Reviews for Paradoxe sur le conservateur ; precede de, De la modernite concue comme une religion (French...

The average rating for Paradoxe sur le conservateur ; precede de, De la modernite concue comme une religion (French... based on 1 review is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2007-06-03 00:00:00 Kenneth Temprano 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.