Slave

Below is the approximate text of a sermon I preached in January 2012 on Ephesians 5:21-6:9. It’s published here as I prepare to preach from 1 Peter 3 at Malmesbury Abbey on February 3^rd; in order that we might not entirely go over old ground together.

I’m a very, very important man, or is the phrase self-important? Yes. With my responsibilities as Vicar and Area Dean, with Marilyn working at Malmesbury School, and with daughters back and forth at University and studying, well it’s been pretty hard keeping on top of things at the vicarage, and finally…finally I’ve found a solution. I’m going to get myself a slave. It’s cheap, it’s efficient and it’s reliable. However, one question did occur to me:  ‘is it OK for a Christian to have a slave? Does the bible say have to say on this?’

Well in the Old Testament it says ‘God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as sand on the seashore’ (1 Kings 4:29). Now I think that’s a pretty good reference, and Solomon conscripted a slave labour force (1 Kings 9:20.)

Paul says in 1 Corinthians, ‘Each person should remain in the situation which they were in when God called them. Were you a slave when called? Don’t let it trouble you…’ (1 Cor 7:20,21)

And more significantly writing to the church, yes the church, in Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22 St Paul doesn’t tell slaves to escape from their masters or masters to free their slaves, Paul assumes that slavery will continue in the Christian era, and that the church will be a place with both slaves and masters –sitting next to each other on a Sunday morning. So I think I’m OK to get a slave. Life will be a little easier, and that’s a tremendous relief.

And when William Wilberforce and his allies were fighting for the abolition of the slave trade in the late 18^th century there would have been similar, lazy, biblically-based arguments floating around for maintaining the status quo on slavery. Just as the Bible was wrongly used to justify apartheid, or segregation in the United States, or the oppression of the Jewish people.

Today, tragically, there remains a battle against slavery, but not a single Christian leader on the planet would stand up and argue for slavery, even though St Paul clearly permits it, even expects it, in the local church. So why wouldn’t I defend slavery? Because the great OT picture of salvation, the Exodus, is the mass releasing of slaves from captivity in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land. Because in Christ, in the Body of Christ, in the Kingdom of Heaven Paul writes that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free.’ (Gal 3:28) ‘You were called to freedom, brothers and sisters’ (Gal 5:13) And because in St Paul’s very short letter to Philemon, we see his heart regarding slavery, that in God’s Kingdom, slaves should no longer be slaves, but brothers. (Phil 16)

So what’s going on here? How do we handle, if you like, both Pauls? The Paul that culturally assumes slavery and the Paul that tells us that when the kingdom of heaven comes, barriers come down, and equality comes. We handle it using the theological principle of accommodation – which in essence is this: time and time again God works with what he’s got, for the good of humanity. He accommodates the world as it is, in order to lead us to the world that is to come.

Think of the Birth of Christ for a moment. There was no perfect marriage between Mary & Joseph (actually there wasn’t a marriage at all); there was no benevolent empire with wise rulers, but Roman brutality and crucifixion; there was no perfect Israel, but this hopelessly fractured and powerless nation; and there was no maternity ward, no midwife, just a manger. But God accommodated His greater salvation purposes in this mess of humanity. And when Paul writes his letters to churches in the 1^st century he writes similarly. Kingdom values articulated in a non-Kingdom context. So how does he handle slavery?

In his tiny churches, Paul recognises that slavery is inevitable. To call for its abandonment would be futile and would damage the mission of the church irrevocably. But to call for the transformation of slavery is possible, so listen to Paul’s challenge to slaves and masters in the church…

Slaves obey your earthly masters… as you would obey Christ (Ephesians 6:6)

Masters do not threaten your slaves, because He who is both their master and yours is in heaven (Ephesians 6:9)

But nevertheless, Paul holds on to the Kingdom truth that in Christ there is neither slave nor free, and that all Christians are to submit to one another – even a master to a slave.

So I won’t be getting a slave in the vicarage.

And that’s how we properly read Paul in Ephesians on slavery.

An accommodation of slavery in culture.

An aspiration to the freedom of the Kingdom.

So then, how do we read Paul in Ephesians on husbands and wives?

Please note that in our passage Paul is contrasting two groups, the powerful and the powerless. In Ephesus men, parents and masters have the power, and women, children and slaves don’t. When Paul is writing women are second-class citizens.

Aristotle the 4^th century BC philosopher and tutor to Alexander the Great described the female as a ‘deformed male’ (Generation of Animals p.175) who must be ruled by their husbands (Politics, 1254b13-14) and taught gymnastics so they are more useful around the house. (ref. North Carolina State University) The first century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who was a near contemporary of Paul, wrote that while man’s soul is directed towards God, the woman's soul “clings to all that is born and perishes” (Philo On Special Laws 3.178). The man is rational he claimed, the woman is…irrational. There is a lot more that could be quoted, but in this context just saying men and women are even approaching equal is going to make you sound like Germaine Greer.

And Paul has the Bible in his hand where Genesis clearly tells him that men and women were created equal, in the image of God, and that the dominion of men over women, patriarchy, is a consequence of sin and the fall. The words of Genesis 3:16 ‘Your husband will rule over you’ are not a description of the original design of God but a symptom of a broken sin-drenched world.

If we have ears to hear, and let’s be honest many men haven’t, all over Paul’s writing we hear his egalitarian position:

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.  (Eph 5:21)

The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. (1 Cor 7:4)

And in Christ there is neither male or female (Galatians 3:28).

There are no second-class citizens in the Kingdom of God, but 2000 years ago, in the swirling mix of Greek, Roman and Jewish cultures, there were: slaves, children and women.

So Paul goes for broke at the beginning of our passage: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21) – that is glorious, that is the Kingdom of God, and that is an astonishing punch in the gut for patriarchy.

But then Paul, the realist, accommodates the broken world, he speaks to the powerless

(5:22) Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord

(6:1) Children obey your parents in the Lord

(6:5) Slaves obey your earthly masters as you would obey Christ

And then he accommodates, he speaks to the powerful

(5:25) Husbands love your wives just as Christ loved the church

(6:4) Fathers, bring up your children in the training and instruction of the Lord

(6:9) Masters…you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven.

                                                                                

Because of our baggage it is possible to read St Paul and miss his astonishing gifts as a pastor and teacher. He holds out Kingdom values for all to see, he accommodates the prevailing cultural norms, and he calls for their transformation in the church, that over time the church might infiltrate and transform society.

So why all this bother:

1.      Because I want us to read the Bible better. We can’t just read headship, patriarchy, submission and male leadership in Paul to prove our point. And we can’t just read equality, mutuality and freedom in Paul to prove our point. They are both there: an aspiration to Kingdom equality, and an accommodation of cultural patriarchy.

2.      Because I don’t want the church to seem ludicrous. In a society where men and women are broadly equal, which is a Kingdom of Heaven value itself, to argue for men’s headship in the home, the church or society, is a hopeless anachronism, and I don’t believe St Paul would be with you.

3.      Because the church needs better husbands. Listen husbands, 2000 years ago in a society when women submitted to men, St Paul tells men to love their wives as Christ loved the church and to submit to them. If your energies are expended on anything other than submitting to your wife, you are wrong. In a Kingdom household, nobody wears the trousers.

4.      Because I believe our marriages will be stronger if there aren’t unhealthy power and control issues running below the surface

5.      And because I want to teach my daughters well. They are young adults now, and I will teach them that, if they marry, that a Christian marriage should be characterised by equality and mutual submission; that obedience or headship has no place in a 21^st century Christian marriage; and if they want to lead a company, a school, a diocese or a nation, well the Bible is fine with that too.

  

FOOTNOTE

The swirling chaos of my theology and thinking were greatly helped, inspired even, by the created order of John G Stackhouse’s book ‘Finally Feminist’ as I prepared this sermon.