Paul on Slavery (Part V)

PAUL: The Pastorals

Titus 2:9-10

The author (questions of authorship aside) begins this section by telling Titus to “teach what is consistent with sound [healthy] doctrine”(2:1). He goes with gender (2:3-5),[1] younger men (2:6-8),[2] and then to slaves.[3] The slaves are told not to give satisfaction by “not talking back and “pilfering.”[4] Tellingly, the institution of slavery isn’t rooted in creation or a divine ordinance. Instead, they are to be ‘attractive’ (κοσμῶσιν, adornment, ornate) to their masters for the doctrine of God our Savior.

The follow up shows an impartial salvation that has appeared to all,[5] training them to renounce the world and live in ways that please God (v11-14). No one is to look down on us (v15).

1 Timothy 1:10

In this vice list (which begins in v9 and ends in v11), the author implicates many people as a result of their actions. This is in conjunction with the 10 Commandments. The ‘murderers’ (6th Commandment), ‘adulterers and sodomites’ (7th Commandment), and ‘slave traders’ (8th Commandment).[6] Paul lists these as “contrary to sound doctrine” (v10). What is curious in this brief analysis is that Paul has in mind Exodus 21:16, for which the penalty for “anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him…”[7] is death. This is coordinate with Paul’s Jewish unease with slavery, and indicates that he does consider some form of ‘slave-dealing’ as contrary to healthy doctrine.[8] Paul most probably still has false teachers in mind with this list.[9] While not entirely conclusive, this brief indictment shows that Paul viewed the trading of human beings as incompatible to “sound doctrine.”

1 Timothy 6:1-2

Why are slaves who are under the “yoke of slavery”[10] their masters[11] regard them as “worthy of all honor?” Simply stated, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.[12] While it is difficult to swallow this admonition, it is still important to realize that Paul is concerned with the church’s standing in society[13] (1 Tim 2:2 3:7). That is, if those in Christ haul off their yokes, this would be seen as a rebellion within the Greco-Roman context.[14]

Instead of a rebellion, Christian slaves are told to serve their Christian masters “all the more.”[15] Paul’s side comment[16] about all being “members of the church” implies a desire for unity within the community.

SUMMATION: Paul & Slavery

Paul - and his predecessors - in some sense significantly undermined the institution of slavery during his time. His influence upon subsequent traditions, who ransomed slaves, cannot be ignored. The terrible tragedy is that people would misuse Paul to shame the honor and dignity of African-Americans, especially in the name of God. While Paul can certainly be misused, we must remember that for his time, Paul was doing his best with an old world. While it is not enough for some of us, I do think it meant the world to people like Onesimus.

NQ

[1] This “submission” is not grounded in creation, respect or the husband’s authority. Rather, they are told to submit so that “the word of God may not be discredited.” This pattern of not bringing dishonor to God is a repeated emphasis throughout 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.
[2] Again, the reason is that an opponent “will be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us” (v8).
[3] As with 1 Timothy 1:10, masters are given no exhortation.
[4] Gordon D. Fee, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 190, notes that “slaves were often entrusted with buying goods and also often had a degree of private ownership.” This shows that if slaves had a degree of freedom that they were not to use it against their owners. Or, even, if they had no freedom, to still not steal.
[5] Notably, women and slaves are included in this.
[6] Fee, 46.
[7] “ἀνδραποδισταῖς”; see BDAG 76, LSJ 127-8. Philip Payne pointed this in out. Man and Woman, One in Christ, 274. Gordon Fee points out that many early rabbis considered the 8th Commandment to be opposing slave dealing. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 49 additional notes 1:9-10.
[8] Much could be be said about the ἀρσενοκοίταις but that will have to wait.
[9] The notation of sexual improprieties and murderers could be a hint towards the activities of the various cults in the area. It is very likely that prostitutes and priests were close in the temples. While this does not excuse homosexual practice, it does show that Paul has such things in mind as a reason to indict them.
[10] Galatians 5:1.
[11] This would be Christian slaves and Christian owners, though the owner may not be a Christian. Christian slaves would likely be told to submit to their masters, regardless of religious affiliation.
[12] Fee suggests that slaves are still viewed as still “in the old social order.” 137.
[13] Indeed, that may be a key hermeneutical device to understand these household codes, especially in regards to slavery. Perhaps these are viewed as ad hoc. A key argument against this is that Paul is already an ad hoc theologian. While certainly true, an ad hoc admonition can still be applicable to a relevant modern situation.
[14] If history is any indication, the failed slave rebellion of Spartacus shows that a slave uprising would be crushed, and anyone who associated with it would likely suffer the same fate.
[15] Most probably, the masters here are Christians. The shift to the specific would indicate this, especially if masters in v1 are said to be “worthy of honor” so that God may not be blasphemed. If a Christian slave was disobedient or acting in a dishonorable way, it would follow that such slave masters would not view their religion in the highest opinion.
[16] Fee, 138, calls 6:2a an “ad hoc reason for this short section.”

Unknown Unknowns, Or Questions before Seminary

I've been thinking for a long time regarding evangelicals and seminary. For a longer time, I've been wondering about my Christian faith, especially in relation to historical criticism and theological disjunction. What about the exodus? 1-2 Timothy and Titus? Genocide? Homosexuality? The body/soul debate? So I thought about jotting down several of the questions I had before I actually started seminary at Fuller in the fall quarter of 2014. So these are subject to change as subjects and times change in relation to interests and class scheduling.

I should say that my questions have little to do with my choice of seminary. I've had these difficult questions for over four years since I've begun to reexamine the texts in question. I contemplated multiple seminaries and think Fuller is the best of all possible worlds. Not only driven towards intellectual honesty, but also the enrichment of the individual person.

Anyway. Onto the show. 

What is the relationship between Scripture and society? Specifically as regards the New Testament and the prohibitions regarding homosexuality? In discussion with several people, I've wondered about this topic for over a year. While it is certainly possible to determine the nature of the New testament, it is difficult for me to see how this applies to North American politics.

Non-violence and the Gospels?My position regarding the current debate is more or less the same as pickles. I avoid both as much as possible as I find them detrimental to my health. That said, non-violence is certainly an ideal, though it remains to be seen whether or not it is the teaching of the Gospels.

Do human beings have an immaterial soul? This may be obvious to many, but it isn't obvious to me. In reading about the subject, I see very little reason to adopt dualism. That said, I am constantly flicking myself and rereading the evidence of the Scriptures in order to gain further understanding.

Is the soul immortal? This one is easy: no.

Are the Scriptures inerrant? While Fuller has a high view of Scripture, I hope to be challenge in regards to this particular (and I do mean particular as it relates to my subculture) issue.

Universalism, true or false? It is something that I once believed. It would be nice if it turned out to be true. At the moment, I do doubt it. But, seminary is a place to wrestle. Prayers as regards that topic.

The relationship between the First Testament and the New Testament? Richard Hays has paved the way for this, but I want to learn more. How did Paul, John and Jude understand the story/ies of Israel?

The perplexing question of authorship? Especially as it regards 1-2 Timothy & Titus, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 2nd and 3rd Isaiah, Daniel, etc. Do these texts, if not written by the proclaimed author, retain authority for Christian life and practice? OI say yes, but with an ellipsis at the end of my sentence ...

Is there a center to Paul's theology?

What is the Law?

What is the nature of the body, and how do quantum mechanics work in relation to resurrection?

What about that pesky question of election? Especially within American politics? Mostly a joke.

--Nick

Paul & Slavery (Part I)

I wrote an essay for personal gain on the topic. In the larger essay I wrote (56 pages on Paul and women), I included several appendices addressing various related topics. Slavery was one of them. I do not pretend to solve any problem, nor do I assume that my research is complete. In fact, I know it isn't. But, I enjoyed my research and hope someone could profit from it. Thanks for reading.

GRECO-ROMAN SLAVERY

This may be the longest appendix, simply because it carries the most individual verses.[1] What must be admitted up front is that the topic of slavery is a truly difficult issue within the New Testament, and within the wider socio-cultural context. For instance, Rome was built upon the slave culture.[2] They viewed it as normal behavior. S. Scott Bartchy points out that “no ancient government ever sought to abolish slavery.”[3] Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke list several ways a person could wind up in slavery:[4]

1)    War/Piracy.

a.     The spoils of war; while in some sense more humane than killing the defeated, one wonders to what extent the selling of the defeated contributes positively to their dignity.

2)    Slave Markets.

a.     It is reported that there were daily rates of over a thousand people in many cities, including Athens and Corinth. The purchase of a slave was an investment, as the owner would inherit the debt incurred from the slave’s previous life.

3)    Self-Sale.

a.     A free man could sell himself into slavery on the basis of paying off any debts. His own, or those he loved.

4)    Court Sentences.

a.     The penalty of a court that results in slave labor. Sometimes men were condemned to the gladiatorial arena.

5)    Exposure of Children.

a.     An unwanted child – most probably girls – could be sold for whatever reason deemed fit. Their likely destination was brothels. Only if they could prove that their parents were free could they be released.

6)    House Birth.

a.     The breeding of slaves within one household. Usually begotten by masters and slave women.

The early mentalities towards slavery were largely negative, though with some exceptions. Aristotle viewed a slave as a “living tool” (Pol. 1252a-55b) and that “the use made of slaves and tamed animals is not that different” (Pol. 1254b). Plato wrote that while some slaves were more virtuous than family, the soul of the slave is “utterly corrupt” (Od. 17.322-23). Often slavery was viewed in philosophical and existential terms, as we see in Philo’s essay Every Good Man is Free. What mattered to some most of all was mental freedom.[5] Simply, slaves were utterly at the whim of their masters, and women were significantly oppressed.[6] Wayne Meeks suggests that “…freedwomen were usually manumitted at an earlier age than freedman and quite often for purposes of marriage. In fact, 29 percent married their own patrons—one of the most common means for female slaves to gain freedom and improved status.”[7] Slaves could also be educated, often more educated than their owners. This increased their value as servants.[8]

A person’s experience in slavery depended almost entirely upon the customs of the owner’s family, the business and the particular class of society to which the owner belonged, and the character of the owner himself.[9] Several early authors confirm that a specific slave owner threw slaves to his carnivorous fish.[10] Some slaves could even be crucified,[11] though the more common punishment was beating.[12] Crucifixion even appeared in some comedies, the phrase “go to the cross!” being used to exclaim, “go to hell!”[13] On the other hand, slave owners such as Pliny the Younger repeatedly sent sick slaves to high-caliber physicians.[14]

Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians sheds some important light on the issue of Christians and slavery. Chapter 55.2 states “We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to bonds, in order that they might ransom others. Many, too, have surrendered themselves to slavery, that with the price which they received for themselves, they might provide food for others.” Hermas (Mandates 8:10) states, “Next hear the things which follow: to minister to widows, to look after orphans and the destitute,[15] to redeem from distress the servants (“doulous” slave/servant) of God, to be hospitable…to resist none, to be gentle, to be poorer than all men…to practice justice, to preserve brotherhood…not to oppress poor debtors, and whatever is like to these things.” Apostolic Constitutions 5.1.3 recommends the practice of selling one’s self into slavery for others, as Hermas (Similitudes 1:8) encourages people to “purchase afflicted souls” instead of land.”

While not universal or widely documented, these noble practices do offer some help in determining some of the early practices of some Christian communities. However, by and large, the early Christians didn’t appear to be known for their opposition to the social institution of slavery.

---

[1] It ought not be assumed that I find slavery more important than the Trinity. It simply has the most expansive selection of data.

[2] S. Scott Bartchy, “Slaves and Slavery in the Roman World,” The World of the New Testament, 169-178, 169.

[3] S. Scott Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery & 1 Corinthians 7:21, 63. Bartchy’s groundbreaking dissertation is the backbone of this paper.

[4] Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, 5-8.

[5] Epictetus is a fine example.

[6] Barth and Blanke point out that very little primary and secondary data exists detailing the suffering of girls and women during this time. In some sense, this is preferable to reading sexual abuse of the lowest possible denominator. 

[7] Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians 2^nd Edition, 23.

[8] S. Scott Bartchy, “Slaves and Slavery in the Roman World,” The World of the New Testament, 173. This indicates a possible reason for why Onesimus was running away, and his possible status in the home of Philemon.

[9] S. Scott Bartchy, MALLON CHRESAI: First Century Slavery & 1 Corinthians 7:21, 68.

[10] Seneca, De ira, III, 40; Dio Cassius, LIV, 23 as well.

[11] In the revolt of Spartacus (roughly 71BCE), over 6,000 slaves were crucified in the defeat of Spartacus.

[12] “You school a Phrygian by the whip” was a proverb of the time.

[13] Barth and Blanke, The Letter to Philemon, 86.

[14] Pliny, Ep. 5, 19. To set a modern example, if a car blows a tire, you fix it in order to keep the car going. If the car continues to die and break, you rid yourself of it.

[15] James 1:27 parallel.

Women in Seminary: "Living Water" by Sarah Schwartz

As my wife prepares for her PhD application, and I prepare for the beginnings of my MAT, I was struck by the stories many of my female friends have had in their times at university and at seminary. Some had stories of wonder and life, yet others were burdened and struggling simply to make due. Allison mentioned that the Academic Dean of her former seminary -- a very stern and friendly man -- would weep with female MDiv students who were dealing with, well, being women in a generally complementarian seminary. These are their stories, both of darkness and sadness and of light and hope. If you have such a story, feel free to tweet me and I will see about putting your story up here. Blessings. Now, as they say, on with the show!
[Nick's Note]

"LIVING WATER"

“So in traveling through Samaria and seeking out conversation with the woman at the well,” I said,  “Jesus makes clear that this new abundant life he offers is for all people, regardless of gender, ethnicity, social class, political or national affiliation.” It was a Sunday morning at my home church in the Pacific Northwest, and I was preaching out of John 4, describing Jesus’ radical encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well in our series on heroes of the faith.

“Jesus demonstrates that not only is he welcoming outsiders into this new life, but he is making space for them to participate fully in leading others to encounter him. The woman in search of a well and some water discovers that the Spirit could transform her life into a well. Jesus affirms that she belongs, that her voice and her testimony matter, and that she could be a part of bringing other people into that place of belonging.” I went on to describe how in 1st century Israel, a woman’s testimony held so little value that it wasn’t admissible in a court of law. Jesus’ interaction with this woman set her patriarchal culture on its head, revealing his Kingdom to be a place where the last are first, leaders wash feet, foolish things shame the wise, a place where the outcast finds their voice and place.

“If we are a community attempting to model our lives after Christ,” I urged the congregation, “we must actively and intentionally seek out the marginalized, the weak, the voiceless, and invite them to the table with us, to share a bucket of water, to be full, valued participants in this Kingdom life, to be people whose voices matter in our church.” I closed the message with this exhortation, and joined the prayer team at the front of the auditorium as the worship team brought the service to a close. I took a few deep breaths as the guest worship leader approached the microphone, strumming his guitar.

“Lord,” he prayed, “we ask that your Holy Spirit would go with us to our homes. And may the men continue to be priests of their home Lord, and rightly share your word in their families.”
My eyes shot open, unable to contain my shock. I quickly searched for my sister’s face in the third row; she and the people sitting around her were equally stunned at his clear attempt to undercut everything I had just preached; to somehow make up for or cancel out my asking the congregation that we rise up and be a community that values the voices of women.  Shake it off, Sarah, I said quietly to myself. You’ve still got to pray for people. I tried to focus on my breath as the song continued, hoping my already red cheeks weren’t giving away my surprise at his comments. After a few moments had gone by, one of the church elders, a man roughly my father’s age, approached me quietly.

“Sarah,” he whispered. “Will you pray for me?”

“Of course,” I responded, breathless, perhaps as surprised by this request as I was by the commentary leading up to it. I laid my hand on his shoulder and whispered a few words to the Father on his behalf. We closed with a joint amen; he thanked me, and returned to his seat.

When people ask me about the difficulties of being a woman in ministry, I think of this Sunday morning and the thousand other stories I have like it, stories of those who respond to the scandalous good news of the necessity of men and women’s voices in this beautiful Kingdom with fear, trying ever so hard to justify their systems of who can and who can’t, who gets and who doesn’t, who leads and who follows. But when asked what keeps me going, I think of this same Sunday, and the small gesture of a kind church elder, who, much like Jesus in his interaction with the Samaritan woman, treated me like someone whose voice and ministry matter. It is small moments like this, and the knowledge that many women have yet to be told of the value of their own voices, that keeps me getting up on Sunday mornings to tell of living water.

Sarah Schwartz grew up in McMinnville, Oregon, where she began preaching in the local church the age of 16. She earned her undergraduate degree in Communication Studies from Biola University, where she helped found the school’s first chapter of Christians for Biblical Equality. Currently, Sarah is pursuing her M.A. in Biblical Exposition from Talbot Theological Seminary. Some of her favorite things include Stumptown Coffee, her siblings, poetry, and spending summers on her childhood farm. You can tweet her @SarahSchwartz and enjoy her writings @http://www.sarahchristineschwartz.com

When Church Fathers Drop the Mic, Or Tertullian vs. Marcion

It was very meet that the man who buried the Lord should thus be noticed in prophecy, and thenceforth be “blessed;” since prophecy does not omit the (pious) office of the women who resorted before day-break to the sepulchre with the spices which they had prepared. Luke 24:1 For of this incident it is said by Hosea: “To seek my face they will watch till day-light, saying unto me, Come, and let us return to the Lord: for He has taken away, and He will heal us; He has smitten, and He will bind us up; after two days will He revive us: in the third day He will raise us up.” For who can refuse to believe that these words often revolved in the thought of those women between the sorrow of that desertion with which at present they seemed to themselves to have been smitten by the Lord, and the hope of the resurrection itself, by which they rightly supposed that all would be restored to them? But when “they found not the body (of the Lord Jesus),” Luke 24:3 “His sepulture was removed from the midst of them,” according to the prophecy of Isaiah. “Two angels however, appeared there.” Luke 24:4 For just so many honorary companions were required by the word of God, which usually prescribes “ two witnesses.” Moreover, the women, returning from the sepulchre, and from this vision of the angels, were foreseen by Isaiah, when he says, “Come, you women, who return from the vision;” that is, “come,” to report the resurrection of the Lord. It was well, however, that the unbelief of the disciples was so persistent, in order that to the last we might consistently maintain that Jesus revealed Himself to the disciples as none other than the Christ of the prophets. For as two of them were taking a walk, and when the Lord had joined their company, without its appearing that it was He, and while He dissembled His knowledge of what had just taken place, Luke 24:13-19 they say: “But we trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel,” Luke 24:21 — meaning their own, that is, the Creator's Christ. So far had He been from declaring Himself to them as another Christ! They could not, however, deem Him to be the Christ of the Creator; nor, if He was so deemed by them, could He have tolerated this opinion concerning Himself, unless He were really He whom He was supposed to be. Otherwise He would actually be the author of error, and the prevaricator of truth, contrary to the character of the good God. But at no time even after His resurrection did He reveal Himself to them as any other than what, on their own showing, they had always thought Him to be. He pointedly reproached them: “O fools, and slow of heart in not believing that which He spoke unto you.” Luke 24:25 By saying this, He proves that He does not belong to the rival god, but to the same God. For the same thing was said by the angels to the women: “Remember how He spoke unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered up, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.” Luke 24:6-7 “ Must be delivered up;” and why, except that it was so written by God the Creator? He therefore upbraided them, because they were offended solely at His passion, and because they doubted of the truth of the resurrection which had been reported to them by the women, whereby (they showed that) they had not believed Him to have been the very same as they had thought Him to be. Wishing, therefore, to be believed by them in this wise, He declared Himself to be just what they had deemed Him to be— the Creator's Christ, the Redeemer of Israel. But as touching the reality of His body, what can be plainer? When they were doubting whether He were not a phantom— nay, were supposing that He was one— He says to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; for a spirit has not bones, as you see me have.” Luke 24:37-39.

Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him— I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any. But he spares only such passages as he can subvert quite as well by explaining them away as by expunging them from the text. Thus, in the passage before us, he would have the words, “A spirit has not bones, as you see me have,” so transposed, as to mean, “A spirit, such as you see me to be, has not bones;” that is to say, it is not the nature of a spirit to have bones. But what need of so tortuous a construction, when He might have simply said, “A spirit has not bones, even as you observe that I have not?” Why, moreover, does He offer His hands and His feet for their examination— limbs which consist of bones— if He had no bones? Why, too, does He add, “Know that it is I myself,” Luke 24:39 when they had before known Him to be corporeal? Else, if He were altogether a phantom, why did He upbraid them for supposing Him to be a phantom? But while they still believed not, He asked them for some meat, Luke 24:41 for the express purpose of showing them that He had teeth.

And now, as I would venture to believe, we have accomplished our undertaking. We have set forth Jesus Christ as none other than the Christ of the Creator. Our proofs we have drawn from His doctrines, maxims, affections, feelings, miracles, sufferings, and even resurrection— as foretold by the prophets. Even to the last He taught us (the same truth of His mission), when He sent forth His apostles to preach His gospel “among all nations;” for He thus fulfilled the psalm: “Their sound is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.”

Marcion, I pity you; your labour has been in vain. For the Jesus Christ who appears in your Gospel is mine.

Against Marcion, Book IV, CH43.

--Nick

3 Points on the New Perspective on Paul

Scot McKnight posted this. Thought it was interesting.

The following points can be named as its [NPP's] most important insights:
(1) Paul’s thinking should not be understood as an answer to individual plights of conscience but as a salvation-historical orientation and revolves around the question of the status of the Gentiles in the people of God.

(2) The picture  of Judaism as a religion of “works righteousness” is a negative foil for the interpretation of Pauline theology that in no way does justice to ancient Judaism and therefore [this old way of reading Paul] also distorts the stance of Paul toward the Judaism of his time.

(3) Paul does not fundamentally polemicize against the doing of good works but criticizes Israel’s appeal to identity markers that demarcate it from other peoples and ground its status as the chosen people.

Find it here.

--Nick

Roger Olson on "Christians & Pacifism"

Good schtuff.

"When it comes to Christian social ethics I have two heroes, but the problem is they are widely considered antithetical. John Howard Yoder and Reinhold Niebuhr. Much of Yoder’s reputation is gained from contradicting Niebuhr. And of course, much of Niebuhr’s reputation was gained from contradicting pacifism. Admittedly, the pacifism Niebuhr was against was not Yoder’s. He even tipped his hat to Anabaptists as a needed witness. He was against the liberal Protestant pacifism of the social gospel movement (people like Edwin Dahlberg). Nevertheless, insofar as Niebuhr thought ALL pacifism is wrong and Yoder thought pacifism (Christocentric like his or liberal) is right, they are opposites on that and many other issues. 

Yoder has in recent years enjoyed a revival of interest, probably mainly through Hauerwas. Niebuhr’s influence continues, of course, as he is almost always named as “the most influential Christian thinker” by politicians. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barak Obama have so identified him. 

Of course, I don’t see how a Christian COULD be president and NOT appreciate Niebuhr’s approach to social ethics. It would certainly be difficult to be president and have Yoder as your social ethics mentor. 

My problem is that when I read Yoder I find myself saying “Amen” a lot–to almost everything he says. I am convinced that he was right about New Testament, original Christianity and especially the teachings and example of Jesus and how they ought to apply to Christian living today. The church is supposed to be that light set on a hill, living by a different set of values from the rest of the world (not that they can’t sometimes overlap). For example, the way of the world is coercion; the way of Jesus is love. I am convinced that Jesus would not want his followers to engage in deadly force. 

Yoder’s social ethic is focused on obedience. Obey Jesus and let the chips fall where they may. Obedience is our calling; effectiveness is God’s business. We are not called to manage history; we are only called to live as Christ instructed us to live. Amen. 

When I read Niebuhr (e.g., An Interpretation of Christian Ethics or his essays in Love and Justice) I also find myself saying “Amen” a lot. Niebuhr believes it is irresponsible for Christians to abdicate responsibility for the world and he equates pacifism with that. He doesn’t justify war as good, but he believes it is sometimes a necessary evil. He agrees with Yoder that Jesus taught and modeled radical love. They basically agree on the Sermon on the Mount–it must not be watered down or glossed over. Niebuhr thinks it is possible for the individual Christian to live by it somewhat consistently. And he agrees that we OUGHT to live by it perfectly consistently. But he also thinks this is a fallen world where Christians must sometimes hold their noses and do things contrary to the Sermon on the Mount. Effectiveness matters and sometimes requires compromise. That’s where Yoder disagrees. 

John Stackhouse (Regents College) wrote a book a couple years ago entitled Making the Best of It. I reviewed it for Books & Culture. It’s an excellent evangelical re-statement of Niebuhr’s social ethic. I found myself agreeing whole heartedly. 

On the other hand, reading Hauerwas’ War and the American Difference, convinces me Yoder was right. War is something Christians ought to oppose and never participate in or support. 

Well, you see my dilemma. I’m divided within myself. I agree with Yoder that the Christian life, including the life of the church, is one of radical obedience to the love Jesus taught and modeled including “Resist not evil” and “love your enemies.” I also agree with Niebuhr that effectiveness in abolishing injustice is part of the Christian’s calling (including the church’s calling). When Hitler was rampaging through Europe our duty was effectively to stop him. I also agree with Yoder that the church’s main duty is peace making by being a peaceful witness to the Lamb. 

Is there a way to reconcile these two impulses-one toward radical, uncompromising obedience and one toward Christian effectiveness and responsibility for society that sometimes requires compromise (e.g., to abolish injustice using coercion if necessary)? 

Occasionally I look to Bonhoeffer as a guide. Not as a guide in the sense of “Here’s a check list to go through at the end of which you’ll know what to do.” Bonhoeffer was no advocate of casuisty. But a guide in the sense of feeling resigned to the fact that occasionally in this world an evil arises so great that one has to set aside perfect obedience to the new law of love and hold one’s nose and do what it is necessary and trust God to forgive. 

Bonhoeffer was a pacifist–until he was handed the opportunity to participate in the plot to assassinate Hitler. I think he remained a pacifist through that. I don’t think his participation (he volunteered to pull the trigger) was due to a policy of putting effectiveness over radical, uncompromising obedience Niebuhr style. Rather, it had to be something like Kierkegaard’s “teleological suspension of the ethical.” 

IF we think Bonhoeffer made the right decision, even if it was in another sense wrong, then it seems our involvement in World War 2 was justified in the same sense–not due to some policy of just war but due to having no alternative except to allow a madman to take over much of the world and commit genocide against many groups he hated. 

The problem, as I see it, is that AFTER WW2 most previously pacifist Christian groups dropped pacifism altogether and embraced war as good (something to be celebrated). 

That example, Bonhoeffer, doesn’t exactly reconcile Yoder and Niebuhr, of course, but it gives one instance of a person who, while holding fast to pacifism as the norm, embraced violence as the exception (as a necessary evil). Let’s imagine that the Allies liberated Bonhoeffer before he was hanged. (That almost happened.) Would he have then been a Niebuhrian defender of war? I don’t think so. I think he would have remained a pacifist and simply appealed to the exceptional circumstances to justify (not make righteous) his decision to participate in the plot to kill Hitler. 

My point is, the only way forward I can see, to get off the horns of the dilemma, is to stand with Yoder as the norm but remain open to exceptions when circumstances absolutely require them. Some evils are so horrendous that they need to be overcome quickly and the only way to do that is coercion and sometimes even violence. The response is not to create a justification system to prepare for them, but to be the kind of persons who know when they arise and how best to respond. Bonhoeffer was that kind of person. 

As a general rule, I think it is true that God does not call Christians or the church to manage history. He calls us to obedience to the law of love. Coercion using deadly force is always sin but not always wrong. I realize that’s dialectical, but I don’t know any way out of that." -- Roger Olson. 

Full link

--Nick