Slaves of a Different Master Last Friday, Scott and I attended the concluding sermon of Grace Community Church's Shepherd Conference. John MacArthur preached a sermon that began with John 15:14-15, which reads, "You are My friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you." Some translations replace the word "slave" for the words "servant" or "bondservant". MacArthur goes on to explain that, for most passages throughout the New Testament that deal with servant and bondservant (a "non-word"), the original Greek word used is "doulos". What is interesting about "doulos" is that it is literally the Greek word for slave. As a child, I remember going to church youth retreats where the guest speaker would go to great lengths to explain what it means to be a bondservant. I vaguely remember one speaker intoning that a bondservant was "a slave who chose to stay with his master, even after being set free." 
Throughout the sermon, MacArthur really hammers home what being "douloi" (slaves, plural) means. As Christians, we are not just Christ's followers, we are His slaves. It makes sense, given that the Greek word for lord in the passage is "kurios", which MacArthur explained as "a ruler that is high and above his subjects". While a ruler may be able to order his servants around, he may not have complete ownership over their lives. As "douloi", our lives are owned by Christ- it is no longer our own. MacArthur comments that it is hard to imagine God defining our relationship with Him in "less impossible" terms. If you are looking for a counter cultural definition of what a Christian ought to be, just look at how many times the New Testament uses "douloi" (127) in reference to followers of Christ. As interesting as all of this may be, discussing exegesis and hermeneutics is not the purpose of this entry. If anything, Pastor MacArthur can explain in detail the implications of all this exceedingly better than I can. However, I wanted to discuss the comments Pastor MacArthur made about slavery, in response to a question posed to him by an African American pastor. During one of his seminars on the subject, the pastor talked about how his congregation (and indeed black congregations across the country) has many misgivings about the issue of slavery. After all, the history of the Black Church in America has largely been that of being set free from their opressors- not switching their man-made shackles for religious ones. 
As MacArthur recalled this incident, he expressed sympathy for the pastor's situation, but responded by calling the pastor's attention to the conditions of slavery at that time. In Christ's time, slavery was rampant across the civilized world. Like black slaves in America, slaves were considered chattel, tools of the masters trade. As such, slaves were used, broken, and killed at the whims of their masters. No one wanted to be a slave, and those who were wanted to be free- the idea was offensive to both Gentile and Jew... Yet God chose this peculiar human institution as the most appropriate vehicle to describe His relationship to the ones He saved. Historically, everything is absolutely correct- immaculate scholarship, as befitting the intellectual stature of a spiritual giant. But then MacArthur makes one of those statements he makes every once in a while that makes me mentally say, "Aww man, that's MESSED UP!" John MacArthur draws a parallel between Christ's time and contemporary America, saying that "while the stigma of slavery in this country is a hundred years removed", those listening to Christ had an even greater reason to be incensed by His radical request for them to be His slaves. Perhaps to most people he was just trying to make a point; however, I felt it was slightly inappropriate and inaccurate for him to draw that parallel. In sociology, they say that there are private conversations exclusive to a culture and there are public conversations open for all discussion- MacArthur practically made a public statement addressing a private conversation that he (being white) was not privy to. In a few months, I hope to conduct an investigation into the Chinese American church- how it began, why it (in its cultural peculiarity) exists, and how its existence affects us. Inevitably, the subject of dichotomy between why mainstream white churches are inadequate (or perhaps, more charitably, not suitably informed) when dealing with cultural sensitivity. To be honest, I hear white preachers make comments like this all the time, and more often than not the issue is dismissed because we trust their spiritual judgment. Regardless of intention, however, I think cases like this warrant some interesting discussions. With all due respect to one of the preeminent Bible scholars of our time, I believe John MacArthur's blunt statements on slavery missed the point. The issue has all to do with the personal history of black Americans, who are still affected by the terrible racial stigmas that has scarred America, than it has to do with the slavery that existed in Biblical Judea. MacArthur said that Jesus did not come to abolish slavery as an institution and neither did His disciples- true. However, until MacArthur concluded the sermon by drawing key distinctions of being a slave to God and being a slave to man, I felt like a great deal was missing in his examination of slavery on the human condition. 
Some may argue that paying such great attention to cultural sensitivity waters down the Word does the Gospel injustice; I would politely disagree. Instead, I think it increases our understanding of God's Glory- though He is our master, He treats us (His slaves bought by Christ's blood) as no human slave master would. The mastership Christ displays compels us to draw distinctions between slavery by God versus slavery by man. He feeds us, looks after us, and gifts us with blessings beyond our comprehension. While the slave masters of the Old South may have had a few, favored "house slaves", they were often used to create dissension among their peers. But, drawing that key distinction (and eliciting a loud internal cheer from me), MacArthur points to Luke 17:7-10, where Jesus says, "Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down to eat'? "But will he not say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat, and {properly} clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink'? "He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? "So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done {only} that which we ought to have done.' " While slave masters from time immemorial have made men slaves for their own benefit, God calls us to slavery for our good... culminating with Christ's death on the cross for our sake. I don't know about you, but when I think about how a master treats his slaves, "laying his life down for them" is not one of the things that come up. According to our human history, can that even be considered slavery... at least from what we've seen of it? Slavery that sets us free- what a concept! As MacArthur said, "If that's slavery, I can live with that." | 
