The Mind is a Slave unto Itself
(Warning: this particular section of today’s blogpost is exceedingly long, and you may wish to avoid it if you’re not keen on religion or related subjects)
In the last few weeks – indeed, the last few months – I’ve been reflecting a great deal on the role of religion in my life. A particular spark was lit when I was browsing The Economist’s website a few days ago (link here). On the debate page, there was a discussion on whether or not religion was ultimately a force of good in the world. I read through the pros and cons, and didn’t feel any more or less obliged to one particular direction more than the other after reading it. I’ve held for a long time that I believe religion has, on the whole, been a net positive for mankind. It’s inspired men and women to do great things, alleviate human suffering, and brings forth a sense of community that’s integral to real human needs. At the same time, it’s also been used as a weapon (and oftentimes a cheap excuse) to do what mankind is so prone to – killing itself. Then, for whatever reason, I was reading something involving the role of Christianity in supporting and opposing the institution of slavery throughout human history. Reading through the material, a profound question entered into my mind like no other had before – why did Jesus Christ not condemn the institution of slavery?
Before I expand on that question, let me explain its context and importance. In just about any Christian faith (except for Unitarianism, to my knowledge), Jesus Christ is revered as being divine and of God; I know this is common knowledge to just about everyone under the sun, but it’s worth contemplating for just a second: Christ was God here on earth, in human form (to Christians). At the time that He came down to earth for His divine purpose, the corrupt and reprehensible practice of slavery was a completely institutionalized social, political, and economic norm; it permeated throughout society. It was so widespread and acknowledged that the Old Testament is rife with rules and regulations about the treatment and conditions of slaves. BUT it’s never condemned. I never gave it more than a passing thought, because it had been explained away as just a context for the times (that and that slavery back then was markedly different in its practice from what most Americans think of slavery to be, re: Antebellum South). It was not a great theological question that I ever wrestled with. And then all of the sudden it hits me like a fat kid hits a chocolate bar, or like my head hits a stop sign in Korea.
So there’s the question: Why didn’t Jesus Christ condemn the practice and institution of slavery. I mean, He’s God, right? Isn’t He supposed to be in the business of condemning things that elicit and perpetuate human suffering? Murder, lying, stealing, coveting, shrimp cocktails, etc. all get some mention in either the Old or the New as being an offensive, but never the forced submission of one man or woman to another. Jesus Himself taught parables through the servant-master relationship to describe the man-God relationship, though “servant” most always meant “slave”. And while I’d have no problem with suggesting that every person belongs to God, the idea that one man can be owned – literally, in every sense – by another is gravely appalling and morally unjust. We know that today. Although the practice still occurs in various corners of the world, the human race has since acknowledged its practice to be a crime against humanity. Why didn’t Christ?
To hear the apologetics, you’d get various answers. The Catholic answers from New Advent site (here) comment mostly on the role of the early Church and the practice. Their contention is that had the Church opposed slavery, society itself could’ve very well crumbled under the social and economic upheaval that would’ve ensued had the practice been condemned. Others would argue that had Christians opposed slavery from the get-go, the religion would have died in its infancy (though one would think that it would spread quickly amongst slave populations).
I have two responses to this. First, yes it probably would’ve caused a great deal of social consternation; removing an institutional feature that was woven into the fabric of life at that time would certainly rile things up. But so what? Didn’t Jesus come here to cause “upheavals”? After all, the Endgame in Christianity is one big upheaval. Further, should not all moral injustices be opposed and condemned? Since when is it a tenet of any religion to merely oppose what’s unpopular? Such things are easy.
There is a big seeming contradiction here, based on the premise that Jesus was divine, that God WOULD NOT condemn something that was heinously evil, slavery. This is itself premised on the conclusion that slavery is evil, which I think any rational person would concur with. If Jesus was truly divine and morally infallible, surely He would’ve said something on the matter. On the other hand, if Jesus was simply a man and operated within the context of the times as such, then His response (or lack thereof) towards slavery is understandable. BUT there’s where the kicker is: that conclusion supposes that Jesus was not divine, thereby causing this current crisis of faith.
Edna’s Response
Consulting various sites and sources, I hadn’t been able to find any worthwhile reconciliation of the two. Most of what I read suggested that slavery was simply a fact of life at the time (and for thousands of years after); a certain attitude of “c’est la vie” seems to permeate a lot of Christian thought on the topic, coupled with the admonition that the Christian churches eventually opposed the institutions.
I then spoke with the other native English teacher at my school, Edna, who is among the wisest souls I’ve ever encountered (and one of the best cooks, for that matter). We discussed the issue for a good half hour, and she seemed a bit stumped herself. So she got back to me a little later in an email, trying to reconcile all these things. From Edna:
“ Why did Jesus not openly condemn slavery---that it is wrong and therefore must be stopped? The same way that He did not openly condemn other issues at the time. Come to think of it, do you think that would be a better strategy? Would that reach the heart? Or would that just be the talk and not the walk? Remember, Jesus is concerned after our hearts.
That had happened two thousand years ago---and yet look at His very words ----they still ring in our ears; and His very acts wrench our hearts.”
That’s actually the best response I’ve thought about since I asked the question. The question is reframed from a societal point of view into an individual one. Oftentimes, we lose sight of religion being a personal thing – it is indeed personal. Insofar as a Christian’s relationship with Christ is concerned, it is intensely personal. Community matters a great deal, of that there can be no doubt; that’s why we have the Mass, why we go to services, and why we say we’re interconnected when we talk about the Body of Christ. BUT you can’t forget the personal aspect to all this. At its very core, the Christian faith is one of a “personal relationship”, as its said, with Jesus Christ. To the skeptic/agnostic/doubter/etc., that does mean talking to what many people perceive as some magic man in the sky; it can make you look crazy to many others, but that’s what it is.
So the question is reframed from a societal one (e.g the role of slavery in society) to an individual one – e.g how does slavery affect the individual person, both slave and non-slave? That becomes a more muddled area of concern, because slavery in antiquity isn’t entirely relatable to slavery in the Antebellum South; I think people in antiquity had greater worries of war and food than we do today, and as such the role of slavery as a debatable issue back then did not take precedence. Consequently, speaking of it and attacking it would presumably – and this is an assumption, something to take on faith (I suppose) – somehow prevent the Gospel from having its effect on the individual heart. And whenever Christ – or, for that matter St. Paul in his letters to various audiences – did have any mention or say about slaves/servants, it always emphasized the need to treat each other as brothers and sisters, as family. If these people at the time had such a difficult time of relating to each other in that simple way, it is entirely possible that a drumbeat about servitude might not be entirely effective.
And all we have of Christ’s teachings seem fully focused on individual – not societal – remedies. The rich are admonished to give up their possessions and take their treasures in heaven, but He doesn’t say anything about taxing them. We’re talking about a societal problem framed in a societal context, when Christ’s approach to just about everything is individual. The Church is for the societal, then, and its role in either supporting or condemning slavery is what becomes critical.
I’m sure I have some more thoughts on the matter, but right now I seem to be at something of an impasse. It’s a more difficult question to grapple with.
Of course, I could always take the easy road and throw my hands up in the air, become an agnostic, and simply be content to live a life of good deeds and kimchi. But I’m not giving up just yet. There are still deeper meanings to understand and headaches to overcome.
Agnosticism as the most reasonable position; or “I am not a reasonable person”
I think the agnostic point of view is easily the most reasonable and rational, since it doesn’t presume to know whether or not there is a God; or if there is a God, what the qualities of that deity are. And quite frankly, none of us can prove one way or the other whether God exists. By the same token, I can’t prove that a pink elephant is on the roof of my school at the moment. It’s exceedingly unlikely, but unless I physically get up on the roof and confirm there is no pink elephant, the possibility of it being there still exists. It’s kind of silly to make an apples to apples comparison using the two – God and a pink elephant (would God make a pink elephant) – but there’s some logic behind it.
That being said, I find it difficult in adopting a point of view that stipulates the universe as we know it is the result of a random sequence of events that just somehow happened. Reality, as I perceive it, takes into account of coincidences and the laws of randomness; but I don’t trust coincidence, and I don’t trust randomness. Everything we see and experience on earth has some purpose behind it, most notably our own evolution over millions of years (the purpose being to adapt and survive in our environment…which hopefully we evolve the ability to breathe CO2 and live in 150*F weather, at the rate we’re going). And that human perception – that self-awareness – is a key trait we hold in trying to answer the big questions.
That being said, I could use a break from the big questions. As you can see, they’re driving me mad.
Teaching in the Middle East
I’ve got until June 2011 before my contract in Korea is up, and I’m dithering as to what my next move will be. Most likely, I’ll resign and stay another year here – it’s the most practical and logical decision for me, as I’ll have my debt incurred from college paid (not to mention have a few extra dollars in the bank). But that’s only two years down the road. The question of what after comes up, and my answer can be one of many different paths. I could finish up my M.Ed at UNLV, and that’d be the most likely option; I worked for a year on that thing, and it wouldn’t seem right leaving business unfinished – not to mention the debt that I owe to my colleagues and friends from the C&I dept. there. Once that’s completed, though, I don’t know where things will stand.
I could possibly take the LSATs and enter law school, but then I face two harrowing prospects: a.) a life in a career that I find unfulfilling and economically challenging (law school debt + bad job prospects) and b.) listening to my mother say “I told you so.” for the rest of my adult life. I could also relocate outside of Las Vegas – most desirably to Seattle or the Bay Area – but, again, I don’t know what the prospects would be at the time.
Perhaps the most interesting and intriguing path I could take would to take a job teaching English or Social Studies at an international school in the Middle East. There are numerous schools – particularly in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – that pay quite well relative to the cost of living, and offer the chance at exploring another unique culture and its language. Doing so would probably give a few people heart attacks, but it’s something I might want to pursue.
A Lot to Drink About
Between having a crisis of faith, accepting my irrationality, dealing with 1kg of kimchi in my stomach, and wondering about the future, I think Jimmy Buffet has it right.
Tequila? Of course I’ll have some!
