The Church and Slavery

In a recent post, I quoted historian Rodney Stark extensively about how religions are not all the same. The different theologies of god in the world religions produce very different kinds of moral systems – some religions have no moral features at all. Consequently, monotheism, and Christianity in particular, was uniquely capable of theologies of God and humanity that made slavery incompatible with faithfulness. It was only when the Bible was corrupted by unchristian motivations that it was perverted to excuse an evil and sinful institution. From the beginning of the church, Christianity developed theology that condemned slavery.  The church in the American South and other Christians throughout history who used the Bible to justify their bigotry and enslavement of human beings were the tragic exceptions to the rule.  Their abuse of the Bible stood against the broad and historical understanding of what Christians believed the Bible taught about the equality and intrinsic value of every human being, not matter their race.

Some excerpts from Rodney Stark’s book For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery:

Antislavery doctrines began to appear in Christian theology soon after the decline of Rome and were accompanied by the eventual disappearance of slavery in all but the fringes of Christian Europe. When Europeans subsequently instituted slavery in the New World, they did so over strenuous papal opposition, a fact that was conveniently “lost” from history until recently....

Except for several early Jewish sects, Christian theology was unique in eventually developing an abolitionist perspective....

As early as the seventh century, Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) became famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves; in 851 Saint Anskar began his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade. That the Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops—including William the Conqueror (1027–1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009–1095) and Anselm (1033–1109)—forbade the enslavement of Christians. Since, except for small settlements of Jews, and the Vikings in the north, everyone was at least nominally a Christian, that effectively abolished slavery in medieval Europe....

The first shipload of black slaves [arrived in Portugal in the 15^th century], and as black slaves began to appear farther north in Europe, a debate erupted as to the morality and legality of slavery. A consensus quickly developed that slavery was both sinful and illegal…. The principle of “free soil” spread: that slaves who entered a free country were automatically free. That principle was firmly in place in France, Holland, and Belgium by the end of the seventeenth century. Nearly a century later, in 1761, the Portuguese enacted a similar law, and an English judge applied the principle to Britain in 1772. Although exceptions involving a single slave servant or two, especially when accompanying a foreign traveler, were sometimes overlooked, “beyond a scattering of servants in Spain and Portugal, there were very few true slaves left in Western Europe by the end of the sixteenth century.” ...

The problem wasn’t that the Church failed to condemn slavery; it was that few heard and most of them did not listen....

In 1787 the Quaker-inspired Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery was headed by Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush, two of the most respected and influential living Americans. Not to be outdone, many Christian groups and luminaries took up the cause of abolition, and soon abolitionist societies sprang up that were not associated with a specific denomination. But, through it all, the movement (as distinct from those it made sympathetic to the cause) was staffed by devout Christian activists, the majority of them clergy. Indeed, the most prominent clergy of the nineteenth century took leading roles in the abolition movement...

Moreover, as abolition sentiments spread, it was primarily the churches (often local congregations), not secular clubs and organizations, that issued formal statements on behalf of ending slavery. The outspoken abolitionism expressed by Northern congregations and denominational gatherings caused major schisms within leading Protestant denominations, eventuating in their separation into independent Northern and Southern organizations....

[A] virtual Who’s Who of “Enlightenment” figures fully accepted slavery…. It was not philosophers or secular intellectuals who assembled the moral indictment of slavery, but the very people they held in such contempt: men and women having intense Christian faith, who opposed slavery because it was a sin.

Comments

[scbrownlhrm]

In Scripture Paul comes and tells the owner of a slave to count this slave of his, from now on, as a Brother in Christ, and to treat him as he would Christ. Big words which would cost Paul his life. Paul tells husbands to honor women, to lay down their life for her the way Christ does for us; he tells slave owners to do the unthinkable and place their slave above their very Self. He tells us to value our children and not abuse them. And Paul is assassinated, like Christ was, for his offensive views of the innate value of Every-Man vis-à-vis reality's hard-stop: God. Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. arrives on scene and he mirrors Christ, insisting that all men factually house intrinsic worth. And he is, like Christ, like Paul, assassinated for it. That God factually loves the world houses a costly instantiation.

[RagTime]

"The problem wasn’t that the Church failed to condemn slavery; it was that few heard and most of them did not listen...."

Well, this is a problem where Stark is trying to take a gray issue and make it black and white. He makes it appear that Christians were only on the abolitionist side. The majority of Christians in the Confederate states were in favor of slavery. The formation of the Southern Baptists was a result of a schism in the Baptist church over slavery.

We see the same revisionism with the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. There were Christian churches and individuals who spoke out about equal rights and marched with Dr. King, but there were also many who saw the Civil Rights movement as problematic and something that was dividing the church.

We have to take in both sides and accept that there were Christians on both sides of history.

[scbrownlhrm]

Merely a counterbalance to the misinformation of a handful of Atheistic critics who make it "seem like" every Christian was for slavery, which of course is not merely comical but historically ignorant.

We'll let Stark's other 5 or 10 books, and the bit about Christians burning witches, speak for his even handed treatment of many sins.

Fortunately Christ, Scripture, Paul, Pastor MLK Jr., and the Christians who ended slavery in the UK/US are all in defitional agreement. We can't speak for Atheists but Bertrand Russell attributes Gandhi's success, in large part, to the Christianized conscience of his audience.

Of course, being an Atheist, he calculated human equality vis-a-vis the mathematics of the useful fictions of a herd mentality, hence, in his view, both Gandhi and his audience were factually mistaken.

[scbrownlhrm]

Hmmm…… Typo on definitional. How about this instead:

“……Christ, Scripture, Paul, Pastor MLK Jr., and the Christians who ended slavery in the UK/US are all in definitional agreement…….”

[Thomas Aquinas]

Ragtime writes: "Well, this is a problem where Stark is trying to take a gray issue and make it black and white. He makes it appear that Christians were only on the abolitionist side. The majority of Christians in the Confederate states were in favor of slavery. The formation of the Southern Baptists was a result of a schism in the Baptist church over slavery."

That is unfortunate. One of the problems Christians always face is the temptation to assimilate the dominant, trendy views of their secular contemporaries. This is what happened in America among some Christians--like the southern Baptists--who fell for the whole racialist science, Enlightenment view of human beings.

Notice that Stark shows that the rise of slavery--after its virtual elimination in the West--corresponds with the rise of the Enlightenment. That fact some Christians got caught up in the "scientific progress" should not surprise you. After all, some Christians today--e.g., Tony Campolo, David Neff, David Gushee--have done the same thing with the newest prize of the Enlightenment, same-sex "marriage." Like their southern Baptist predecessors, they felt the pressure to conform to the Zeitgeist. Every generation of Christians faces this. We need to pray for them.

[Kenneth]

I grew up in Northwest Alabama, Winston county, also known derogatorily as "Free State of Winston" for the people who didn't want to secede from the Union during the civil war. The majority of the people in this area were against the CSA, and many of the men joined the Union military instead of being conscripted into the Confederate army. There is a book (Tories of The Hills) giving info about the people of the time. Christopher Sheets was a young school teacher who was the elected leader of the local population. He suffered for voting against secession and was imprisoned for treason. He was appointed as a federal judge and diplomat to Denmark after the war. This is only one area of several within the South that were pro Union. Even though there was a substantial amount of the people that were Southern Unionist, the men who promoted the white washed version of "the lost cause" really need to be shown for their revisionist history which they advocated for. Many of Southern Unionist understood the war was over the issue of slavery from the beginning of the conflict, well before Lincoln's emancipation proclamation.  Even many of the "state rights", the leaders of the CSA said were being trampled, was an attempt to protect the "peculiar institution". In other words, their "right" to own the inferior people of color. After the Civil War the USA military basically tried to exterminate many of the American Indian tribes in an effort of fulfilling "manifest destiny". So the same government that claimed emancipation for the black man soon returned to conquering the native red man. Don't think I am trying to bash my nation, I'm not. I just hope Christians will see they ultimately belong to the much greater kingdom of God. This nation is only temporal, but one thing is for certain, our life's are certainly only temporary on this earth and we will live for an eternity.

The reason I start with this is because there many who want to equate Antebellum slavery with the slavery discussed within the bible. I don't see God endorsing slavery but as tolerating the sinful men who participated in slavery, and He wanted these sinners to come to repentance. So, He patiently waited for these sinners to repent, even as He does for us today. The bible clearly put restrictions on slavery, and demonstrates the way to emancipation for slaves in many verses. The Antebellum slavery developed from and into some sort racial superiority, trying to equate people of different skin color as inferior. The bible teaches that we are all of one blood, and it teaches we all descended from Adam then from Noah's three sons (I know, I'm one those ignorant biblical literalist,lol). This is why the concept of Antebellum slavery was so evil; it determined people of color (black Africans) as a lesser human. People of color being considered inferior wasn't restricted to the to the South. If you read some history of the abolitionist movement in England, you can see that they deemed the black slaves as "brothers", but they were also viewed as lesser "brothers". Slavery in the bible, or even in ancient civilization, was based on something more similar to indentured servitude. Even in time of war, when conquered people who became slaves it was based according to tribe vs tribe and not based on skin color. Race slavery is more of a modern development, around the mid 17th century in colonial Virginia a black indentured servant was sentenced to lifetime of slavery for trying to escape his servitude. It was more of a gradual transition into slavery based on skin color. By the way the bible doesn't even subscribe to "race" according to skin color. It discusses the different tribes, tongues, and nations of people; but not the modern secular ideology of race by skin color. All people are of one blood created in the image of God.

The Church (believers in Christ) needs to remember these words to show the path to freedom to all the slaves of our day. Joh 8:34  Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. Joh 8:35  The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. Joh 8:36  So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
God is sovereign, the heavens are His throne and the earth is His footstool. Christ is sitting waiting until all His enemies are under His feet.
I pray, I believe, Lord help my unbelief.

[scbrownlhrm]

True. Very true. Moses regulates acts which God hates. Like divorce. Therefore the mere fact that God in Moses/Law regulates X while simultaneously hating X tells us plainly that "stopping there" yields the stuff of invalid definitions. Then, the definitions in the wider canopy of Scripture's meta-narrative carry us to all valid stopping points as the immutable love of the Necessary Being instantiates within the created order. That God factually love's the world is then found carrying a costly price tag.

That's all old news, but the Critic is fairly unmotivated to keep up.

And, obviously, Critics don't like to read "whole" books.

That's too hard.

Then throwing in historicity too, well, that's unthinkable.

So they cherry pick a few verses and run with said straw man.

-Cause it's far, far easier.