Comments on: Actually, John, I DON’T Want to be a Slave

By: Kyle

Kyle — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:13:59 +0000

I didn’t read the article–not because I don’t care but more because I just don’t really like John MacArthur (I think he’s generally annoying). But a brief perusal of the article seems to be saying that when he says “slavery” this should be understood in context. I mean, the article does open with “Slaves who are friends” and he does qualify Christianity is a call to slavery by stating “understood correctly.” (I know, SHOCKING, I’m citing in favor with MacArthur!).
I do wonder about those who think biblical language should be accomodated suffer from what I like to call “cultural egotism.” But who knows. I always wanted to take a course on the philosophy of language and it was never offered. oh well.

By: Dana

Dana — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:12:29 +0000

Long time, no see.
Your comment reveals that you are privy to the complexity of how culture and history affect how we interact with the Scriptures. I can appreciate that.

I guess my quick and dirty answer to your question of accommodation is that it has little to no place. I think it is best to stick with the language of the Bible. That is the language of God’s revelation. Yet, we cannot escape the reality that our experience with certain words will color our experience with that word when we encounter it in Scripture. So in the example of the Father/Mother issue…I have often heard pastors, when talking about God as a Father, go to great lengths to explain the character of God and distinguish Him from our imperfect, earthly fathers. This is helpful and necessary for many because of the baggage they have attached to that word. So the same, I think, applies for the word “slave”. Let’s not do away with it (it is Biblical); but certainly we ought to acknowledge and deal with the weight of that word, so that we can come to the Scriptures unimpeded by our cultural experience. That’s the thing I think MacArthur missed.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:52:17 +0000

Just curious about something. The word “slave” is not one which is foreign to Scripture. For instance, Paul generally regards himself as a “doulos” (slave/bond servant) of Christ Jesus. So the question isn’t whether or not MacArthur (who I generally dislike a lot) is stepping beyond the Scriptural data/revelation–taken at face value he is absolutely right. But I think you realize this.
So the question really comes down to accomodation. What place does accomodation to the pathos/ethos of culture have in Christianity when it comes to language? It’s the same as those drasty gender neutral Bible translations. Because the world has been shaped by unbiblical male dominance we change the language of Scripture to accomadate an effeminate and overly egalitarian culture. But how far can we draw this out? Do we call God “Mother” because hundreds of thousands of people have had lousy fathers and this conjures up negative feelings? It seems this issue has more to it than an emotional response to a very embarrassing and morally depraved time in American history–it comes down to biblical interpretation.
Any thoughts?