Two of Old Life’s regular voices, Zrim and Jed, are having an interesting discussion — in response to a post questioning the political machinations of the hallowed Bonhoffer — about whether 2kers may legitimately appeal to the Bible in their civic duties. Zrim argues that the Bible forbids civil disobedience while Jed questions whether a 2ker may employ the Bible in this way.
Meanwhile, Rabbi Bret responds to me that his case for Ron Paul and paleo-conservatism come directly from biblical teaching on the fifth and eighth commandments.
Several points of clarification seem to be in order. First, 2kers do appeal to the Bible. They do so in their personal lives all the time. They even appeal to the Bible — you know, “my kingdom is not of this world,” does not come from Aristotle — to argue for legitimacy of 2k. Two-kingdom theology is thoroughly biblical (or at least tries to be) and its advocates don’t let differences between the kingdoms prevent them from seeing that — to borrow a line from the old E. F. Hutton commercials — when the Bible speaks, believers listen. As I have repeatedly insisted in different forums, the eighth commandment compels me to question whether I should shop at Walmart or at Gelzer’s Hardware. After Sam Walton is not my neighbor, the one whose welfare I am supposed to seek. But Mr. Gelzer is. The Bible gives some instruction about economics. I should try to apply to my life. I don’t see how that is inconsistent with 2k because it is not.
Second, this appeal to the Bible does not mean that I may require Rabbi Bret to shop locally or Jed to drink only the beers made by San Marcos breweries. Individual believers need to respect the consciences and interpretations of other believers. Some may eat meat offered to idols, and others won’t. Both will appeal to the Bible. But appealing to the Bible doesn’t settle whether believers will act in the same way about a host of matters.
Third, the critics of 2k — aside from uncharitably disregarding 2kers’ appeal to Scripture — can’t seem to fathom the difference between the claims made by individuals about biblical teaching and those of church officers and assemblies. For instance, because the Baylys’ believe the Bible compels them to protest at abortion clinics, they believe that church assemblies must call all believers to similar forms of protest. They even go a step farther and think that anyone who dissents from their application of Scripture disobeys the Bible. (Wow!) Meanwhile, folks like Rabbi Bret don’t seem to understand that his appeal to the fifth and eighth commandments for paleoconservatism leaves little room in the church for other perspectives, such as the Covenanters, libertarians, Democrats, or monarchists. Yet, the Reformed creeds insist that church assemblies should address only matters that are spiritual and ecclesiastical. In other words, when the church speaks as institutional church, she must have a biblical warrant. And that explains why the creeds don’t address education, math, or economics. The Bible doesn’t require God’s people to have a uniform method of delivering education, a base-ten system of math, or a commitment to free markets.
The bottom line is that the Bible does not solve the problems that critics of 2k think it does. If you believe in Christian liberty, which is premised upon the idea that Christians have liberty in matters where Scripture is silent — from whether or not to meet for worship at 11:00 on Sundays to whether or not to drive an SUV — then appealing to the Bible will not yield the unity or uniformity in politics or culture that Bible thumpers tout.
142 Comments
Zrim,
You are ignoring a common literary device, namely parallelism in 1 Peter 2, where the claims of the first parallel segment are only heightened in the second parallel. This is being used as Peter is drawing Christians from less to more intimate examples of submission, where the requirements heighten. You are also conflating one section with the other, and you have offered or proved no warrant. This doesn’t meet even the most basic requirements of the principles of biblical interpretation. The biggest problem is you aren’t defending your claim with anything but the clarity of the text in your own mind, thereby making your opinions and not the textual data and flow of Peter’s argument determine interpretation. It makes it increasingly hard to take your opinions seriously, especially when you are willing to slander those who disagree with you. I am emphatically stating that I am simply in line with NL apologists historically such as Beza, Knox, and Rutherford, and with contemporary NL apologists such as Stellman – are you going to stand up and emphatically assert that all of us are simply “playing games with the text” as well?
The fact is, DVD is charitably cataloging what Calvin taught and believed, but if you take the time to go back into the chapter on Resistance theory or read his essay The Use of Natural Law in Early Calvinist Resistance Theory, you will find charitable treatment of the Reformed Resistance theorists, including Beza who did not follow suit with the man he preceded in Geneva. In fact, he uses the Resistance Theorists to argue that Natural Law had been present and in force from the earliest days in the Reformation, using Resistance Theorists positively as an example of how contemporary Reformed thinking needs to embrace NL. At the end of the book DVD also notes that discussion over this and other ethical matters need to take place before the argument can exactly be settled.
You need to understand and realize that your efforts to eliminate any and all dissent from the political sphere where the government deems it illegal undercuts the degree to which NL can actually be functional in the civil kingdom. You also need to realize how much this limits Christians from participation in politics where opposition and dissent are prosecuted. In the end your stance functionally flattens out the commands of Scripture, giving equal weight to all of the commands therein. Under your rubric, which differs little from Kant’s categorical imperative the Christian is to submit to the tyrannical leader even at the cost of loving and serving your neighbor who may be in danger due to the tyrants policies rather than lie to protect him. You place no weight in the real ethical dilemmas where obedience to the magistrate may induce further law breaking, or conscience violating. The problem is Jesus castigates the Pharisees for ignoring the “weightier measures of the Law” (Mt. 23:23ff), he also bests them with his assertion of the “Greatest Command”, pointing to the reality that even the biblical authors, dating all the way back to the psalmists, and the prophets recognized a hierarchy of biblical commands, giving weight to some over others in instances of competing obligations.
This is the point of the story of the Good Samaritan – the Jewish leaders all had obligations that they were on their way to fulfill, but they failed to obey the higher command to obey the neighbor. The fact that Christians are demanded to not submit in areas where they are asked to compromise the integrity of the confession or worship also lends more weight to a hierarchy of commands even in Scripture. Just because other scenarios of defying leadership aren’t fully discussed in Scripture over civil disobedience, doesn’t absolve the Christian to check moral reasoning at the door. They too must weigh the demands Scripture places upon them in situations where those demands compete with each other in the civic realm.
Hooray Jed! Well stated!
Maybe Hart and Zrim should explain the teleology of obedience. What’s gained with pacificism?
Jed, I’m not trying to play exegete. I’m reading the Bible plainly. So no matter how many times you tell me to “obey unjust rulers” really means “unjust rulers may be disobeyed” I will always be stymied, just like when an exegete tells me “justification is by faith alone” really means “justification is by faith plus works” will confuse. So you can declare yourself in line with whatever historical and contemporary figures to say biblical commands to obey don’t mean obey, but all that means is I’m stymied by more people. But if it helps, to say unjust rulers must be obeyed is one thing, but obeying immoral commands is quite another. I don’t see how saying to obey unjust rulers means one must obey immoral demands.
And for the umpteenth time, my point isn’t to eliminate any and all dissent from the public square—dissent isn’t always disobedience. Even so, I still don’t see the problem with limiting Christian’s involvement where dissent is always disobedience and is prosecuted, because obedience is the biblical virtue. I understand that might make the American experiment longer in coming (or perhaps never), but is that really the final measure? And I am not pitting the command to civil obedience against the command to love neighbor. I am saying they are both Christian imperatives and neither swallows up the other. I am trying to give civil obedience more credence than is typically given. I don’t see how bolstering one biblical imperative means to subvert another.
And I’m sure this won’t go down well either, but the GS isn’t really about bolstering second greatest ethics:
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/the-good-samaritan-and-two-kingdoms/
GAS, our salvation was won with obedience. What’s to be gained? Are you serious?
Yes, please respond.
GAS, what’s gained is a faithful reading of the NT and the examples of Jesus and the apostles. They weren’t activists. They didn’t try to overturn social structures. They submitted to powers that were tyrannical. They were not a model for modern political theory.
Hart: I didn’t ask you to beg the question. I specifically asked what’s the teleology of obedience. And just so I was clear I followed it up with the question of the goal of pacificism, since you and Zrim associate obedience exclusively with pacificism, i.e. submission.
Zrim,
“Jed, I’m not trying to play exegete. I’m reading the Bible plainly.”
This is nothing less than intellectual laziness Zrim, you make slanderous claims to the effect that my motives when interpreting the text are somehow “tortured, arbitrary and disingenuous, when there is historical precedent in the Reformed camp that speaks otherwise. I can see why Manata basically shows your arguments no respect, not because you don’t have valid observations, but because you make bombastic claims that devolve into personal attacks, but then when pressed to make factual, affirmative arguments, that form the backbone of theological discourse, you simply balk, restate your opinion and defend why following the rules of discourse don’t apply to you.
I can see that you are only left a few options, either a) stop being lazy and defend your opinions with more than the fact that it is your opinion, or b) do everyone a favor and stop making claims that you have no interest in substantiating. I could ask you the same questions regarding the accusations you level at me:
Is Jason Stellman handling the text in a “tortured, arbitrary and disingenuous” manner, since his views on the use of NL and Scripture differ from your own?
Was this the case with Beza, or Rutherford, or Knox?
Do you care to even attempt to substantiate your claims, beyond “that’s how I see it”? If not, there is absolutely no point in continuing this conversation.
DGH,
They were not a model for modern political theory.
I completely agree here. But if this is the case, how much are we going to push Scripture into norming political behavior? Historically speaking, Roman tyranny, while inexcusable looked nothing like modern totalitarian tyranny, as Romans did not engage in genocidal warfare, but rather conquered and then folded provinces under their lawful rule. And generally speaking, with the exception of periodic persecutions, where the excesses of the cultic religions of Rome were whipped into an irrational frenzy, Rome was a lawful society that was in many respects more stable and desirable to live in than the Dark Ages that ensued after Rome fell.
But if we are not to look at the Bible as a model for political theory, then what? My main beef with Zrim has been his refusal to admit that Reformed Resistance Theorists attempted to grapple with similar questions, such as to what extent NL and Scripture combined to inform Christian roles in highly unstable political situations. If we are to draw the line on submission to the ruler in all circumstances, it is a reworking of Kant’s categorical imperative that essentially leaves the expression of issues of conscience and ethical dissent at the sole discretion of the State, with the only exception of worship. I am not sure closer reading of ethics within Scripture or ethical reasoning under Natural Law Theory demands an absolutist rendering of this text. That is unless we are going to argue that submission to the ruler is on par with all other commandments other than the 1st and 2nd.
Jed, slow down. This has nothing to do with discerning motives and slander. It’s a simple point. The text says to obey unjust authorities and by the time you’re done you end up saying disobey unjust authorities. I don’t know what else to call that but wanting reading. I understand you don’t like that, but how is it slanderous, bombastic and personal? But can you at least see my point and why this causes so much angst in a dim wit?
Jed, I have not resfused to admit that Reformed Resistance Theorists attempted to grapple with similar questions. To the extent that you are representing them, I am asking them the same simple (albeit rhetorical) question: how can obey unjust magistrates mean disobey unjust magistrates? Less rhetorical, If obey doesn’t mean disobey then what do you think it could possibly mean to obey an unjust authority?
GAS, I answered. The end is to be like Christ.
Jed, how about Zrim’s conscience? Are you accusing him of false conscience by not resisting tyranny?
It seems to me that we have a parallel situation as what happens with worship. Does the Bible require resistance to tyranny? That seems pretty hard to argue. Does the Bible require obedience? Well, it sure seems to and the history of the West prior to sixteenth-century France does as well. I am not going to deny that NL has more to say about politics than SL. But I can’t deny what the Bible does say about rulers and the ruled (and that doesn’t make me a biblicist).
Zrim,
First of all: the verses in question do not say “submit to unjust magistrates”; they simply say “submit to magistrates” Second of all your ethical reasoning is atrocious. Let me back up and explain why: my claim is that civil disobedience is ONLY in order with ethical warrant. Ethical warrant would include a very short list, such as the threat of life, theft (e.g. of ancestral lands), magistrate invoking right of the “first night”, refusal to offer legal equity that places the individual or community in serious peril, or some other similar action by the state for which the citizen would have no recourse other than civil disobedience to communicate disssent. This isn’t about protesting or refusing to pay taxes, or dodging the draft because the war is unpopular; it is about far more oppressive issues.
These sorts of breaches of government would be offenses against the decalogue, such as the 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th commands, or better summed up in the 2nd great command to love the neighbor as one’s self, of course we don’t need the Decalogue to inform us of the validity of these commands since we know them Naturally through the NL. In the study of biblical ethics, we can plainly see that the commands in Scripture are not all on the same moral plane, but they are hierarchical in nature. In situations where the moral and ethical situation places one at odds with one command, such as when David ate the consecrated bread while in need (Mk. 2); or when Rahab had to weigh the decision to break the 9th command vs. protecting enemy combatants whom she believed were on the right side of the issue; or when the Pharisees wrongly claimed they were not responsible to honor their parents as the 5th clearly demands, because of their tithing obligations. Examples such God’s desire for mercy over sacrafice, even though he demands both further reinforce this.
The fundamental error in your line of reasoning is that you refuse to consider ethical alernatives, or engage the difficult questions of just war doctrine when it comes to political revolt. The issue is not as cut and dry as “obey the unjust magistrate in all circumstances” even when obedience leads to a greater injustice. This has no precedent in Scripture, nor would it pass even the most basic scrutiny in ethical theories such as those entailed in NL. If your reading of Rom. 13 is the correct one, the following would also be true:
1) One could be a labor union member, and start on under current legislation, but not in the past when unionizing was disallowed by both employers and even government officials.
2) A German citizen could not dissent from Nazi rule or their many crimes in hopes of reforming a society (since they were required to offer oaths of strict allegiance to Hitler), but an Amercian soldier could kill Nazi’s
3) An American Indian could not fight to defend his own land, even though American’s had claimed rule of the land without prior claim, other than a deed showing that the land was purchased from another European power.
4) East German soldiers would have been forced to fire upon unarmed protesters in 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell, rather than dissent from what they viewed as a murderous command.
5) Rosa Parks should have remained in the back of the bus because she was a Southern Black, as opposed to say a resident of Chicago, even though the constitution guaranteed all US citizens equal rights and protection under the law.
So on biblical and ethical grounds your arguments are seriously lacking, unless you can state the case that Scripture demands submission in these respects.
You can claim all day that your intentions were not offensive, but when I called you out on your ridiculous remarks, you only defended them further, so I don’t buy your equivocations here. Either I am playing fast and loose with the Word of God, or I am not – it is really that simple, and if you aren’t going to dignify your claims with more than opinion, I take your comments as slanderous. Period. The fact of the matter is you are reading Romans 13, and 1 Peter 2 in isolation of the rest of Scripture, and making submission in all areas to the magistrate to be self evident. Further, you continue on this line of arrogant, and unsubstantiated thinking even when you are shown that within the Reformed tradition there has not been agreement on this issue.
Hart: So to be like Christ- since he wasn’t involved in politics neither should we?
Since he wasn’t involved in baseball neither should we?
All this exemplar stuff is starting to sound like the social gospel.
Somehow the /bold got deleted in the editing process all that was supposed to be bold was ONLY
DGH,
Jed, how about Zrim’s conscience? Are you accusing him of false conscience by not resisting tyranny?
Fair question, let’s just dig into what I have already added in the combox, I think it should be sufficient to clarify where I stand on the issue of whether one must resist tyranny. What I am arguing is that one is free based on the dictates of conscience and ethical warrant to civic disobedience, meaning one simply can in some cases:
Response 2/6 – 12:40 PM2) Since Scripture doesn’t indicate how Christians are to behave politically, especially in volatile and highly complex scenarios, it is perfectly understandable to see Christians fundamentally disagreeing on political matters, and it also reasonable that Scripture will prove neither side “right”.
3) In light of these points, freedom of conscience must be upheld, and allow for difference of opinion.
Response 2/7 – 4:01 PM:In areas where Scripture does not clearly speak, we have liberty – and that is all I am arguing here.
Response 2/7 – 11:49 PM:The fact is, I get your principled arguments for the illegitimacy of civil disobedience, and I am not begrudging your freedom to hold such views. But if the issues dealt with in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 are so manifestly clear and cut and dry, why have these two views, which constitute widely diverging schools of thought persisted in our own tradition if those who think like I do are guilty of nothing more than arbitrary, disingenuine, text-tortouring?
So, briefly, I think there is room for disagreement on the issue without ascribing absolute certainty to one’s view on the issue, and then disparaging those who disagree as playing games with Scripture. No Christian is obligated to civil disobedience in these extraordinary cases that I have listed in the discussion to this point. I may think it is ethically the wrong call, but I certainly can cross the dictates of conscience on an issue so unclear.
It’s not as if Reformed Resistance Theorists ideas were coming from nowhere or that 16th century European political theory emerged ex nihilo, they came in part from Occam, Acquinas, Scots, and even further back to Augustine. I realize that your desire to adhere to Scripture with respect to where you stand on ones response to magisterial authority doesn’t make you a biblicist, but the issue has hardly been settled either. I think there is sufficient data within Scripture to question the absolutist interpretation on submission to the magistrate, even though in general I would appeal to NL ethical arguments if I had to publicly defend a decision to disobey authority. I could care less if Zrim holds a differing position, the bur in my saddle is his insistence that a “plain reading” Scripture clearly supports his view, thus allowing him to disparage all disagreement, and absolving himself of the responsibility to defend his views.
Jed, the texts in question may not say obey the unjust magistrate in all circumstances, even when obedience leads to a greater injustice. But neither do they say be civilly obedient, unless you have ethical warrant not to be. And my born, bred and buttered Yankee ear doesn’t like the sound of Rosa having to stay in the back any more than yours. But when I read the Bible it sure doesn’t seem to give much warrant to break the rules of authorities. I know you think my reasoning skills are atrocious, but I do hope you can see that I am honestly wondering about how our shared American ideals seem to bump up against biblical revelation, and my worry that we might end up baptizing them instead.
GAS, I have John Frame on line two. He wants to give an atta boy.
Zrim: Is guilt by association your only “argument”?
Zrim,
Stop confusing this with American ideals as if this discredits my arguments, the fact is Resistance Theory is nearly twice as old as America, it’s a smokescreen to the issues I am raising. What I am making is both a biblical case for the hierarchy of moral claims, and a political claim based on NL. I have just given you a few examples that have nothing to do with worship where authority was not followed, and I could add the case of Onesimus who didn’t exactly submit to Philemon, but when Paul writes Philemon, he implores him to find no blame in Onesimus – and further uses his apostolic muscle to not only plead Onesimus’ innocence for a crime that in Rome was punishable by death, but to also press for his release. The fact of the matter is there are instances where authorities were disobeyed, even in Scripture, and not always for religious reasons as was the case with Onesimus, Rahab, and David’s eating of consecrated bread. It’s not as if the precedent is totally lacking.
This “debate” has certainly made interesting reading, but for some reason old Joe Fletcher keeps coming to mind every time I read one of the rebuttals.
GAS, when you say that this side is saying that since Jesus wasn’t involved in politics neither should we, I don’t recognize the implication of my view one iota. It reminds me of when Frame says WSC thinks the cultural mandate is no longer in effect or that God’s sovereignty swallows up human responsibility. What the what?
Jed, I don’t see how pressing, imploring or pleading someone’s non-religious case is disobedience. I’ve already made this point to you. Paul wasn’t being disobedient to work for Onesimus. But he did send O back to P and exhorted P to be obedient to his apostolic direction. How you get anything but the theme of obedience out of Philemon is quizzical.
Zrim: Hart tells me that Jesus and the apostles were doormats for the authorities. Then he told me to be like Christ. What other implication do I have?
Zrim,
Onesimus deserted his owner, a crime in the Roman empire punishable by the death of the slave, yet Paul presses for his release, and asks that any perceived wrongs to Philemon be blamed on Paul. Not only does Paul remove legal recourse for Philemon, but he asks for Onesimus’ release. If this is not civil disobedience then pray tell, what is. What about interacting with the substance of my argument.
George,
If you are saying that navigating competing ethical claims is equal to situational ethics, I would simply answer it belongs more to wisdom (e.g. to, or not to answer a fool, to live righteously but not be overly righteous) than Fletcher’s school of thought. Situational ethics was founded on the notion of moral relativism, by a eugenicist no less. Hardly the same as Reformed Resistance Theory. Unless we are speaking of a different Joe Fletcher
GAS, have you been reading Frame again? Let’s see. We have baseball, Jesus didn’t. We have rulers, Jesus did. You do the math.
Jed, fair enough. But can you identify where Scripture might guide your distinction between extraordinary and ordinary forms of bad government? I tend to agree with Zrim, that Scripture is clear about submission. The apostles and Christ taught it and practiced it. Natural law might teach otherwise, depending on the interpreter. But not even David would raise a sword against Saul. And David was after the Lord’s heart.
GAS, have you ever read blogs at Old Life?
Doh!
Jed, come on. Now Paul is the friggin’ forerunner of Bonhoffer? First, Paul did return Onesimus to his owner. Second, that’s not very radical.
Jed, the book of Philemon is hardly an inspiration for the underground railroad. Sending runaways back to owners? That sure takes some creative reading. So how is appealing to a slave owner to release a slave qualify as being warm toward disobedience? Slave owners have the authority to set free. I see Paul going through the ordained channels, not working outside the instituted chain of command. If you read the text plainly, I think you can both retain your ideals that eschew human slavery and satisfy the virtue of obedience.
I am not fully persuaded by John Robbins on Philemon, but Robbins was neither pacifist nor abolitionist– from pg 29…It is the law of the Lord Jesus Christ that governs in Philemon’s situation, not Caesar’s. Philemon’s ownership of Onesimus was perfectly legal under the pagan laws of the Roman Empire, but Paul says that it was not morally proper, that is, it was sinful. Implicit in Paul’s doctrine is the idea that legality and morality are two different things. … In his letter to Philemon Paul makes it clear that Christians must be governed by Biblical law, not pagan law, when the two differ. So even though slavery was legal in the Roman Empire and acceptable to many people, including Christians such as Philemon, it was not fitting.
Excerpt from pg 31–At the end of his letter, Paul expresses his hope that he will soon regain his freedom. Here he is cleverly planting the idea in Philemon’s mind that slavery is not a permanent condition: Paul is now a prisoner, but he was not a prisoner earlier. He was unjustly put in chains. And soon, thanks in part to Philemon’s own prayers, Paul will once again be a free man.
If Philemon were to insist on keeping Onesimus a slave, he would be keeping Paul’s son a slave.…
Excerpt from pg 35– Paul did comply with Roman law by sending Onesimus back to Philemon. Even more remarkably, Onesimus, by willingly returning to Philemon, was complying as well. But their actions do not imply that Roman law regarding fugitive slaves was just: It was not. Nor does Paul ever cite Roman law as his reason for sending Onesimus back to Philemon.
The reason the Roman Empire’s fugitive slave law was not just is Deuteronomy 23:15-16: “You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him.” As a rabbi, Paul must have known this verse and many other verses in the Old Testament concerning slavery. That is why he did not turn Onesimus over to the Roman authorities: God’s law supercedes Roman law. And when Paul does send Onesimus back to Philemon, he sends him back as a free man. Onesimus returns to Philemon freely and voluntarily, not in chains, not as a slave.
Excerpt from pg 37– Paul’s command is not simply that Philemon receive Onesimus, but that he receive him as Paul’s “own heart,” that is, as Paul himself. From the beginning of this letter Paul has been identifying himself with Onesimus. First, Paul called himself a prisoner; then he called Onesimus his son; and now he calls Onesimus himself: “my own heart.” Paul commands Philemon to accept Onesimus as he would accept Paul himself- not as he would accept a runaway slave who, under the laws of the Roman Empire, deserves to be punished for his disobedience. That is why Paul commands Philemon: While Philemon might be eager to get his slave Onesimus back, he would be eager to receive him back as his private property, not as a free man. Paul commands Philemon to accept Onesimus as a free man – as himself.
Excerpt from pg 39– Paul wants Philemon’s consent so that “your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary.” Here Paul makes the contrast as stark as possible. On the one hand, compulsion; on the other, consent. The two are opposites, and Paul clearly favors freedom and voluntarism, and opposes compulsion. That is, Paul opposes slavery .…
Excerpt from pg 40–…Paul already regards Onesimus as a free man, and that all that is necessary now is that Philemon agree, consent, receive him back as if receiving Paul himself, and take whatever legal steps are necessary to accord him full status as a free man under Roman law. Paul is not returning a runaway slave: Onesimus is “no longer a slave.”
Excerpt from pg 48 —Paul says that he is writing to Philemon because he has “confidence in his obedience.” Onesimus must ask, obedience to what or to whom? To Paul? Paul has no authority to command anything that is not already commanded by Christ. That is why he repeats the phrase “in the Lord.” Paul is not inventing some new social doctrine regarding slavery; he is making clear to Philemon and his readers what the law of Christ, not the law of Paul, requires.
Slavery and Christianity. Paul’s Letter to Philemon. John W. Robbins. 2007.
The Trinity Foundation. P.O. Box 68, Unicoi, TN 37692
McMark, so if Onesimus was Paul’s own, then Paul was sending his son into slavery?
hey, I’m just a reporter. Don’t you know that we pacifists should not have opinions on politics? I am not a disciple of John Robbins. I just can’t help myself when I get a chance to tell somebody I read something.
If I had to guess what Robbins would say, I think the answer would be yes. You know the Martin Luther thing—“A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject of all, subject to all.”
Like that clears everything up! I read Ethics of Freedom by Ellul, 300 pages of dialectic, and all I know now is that we need to beware that when we say “two kingdom”, some folks will immediately think we agree with what Niebuhr wrote about Lutheran paradox.
Is the apostle Paul saying that there is more than a verbal difference between “voluntary slavery” and some other kind of slavery? If legal slaves engage in “voluntary subordination”, are they no longer really slaves? Can we be “slaves” in different ways? I think reading Philemon means considering these “differences”.
I am a slave of Christ, therefore it’s no big deal for me to be a slave to you?
I am a slave of Christ, therefore I cannot be a slave to anybody else?
I Corinthians 9: 5 But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. 16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with fa stewardship. 18 What then is my reward? That in my preaching gI may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.
19 For though I am free from all, i have made myself a servant to all, that I could win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I could win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I could win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I could win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I could save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I could share with them in its blessings.
DGH,
Unless Paul had some sort of assassination plot against Caesar, the comparison with DB is just plain silly. Besides the emperors had more to worry about from their family and friends in that regard.
I am not using the book of Philemon as abolitionist propaganda here, and to assume that is to miss the very basic point: Desertion by a Slave would have been a violation of both 1 Peter 2, and Romans 13, as it was a crime which sometimes ruled as a capital offense, and it constituted theft, in this case from Philemon.
In stead of indicating that Onesimus should submit himself to the authorities, Paul intimates to Philemon that he has the authority as an Apostle to command Onesimus’ release, but instead he sends his appeal (vv. 8-9). Talk about the power of suggestion! Furthermore, whatever blame Philemon might assign to Onesimus, Paul accepts as to be regarded on his own account, not Onesumus’ (vv. 18-19).
I am drawing no implication for what this might mean for civil disobedience in a contemporary setting, however, I am making the case that civil disobedience was committed in Onesimus’ case. This is simply to serve to point out that the strictures of Paul’s commands were set aside, and not for the reason of a threat to the Christian’s worship or confession.
Jed, but did Paul take Onesimus from Philemon? Paul’s actions, in other words, are at best murky. I don’t think it qualifies as civil disobedience. Onesimus’ actions may have. But that goes to a different matter, whether I have an obligation to turn Bonhoffer in.
Jed, the plea that Paul was indulging in some form of civil disobedience continues to strain. Surely the law recognized that Philemon was Onesimus’ master and that O was finally answerable to him one way or another. What would be disobedient would be to by-pass P as O’s immediate authority and either hand him over to the sheriff or the underground railroad.
Still, your argument that none of the apostles could have possibly conceived of our modern tyrants, and thus disobedience has a place in the interests of political equity and so when the text says obey it could mean that sometimes but not always, sure sounds close to what egalitarians say about women: surely, Paul couldn’t have conceived our modern notion that the world is flat, and thus women having authority over men has a place in the church in the interests of gender equity, and so when Paul says he forbids a woman to have authority over a man it could mean that sometimes but always. In unison, Peter and Paul were products of their times and we really need to make some serious qualifications with regard to their plain imperatives.
Zrim,
Did I make the comparrison to 19th century slavery anywhere? You have missed the point and then proceeded to make assumptions that were pondered nowhere in my argument. It simply served the point that the demands listed in Romans 13, and 1 Peter 2 were not followed. And it sure looks like the return of the slave, Onesimus in this case, was simply an act of deference, because Paul made Philemon well aware of the fact that he could simply command Onesimus’ release.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with Reformed Resistance theory, are you finally willing to at least interact with these historical facts:
1) Early Reformed Resistance Theorists (ERRTs), each of them historically were not considered heterodox for their views.
2) Their views were derived from Scripture and NL
3) Their use on NL has become instrumental in contemporary 2kNL arguments for the legitimacy of NL in Reformed political theory on the civil kingdom?
And further:
4) That I am not advocating anything that ERRTs had not contemplated in their own Scriptural or NL exegesis.
5) That your assertion that a “plain reading” makes such historical views, or those like myself of Stellman on the contemporary 2k scene as somehow guilty of disingenuine twisting of Scripture, was baseless as you offered no exegetical argument (of even the most basic or cursory kind) whatsoever to substantiate your claim. And it was uncharitable because you have taken an item of warranted disagreement between us for the sake of our respective personal consciences and have declared my views to be contrary to the Word of God on the basis of nothing more than your opinion, even when I have offered sufficient explanation, textually and historically to demonstrate that my views have been defended both their historical place among Reformed theologians, and their biblical merits regardless of whether they suit your opinions.
This is the crux of the disagreement that you are skirting to pursue auxiliary arguments that stand outside the fundamental purview of the argument.
DGH,
I didn’t say Paul was committing civil disobedience, it was Onesimus who broke the law, and Paul who made the case that he not only should not be punished, but set free.
Jed, yes, I get that you like ERRT and that it has a place in the Reformed tradition. But, sorry, I’m about as enamored with Reformed resistance theory as I am with Reformed transformationalism. Why is that such a problem? And take a breath, nobody has “declared your views to be contrary to the Word of God,” sheesh. All I’m saying is it’s pretty strained to carve out a huge place for civil disobedience when Jesus and the apostles make little to no room for it.
Zrim,
Surely the law recognized that Philemon was Onesimus’ master and that O was finally answerable to him one way or another. What would be disobedient would be to by-pass P as O’s immediate authority and either hand him over to the sheriff or the underground railroad.
You are fundamentally overlooking Paul’s argument in deference to your own flimsy argument. Paul intimated to Philemon that as an Apostle he had the authority to simply command Onesimus’ release, and his reason for not demanding Onesimus’ release was not to remain on the up and up with Roman law, his reason is for “love’s sake”:
[8] Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, [9] yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— (Philemon 1:8-9 ESV)
I’m not even commenting on whether or not Scripture allows for civil disobedience, since I have already made these sorts of claims. All I am saying is that Onesimus’ act of desertion as Philemon’s slave was a breach of Onesimus’ responsibilities as Philemon’s slave, and a breach of the laws of Rome violating both sections of 1 Peter 2, that deal with responsibility to the law, and to one’s master. I seriously doubt that Onesimus’ disobedience was politically motivated, but it was civil disobedience nonetheless, and the criminality of Onesimus’ actions are not mentioned in the letter, only his wrongdoing to Philemon as his master, for which Paul accepts responsibility.
The underground railroad references are just games at this point since clearly the epistle to Philemon and the underground railroad of 150 years ago aren’t related in the slightest, nor have I attempted to make the comparrison. Are you going to interact with the substance of the argument here or not Zrim?
Zrim,
Do you have any intention on answering my very simple question, or are you going to forestall dealing with them forever?
Zrim:And take a breath, nobody has “declared your views to be contrary to the Word of God,” sheesh.
while you say earlier (2/7 7:56 PM):Well, I know you want to dismiss Peter when he says to not only obey good and gentle masters but also unjust ones, but that just seems like a pretty tortured, arbitrary and disingenuous way to make this claim.
Now you are contradicting yourself.
Hart: just takin er easy for all you sinners.
DGH,
But can you identify where Scripture might guide your distinction between extraordinary and ordinary forms of bad government? I tend to agree with Zrim, that Scripture is clear about submission. The apostles and Christ taught it and practiced it.
Scripture is clear that we are to submit to authority, I am not arguing that, and never will. But Scripture is also clear about additional moral obligations, such as the 6th command. I can immagine a case where a German citizen would be justified in speaking out against the Nazi’s murderous policies, regardless of whether or not the Nazi’s would have recognized the legality of such dissent – let’s look at a faithful interpretation of the 6th in the WLC:
We are bound per 135 to all lawful preservation of life, which probably rules out vigilantism, which is why I do view Bonhoeffer’s actions wrong, and indefensible with respect to the 6th. However, it is questionable whether or not the exercise of conscienced non-violent speech in defense of those who are subject to unjust, and unlawful murder such as the example of Sophie Scholl (see also this excerpt of the historical film in which she is interrogated), which I have often cited as a model for acceptable civil disobedience. I realize that there might be some debate over the legality of defying government edicts against free-speech, but lawful can also refer to what is ethically or naturally, or even Scripturally lawful. In 136, the responsibility is only heightened where the violation of the 6th extends to “the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life”.
Given the fact that Christians are expected to disobey the magistrate when they are called to violate the 1st or 2nd command, even where there is no explicit qualifiers in the passages that call us to submit; it isn’t a leap to consider other areas where a Christian is demanded to defy his conscience or the general equity of the Law by the magistrate where he cannot obey “the weightier measures of the Law.” If Scripture, and our own Confessional standards support the fact that not all commands, nor all sins are equal, and requires us to discern good from evil, then it is not even beyond the purview of Scripture to contemplate scenarios where the Christian is free to (and in cases of worship of confession – obligated) choose to obey the commands that carry greater ethical and spiritual weight, even if that means breaking the lesser command.
I am not saying that any time a government is evil, or slips into an isolated evil practice that the Christians is bound to disobey the ruler, and even in these cases I would say that the Christian should still submit. But in cases extraordinary, and where I do draw that line personally, is in the following areas:
1) Where obedience to the magistrate requires the Christian to break the general equity of a higher ethical principle such as the Decalogue or their NL corollaries.
2) Where a Government acts out of accord with it’s own laws, such as in the US, when the government endorses an illegal action. Even here though, rarely if ever does this involve breaking actual laws, since we have constitutional protections that allow dissent.
DGH,
My last comment is awaiting moderation, think it’s because of some external links – don’t worry I am not sending malware across the interwebs.
Jed, thanks. I’m not sure I disagree, except perhaps to put submission to rulers under the fifth commandment. Which raises the question of conscience about how to resolve conflicting claims of the Commandments in specific situations. I don’t know and I doubt there is any rule of thumb.
DGH,
I don’t know and I doubt there is any rule of thumb.
I agree completely here, that is why I think wisdom is in order to discern good and evil when pressed to this point. I also think there are other subjective considerations that need to be considered such as how civil disobedience on a warranted issue, where it may be permitted but not demanded, would affect the individual Christian witness and/or the ministry of the Church. This is why I would only advocate CD in the gravest of situations, and even where I do leave room for it, I don’t think it should be pursued as a first order of action, and only after much careful consideration.
My views are possibly much closer to yours practice than you might suspect, all I am arguing is that CD should not be ruled out without exception, because there are some cases in which the hierarchy of ethical demands and conscience requires it.
I find myself agreeing with Jed. Your argument is well reasoned and articulated. Thanks for the interaction by all parties involved. I wonder what level of civil disobedience would be “acceptable” when denying the civil magistrate their “right” to first night with my bride?
John, maybe like William Wallace who circumvented the problem by marrying secretly.