Origen is a bit earlier than the abolitionists. In "On First Principles," book IV, he argues that some texts in Scripture, inspired as they are, have no edifying literal sense and must therefore be read allegorically.

The priority of the literal sense taught by other Church Fathers need not imply any fundamentalist doctrine of inerrancy. It has to do with the priority of the basic biblical narrative and apostolic rule of faith over any esoteric meaning thought to be latent within it.

There is no such thing as a "plain reading" of Holy Scripture...or any other literature. We always bring our cultural perspectives, biases and experiences with us to the text.

Slavery is a means of economic organization. While it produced a great deal of wealth, it also cost a great deal, especially with the rise of modern, Protestant capitalism; members of a permanent underclass do not have the money to buy things, thus limiting the wealth of the wealthy, and "Christian charity" requires that the poor be given minimal financial support (welfare) from people who do have money. One way to understand the Civil War is that it resulted from a clash between two economic systems, one old and "Biblical" and one modern and "Biblical."

Of course the Acts of the Apostles has a different economic system: socialism, which I tend to trust more than the others. But even that can be manipulated until it's deadly; Ananias and Sapphira come to mind.

Which of these is "Biblical?" They all are. God is not responsible for how humans organize their economic lives, but is concerned with ethics and justice. The Bible is no more an economics textbook than it is a history book or science text.

The issue for today is what our economic systems are evolving into; what they cost and who gets hurt. We have teabaggers insisting Obama is a socialist and leftists predicting corporate plutocracy - which I can't find in my Bible.

While instant communications tend to give rise to meritocracy and democracy, the concentration of wealth and power works against them and may give rise to dictatorship.

The one thing I know is that the prophets thundered about widows and orphans, and Jesus told us to feed, water, clothe and house the least of his sisters and brothers. Let us not be confused.

Thank you, Bishop Epting. I would add that there is equally no plain writing of Scripture, either. Which is to say, all Scripture, even the most inspired portions of it, are written in and out of and to readers of a cultural milieu.

This is why, as Josh observes, very different world-views can equally claim "biblical" status. Not odd for a "document" (or more rightly, library) that took form over a millennium, give or take a few centuries.

With respect, Tobias, while I agree with you, the folks so committed to the "plain reading of Scripture" are also committed to an understanding of inspiration that amounts to automatic writing.

Marshall Scott

True, Marshall. That's two strikes.