Disclaimer: This blog entry is VERY long. You may fall asleep reading it (a great panacea for insomnia), but I hope you persist and read through it anyway. Otherwise, you have been warned.

-----

“The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… Men's blood had some price in the days of slavery. They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market…It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat, and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live. It is want that drags them to those markets where they await masters who will do them the kindness of buying them. It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him… what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men, it is said, have no master—they have one, and the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. It is this that reduces them to the most cruel dependence. They live only by hiring out their arms. They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?” - Karl Marx (1863)

Prima facie, slavery in itself is considered immoral. Can a human being be possessed as a mere tool or instrument of production -- completely for the pleasure and authority of another -- that being the sole purpose of his existence? Can his right to flourish as a human being be limited to the confines of his destitute state, being forced to accept the mastery of another, and being forced into a never-ending cycle of exploitation by his more powerful and richer principal? Indeed, most socialists and liberalists would say no -- that this is a terrible state for any man to be in, that this is the cause of social injustice and inequity.

Wage-slavery is a condition where the worker is put into a situation of utter dependence upon a wealthier 'principal' simply because he cannot afford to buy his own piece of land, his own factory, or his own plough - and consequently, because he cannot afford it, he loses the ownership of the fruits of his production or labour. This is a recipe for oppression of the poor by the wealthy, right?

Instead, these fruits of the worker's labour belong to the owner of the land, who spends his days sleeping in the cool of the shade and drinking wine from grapevines that he did not himself press.

How fair is that? Where is the equality in that? Well, you can look high and low, far and wide, but it's unlikely that you will find it. Because there simply isn't any. What I can assure you, however, is that it is a great recipe for oppression of the poor and weak. It is the very thing that keeps third world countries locked in poverty, the very thing that prevents children from getting adequate food, sanitation, education and healthcare in order to help them survive beyond the age of 5. It is the very thing that encourages human trafficking, sale of women and children into prostitution, child labour, starvation, homelessness and a whole host of other terrible things. This is true when we find ourselves serving masters that are all too self-serving and fallible.

NB: It is interesting for me at this point to draw some allusions to the Parable of the Talents in Mark 25:24 and the Parable of the Minas in Luke 19:21 - in both circumstances, the 'lazy' servant gave as his excuse for not complying with the master's instructions since his master was a harsh man (who reaped where he did not sow). As a reward, this recalcitrant servant got thrown out into the darkness where there was "weeping and gnashing of teeth". Some commentators drew allusions between the "master" (being God), and the "servant", (being ourselves). Other more radical commentators like William Herzog, decried "over-spiritualising" the parables, instead suggesting that Jesus was radical figure that addressed the issues of injustice and oppression by capitalist owners of the time by way of parables (which his peasant audience in Palestinian society at the time could immediately identify with) -- portraying and describing the unjust master as being exactly who he was -- unjust -- and thereby empowering his listeners to rise up against oppression.

It would be dangerous to build theology on parables alone, as parables are just parables. Nevertheless, Herzog's interpretation was largely Marxist (but it does make for some interesting ideas, though).

Serving an infallible Master, however -- lends itself more credibility -- since Christians are able to place their faith on the promises in Romans 8:28 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose". Serving all other masters (who are invariably fallible and self-serving), will lead to grave injustice and inequality. It is thus for this reason, that all worldly forms of slavery and wage-slavery is inherently wrong and unjust.

But I digress. What then, shall we make of institutionalised religion and its role in wage-slavery? It is not too difficult to understand how Marx comes to his conclusion that "religion is the opiate of the masses". Tell your devotees that there's a better world waiting for them and that the current perils of this age will come to pass, ignore injustices of this world, because all will be dealt with after the world has ended.

Marx would have felt that the oppressed turn to religion because they have nothing else, it being a form of escapism, a "high" that distracts their focus, rendering them incapable, unwilling and possible even doctrinally blind to their own destitute states. "Hope" is the keyword that blinds people to the injustices of the present.

But it is equally simple to reframe this argument in terms of Christianity. Generally, Christianity postulates that all people live in rebellion against God and are in a state of spiritual destitution (thus needing salvation and liberation from sin), but are incapable of realising this, because they are distracted/drugged/deluded by consumerism, materialism or by relentless pursuit of the causes of rationalism, humanism and all the various other "-isms" in their lives. Thus, to correct this illusion and right these wrongs, Christianity further postulates that all good, bible-believing, Great Commission minded Christians have an ideological duty to go to all the world preaching the message of Life and Salvation -- the "message" being the "truth" and the "gospel" that liberates and "sets [people] free". (I will come back to address this in greater detail a bit further down, but for now I feel I have to get back to the point).

Now.

Before I go further off on a tangent (it is all well and good to mention about freedom in Christ as people are liberated from sin), I need to bring the discussion back to the question of slavery.

So. 

Is "slavery" moral? Or is "slavery" immoral?

On the face of it, it is immoral, surely. It offends our conscience, which (in the Christian worldview) is supposed to bear witness to God's righteousness. Is slavery absolutely immoral, then? What about in other cultures where slavery is not only tolerated, it is to be encouraged as the highest social and spiritual state that a human being can attain? Yes, a Christian would argue. It is still immoral. What about instances where slavery existed in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament? Does that mean that Christianity allows slavery? After all, Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1 does prescribe how we ought to treat slaves. Hmmm, says the Christian. This is dubious. Perhaps the Christian might say: In terms of issues of righteousness, mercy and justice, we turn to the Sermon on the Mount (the definitive pronouncement of Christian ethics, if I may say so). Either way, the bible does not seem to explicitly decry slavery. Does this mean that, it consequentially condones slavery?

Perhaps the question is rather trite.

In my opinion (and my personal understanding of the bible) is that slavery is inherently wrong. At least in the sense in which it gives rise to inequities and injustice to the enslaved. If you voluntarily enter into slavery, that's wouldn't be slavery now, would it? (Of course, many people voluntarily enter into oppressive situations for a great number of personal reasons. BDSM is an example. Some people just love pain.)

NB: Slavery anywhere and everywhere is wrong, and just because the bible prescribes a "how-to" guide on dealing with slaves, does not implicitly mean it condones them. Just because the bible prescribes a "how-to" guide on dealing with incestous relationships, doesn't mean it condones incest. It is just a provision that the bible (for whatever reason God intended) as a "how-to" manual for people at the time to cope with various issues that take place in their community and their culture. (If one wants to do an in-depth exposition on those passages in order to glean some spiritually significant principle from those bits of scripture, one is free to do so - however, for the present purposes, it seems to herculean an effort for me, and I'll just stick with this little commentary on slavery).

But if you had to be indirectly coerced into entering slavery by socio-politico-economic factors beyond your control, then surely that is an issue of slavery. If you cannot freely step in and out of your 'situation' of being a mere chattel for the use of or possession in the hands of another person, then clearly, you are in a situation of "slavery". Slavery binds you to an employer or owner. Servanthood, on the other hand, implies that you are free to leave your employer at any time.

The bible speaks of submission and selfless obedience to God, and Paul speaks of freedom from slaves to sin into being servants of God.

No one can be forcibly made servants of God, because the decision to follow Christ is a purely personal and free choice. But humans are, according to the Bible slaves of sin, because by virtue of (that dastardly concept) of original sin, we are (whether we like it or not) born into and thus coerced into and enslaved by, sin. And this is a grave injustice wrought by humankind by Adam and Eve. Yes, blame the vices and excesses of the first men and women. They brought this upon you, they caused the conditions that put you into slavery. The only way to free yourself from this spiritual state of oppression is to accept and follow Christ as your redeemer.

Hence, I'd offer a rehash of Marx's quote:

That all humanity is labouring under the opiate(s) of the various -isms that exist in the world today. (I did tell you that I was going to return to this subject, right?)

Naturalism, rationalism, nihilism, objectivism, individualism, humanism, libertarianism, consumerism, materialism, capitalism ... the list goes on and on, ad infinitum. In the search for meaning and identity, people have thrown themselves into social work and activism, as freedom fighters and various other ideological purposes, all in order to try and discover where they stand in this whole list of "-isms". Hoping that by "doing" they can somehow find that meaning and purpose of "being". So that they can define themselves by calling themselves, a naturalist, a humanist, an objectivist, a rationalist, or whatever they like, just so they can feel that they are doing something with their lives, and filling that vast emptiness within themselves that desires to "do the right thing" and to "be the right thing".

A good friend and spiritual mentor of mine was right when she said that we need to focus on the "being" first rather than on the "doing". Our identities are in Christ first and foremost, and not with recourse to some other theoretical heuristic that exists outside ourselves.

Of course at the risk of sounding terribly off-tangent and dogmatic, I return to the question of slavery. What is the Christian response to the question of slavery? Should we ourselves shut our eyes to it and instead stare fixedly into the horizon, waiting for Christ to magically appear and whisk us all into some unearthly, otherworldly heaven?

I believe that we are called to be catalysts of Christ and His restorative work in bringing about the Kingdom of God to being. We prepare the way for His arrival by proclaiming him through words and deeds. BOTH. Yes, both. Don't think you Christians can get away with just sowing seeds and not actually being and showing the world why the seeds are necessary.

Which is why Christians need to fight injustice and slavery wherever we go. If we cannot be the salt (social change) and the light (Word of Truth) of the world, then what is the point of calling ourselves followers of Jesus? We might as well call ourselves followers of "The Church of Me", as that's all we're doing, living for ourselves and own selfish purposes.

In my own personal life, I have decided to make some rather radical choices that have attracted some rather alarmed reactions from my more orthodox and fundamentalist Christian peers. My motivations stem from my personal understanding of what the Scripture says about our response to all that is wrong with contemporary culture and from my own personal convictions. Recently I have been involved with social activism, and have found it to be an incredibly profound learning experience for me. It has broadened my minds to the various issues that people are grappling with on a domestic and global scale, and I've gained tremendous insight on the various crises that beset humanity. Too often to my sadness and disappointment, I've found that non-Christians can be a far less judgemental lot than Christians themselves, particularly fundamentalist Christians. Brothers, do not hate what you don't understand.

NB: I'm not advocating any particular line of 'progressive' Christianity or post-modernist Christianity here, but I get so annoyed with Christians mindlessly parroting what they have been told and carelessly using Scripture taken out of context to justify their prejudices.

Hence, I have decided to break away from mindless, unquestioning indoctrination. I cannot and will not plainly accept what I've been told. To unquestioningly accept dogmatic interpretation and indoctrination without exploring the Scriptures authentically and reflectively for oneself is nothing short of wilfull blindness and sheer laziness, leading to mental corrosion or worse, spiritual corrosion. That is how cults form, my brothers and sisters. Be mindful that you do not unquestioningly accept interpretations of Scripture, but to test everything you hear/see/read, basing it upon your own careful exegesis and exploration of the Scriptures. You don't need a theologian with fancy PhDs to tell you what to believe in (although, well-researched, Spirit-led commentaries can be extremely helpful).

Ultimately, you must let the Scriptures speak for itself, to you.

The writer humbly welcomes all gentle rebuke and correction should she be found errant in this posting.

I just got forwarded this today. What a crack-up! Hope it gives you a bit of a laugh at as it did for me!

Children's Science Exam Answers

Q: Name the four seasons.
A: Salt, pepper, mustard and vinegar.

Q: Explain one of the processes by which water can be made safe to drink.
A: Flirtation makes water safe to drink because it removes large pollutants like grit, sand, dead sheep and canoeists.

Q: How is dew formed?
A: The sun shines down on the leaves and makes them perspire.

Q: How can you delay milk turning sour? (brilliant,love this!)
A: Keep it in the cow.

Q: What causes the tides in the oceans?
A: The tides are a fight between the Earth and the Moon. All water tends to flow towards the moon, because there is no water on the moon, and nature hates a vacuum. I forget where the sun joins in this fight.

Q: What are steroids?
A: Things for keeping carpets still on the stairs.

Q: What happens to your body as you age?
A: When you get old, so do your bowels and you get intercontinental.

Q: What happens to a boy when he reaches puberty?
A: He says good-bye to his boyhood and looks forward to his adultery.

Q: Name a major disease associated with cigarettes
A: Premature death.

Q: How are the main parts of the body categorized? (e.g., abdomen.)
A: The body is consisted into three parts - the brainium, the Borax and the abdominal cavity. The brainium contains the brain; the borax contains the heart and lungs, and the abdominal cavity contains the five bowels, A, E, I, O, and U.

Q: What is the fibula?
A: A small lie.

Q: What does "varicose" mean? (I do love this one.)
A: Nearby.

Q: Give the meaning of the term "Caesarean Section"
A: The Caesarean Section is a district in Rome

Q: What does the word "benign" mean?'
A: Benign is what you will be after you be eight.