Christian ethics

Depicted is the famous Sermon on the Mount of Jesus in which he commented on the Old Covenant. Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.[1] Painting by Carl Heinrich Bloch, Danish painter, d. 1890.

Christian ethics is a branch of Christian theology that defines concepts of right (virtuous) and wrong (sinful) behavior from a Christian perspective. Various sources inform Christian ethics but "comprehensive Christian ethical writings use four distinguishable sources: (1) the Bible and the Christian tradition, (2) philosophical principles and methods, (3) science and other sources of knowledge about the world, and (4) human experience broadly conceived."[2] Jewish ethics and the life of Jesus also figure prominently.[3] According to D. Stephen Long, "The Bible is the universal and fundamental source of specifically Christian ethics",[2] as "Christian ethics finds its source in diverse means, but it primarily emerges from the biblical narrative.".[4] Christians do not all follow one type of ethics. It depends on their view of Scripture and Tradition.

Christian ethicists often engage with and draw from secular ethics. Like secular ethicists, different thinkers approach Christian ethics from different perspectives, variously using deontological, consequentialist, utilitarian and other frameworks for ethical reflection. The approach of virtue ethics has also become popular in recent decades, largely due to the work of Alasdair MacIntyre and Stanley Hauerwas.[5]

Christian ethics developed during Early Christianity as Christianity arose in the Holy Land and other early centers of Christianity while Christianity emerged from Second Temple Judaism. Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire erupted periodically, beginning with the Crucifixion of Jesus in Roman Judaea (c.30-33 AD) and periodically continued until Christianity was legalized under Constantine in 313 and became the state church of the Roman Empire in 380. Consequently, early Christian ethics included discussions of how believers should relate to Roman authority and to the empire. It also included questions regarding how the rich should treat the poor, how women should be treated, and the morality of war.

Christian ethics have been criticized for a variety of reasons, including ideas that exist in Biblical scripture that Christians have relied on to guide their actions. These include Old Testament stories that provide negative examples along with positive examples,[6] as well as prescriptions that have caused some people to act in ways many modern observers would find wrong (such as permitting slavery).[7]`Various ideas in the New Testament have also been criticized as being morally suspect.[8][9]

Early Church

The New Testament generally asserts that all morality flows from the Great Commandment, to love God with all one's heart, mind, strength, and soul, and to love one's neighbor as oneself. In this, Jesus was reaffirming a teaching of the Torah (Deut 6:4-9 and Lev 19:18), commonly referred to as Judeo-Christian ethics. Christ united these commands together and proposed himself as a model of the love required in John 13:12, known also as The New Commandment. The meaning of the word can be imprecise, so Thomas Aquinas defined "love" for the benefit of the Christian believer as "to will the good of another."[10]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Ethics[11] makes the following observation:

“ A new epoch in ethics begins with the dawn of Christianity. Ancient paganism never had a clear and definite concept of the relation between God and the world, of the unity of the human race, of the destiny of man, of the nature and meaning of the moral law. Christianity first shed full light on these and similar questions. As St. Paul teaches (Romans 2:24 sq.), God has written his moral law in the hearts of all men, even of those outside the influence of Christian Revelation; this law manifests itself in the conscience of every man and is the norm according to which the whole human race will be judged on the day of reckoning. In consequence of their perverse inclinations, this law had to a great extent become obscured and distorted among the pagans; Christianity, however, restored it to its prestine integrity. Thus, too, ethics received its richest and most fruitful stimulus. Proper ethical methods were now unfolded, and philosophy was in a position to follow up and develop these methods by means supplied from its own store-house. ”

Paul is also the source of the phrase "Law of Christ", though its meaning and the relationship of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism are still disputed. The Pauline writings are also the major source of the New Testament household code.

The Council of Jerusalem, as reported in Acts 15, may have been held in Jerusalem in about AD 50. Its decree, known as the Apostolic Decree, was held as generally binding for several centuries and is still observed today by the Greek Orthodox.[12]

Under the Emperor Constantine I (312–337), Christianity became a legal religion. The Edict of Milan made the empire safe for Christian practice and belief. Consequently, issues of Christian doctrine, ethics and church practice were debated openly at the First seven Ecumenical Councils. By the time of Theodosius I (379–395), Christianity had become within the empire its state church. With Christianity now in power, ethical concerns broadened and included discussions of the proper role of the state.

The Church Fathers had little occasion to treat moral questions from a purely philosophical standpoint and independently of divine revelation, but in the explanation of Christian doctrine their discussions naturally led to philosophical investigations. Ecclesiastical writers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo all wrote on ethics from a distinctly Christian point of view. They made use of philosophical and ethical principles laid down by their Greek philosopher forbears and the intersection of Greek and Jewish thought known as Hellenistic Judaism.

This is particularly true of Augustine, who proceeded to develop thoroughly along philosophical lines and to establish firmly most of the truths of Christian morality. The eternal law (lex aeterna), the original type and source of all temporal laws, the natural law, conscience, the ultimate end of man, the cardinal virtues, sin, marriage, etc. were treated by him in the clearest and most penetrating manner. Broadly speaking, Augustine adapted the philosophy of Plato to Christian principles. His synthesis is called Augustinianism (alternatively, Augustinism). He presents hardly a single portion of ethics to us but what he does present is enriched with his keen philosophical commentaries. Late ecclesiastical writers followed in his footsteps.

The Bible and Christian ethics

Much of Christian ethics derives from Biblical scripture. According to the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, "There is no 'Christian ethics' that would deny the authority of the Bible, for apart from scripture the Christian church has no enduring identity".[13] It further states:

Christian churches have always considered it a part of their calling to teach, reprove, correct, and train in righteousness, and they have always considered the Bible 'profitable' for that task. With virtually one voice the churches have declared that the Bible is an authority for moral discernment and judgment. And Christian ethicists—at least those who consider their work part of the common life of the Christian community—have shared this affirmation.[14]

There are various views on how to interpret Christian ethics in relation to Biblical scripture. For example, "Many Christian ethicists have claimed that Jesus Christ is the center of the biblical message in its entirety and the key to scripture".[15] Other Christian ethicists "prefer a more Trinitarian rendering of the message of scripture".[15] Some modern Christian ethicists "understand 'liberation' or deliverance from oppression to be the message of scripture".[15]

The link between scripture and Christian ethics is further highlighted as follows: "Fundamentalism's identification of the human words of scripture with the word of God has justified an identification of biblical ethics with Christian ethics."[16] "The Prophets ground their appeals for right conduct in God's demand for righteousness."[17] On the other hand, "It is not ... true to say that for the OT writers righteousness is defined by what God does; i.e., an act is not made righteous by the fact that God does it.[18] Also noted as ethical guidelines adhered to by Old Testament figures is "maintenance of the family", "safeguarding of the family property", and "maintenance of the community".[19]

Many biblical accounts inform Christian ethics. This includes the Noahic Covenant: the commandments which "were often reduced to three by Christians: avoid fornication, bloodshed, and blasphemy or idolatry".[20] Augustine identified a movement in Scripture "toward the 'City of God', from which Christian ethics emerges", as illustrated in chapters 11 and 12 of the book of Genesis.[21] Although Christians today "do not feel compelled to observe all 613" of the commandments described in Exodus, the Ten Commandments figure prominently in Christian ethics.[22]

Various issues today are informed by biblical passages in the Old and New Testaments. For example, although scripture is mostly silent on abortion, various elements of scripture inform Christian ethical views on this topic, including Genesis 4:1; Job 31:15; Isaiah 44:24, 49:1, 5; and Jeremiah 1:5, among others.[23] The Old Testament provides advice on adultery in Exodus's seventh commandment, as well as the New Testament Gospel of Matthew.[24] Christian views on divorce are informed by verses in Deuteronomy, Matthew, Mark, and others.[25] Homosexuality is discussed in the Old and New Testament as well; for example, male homosexual acts merit the death penalty in Leviticus 18.[26] This is, however, only one example of a long list of sexual sins that are mostly heterosexual sins of incest, and bestiality. Homosexuality was not a major concern in ancient times. Constraints on sexual conduct are heavily discussed in the Bible's Old and New Testaments.[27] For example, The Old Testament "presents procreative marriage as the norm".[27]

Scholasticism

See also: Thomism and Scholasticism

A sharper line of separation between philosophy and theology, and in particular between ethics and moral theology, is first met with in the works of the great Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, especially of Albertus Magnus (1193–1280), Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Bonaventure (1221–1274), and Duns Scotus (1274–1308). Philosophy and, by means of it, theology reaped abundant fruit from the works of Aristotle, which had until then been a sealed treasure to Western civilization, and had first been elucidated by the detailed and profound commentaries of Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas and pressed into the service of Christian philosophy.

The same is particularly true as regards ethics. Thomas, in his commentaries on the political and ethical writings of Aristotle, in his Summa contra Gentiles and his Quaestiones disputatae, treated with his wonted clearness and penetration nearly the whole range of ethics in a purely philosophical manner, so that even to the present day his words are an inexhaustible source from which ethics draws its supply. On the foundations laid by him the Catholic philosophers and theologians of succeeding ages have continued to build. In his Summa Theologiae, Thomas locates ethics within the context of theology. For example, he discusses the ethics of buying and selling and concludes that although it may be legal (according to human law) to sell an object for more that it is worth, Divine law "leaves nothing unpunished that is contrary to virtue."[28] The question of beatitudo, perfect happiness in the possession of God, is posited as the goal of human life. Thomas also argues that the human being by reflection on human nature's inclinations discovers a law, that is the natural law, which is "man's participation in the divine law."[29]

In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, thanks especially to the influence of the so-called Nominalists, a period of stagnation and decline set in, but the sixteenth century is marked by a revival. Ethical questions, also, though largely treated in connection with theology, are again made the subject of careful investigation. Examples include the theologians Francisco de Vitoria, Dominicus Soto, Luis de Molina, Francisco Suarez, Leonardus Lessius, Juan de Lugo, Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz, and Alphonsus Liguori. Among topics they discussed was the ethics of action in case of doubt, leading to the doctrine of probabilism. Since the sixteenth century, special chairs of ethics (moral philosophy) have been erected in many Catholic universities. The larger, purely philosophical works on ethics, however, do not appear until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as an example of which we may instance the production of Ign. Schwarz, "Instituitiones juris universalis naturae et gentium" (1743).

Protestant ethics

With the rejection of the doctrine of papal infallibility and the Roman Magisterium as the absolute religious authority, each individual, at least in principle, became the arbiter in matters pertaining to faith and morals. The Reformers held fast to Sola Scriptura and many endeavored to construct an ethical system directly from the scriptures.

Lutheran Philipp Melanchthon, in his "Elementa philosophiae moralis", still clung to the Aristotelian philosophy strongly rejected by Martin Luther, as did Hugo Grotius in De jure belli et pacis. But Richard Cumberland and his follower Samuel Pufendorf assumed, with Descartes, that the ultimate ground for every distinction between good and evil lay in the free determination of God's will, an antinomian view which renders the philosophical treatment of ethics fundamentally impossible.

In the 20th century some Christian philosophers, notably Dietrich Bonhoeffer, questioned the value of ethical reasoning in moral philosophy. In this school of thought, ethics, with its focus on distinguishing right from wrong, tends to produce behavior that is simply not wrong, whereas the Christian life should instead be marked by the highest form of right. Rather than ethical reasoning, they stress the importance of meditation on, and relationship with, God. Other important Protestant Christian ethicists include H. Richard Niebuhr, John Howard Yoder, Glen Stassen, and Stanley Hauerwas.

The ethics of Christian Anarchism

Christian Anarchism is the name of a Christian movement that rejects secular authority, such as that of governments, instead arguing that God is the sole source of authority for Christians. Christian Anarchists argue that the state is violent and often idolatrous. Thinkers espousing this perspective include Leo Tolstoy and Jacques Ellul. More than any other Bible source, the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus' call to not resist evil but turn the other cheek, are used as the basis for Christian Anarchism.[30] Christian Anarchists are pacifists and oppose the use of violence, such as war.[31] Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You (1894) is regarded as a key text in the movement. However, the most clear description of Christian Anarchism came from Søren Kierkegaard in 1850 in his work Practice in Christianity.

What would Jesus do?

There are many ethical movements which have risen to prominence in popular culture but are not academic in nature.

One movement was based on the phrase "What would Jesus do?" (often abbreviated to WWJD). The phrase became popular in the United States in the 1990s as a personal motto for adherents of Evangelical Christianity. Many used the phrase as a reminder of their belief in a moral imperative to act in a manner that would demonstrate the Love of Jesus through the actions of the adherents. A follow-up motto answered the question "Fully Rely On God" (often abbreviated to "FROG").

Judeo-Christian ethics

Another movement was Judeo-Christian ethics, in which Jews and Christians collaborated to develop an ethical platform and decide what policies to support. The present meaning of "Judeo-Christian" regarding ethics first appeared in print on July 27, 1939, with the phrase "the Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals" in the New English Weekly.[32] The term gained much currency in the 1940s, promoted by groups which evolved into the National Conference of Christians and Jews, to fight antisemitism by expressing a more inclusive idea of American values rather than just Christian or Protestant values.[33][34] By 1952 Dwight Eisenhower looked to the Founding Fathers of 1776 to say:

"all men are endowed by their Creator." In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men are created equal.[35]

Criticism

Christian ethics have been criticized for various reasons. Simon Blackburn states that the "Bible can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women".[36] Elizabeth S. Anderson, a Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, states that "the Bible contains both good and evil teachings", and it is "morally inconsistent".[6] She concludes that,

Here are religious doctrines that on their face claim that it is all right to mercilessly punish people for the wrongs of others and for blameless error, that license or even command murder, rape, torture, slavery, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. We know such actions are wrong.[7]

Regarding Christianity and slavery, Harvard Divinity School's Jacob K. Olupona states that "Christianity was deeply culpable in the African slave trade, inasmuch as it consistently provided a moral cloak for the buying and selling of human beings."[37]

The Old Testament

Elizabeth S. Anderson says that those who accept "biblical inerrancy ... must conclude that much of what we take to be morally evil is in fact morally permissible and even morally required".[6] She provides a number of examples to illustrate "God's moral character" such as: "Routinely punishes people for the sins of others ... punishes all mothers by condemning them to painful childbirth", punishes four generations of descendants of those who worship other Gods, kills 24,000 Israelites because some of them sinned (Numbers 25:1–9), kills 70,000 Israelites for the sin of David in 2 Samuel 24:10–15, and "sends two bears out of the woods to tear forty-two children to pieces" because they called someone names in 2 Kings 2:23–24.[38] She goes on to note commands God gave to men in the Bible such as: kill adulterers, homosexuals, and "people who work on the Sabbath" (Leviticus 20:10; Leviticus 20:13; Exodus 35:2, respectively); to commit ethnic cleansing (Exodus 34:11-14, Leviticus 26:7-9); commit genocide (Numbers 21: 2-3, Numbers 21:33–35, Deuteronomy 2:26–35, and Joshua 1–12); and other mass killings.[7] Finally, the bible can be interpreted to condone the practice of slavery,[39] the rape of female captives during wartime,[40] polygamy, and the killing of prisoners.[7]

The New Testament

Blackburn notes morally suspect themes in the Bible's New Testament as well.[8] He notes some "moral quirks" of Jesus: that he could be "sectarian" (Matt 10:5–6), racist (Matt 15:26 and Mark 7:27), placed no value on animal life (Luke 8: 27–33), and believed that "mental illness is caused by possession by devils". He also did not repudiate any of the more brutal portions of the Old Testament.[8] Anderson notes the Christian apologist argument that the Jesus of the New Testament is "all loving".[41] She states, however, that the New Testament has some morally repugnant lessons as well: "Jesus tells us his mission is to make family members hate one another, so that they shall love him more than their kin (Matt 10:35–37)", "Disciples must hate their parents, siblings, wives, and children (Luke 14:26)", children who "curse their parents ... must be killed", and Peter and Paul elevate men over their wives "who must obey their husbands as gods" (1 Corinthians 11:3, 14:34–5, Eph. 5:22–24, Col. 3:18, 1 Tim. 2: 11–2, 1 Pet. 3:1)[41] in the New Testament household code.

Responses to criticism

Biblical and Christian views on slavery

Main article: The Bible and slavery

While the Bible has been criticized as condoning slavery, numerous scholars of the Bible including Craig L. Blomberg,[42] Gary M. Burge et al.,[43] Paul Copan,[44] and Anthony C. Thiselton[45] have responded by criticising comparisons made between slavery as it is described in the Bible and the Atlantic slave trade noting that there have been large differences in the treatment of servants and slaves throughout history, in the willingness of people to offer services as slaves, in the circumstances of people prior to their service, and in the extent to which slavery practices were racialised or based on skin colour.[46][47] It is debatable[48][49][50] whether or not it should be considered wrong to condone slavery practices that meet the descriptions provided by Paul within letters that were written to people of Colossae and Ephesus, such as slavery practices which correspond with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth where greatness and leadership are exemplified by having the very attitude a servant or slave.[48][49][50][51][52]

In modern times almost all Christians reject the permissibility of harsh, unfair and unjust forms of slavery which are neither capable of meeting nor surpassing the relationships between employers and their employees in modern times.[48][53]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Such as Hebrews 8:6 etc. See also  "Epistle to the Hebrews". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.: "The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and His Divine mediatorial office.... There He now exercises forever His priestly office of mediator as our Advocate with the Father (vii, 24 sq.)."
  2. 1 2 Childress & Macquarrie 1986, p. 88
  3. ↑ Long 2010, p. 13
  4. ↑ Long 2010, pp. 23–24
  5. ↑ http://www.academia.edu/539377/A_Brief_Look_at_MacIntyres_Virtue_Ethics_and_Theological_Application
  6. 1 2 3 Anderson 2007, p. 336
  7. 1 2 3 4 Anderson 2007, p. 337
  8. 1 2 3 Blackburn 2001, pp. 11–12
  9. ↑ Anderson 2007, p. 338–339
  10. ↑ "St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 26, 4, corp. art". Newadvent.org. Retrieved 2010-10-30.
  11. ↑ Catholic Encyclopedia: Ethics
  12. ↑ Karl Josef von Hefele's commentary on canon II of Gangra notes: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse, like other laws."
  13. ↑ Childress & Macquarrie 1986, p. 60
  14. ↑ Childress & Macquarrie 1986, p. 57
  15. 1 2 3 Childress & Macquarrie 1986, p. 59
  16. ↑ Childress & Macquarrie 1986, p. 58
  17. ↑ Childress & Macquarrie 1986, p. 434
  18. ↑ Childress & Macquarrie 1986, pp. 437
  19. ↑ Childress & Macquarrie 1986, pp. 435–436
  20. ↑ Long 2010, pp. 25–27
  21. ↑ Long 2010, pp. 27–28
  22. ↑ Long 2010, p. 31
  23. ↑ Childress & Macquarrie 1986, p. 2
  24. ↑ Childress & Macquarrie 1986, p. 10
  25. ↑ Childress & Macquarrie 1986, p. 161
  26. ↑ Childress & Macquarrie 1986, p. 272
  27. 1 2 Childress & Macquarrie 1986, p. 580
  28. ↑ Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, “Of Cheating, Which Is Committed in Buying and Selling.” Translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province. pp. 3 Retrieved June 19, 2012
  29. ↑ Thomas Aquinas (1920), "First Part of the Second Part (Prima Secundæ Partis)", Summa Theologica, English Translation by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (second and revised ed.), Kevin Knight at NewAdvent.org (2008)
  30. ↑ Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre (2010). Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel. Exeter: Imprint Academic. pp. 43–80. The Sermon on the Mount: A manifesto for Christian anarchism
  31. ↑ Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre (March 2010). "A Christian Anarchist Critique of Violence: From Turning the Other Cheek to a Rejection of the State" (PDF). Political Studies Association.
  32. ↑ Novick, Peter (1999), The Holocaust in American Life, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, p. 28, ISBN 0395840090, OCLC 40954040
  33. ↑ Silk, Mark (1984), "Notes on the Judeo-Christian Tradition in America", American Quarterly 36 (1): 65–85, doi:10.2307/2712839
  34. ↑ Sarna, 2004, p.266
  35. ↑ Patrick Henry, "'And I Don't Care What It Is': The Tradition-History of a Civil Religion Proof-Text," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, March 1981, Vol. 49 Issue 1, pp 35-47 in JSTOR
  36. ↑ Blackburn 2001, p. 12
  37. ↑ Olupona, Jacob (2014). African Religions: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-19-979058-6.
  38. ↑ Anderson 2007, pp. 336–337
  39. ↑ Leviticus 25 39-55
  40. ↑ Deuteronomy 21 10-14
  41. 1 2 Anderson 2007, p. 338
  42. ↑ Blomberg, Craig L. (2009). Jesus and the Gospels [New Testament Introduction and Survey Volume 1] (2nd ed.). Nottingham: Apollos (Inter-Varsity Press). p. 66. ISBN 9781844745746. Unlike pre-Civil War America, the Roman world allowed slaves to own property, earn money, and often save enough to buy their own freedom. A slave in a wealthy household was sometimes more prosperous than most freedmen and exercised important responsibilities , including managing his master's estate and teaching his children. At the opposite end of the socioeconomic spectrum were large numbers of slaves who worked in appalling condition in various mines throughout the empire.
  43. ↑ Burge, Gary M.; Cohick, Lynn H.; Green, Gene L. (2009). The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament Within its Cultural Contexts. Michigan: Zondervan. p. 359. ISBN 9780310244950. Slavery was not racial, however, as it was in the New World, nor were they necessarily uneducated. Some slaves were tutors and paedagogues (cf. Gal. 3:24). They cooked, cleaned, built buildings and roads, cut and styled hair, did laundry, made clothes, and even managed financial affairs.
  44. ↑ Copan, Paul (2011). Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Michigan: Baker Books. pp. 124–157. ISBN 9780801072758.
  45. ↑ Thiselton, Anthony C. (2009). The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle and his Thought. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK). p. 39. ISBN 9780281061105. It was possible to rise high, and to earn enough pocket-money to begin life again as honoured freedman or freedwoman, perhaps in one's thirties. For this reason, some who fell on hard times deliberately sold themselves into slavery, alongside prisoners captured in war, or people who had committed crimes. If they were fortunate, the master's name and reputation would guarantee them a better status and higher security against thieves or kidnappers than ever they could have had as poor free-men, left to rely simply on their own resources.
  46. ↑ Adi, Hakim (2012). "Africa and the Transatlantic Slave Trade". BBC. Retrieved 7 November 2015. enslavement of Africans [in the Atlantic slave trade] was justified by the ideology of racism - the notion that Africans were naturally inferior to Europeans
  47. ↑ United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2001). "Slavery and Racism". United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Durban, South Africa. Retrieved 7 November 2015. The racial nature of this triangular [Atlantic slave] trade between Africa, Europe and the Americas also sets it apart. The [Atlantic slave] trade was supported by a racist ideology that saw white people as being the most perfectly developed and blacks as being at the bottom of the ladder.
  48. 1 2 3 McQuilkin, R; Copan, P (2014). "Labor and Management, Work and Leisure". An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom (3rd ed.). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic (an imprint of InterVarsity Press). pp. 448–49. ISBN 9780830828180. [T]he principles enunciated for slave-owner relationships are so humanitarian in their protection of the oppressed that they are easily transferable to labor-management relationships in the ... era in which we live, an era brought about through the influence of New Testament teaching. For example, in his letters to the churches at Ephesus (Eph 6:5-9) and Colossae (Col 3:22-4:1), Paul gives principles for both the employer and the employee ... Employees are to work "from the heart," humble in attitude, fearful before God of wronging their employer. Employers are to be humbly fearful of wronging their employees. Furthermore, both are to relate honestly with one another, without hypocrisy ... The atmosphere and attitude at work is to be cordial and even cheerful ... Paul says that this means the worker will work diligently and faithfully. And he says of the owner, "in like manner" ... Managers must not threaten. They have power over the welfare and livelihood of their employees ... employers must not use their power to coerce ... Furthermore, all working arrangements, including pay, must be just. Unsafe working conditions ... are certainly unjust.
  49. 1 2 Capes DB; Reeves R; Richards ER (2007). Rediscovering Paul: an introduction to his world, letters and theology. Illinois: InterVarsity Press. p. 224. ISBN 9781844742424. The advice to masters is brief but weighty: "Masters [kyrioi], treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master [kyrion] in heaven" (Col 4:1). The play on words is intentional. The apostle hopes to shape the behavior of the slave owners by appealing to the lordship of Jesus. They might be called "lords" or "masters" on some human level, but he reminds them that they were ultimately servants of a heavenly Lord who expected justice and fairness ... [Moreover,] Paul introduced his teachings with the challenge: "Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts" (Col 3:15).
  50. 1 2 Marshall, Chris (2005). "Jesus and Justice". The little book of biblical justice. Pennsylvania: Good Books. p. 60. ISBN 9781561485055. Jesus taught ... community to turn prevailing patterns of power and greatness upside down ... there is to be no hierarchy of status ... (Matthew 23:8-12) ... there is to be no domination of the weak by the powerful, no lording it over one another ... (Mark 10:42-43) ... Leadership is servanthood (Luke 22:26).
  51. ↑ The Apostle Paul. Colossians 3:22-4:1, ESV Bible. Crossway. Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
  52. ↑ The Apostle Paul. Ephesians 6:5-9, ESV Bible. Crossway. Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free. 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.
  53. ↑ Picirilli, Robert E.; Outlaw, W. Stanley; Ellis, Daryl, eds. (1990). The Randall House Bible Commentary: 1 Thessalonians Through Philemon. TN: Randall House Publications. p. 387. ISBN 0892651431. Paul ... Jesus ... the apostles ... dealt with it [slavery] in the most effective way possible, at the time, by instructing both slaves and masters in the proper conduct and relationships toward one another. Where these instructions were followed, the harshness of the master-slave relation was eliminated and only the employer-employee relationship finally remained. Because of this, most of what is said to masters and slaves in the N.T. can and should be applied to employer-employee relationships in our own time.

References

Further reading

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Thursday, February 11, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.