Onesimus Our Brother: Reading Religion, Race, and Culture in Philemon

by Matthew V. Johnson (Editor), James A. Noel (Editor), Demetrius K. Williams (Editor)

Noel and Johnson make the point that Philemon is as important a letter from an African-American perspective as Romans or Galatians have proven to be in Eurocentric interpretation. Here they gather critical essays by a constellation of African-American scholars, highlighting the latest in interpretive methods and troubling scholarly waters, interacting with the legacies of Hegel, Freud, Habermas, Ricoeur, and James C. Scott as well as the historical experience of African American communities. Onesimus Our Brother opens surprising new vistas on Paul’s shortest and, in some ways, most troubling letter.

Genres: Religion

188 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Janice Graham]

http://www.amazon.com/Onesimus-Our-Br...

[Daniel Mcgregor · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just finished Onesimus: Our Brother today. I am not sure I know what to say about it. On one hand I thought it provoking. It has caused me to reconsider the book of Philemon more closely. It is, as these authors point out, problematic that Paul does not order Philemon to outright free Onesimus. Nor does Paul ever condemn slavery out right. Though I think there is enough in Paul’s theology to build a case for the immorality of slavery it is disappointing that he is never point blank with such a statement. It is also important to see historically this text has been used as a bludgeon and foundation for inhuman law making. The 5th chapter, the essay in which the author engages the plays and documentaries was really good. However, I can not say I enjoyed or even feel all that positive about this book. It had a tendency to make the voices condemning Paul’s silence the center of the hermeneutic rather than faithful reading of the whole of scripture. It also to me seemed to like posing questions such as, “What would Freud say?” instead of asking what does the text say. I started to read through the essay in chapter 6 but honestly skipped most of it. It felt horribly soapboxed, white guy woke yelling at all the rest of us. Maybe I am wrong.
I guess the biggest question I am leaving with having read this book may only tangentially(?) be related to the issue of slavery. It is a matter of Church and state. Might be the reason Paul never tells Philemon what explicitly to do, nor out and out calls for slavery’s end in the book is because the more important issue is the relationship Onesismus and Philemon have? Paul makes politics second to the break in relationship the two have experience, even as the nature of the wound and damage done is never explicit. How does this play to the politics of the Church in issues of abortion, and sexuality? The abstract issue is not as important and the communities shalom. That is what I am walking away from after reading this book.

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a very thought provoking set of essays on slavery and the Christian faith with the focus as the title suggests on the short epistle to Philemon. What was Paul saying to Philemon? Slavery was a given in the Roman world. We like to think of Rome as a place of great culture, architecture, and social development in the ancient world but in fact it was a slave society. Paul told Philemon, the slave master, to accept the return of Onesimus, his runaway slave, back as a brother in Christ. Is it reading too much into the text to say that Paul is subtly undercutting the Greco-Roman institution of slavery? Because if Onesimus is a brother, then he cannot be a slave anymore, right? Or is he reaffirming the existence of the institution? The letter can be in a variety of ways.

In the context of America, the long shadow race-based slavery hangs over us and over the consideration of Philemon. One essay had a fascinating discussion of Nat Turner, who led the greatest slave rebellion in US history. I did not know that Turner was a devout Christian who very much struggled with the theological issues involved in reading the Bible while wrestling existentially with slavery. It really makes me want to learn more about Nat Turner.

That being said, ancient Greco-Roman slavery was different than American slavery. Both were very bad but the Romans enslaved people captured in war while Americans came up with a "scientific" rationale for their practice. Racism brought a whole new evil to the evil institution of slavery that was uniquely modern in America. I wish there was less focus on American slavery and more on Roman slavery just to balance it out.

In regards to the main issue, is Christianity properly understood anti-slavery or not? It's difficult to answer clearly and the essays bear out the tensions involved. Paul didn't start an abolitionist movement. He had enough on his plate just trying to keep the fledgling Christian community together and functioning on a basic level. Christianity for a long time wasn't a civilizational shaping force that it became later but was just a bunch of disparate groups without power who were subject to persecution on a whim throughout the Roman Empire. Slavery did end mostly as antiquity turned to the Middle Ages. It was very gradual and how much that was due to the influence of the Church versus changes in economic conditions is something I do not know. I found myself more curious about that and wanting to read more about the history of Christianity and slavery prior to the modern era. I know from reading David Bentley Hart that there was an early Church figure who came close to denouncing slavery as an institution but I forgot who he said that was (I need to look that up).

Anyway, this short book provided a lot of food for thought and went to interesting places. Definitely provided my mind with more questions than answers though.

[Josh Valdix · Rating 4 out of 5]

A serious grappling with the book of Philemon and American slavery. As with many books with multiple authors some chapters are stronger than others, but I really this book provides intriguing interpretive probabilities and an unrelenting confrontation with the abuse of the text by slaveholders and preachers.

[Lori Neff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good content, but challenging to read due to the higher academic language.

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first 3 entries were quite strong. Williams' chapter was especially enlightening. However, the same could not be said of all the other contributors.

[Kwan Qi Xiang · Rating 2 out of 5]

The last few chapters were...typical liberal nonsense. Intro and first couple were good, then it got a bit...imaginative, then liberal off the rails. Oh well. That's the same for much of this series, i guess.