[SIZE=medium]One thing I think Christians should never do is to whitewash our own history. Throughout its history Christianity as a whole has achieved a lot in terms of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world. But of course Christians also have often erred. And as Christians we ought to own up to those dark spots in our history![/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]So while I appreciate your self-critical view on American history, I’m a bit shocked that you are trying to depict the life of a Roman slave as pretty much rosy posy, just to defend your position here. Sure, there were slaves that were highly educated and lived relatively comfortable lifes. But not only were my Barbarian ancestors kidnapped and stolen from their homes just much as Africans on American slave markets were, many of them were also kept like animals. Roman society was cruel and a slave’s average lifespan was around 17.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]And I am certain that deep down you agree with me that it is wrong on principle to treat your fellow-men as personal property, no matter whether you keep them in a golden or in an iron Cage.[/SIZE]
I dont think you understood what I was saying, at all. First, how is Roman slavery part of Christian history? Personally, I dont think the African slave traders were originally Christian, but certainly some Christians sought to defend the abhorrent practice using the Bible (just as some seek to defend all kinds of sexual immorality with the Bible). If anything, it was Christians who abolished the practice. Either way, yeah it was a terrible thing and unfortunatly many who claimed Christ participated in it. But I dont see what exactly that has to do with our discussion, other than the fact that people misused the Bible to promote evil, just as I believe they are doing with condoning homosexual behavior which is specifically condemned. Paul never condones slavery (especially that which took place with Africans, stealing them from their home and treating them like less-than-humans). Show me somewhere Paul says we should treat people in such a way! Otherwise, I dont see what you are getting at.
Moreover, the primary point I was making is that Paul's writings never condone slavery. Rather, they assume the practice and speak to how Christians should behave in such a system. Again, this social revolution concept is very far from the purpose of Paul and the NT. Paul sought to show believers how to be salt in light as slaves, wives, children, or whatever position they found themselves. They were to be honest, loving, hard-working and gracious. To suggest this reflects some kind of error in the NT about Paul's thought process is very problematic.
No, in that the given quote says the opposite. Ephesians has it that it is the husband and the slave holder that display Christ, not the wife and the slave:
“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.” (1 Peter 3:1–2, ESV)
“Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God.” (1 Peter 4:1–2, ESV)
“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” (Ephesians 5:1–2, ESV)
“submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21, ESV)
You are being too literal here, junobet. The whole point of these passages in Ephesians and elsewhere in the NT is that Christians should display Christ's character and love through sacrifice, humility, and submission. Even those in power should submit to God's authority in these matters: “Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.” (Ephesians 6:9, ESV)
Let's not miss the forest for the trees here. The point I was making is that Paul was writing about Christian conduct given the cultural situation, and was not seeking to create laws or social upheaval with his instructions. Thus, trying to dismiss Paul or the OT because they agreed with slavery is both false and anachonistic because slavery for the Israelites (and Romans) was very different. (And I never said Roman slaves has a rosy life).
I dont have much time, but I did want to address the issue of head-covering, since you have used that as a means to dismiss prohibitions for homosexuality.
First, there is one woman at our church who covers her head when I preach. I admire her commitment to the Scriptures and know she is acting in faith, even though I do not know that such a practice is necessary. Here is why:
In the context of head coverings, Paul explains why these head coverings are necessary: A woman ought to have a symbol of authority over her. In essence, Paul is saying that the purpose of these headcoverings is to express the woman's submission to male leadership. So, the submission of women is a timeless principle. That is what must be expressed. How that submission is expressed, is cultural (in my opinion). In our culture, most people do not recognize head covering with female submission to male leadership. In fact, most people have no idea what it means at all. In Paul's day, it was very clear to the culture that lack of head covering in such circumstances expressed a lack of female submission and Paul felt this was improper for God's design and desires.
This is NOT the same as homosexuality. With headcovering, female submission to male leadership is the rationale for the head covering. I agree that women should be in submission to male leadership. Maybe they do that through giving up their last name in marriage or by remaining silent in the classroom, or by not taking positions of eldership in the church. How it happens from culture to culture may differ, but the point is submission to male leadership. With homosexuality, there is no hint that Paul has a principle in mind by which homosexuality merely underscores that principle. No, the act of men and women lusting after one another is itself the thing that is condemned. So these two are not the same. One is an act that points to the principle of submission in the church. The other is an act that itself is condemned.
Anyway, I know you wrote a lot and I will try to get to it as I can. Thanks for your kind words about our services. I appreciate that. Duty calls. Have a blessed day.