, though none of it can be taken as authoritative without measuring it against love of God and love of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment