Regarding slavery, The Rev. John Gregg Fee, the abolitionist founder of Berea College in 1855, so abhorred slavery that he cut every reference to slavery out of his copy of the (KJV) Bible. His copy is in the College archives and is something to see. Berea's founders spoke of their ethic as "anti-slave, anti-caste, anti-rum, and anti-sin." And they meant it--all of it!
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: george murphy
To: Terry M. Gray
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: cosmology & polygamy
"Terry M. Gray" wrote:
George,
While I'm not sure exactly where I come down on the issue of
accomodation as a general principle. A question here is "is there a
difference between accomodationist language and phenomenological
language (e.g., the sun rising and setting--we still use that
language despite our nearly universal knowledge that it is the earth
which moves and not the sun)?"
I wasn't using "accomodation" in any technical sense. I think it highly likely that the biblical writers thought that there were real waters above the firmament & that polygamy was OK.
I'm not sure of all your examples:
1. polygamy -- Jesus points to the creation account as the basis for
the argument against divorce/polygamy. Why it was tolerated/not
condemned in the OT is a different question, but I think that the
norm is there.
It is a mistake to think that Jesus simply pointed out the correct interpretation of the creation accounts which anybody else could have, in principle, seen beforehand. It would be more accurate to say that he puts new meaning into them, just as he does with the story of burning bush which in no obvious sense is a proof of the resurrection.
2.holy war/genocide -- Are you familiar with intrusion ethics--the
idea that the final judgment intrudes into this present age? On this
point, if the final judgment and destruction of the wicked is just,
then so is this divinely commanded judgment against the Canannites. I
don't think there is any Biblical warrant for such activity today,
but I don't have a problem with it.
I have a problem with it (i.e., with military holy war) & the vast majority of the Christian church, which has (formally at least) adopted either a just war or a pacifist position, also rejects it.
Ethics evolves. Jesus supersedes lex talionis, which in turn is an advance on the primitive idea of unlimited vengeance.
3. slavery -- Again, a Biblical case can and has been made (by the
Old School Presbyterians) for the institution of slavery. I'm not
sure that slavery in and of itself is wrong (other than a consequence
of the fall). Ill-treatment of slaves is immoral, as was, the
18th-19th century slave trade. But, I'm not sure that I can declare
immoral a "kind and gentle" slavery of prisoners of war or of
criminals or a voluntary slavery for economic security. Of course, in
modern America we don't see such slavery, but I'm not so sure that
I'm ready to declare it un-Biblical.
Yes, & Lutherans in the US also got into this debate. Even though not many of them were slaveholders, some of them thought that they couldn't condemn slavery in principle. I'm embarassed by that. While there are not explicit condemnations of all slavery in scripture, there is the beginning there of a trajectory toward such a view, & I think that that means for us now that slavery (i.e., people as property - we're not talking about incarcerating criminals) is wrong. The situation is similar with the ordination of women.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 23:00:20 EDT