Back in 2012, Mega-Pastor John Macarthur said, with a straight face, “It is a little strange that we have such an aversion to slavery because historically there have been abuses.
Great post, Michael. Two things come to mind: firstly the recent comments from Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum - "You will own nothing - but you will be happy". Meaning that if we have a global socialist style world economy where the wealth is shared out more, we will all have all our needs met and will be perfectly happy, while owning nothing ourselves. This, in essence is what Macarthur was describing with the slave owner. The slave would be 'perfectly happy' because "everything was taken care of". Of course, that slave would be no happier than we would be if he had no control over his own day to day life.
The next thing is closer to home. My mother told me how her parents had an aboriginal servant girl in their western Sydney home early last century, who was one of the stolen generation. (Mum was telling this story to me to justify the benefits of taking these aboriginal children from their homes by force and raising them in white Christian families. She was a child at the time but her older relatives had drummed it into her how lucky this girl was.) When this girl reached a marriageable age, she found a young aboriginal man she wanted to marry, and apparently her 'white family' bought her a house to settle in with her husband. I am guessing it was a humble cottage in a poorer part of town, but to my mother's dying day she told me how blessed this girl was to have been taken from her poor family and raised in a modern way (as little more than a slave, mind you) and been given a good start in life. That all the family loved this girl, she was like family. (Who would not love someone who washed and darned and cooked and cleaned all day long for them all for next to no pay?) Apparently after she left service when she had children herself, she always greeted and thanked Mum's family, her 'benefactors' (this made me feel sick - the brainwashing of this poor aboriginal girl). This was the view of that generation - that those of other skin colours should be jolly happy to be 'so well cared for, with not a worry in the world' - what more could a person want? Macarthur is simply reflecting this view, which now, with our thankfully more open eyes, we see as abhorrent.
Being a slave of Christ really isn't the same, though Macarthur appears to equate it as such. Christ is perfect and considerate, and generally tends to leave us some amount of day to day autonomy. It does not feel stifling to serve Christ.
A thoughtful, engaging critique with which I concur. I heartily agree with Webb's discussion of the subject of slavery, and with Michael's assertion, "Thus, as I’ve argued before, the Apostle Paul was no William Wilberforce, but it is precisely because of Paul and because of the “Christian revolution” as Tom Holland calls it, that we got William Wilberforce."
This was interesting as I currently reading a book called “Learning from the Germans” which compares and contrasts how Germany has “worked off the past” of Nazi era/Holocaust - imperfectly, but substantially - with how America has dealt with its slavery past. Germany has done a better job to date. But in talking with folks in Mississippi and explaining the Lost Cause ideology, she speculated that the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the south was motivated by the desire to protect a literalistic reading of scripture which was attractive because scripture seems to condone slavery - but only if read in a woodenly literal sort of way. The motivation to justify, excuse and valorize slavery and the lost cause was - and, she argues, remains - a powerful motivator in southern religion and politics - and seeps into religion and politics beyond the south.
Great post, Michael. Two things come to mind: firstly the recent comments from Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum - "You will own nothing - but you will be happy". Meaning that if we have a global socialist style world economy where the wealth is shared out more, we will all have all our needs met and will be perfectly happy, while owning nothing ourselves. This, in essence is what Macarthur was describing with the slave owner. The slave would be 'perfectly happy' because "everything was taken care of". Of course, that slave would be no happier than we would be if he had no control over his own day to day life.
The next thing is closer to home. My mother told me how her parents had an aboriginal servant girl in their western Sydney home early last century, who was one of the stolen generation. (Mum was telling this story to me to justify the benefits of taking these aboriginal children from their homes by force and raising them in white Christian families. She was a child at the time but her older relatives had drummed it into her how lucky this girl was.) When this girl reached a marriageable age, she found a young aboriginal man she wanted to marry, and apparently her 'white family' bought her a house to settle in with her husband. I am guessing it was a humble cottage in a poorer part of town, but to my mother's dying day she told me how blessed this girl was to have been taken from her poor family and raised in a modern way (as little more than a slave, mind you) and been given a good start in life. That all the family loved this girl, she was like family. (Who would not love someone who washed and darned and cooked and cleaned all day long for them all for next to no pay?) Apparently after she left service when she had children herself, she always greeted and thanked Mum's family, her 'benefactors' (this made me feel sick - the brainwashing of this poor aboriginal girl). This was the view of that generation - that those of other skin colours should be jolly happy to be 'so well cared for, with not a worry in the world' - what more could a person want? Macarthur is simply reflecting this view, which now, with our thankfully more open eyes, we see as abhorrent.
Being a slave of Christ really isn't the same, though Macarthur appears to equate it as such. Christ is perfect and considerate, and generally tends to leave us some amount of day to day autonomy. It does not feel stifling to serve Christ.
A thoughtful, engaging critique with which I concur. I heartily agree with Webb's discussion of the subject of slavery, and with Michael's assertion, "Thus, as I’ve argued before, the Apostle Paul was no William Wilberforce, but it is precisely because of Paul and because of the “Christian revolution” as Tom Holland calls it, that we got William Wilberforce."
Webb's book caused a stir around the early 2000's, but I think he's right!
This was interesting as I currently reading a book called “Learning from the Germans” which compares and contrasts how Germany has “worked off the past” of Nazi era/Holocaust - imperfectly, but substantially - with how America has dealt with its slavery past. Germany has done a better job to date. But in talking with folks in Mississippi and explaining the Lost Cause ideology, she speculated that the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the south was motivated by the desire to protect a literalistic reading of scripture which was attractive because scripture seems to condone slavery - but only if read in a woodenly literal sort of way. The motivation to justify, excuse and valorize slavery and the lost cause was - and, she argues, remains - a powerful motivator in southern religion and politics - and seeps into religion and politics beyond the south.
Michelle, yes, one could argue that the civil war never really ended, the battle was just moved to other platforms and political modes of discourse.