Before the Letter to Philemon - Slavery and the early Church

The little letter to Philemon is one of my favorites, but I'm finding it difficult to comment on. It is the shortest and most personal letter written by Paul, a letter that veritably pulsates with the warmth and magnetism of the Apostle. Paul is a man of fiery emotions, whether he's railing against the discord within the Christian community at Corinth in I Corinthians, or expressing his deep personal affection for his disciples, who he calls his "fellow workers", "beloved brothers," and his "children". Paul's heart seems unable to contain the love he feels for this new Christian community that he has created. It flows out of him like an irresistible force, drawing everyone around him into his orbit. From reading this letter it's easy to see why his missions were so wildly successful.

The intense warmth of this letter makes it so compelling, but when commenting on it I'm instantly ensnared in issues of slavery, because the two principal figures in the letter are a runaway slave, Onesimus, and his master Philemon. Paul does not intend this letter to be a commentary on slavery, but intends only to make a personal plea for the forgiveness of and (strongly hinted anyway) the emancipation of one individual slave, Onesimus. Regardless, the argument he doesn't make, that Onesimus should be freed because slavery is intrinsically evil, is what stands out most to the modern reader. It is an uncomfortable reminder of the fact that the early Church did not take a stand against slavery.

This has been explained in many ways. It's been said that the Church was too small to attempt to make such a large-scale change in society, and too weak to survive the confrontation with Rome that would have resulted. And it's been said that the Church's expectation of an imminent perousia rendered any such long-term projects pointless.

Well I think we can safely rule out the idea that the Church was too timid about confronting Rome to take on the issue of slavery. These were people, after all, who preferred in large numbers to go to the arena rather than participate in the rote emperor worship ceremonies of their day, and this at a time when nobody really believed in the divinity of the emperor. Rome was not Persia, where such things were taken seriously. Romans knew that emperor worship was merely an expression of fealty to Rome, but Christians, large numbers of them anyway, preferred death to participation in an act that so contradicted their faith. A lack of contrariness or courage was not their problem.

And it's difficult to judge how expectations of the perousia influenced the Church's attitude toward affecting social change. Certainly there are no passages in Scripture that I know of that say, "Let's hold off on this whole slavery issue guys, Jesus will be back next week anyway." Rather than speculate on that, it's better to draw inferences from what they actually did say about slavery. One of the most striking passages regarding slavery can be found at the end of Ephesians 5 and the beginning of Ephesians 6:

Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

"For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.

Children, obey your parents (in the Lord), for this is right. "Honor your father and mother." This is the first commandment with a promise, "that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on earth."

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up with the training and instruction of the Lord.

Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, willingly serving the Lord and not human beings, knowing that each will be requited from the Lord for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

Masters, act in the same way toward them, and stop bullying, knowing that both they and you have a Master in heaven and that with him there is no partiality.

I am proving unlucky in blogging, because two of the first four posts I've made involve passages that talk about one of the topics most likely to repel modern readers -- subordination of women to men. Well, if anyone remains to read the rest of this, he or (less likely ;-) she should listen to this passage in its entirety, and consider what Paul is doing here. He is looking for ways in which people in all walks of life can subordinate their own needs and desires to those of others, and to follow Christ and the Church in the path of humble service. As Christ served the Church, and as the Church serves Christ, so should men and women serve one another in justice.

It's perhaps tangential to this post, and so should be reserved mainly for a future one, but Paul's commandment to husbands is no less demanding than his commandment to wives, i.e. to "love your wives even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her." "Handed himself over" of course refers to Jesus' being handed over to the Jewish and Roman authorities at the time of his Passion. This isn't, "Take care of the little woman, because she's weak and not too bright," which is what many people hear when they read Ephesians. Paul is asking men to dedicate their whole being to the service of their wives, just as Christ dedicated himself to the service of all, even to the point of torture and death.

As discussed in previous posts, the Christian path to God can be termed the "annihilation of self." As Jesus said in Luke 9: 23-24, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it." Christians' path to God is one of subverting their own needs and desires, their very lives, in order to follow Christ on the path of service, even though it should demand the ultimate suffering and sacrifice.

And what does this passage indicate about Paul's opinion of slavery? In the husband-wife relationship Paul finds a mysterious reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church; in support of his vision of obedience in the parent-child relationship he appeals to the solemn commandment of God. But in contrast, Paul doesn't offer any cosmic significance for the master-slave relationship, nor any sense that it is grounded in true justice. Rather, he seems to be saying, "Pretend that when serving your master you are actually serving Christ. Use your service as an opportunity to act out on Earth the service you wish you could offer directly to Christ. And take heart in the fact that you don't really serve anyone but God, that you and your master will one day be judged by God for your actions, and not for your station in life." These words offer the slave a challenging and potentially fruitful path to Heaven, but hardly constitute a ringing endorsement of slavery.

And Paul's directive to slave owners is blunt and absolutely stunning: "Act in the same way towards them," where the "way" in question is service to the other as if that person were Christ himself. It is so stunning in fact that I had to verify the text in several different translations before I could believe that Paul really said it. I have to wonder how slavery could continue as a viable institution in a society where this directive was actually being carried out.

Still, if the Christian slave has this path to God, what reason would there be for opposing slavery? After all, what could be more important than one's salvation? The reasons that come first to the American mind are not the ones that would have come to Paul's mind: that all men are endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The concept of the rights of man would not be developed for many centuries. And from the standpoint of the individual Christian, it is not the healthiest argument to make. "What about my rights?" is antithetical to the Christian way of life: Christ did not demand his rights as he was being led to Calvary. The path of the Christian is one of self-sacrifice, not self-protection or self-fulfillment. (A Christian might argue that "If my rights are not protected then my neighbor's are not, so I act only on his or her behalf," but only someone in an advanced spiritual state can make that argument with honesty.)

I believe the Church today would make its argument against slavery on the basis of the dignity of the human person, which is grounded in reflection on the fact that men and women are created in the likeness of God, and are children of God. This sounds to me like the Church's version of the rights of man argument, but I really know very little about it. It may make a good topic for a future post.

So if thoughts about the rights and dignity of man were not sufficiently developed in Paul's time to serve as a basis for his reasoning, what arguments against slavery might have occurred to Paul, in fact did occur to Paul in the letter to Philemon? That is something I'll expand upon in the commentary on Philemon in the following post.