I disagree with the position outlined by the Religious Tolerance website (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm) regarding the Bible and slavery. I will attempt to outline points I agree with and disagree with below.
1. I do not believe the Bible sanctions slavery, but attempts to speak to a culture that does. It may not directly confront the oppressive institution, but if a belief system based on the Bible is carried out, abolition of slaves (for Christians) is the logical conclusion.
2. Jefferson Davis may reflect the common belief of Christians at the time, but that does not make his assertion true about the Bible. Christians used the Bible to “prove” the Earth the center of the solar system, but that does not mean that the Bible in fact teaches planets revolve around the Earth.
a. Davis claims that slavery is sanctioned from Genesis to Revelation. The word slave never appears in many books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the Christian Testament. Many times the word “slave” is used to describe a person (e.g. the slave went to the market) or describe the condition of someone or a group of people (e.g. The people of Israel were slaves to Pharaoh).
b. I would agree that slavery has existed in all ages – even today. It may not be as visible, but human trafficking is a huge problem even in the USA today. Even some bosses treat employees like slaves. This is part of the human condition that I believe the Bible speaks to.
3. Yahweh constantly reminds the Israelites that they were once slaves in Egypt. The memory of being a slave should be enough to realize that slavery is immoral. (Christians are grafted into the covenant with Abraham, so slavery is part of their spiritual heritage)a. Paul actually discusses Christian slaves. He tells slaves to act as though free, because they are in Christ. He also tells the free person they are to act as though they are slaves. I admit Paul was not trying to effect a social change, at least in the empire. Among Christians, he said there is no difference in race not between slave and free. If a Christian had a slave who was also a believer, they were considered brothers (or sisters). The next logical step in this logic would be to free the brother or sister. Why would one enslave their sibling? I believe Paul was teaching right to the edge of abolition and hoped his pupils would come to the conclusion. Like in the rest of life, most answers cannot be given, but must be learned.
b. I concede that the Torah regulates slavery, but before the Torah there were no regulations. Imagine a people with no laws concerning slavery and then suddenly there are limits on the time slaves can serve, and even how slaves are to be treated. This was revolutionary. I am not sure if there is a record of how slaves were treated by other people groups, but the based on the memory of the Israelites, it was not regulated.
4. Any pastor that claims any hope for civilization other than hope in Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God is preaching a false message. I recognize Rev. Rogers view was perhaps mainstream, but as mentioned before, he practiced and preached a corrupted form of Christianity (that is not to invalidate his faith, but his system of theology was at least partially wrong to have “hope” in something else not to mention the view that slave owners have a divine right to own slaves.)5. Again, there is no divine right to holding slaves. Paul said Christians were slaves to sin but were freed to become slaves to Christ and righteousness. Can a slave own a slave? Possibly, but taking the teachings of Scripture as a whole, slavery does not make sense. [I just realized 4&5 are out of order]
6. Noah cursed his son Ham for “looking at his nakedness” while drunk. Looking on nakedness is probably a euphemism for sex. Like many other cultures, the ancient Hebrews believed that good deeds result in blessings from God, while bad deeds result in punishment and shame of self and family. Also, the story of Ham and Noah is more about Canaan, used interchangeably with Ham in the text. Canaan was in fact a Semitic tribe (from Shem, one of Ham’s brothers). Many stories and details in the Torah tell etiologies, stories of why things are the way they are (like, why are there rainbows, or why don’t snakes walk instead of slither). Canaan was an enemy of Israel, and what better justification to subdue an enemy than to say they had drunken-gay-sex with great-grandpa? It is interesting that another enemy, Moab, was born from incest between Abraham’s nephew Lot and his daughters. Both stories are justifications for being enemies and taking slaves from both the Canaanites and the Moabites, but justification does not equal divine sanction. James Henry Hammond was speaking in ignorance to begin with by taking a story out of context. Further, “what God hath joined,” was in reference to marriage not slavery and the two have little resemblance. (I contend that marriage is a sacrament, or a sign of an invisible special grace. This position is not widely held among evangelicals in the USA, but it is changing especially among post-evangelicals).
7. I concede that the Bible does not “lambaste” slavery, but the Bible as a whole gives the impression that slavery is wrong. Paul warns of slave traders as teachers and lumps them with other immoral behaviors that will prevent a person from “inheriting the kingdom of God.” While the word can be translated as kidnapper, the NRSV consistently translates it as slave trader.
a. Arguing whether Evangelicals truly believe sola scriptura will be a waste of time. I believe this is just a catch phrase that means, “we make up our own tradition to follow, instead what has been established.” In this argument, sola scriptura means appealing to scripture alone rather than church tradition, but church tradition should be taken into account especially the traditions of the first and second century church, to whom the Christian Testament was written. Scripture should not be interpreted on its own, but through the lens of first century Christian experience. (While I argue this, the point still stands that the Bible does not “lambaste” the practice of slavery, but the church tradition may well have.)
8. Despite claiming the Bible sanctioned slavery, American slave owners, nor legislatures practiced or enforced the biblical prescription concerning slaves. Slavery was not regulated other than to entirely oppress an entire people group. This was not biblical.a. It is true it one would not face a penalty for beating a slave if they recovered in 24 hours, but the same was true of two free people fighting. The idea behind the law was not to condone violence, but to limit it.
b. Paul implored Philemon to take his runaway slave, Onesimus, back, but not as a slave but as a free man (as Paul himself) and a brother. Paul is asking a favor but says at the beginning of his letter that he has the power to command him and force him to release Onesimus. He goes on to say that if there is any debt, to put it on Paul’s tab and then Paul says “remember you still owe me.” The picture we get here is a community of those who pay each other’s debts. Everyone is indebted to everyone else and so they call each other brother and sister.
c. Jesus’ audience was to the Jewish powers that be and the poor. He constantly lambasted the religious authorities for taking advantage of the poor and oppressing others. He was calling the Pharisees and Sadducees to treat people with respect and dignity. In a way Jesus preached against a kind of religious slavery. While Jesus never mentioned the institution of slavery, he taught his followers to forgive each other’s debts (even enemies) but even further, to help their neighbor, even if they were enemies. He taught them to even love their enemies. Slavery cannot fit comfortably in this system of though.
9. Many abolitionist were of the Anabaptist tradition. They were Christians with a heritage from the Radical Reformation in Switzerland. They are known for their rigid belief in the separation of church and state and extreme pacifism. (When the movement began in the sixteen century, they were tortured and murdered by Protestants and Catholics alike and still refused to defend themselves). Some of the stains of Anabaptists today include the Mennonites and the Amish. An early Anabaptist preacher spoke of all humans having a divine spark, making all humans equal.a. The concluding paragraph leaves the reader to believe many if not all abolitionists were not Christians. This was simply not the case. While there may have been some that rejected Christianity, the abolitionist movement was deeply religious. (Christianity at this point is rather ambiguous because on one hand there are two groups of people holding contrary views both calling themselves Christians. I am hesitant to say any group that claims the name is not a Christian, but I am willing to say certain beliefs are wrong and even unchristian.)
b. As previously mentioned, the Anabaptists were abolitionists long before the 19th century. The paradigm shift may have come at a cost to some Christians, but it in no way invalidated their faith nor their view of Scripture. Also, during the 19th century and early 20th century, a movement known as Liberal Protestantism began to take root among religious communities. While some theologians tried to broaden the scope of Christian understanding and experience, others tried to address specific social evils of the day. Walter Rauschenbusch worked on reforming things like child labor laws and safe work environments. This was part of the Social Gospel. While the Social Gospel was ultimately rejected by conservatives of the day (and still today, unfortunately), it helped influence many great changes in society. Carnegie built an economic empire with virtual slave labor. The religious community did their part to help change society for the better.
i. While the Social Gospel movement in large part took place well after the Civil War, those who were a part of it were both Christian and politically progressive. It is true there was a paradigm shift during this time, but only among the progressives. It took until the 1960s for conservatives to be forced into equality. I am speaking of both politically and religiously conservative and liberal here. (Incidentally, SBC didn’t apologize for slavery, an issue that formed the SBC, until 1990. It took conservatives 130 years to apologize for slavery).
ii. Most people do not see political progressivism as a religious movement, but it was at least in part an offshoot of Liberal Protestantism. Many of Rauschenbusch’s writings sound like the Democratic Party, but making a religious appeal.
c. Which people wondered why the Bible “was so supportive of such an immoral practice?” Christians? As mentioned before, there were many Christians who felt slavery was wrong and appealed to the Bible. (There were also many who appealed to the same Bible for the contrary view, but as stated before, they were wrong).
d. I have no doubt that many people question whether the Bible is reliable. But which people? Christians? Perhaps. George Barna says 50,000 people leave the church in America each week never to return. I believe part of the reason is, no one has given them a reason to trust the Bible. Not as the inerrant Word of God, but as the story of faith. (I will fight this one to the death; the Bible is not God, it is not Jesus, it does not contain either. It is not sufficient for faith or practice – Christ IS!) Brian McLaren says we need to reframe our framing story, but I digress. The Bible and the Christian experience speak out against slavery, especially the latter.
i. The Bible does not condone genocide, torturing prisoners (despite what George W. Bush told you), raping female prisoners of war, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, executing religious minorities, and burning hookers alive, etc.
1. Never is genocide condoned in the Bible. It is justified by people who want land and wealth. (Much like we can justify going to war with a nation over oil, money, and religious bigotry today) Perhaps the most famous objection is that of Joshua and Judges. (In the Jewish Bible, Joshua through 2 Kings are considered part of the books prophets) In the book of Joshua, the Israelite leader at the time brings an army into Canaan and wipes everyone out at Yahweh’s command. The first conquest is Jericho (you know, the one with the big walls that fell down). The conquest fizzles out as they begin to build settlements. In Judges, we get a totally different picture. The Israelites struggle for the land but they also divide forces. They are two completely different stories of the same thing. Joshua seems to have been written later (much of this was oral history for several hundred years). The distinct theology of Joshua is that of do good and God will bless you, but do bad and God will curse you. This especially means obedience to God. So through that lens, the historicity of the event becomes irrelevant. The story is about following Yahweh’s commands, and the setting is the conquest of Canaan. (There is no archeological evidence that Jericho was destroyed until much later around the time the Persians invaded. Jericho did have large walls, probably well known. It makes for a great symbol that when one listens to God’s voice, even the impossible can be achieved.)
2. Raping was not permitted anywhere. Anytime the Israelites fought in battle they were to abstain from sex before and during war. This was part of the consecration commanded by God. This practice was even recorded as late King David’s reign. Remember David sleeping with Bathsheba and then trying to get her husband to sleep with her when he was recalled from battle?
3. Rape victims were not forced to marry their rapists. Unfortunately, women were treated like property throughout most of history (and in most cultures). The cultural norm for women was they should be a virgin in her father’s house, or the mother of her husband’s children. In both cases she was valuable as either a potential or actual child-bearer. Any sex before marriage meant a loss of value for the father. This could be consensual. The woman then in effect becomes the man’s so he must pay the dowry for her. If he refused or forced her into sex, he was to be executed by stoning. There were certain instances when this would happen to both.
4. Prostitute were women who fell outside of the categories above, and were accepted outcasts. Because women were considered property, sex was not only for procreation (culturally speaking, that is) but also for the man’s pleasure. The Torah teaches against this, but prostitutes are mentioned up until the time of Jesus. The Pharisees were actually trying to rigidly enforce the law when they wanted to stone her (not burn her, that must be a reference to the Judah and Tamar story, but Judah just said “burn her” but found out his whoring daughter-in-law was pregnant with his child… oops). Jesus had compassion on her saying, “I do not condemn you,” and sending her on her way. She was not the only prostitute he ran into, by the way.
5. Nowhere in any of the scriptures is there mention of executing religious minorities. If the reference is to the Crusades, then one could assume that the Church used scripture to commit and justify atrocities.
ii. “The innocent faith that Christians had in "the Good Book" was lost -- never to be fully regained.” This is another mischaracterization and a lazy closing argument. First, faith is neither innocent nor guilty but simply faith. This statement as a whole characterizes Christians as having no faith in the Bible because of objections made in the previous sentence. Further, this waning faith will never be “fully regained.” Can anyone judge another’s faith? Can anyone judge an entire movement’s faith? There are so many Christians in the world today; there are Protestants, Catholics, Baptists (Southern, Independent, Northern, Free-will, Primitive), Methodists, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, and Eastern Orthodox to name just a few. Over half of the world’s population claims to be some kind of Christian, do all of them have a waning faith in the Bible? Maybe, maybe not. Some maybe. The point is we don’t know. I do know that in the tradition I grew up in, more and more emphasis was placed on the Bible (to the point of it being an idol). For me, my faith “in” the Bible neither grew nor shrank, but changed. As with all relationships, change is not only healthy, but necessary. I would hate for my relationship with my wife not change from the first time I met her. I might never talk to her. I changed, our relationship changed, and she changed. So too my faith changed. Perhaps like me, other Christian’s faith has changed.
