[Vision2020] Patriarchy, Possession, and Slavery

[Nick Gier]

Dear Visionaries:

It's 1,500 words so you can stop when you're tired or disgusted.  Just for 
Ben Merkle: I've prepared a fully documented version that can be read at 
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/patrislav.htm.

PATRIARCHY, POSSESSION, AND SLAVERY
Nick Gier, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Idaho

We know better than others that every attribute of their character fits 
them for dependence and servitude. By nature the most affectionate and 
loyal of all races beneath the sun, they are also the most helpless; and no 
calamity can befall them greater than the loss of that protection they 
enjoy under this patriarchal system.

                 --Calvinist Benjamin M. Palmer, "Thanksgiving Sermon," 
November 29, 1860

The plain solution of the matter is, slavery may not be the beau ideal of 
the social organization; that there is a true evil in the necessity for it, 
but that this evil is not slavery, but the ignorance and vice in the 
laboring classes, of which slavery is the useful and righteous remedy.

                 --Calvinist R. L. Dabney, A Defense of Virginia, p. 207.

         Recently on Vision2020 one of Doug Wilson's defenders complained 
that his critics are picking one small booklet on slavery out of his 
voluminous writings on other topics.  In this essay I will show that 
Wilson's support for slavery is intimately connected with other writings 
that affirm male superiority, hierarchy, and inequality. The top males in 
history have found it natural to assert their authority not only over males 
deemed inferior to themselves (note that Dabney includes non-Africans), but 
also their wives and daughters.

        Slavery and sexism are as old as human history, but 
institutionalized racism, i.e., discrimination on the basis of skin color 
is a very recent phenomenon. For the most part the ancient world was color 
blind: people were not barred from worship, work, or marriage because of 
the color of their skin.Therefore, Doug Jones, Wilson's theological 
colleague, is quite correct in arguing that the Bible is not racist in any 
way, starting with Moses' black wife and the Ethiopian Christian asking 
about the servant songs of Isaiah.

        In the ancient world the most common way of becoming enslaved was 
to be captured in battle or to be kidnapped by slavers.  In his Politics 
Aristotle rejected this view because it made slavery contingent and 
conventional, rather than a natural state of some people.  Aristotle argued 
that only Greeks possessed souls rational enough to govern themselves 
wisely, and that non-Greeks should therefore submit themselves to the rule 
of superior men.  Unfortunately, Greek women suffered the same fate as the 
barbarians in being rationally deficient and suitable only for the bearing 
of children.

        Aristotle reconfirmed an ancient tradition that saw the woman's 
role in reproduction as purely passive.  The womb was simply a vessel for 
the nourishment of the male seed.  Some ancient authorities thought that 
fetuses were miniatures (homunculi)of their fathers, and females were 
explained as the result of defective development in the womb. (Darn, it's 
always the woman's fault!) In ancient India, arguments about the true 
parent centered solely on the "father of the seed" versus the "father of 
the mother."  The ancients could be excused for not knowing of the female 
ovum, but this complete demotion of the mother is unforgivable.

        For over two thousand years Aristotle's authority (or reasoning 
similar to his) was used to defend slavery and the subjugation of women. In 
Christian England before the Norman Conquest, a father could sell his own 
children as slaves if they were under seven years of age, and he could 
lawfully kill any of his children "who had not yet tasted food."  In the 
following centuries, abortions were only allowed until the fetus 
"quickened" in the womb, but in the 17th Century judges such as Sir Edward 
Coke maintained that the fetus was not a person until it was born alive, a 
view also held by the ancient Jews.

        English philosopher John Locke, who himself was involved in the 
slave trade, promoted this idea of private property: if a person mixes his 
labor with the fruits of the earth then the product is his 
property.  (Oddly enough, Locke's slaves could have claimed a lot of 
property by this theory!) Locke also applied this principle to God and his 
creations: human beings are "a work of God, they remain always not only 
God's servant but forever God's property." R. J. Rushdoony, a popular 
theologian at New St. Andrews College, agrees with Locke and declares that 
God the Creator is the (absolute property owner," and he adds that 
(Scripture tells us that we are God's property by virtue of creation, and 
doubly His possession by recreation, so that we are not our own."

        With God as the primary owner, an earthly hierarchy was 
established.  Kings ruled and owned their subjects with divine 
sanction.  Feudal lords derived their authority from the king, including 
the right, dramatically portrayed in the movie Braveheart, to have any 
woman in his domain. Lower down the hierarchy, the father exerted the same 
authority over his wife, children, and slaves, if he owned any.  Some 
evangelicals appear to be taking Paul quite literally when he said that man 
"is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man" (1 Cor. 
11:7), especially if the political meaning of "image of God" is favored.

        Locke's position is terribly ironic given the fact that he is seen 
as one of the founding thinkers of classical liberalism, the view that we 
are free and autonomous agents who govern ourselves by means of 
representative government. Here I am reminded of a poster which announced a 
talk, sponsored by the Campus Crusade for Christ, entitled "Whose am I?" 
This was obviously an evangelical Christian response to the humanistic 
questions of "Who am I?" and "Where should I take my life?" as opposed 
"what does God have planned for me, his obedient servant?"

        Traditional Christian ownership is explicit with regard to slaves 
but implicit with regard to women.  Wilson's opposition to feminism is more 
radical than most people would think, because he does not believe in 
women's suffrage.  Following the ancient view, the patriarch rules his 
household and owns everything in it.  (A rebellious wife, God forbid, might 
cancel out her husband's vote!) We still say, but don't take seriously, 
that the father "gives away" his daughter at her wedding.  Wilson's return 
to the rules of courtship, where a daughter cannot date without the 
permission of her father, is a strong reaffirmation of the absolute power 
of the patriarch.

        Sometimes this power goes to the patriarchs' heads and they become 
spiritual Titans.  I define spiritual Titanism as an extreme form of 
humanism in which humans take on divine attributes and prerogatives.  Here 
is a sample of the claims that Wilson and Steve Wilkins make in their 
slavery booklet: "By the time of the [Civil] War, the leadership of the 
South was conservative, orthodox, and Christian. By contrast, the 
leadership of the North was radical and Unitarian." In contrast to the 
righteous Confederates, the abolitionists in the North were "wicked" and 
were "driven by a zealous hatred for the Word of God."

        For Calvinists Wilson and Wilkins who believe in the absolute 
sovereignty of God, they should be the last ones to take divine judgment 
into their own hands. Only God chooses who the true Christians are and 
where the wicked live. After hearing a person's "witness," many 
conservative Christian ministers decide whether or not he or she is truly a 
Christian.  These pastors are following in the footsteps of Jerry Falwell 
who once declared that God does not answer the prayers of Jews. Again this 
is surely for God alone to decide, not mere sinful mortals.

        When we promote a "liberal" arts education and celebrate the spread 
of "liberal" democracies throughout the world, we are using the word 
"liberal" in its original meaning: "pertaining to the free person."  In 
feudal Europe there was a distinction between the "the free born ones" 
(liberi) and those "born to serve" (servi).  Classical liberalism is 
defined as the political revolution, inspired by Enlightenment philosophers 
such as Locke and Jefferson, that was committed to eliminating the 
distinction between lords and serfs forever.  In addition to equal, 
inalienable rights and representative government, classical liberalism also 
initiated free market capitalism. Interestingly enough, Wilson condemns 
capitalist economics as modernist and unbiblical.

        Most of the political debate in liberal democracies happens within 
the house of classical liberalism.  Liberal Democrats, conservative 
Republicans, and Libertarians all embrace the values of classical 
liberalism, including free market economics. Slightly revising the motto of 
the French Revolution, one might say that the Libertarian emphasizes 
liberty, the liberal Democrat focuses on equality, and many conservative 
Republicans value community, but each holds the other two values dear as 
well.

        When I used to introduce classical liberalism in my ethics classes, 
I always called for a show of hands of those who believed in human 
inequality and the divine right of kings.  In my twenty years of teaching 
ethics I never saw a hand raised for classical conservatism. Furthermore, 
very few hands went up when I asked them if women should not have equal 
political and economic rights, the dictionary definition of feminism. Most 
of us, then, are liberals in the classical sense.

        But there are some classical conservatives among us, and there are 
still some who believe in hierarchy, inequality, and the right of top males 
to rule their homes and the world.  R. L. Dabney, Wilson's favorite 
Calvinist theologian, declares that God created humans with different 
natures so that "the inferior is shielded in his right to his smaller 
franchise," so that the superior may enjoy "his larger powers." Harold 
Brown of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School states it most bluntly: "Only 
God has rights. We have duties."




Nicholas F. Gier
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Idaho
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm
208-883-3360/882-9212/FAX 885-8950
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm