I have a question for my friends and readers who consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. Some of my friends are Christians, but they're willing to admit that at least parts of the Bible are not inerrant. You guys are off the hook for today. Those of you who say that the Bible is inerrant should really think about this question and leave a comment (or email me) with your take on the subject. Here's the question.

Why does the Bible condone slavery?

I have asked this question to a few believers and I have yet to hear a good explanation. Here are a few of the things I have heard.

"The slavery mentioned in the Bible is not like the slavery practiced in pre-Civil War United States." The first difference they point out is that Biblical slavery was based on economic class rather than on ethnicity. I'm not sure why it would be preferable to turn a person into property because they are poor rather than because they are a of different race, but more importantly, that's just incorrect.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Leviticus 25:44-46

Sounds to me like some slavery condoned in the Bible was based on ethnicity. There was a version of slavery for Hebrew people that was less harsh. It included freedom after seven years (with some exceptions). But the rules for enslaving foreigners were different.

The second part of that explanation is that slavery in Biblical times was less harsh.

If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished. But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)

This sounds pretty similar to US law. There were cases of slave owners being executed for killing their own slaves. Actually, I think the Biblical version of the rule is worse. It says that if you beat the slave and he dies right away, you're to be punished (not necessarily executed -- apparently killing a slave is not as grave an offense as adultery, homosexuality or breaking the Sabbath). If you beat the slave and he dies from those injuries, but he takes more than two days to die, then you're fine. The English Standard Version translates the passage a little more clearly:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Exodus 21:20-21 (ESV)

So, when people explain Biblical slavery by saying that it really wasn't all that bad, then they either don't know what the Bible says or they have a strange idea of what "not that bad" means.

"The Bible records real history and tells about all sorts of bad things that people did. Just because it mentions that Israelites held slaves doesn't mean that it was condoned." The two passages I quoted above come from laws that were supposedly received directly from God and they certainly condone slavery. If you think that the Bible is telling the truth when it claims that these laws came from God, then this explanation won't get you anywhere.

"Slavery was common back then. These laws actually made Israel more civilized than surrounding countries." If the God of the universe, a morally perfect being, was going to give laws to a tribe of people, wouldn't he set his sights a little higher than this? Why not just ban slavery? Besides, this smacks of moral relativism, which goes against the idea of a timeless moral standard from God. Christians can explain away some of the awful things in the Old Testament by pointing out that they were overturned in the New Testament. That's not the case with slavery.

"The abolition movement was led by Christians." This is true, but irrelevant to the question about why the Bible condones slavery. Many Christians, especially Quakers and Catholics, fought against slavery, but what religion were the people who fought for slavery? Christian, of course. For example:

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

The Southern Baptist Convention is one of the largest denominations in the country. It was formed because in 1845 a group of southern churches broke off from the Baptist church when it made a rule requiring missionaries to not own slaves. The SBC didn't officially reverse its position on slavery until 1995.

Christians should be proud of the fact that some of their number fought against slavery. They should keep in mind that plenty of the Christians at the time thought that the Bible condoned slavery.

"We don't understand God's ways, but we need to trust him." People generally only resort to this explanation after trying some of the others and failing. These Christians want to believe that the Bible is inerrant and God is loving and just. When they come face to face with a passage that makes it impossible to hold both of those beliefs simultaneously, they either change their thinking or they punt. Once I hear this answer I know to move on. The discussion is over. This idea could be used to justify any belief. It's dangerous.

I know of only one explanation that makes sense. "The Bible condones slavery because it is set a human documents created by a primitive culture. The laws quoted above were not received from God." If someone knows of a better explanation, I'd like to hear it.

PS. If you'd like to learn some trivia about slavery in the Bible (and you like sarcasm), then try taking this quiz.

I rented The Page Turner because it received a few nominations for our local university movie bulletin board awards. I had never heard of it until then, but am glad to have given it a chance. This quiet little movie is right up my alley (for those who have seen it, what does that say about me?).

I don't want to talk in too much detail, because if a person hasn't heard anything about this movie, then it's best experience without knowing much about it. The more you know for first viewing, the less effective I think it would be. That being said, the movie begins when a young girl is taken to a piano audition. She has decided to quit playing if she fails. Melanie's performance goes well until a judge decides to give an autograph to a fan in the middle of her song. She stops, and when she resumes, she has lost her focus. Years later, by chance, she finds herself working for that judge's husband, and he needs temporary child care for his son while his wife focuses on an upcoming performance. Soon, Melanie is in the home of the woman who destroyed her young dreams. How will she react?

Director Daniel Dercourt keeps the audience waiting, wondering, and guessing, which is what makes this movie so good. Melanie is very quiet, and her life between the audition and her new job is unknown. We don't know her exact motives or what her plan is, so we have to wait and see what happens.

I loved the tone of the entire movie. I read that Dercourt directed another movie before this one about the demands of parents on musical children. In a similar vein, the character of Ariane is a tormented musician, who suffers from the pressures of stage fright. Her fears add to the overall tension of the movie, as well as make us feel some sympathy for her. The way Dercourt explores this area of performance art is intriguing, and I would really like to see My Children Are Different, were it ever to be released to the States.

If anyone wants to discuss further, it'll have to be in comments or emails, since I don't want to give anything away. Obviously, though, I thought it was great, though not for all audiences!

Right now I'm in the middle of watching a bunch of Kieslowski films, and in the past year, I've had my first exposure to the director Wadja, and also watched The Death of Mr. Lazarescu. So, I'd say that throughout the year, I've probably watched about 20 Romanian movies. I think I'm starting to get a feel for this country, its history, and how its history affects its people.

Speaking of which, that's exactly what 12:08 East of Bucharest is about--the way Romanians view their own history. In this movie, it's the 16 year anniversary of the revolution in Romania. A television host decides to put together a call-in panel show to discuss whether there really was a revolution in his small town. What it comes down to for the members of this panel is whether there were protesters in the town square before or after 12:08, which is when Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu left the country.

The movie begins by introducing us to the panel members. One is a teacher who claims to have been in the town square before 12:08. As the show begins to accept callers, the teacher's story is contested, and the television host soon discovers that he is sitting next to what one might call a town drunk. The other panel member is a friendly elderly man, who turns out to be quite comical once the camera starts rolling. He's so awkward on live television, and when he finally gets over it, he's incredibly long-winded.

While it can feel a bit slow at times, and one would think the subject matter would be serious, this movie has plenty of laughs. But what it's getting at is somewhat serious as well. Looking at the past and present, it questions Romanians on the issue of the revolution, asking whether or not there technically was one, as well as if there truly was one (whether it significantly changed their way of life). It creates plenty of food for thought without being offensive and with plenty of humorous moments.

I'll admit that it's a little hard to follow this movie if one isn't semi-acquainted with Romanian history or cultural context. The significance of certain scenes is sometimes difficult to decipher, and I wasn't familiar with the names of some of the people and places they discuss. But, as it goes, one can get the hang of things, as I did, and I did enjoy it.

Wow, to think of all I did while listening to The Scarlet Pimpernel by Broness Orczy! I picked it up from the library the day before we moved. I painted our bedroom while listening to it, ran and walked many miles, and worked many hours on our kitchen cabinets as well. It feels both satisfying and a little like cheating to listen to a book rather than read it--satisfying because I can accomplish two things at once (reading + activity), but almost like cheating because someone is doing all the reading for me. But I process the same words, whether reading or listening, so I think I'll just be happy that books on tape exist and that I have found them incredibly useful and fulfilling.

This story takes place in England at the time of the French Revolution. French aristocrats are being captured and sent to the guillotine (or Madame Guillotine, as Orczy likes to call it so often), some simply because they are aristocrats and not because they have committed a crime. The Scarlet Pimpernel is a figure who has started an underground of sorts, smuggling several of the French to safety in England. His identity is unknown and his league of helpers are secretive as well. Marguerite is the French wife of Sir Percy Blakeney. Her brother is part of the Pimpernel's league, and French ambassador Chauvelin discovers this and blackmails her into helping him discover the identity of the Scarlet Pimpernel in return for her brother's safety.

I had great fun listening to this one. It's extremely melodramatic and often stops to state the significance of its goings-on, and Marguerite is sometimes a bit slow to figure things out, but I'll have to admit that one of the plot twists actually did surprise me, and the way events unfolded provided plenty of excitement.

Well, since this one is mainly adventure, I don't have much more to say. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who enjoys this type of novel. I would compare it with something like The Count of Monte Cristo, only a bit lighter in theme.

DSC03660

Originally uploaded by brendoman

My brother is 26 today. It's kind of hard to believe. This picture was taken during our adventures in Laughlin, Nevada last Thanksgiving. Hope you have a great day, bro!